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
Pepe le Moko, played by Charles Boyer, is some sort of international criminal mastermind wanted in countries throughout Europe, and to stay free he holes himself up in the Casbah, a mysterious part of Algiers where even the police are reluctant to go, until a senior officer is sent from Paris to capture le Moko once and for all. For le Moko, although the Casbah allows him to remain out of police custody, it also becomes a sort of prison at the same time - a place he can't leave, because the moment he does, he knows he'll be arrested.
Boyer's performance was good, and I can understand why he was nominated for an Oscar. He captures the essence of such a character - a perfect combination of very dangerous and yet very classy at the same time. The movie itself, unfortunately, was quite a letdown. A number of parts of the story seemed inconsistent, of which I'll mention two. First was the idea that the police wouldn't enter the Casbah. That was stated pretty clearly at the beginning of the film by the local commander, and yet repeated references in the movie suggest that in fact the police did enter the Casbah fairly regularly. So, neither the suggestion by Commissioner Janvier that the police wouldn't enter, nor the statement by Inspector Slimane (also a decent performance by Joseph Calleia) that they could get into the Casbah but not out seemed to make much sense. I also found it difficult to believe that le Moko - hardened criminal mastermind that he was - could be so quickly swept off his feet by Gaby (Hedy Lamarr) to the point where he entertains the local populace by singing love songs and then leaves the Casbah to find her, essentially giving himself up. I understand the irony of the final few scenes, of course, as Pepe leaves the freedom of his prison (the Casbah) only to find real freedom in his capture (because he's shot and killed by the police.) I just found it impossible to believe that someone like le Moko would fall into such a trap.
This is worth watching for Boyer, and to a lesser extent Calleia, but the story is disappointing and inconsistent. 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
Algiers is not a classic, it is a perversion of the wonderful original Pepe le Moko, directed by Duvivier and starring a much more attractive and charming Pepe, Jean Gabin. If you want to fully experience the Casbah and the characters in Algiers, I recommend you don't even watch this movie and see Pepe le Moko instead, for it is much more elaborate, more beautifully filmed, the lines are not clichéd and the characters adhere much more to reality. Furthermore, the ending is so dramatic and key to Pepe's character that you'll find the Algiers version intolerable. Although Algiers does an almost excellent job mimicking each scene, the acting falls short as does the credibility of the characters. Plus, the wardrobe is truly breath-taking in all scenes, particularly Pepe's in the last scene and Gaby's (at all times) but also when she's on the boat. Frankly, Algiers is cheap as far as imitations go.


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


user
Atmosphere and droll dialog don't redeem this overrated classic. Boyer is a French thief hiding in the Casbah of Algiers while the police try to figure out how to get him out. Meanwhile, he falls for Lamarr and tries to find a way to escape. The film is slow to get started and never really goes anywhere. Reminiscent of Casablanca in some ways, it's completely lacking any larger theme than the wanted man seducing a good woman. It's all talk-talk-talk, with endless scenes of Boyer swaggering among his idiot cohorts and Boyer wooing Lamarr in the shadows. Personally, I didn't care for Boyer's character for a minute, so the tension was utterly nonexistent.
Stock 1930s character actors stumble thru the mushy plot as Boyer's henchmen--guys who clearly do not belong in Algiers. Sigrid Gurie is the wildly-overacting jealous girlfriend of Boyer. His brazen womanizing in front of her doesn't bode well for any future he might have with Lamarr.
Especially bad is a long sequence in which an underling comes to tell Boyer how another henchman was captured. It sounds exciting... too bad we didn't see it for ourselves. The ending is completely anticlimactic and seems to be remarkable only because it is not a Hollywood happy ending; that doesn't stop it from being sappy.


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


user
Eric Idle, Robbie Coltraine, Janet Suzman - it should have been almost impossible to go wrong. Of course it has some funny moments - the scene in the showers when Robbie Coltraine echoes Lon Chaney Jr's ghastly werewolf line "I can't help myself" is hilarious. But ultimately the plot, script and direction are flat as a pancake and as tired as a 90 year old nun after 180 "Hail Mary"s. When I was a child, Carry On films filled this niche slightly better, which is a really sad indictment of a film with such a promising cast.


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 been compared to the hilarious British comedy "A Fish Called Wanda", although I can't see why. The only connection I can find is the Monty Python one (Eric Idle in "Nuns", John Cleese and Michael Palin in "Wanda"). Otherwise the two are incomparable.
Idle and Robbie Coltrane are two gangsters who want to get out of the business before they end up dead, so they decide to rip off their boss and make for Rio. When the getaway goes wrong, the two are forced to take refuge in a convent, as nuns.
What at first promises to be a riot soon becomes a predictable, average movie with the usual tasteless sex jokes and bland humour. Once again there are the occasional high spots, but neither cast nor crew manage to inspire proceedings. An attempt at a "Wanda" type manic finish fails too, along with the effort at "men in drag" humour, which is hardly surprising. When you think about it, men trying to be women is funny, men trying to be nuns is ridiculous.
Friday, April 22, 1994 - Video


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


user
Coltrane and Idle are members of a bank robbery gang who double cross their leader during a robbery. They hide out in a nunnery school and disguise themselves appropriately to avoid detection from the mob and the police. Alot of catholic humor and slapstick but the script is kinda thin as are the laughs.. There is a GOOD shower scene though... on a scale of one to ten..4


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


user
So many people have taken shots at Platoon and Born On the Fourth of July among other calling them "leftist propaganda film." Now its my turn to take a political shot at a movie. To me this movie is very imposing on certain religious beliefs and on its political views.
The acting and writing was a little to clichéd for my liking. Mel Gibson seems to like to play in these unnecessary violent films and proves it once again by teaming up with his partner Randall Wallace for yet another one. Throughout this movie there was this garbage prototypical "Just tell my family I love them" or "Tell Ronny to pray before hoe goes to bed" lines. The was so overloaded with this garbage retread lines that I felt like I had to vomit. How about that scene were Gibson's wife goes to do her laundry and this "no colors" applies to what to put in the washing machine. Its in the mid-sixties was she some how stuck under a rock not noticing the racism around her. Another scene is were Gibson's daughter asks him what war is and the scene is shot in such a trivial matter.
The directing displayed this all perfectly. The countless scenes of Gibson and his family or soldiers praying. I'm fine with showing that once or twice but after a while I wonder if the movie is trying to shove something into my head. How many scenes with the American flag at its finest hour were shot with the melodramatic music on. The director also makes it seem like we won some sort of victory in Vietnam. What exactly was won their. The cinematography was the worst of it with the slowed down scenes see the American flag in the distance scenes spread throughout. I love America but movies like this seem to glorify every little thing we do.
This may seem like a rant and maybe it is but I cannot stand it when a movie like this makes people who are not religious are not so patriotic that they will agree with anything their country does look bad. This movie to me is narrow minded and limited in so many aspects. To me it says if your not Christian your wrong. Would God or Jesus want people to kill I don't think so. To me this movie was offensive. At first this movie was funny with the countless clichés and overacted scenes but then when I looked at what this movie was trying to say or not say it was really frustrating to watch. I guess though it is my fault that I chose to watch this movie. I hope no one takes this comment offensively because I am not criticizing religion or patriotism but some of the narrow minded people who are so into both and discount everyone else.
If you want a real depiction of the Vietnam war watch Platoon, Born On the Fourth of July, Apocalypse Now, The Deer Hunter or The Killing Fields. Even Full Metal Jacket which I absolutely hated was a better depiction. I have read a quote that in context says a true patriot does not go with everything the government or country does but questions it when its wrong. A real patriot loves their country too much to see it do bad things.


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 read all the complimentary posts on this muddled semi-noir and am puzzled at the high regard for what seems, in the cruel light of 2007, a very sloppy late-RKO assembly-line product. All that endless documentary footage of fish, waves, fish, waves has little to do with the central conflict and just pads the running time. The editing is downright careless: Scenes just end, and are followed by other scenes that have little to do with what preceded them. The dialog bears the stilted traces of the Odets origins: high-flown metaphors that never could have come from the limited imaginations of these workaday people. But what's really surprising is how horribly overacted the triangle is, on all sides. I love Stanwyck, but she snarls and contorts and lashes out wildly -- an undisciplined performance several notches below her standard. Douglas, overplaying at being lovable, then goes onto a would-be murderous rampage and is similarly hammy, as is Ryan, snarling and shouting most unnaturally. The less interesting second couple at least provides recognizable human behavior: Keith Andes, whose character is kind of a Neanderthal by today's standards, nevertheless is smooth and persuasive as Stanwyck's (much younger, one presumes) brother, and Marilyn Monroe, as his girlfriend, is natural and unaffected. On Monterey's windswept coast (and all that Monterey footage, while largely irrelevant, is interesting as a document of what the town looked like), amid all the overheated hysteria, these two are islands of sanity. A final point, and a spoiler: Perhaps the Breen Office mandated it, but does anybody believe the happy ending for a second? Stanwyck may temporarily have regressed into being an obedient wifey, but I give the marriage a month.


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


user
Big disappointment. CLASH BY NIGHT is much to talky and stagy and the dialog doesn't resonate as true coming from these characters. This is melodrama at its peak. The acting is truly over the top and very unreal. Only MARILYN MONROE and KEITH ANDES as supporting players give this film any zip. Wish they had more to do. I'm somebody who looks at details in films. Two big questions...1 Who is watching the baby the entire day when Stanwyck and Ryan are together and Douglas is working, then breaking up a fight in a bar with is father? 2. When Stanwyck is packing to leave town, why is she seen packing at her brothers place where she hasn't lived for at least two years? Also, when everyone goes to the projection room at the Theatre, who's taking care of the baby again? Such details really irritate me and cause me to give films much lower ratings. What were the writers, directors and everyone else connected with the film thinking? Nuf' said.


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


user
Ok, so I saw this movie at this year's Sundance, and I was sorely unimpressed. It took a good fifteen minutes of footage before there was an edit or a line of dialogue that made any sense, and it took another 30 minutes before the ham-fisted script gave way to a working plot that wasn't contingent on a close-up of Ryan Gosling's smile or contrived moralizing. After the first 45 minutes however, the script blossomed into a watch-able albeit not completely entertaining or thought-provoking. The highlights certainly include both Gosling and Morse's acting, Gosling being an up-and-coming star, and Morse being an extremely well-established character actor with a good feel for disparate emotions. As a sidenote, after the screening I was talking a little smack about the movie to some of my friends when David Morse walked right behind me--He looks like the nicest guy in the world, but he's a solid 6'2" and probably outweighs me by 50 pounds. I removed my foot from my mouth and promptly changed the subject.


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


user
Here's what's good about "The Slaughter Rule:"
--Ryan Gosling, Clea Duvall, and David Morse all give great performances. Gosling is, as always, pretty darn outstanding. The locales are often breathtaking.
Here's what's bad about "The Slaughter Rule:"
--Everything else. The script is horribly muddled. And while I can certainly appreciate a non-"feel good" movie, this movie is just boring. Great performances can't make-up for a movie with a stupid premise and a script that is filled with throw-away lines that often don't even make it sense. Just getting through the first hour became a chore.
I stuck with it because of Gosling, but eventually I did myself a favor and changed the channel. Spoilers on here relayed the ending to me. I didn't miss much. Do yourself a favor--if you want a good Gosling flick, check out "The Believer."
My score: 2 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
So, as far as I gather, this episode is trying to make a statement about how real-life villains are very bad people, and this is just as scary as the paranormal. The "paranormal" imagery associated with the villain, Donnie, is purely symbolic. He's actually just a normal human being.
The problem is that I just don't buy it. Donnie is simply not scarier than the paranormal. He's not even that scary at all. As a guy who seems confused and weird rather than malicious, likes dead girls and hair, and has only newly become a murderer, he's significantly less disturbing than most well-known real-life serial killers (eg: he's like a VERY watered-down version of Ed Gein). Which is why Scully's horror at seeing nothing but bodies with hair and nails cut off (something not too different from a normal personal hygiene routine), before anybody has even been killed or hurt at all, is completely out of character. She sees things a hundred times worse in almost every other episode and hardly flinches.
So, as Comic Book Guy says... "worst episode EVER!"


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


user
I saw the movie after checking its rating on IMDb. Back then, it was at 8.0 and I thought, "wow! That must be a good one". I thought wrong. The beginning of the movie actually keeps what the plot promises, but then it goes exponentially down underneath its basement. I think without the character of Richie Nix, it might have been alright - although he is the reason the story line takes the course it does. The character is just too extreme for my liking, and hard to endure. Also, the journey the main character takes from the beginning of the story till its "climax" at the end is partly irrelevant and could easily have been omitted - the alternative is, I just did not understand the movie.
Although I must admit that it is "easy watching", and I had no problems sitting through the whole movie, when it had finished I was somewhat unimpressed by the ending. All in all, rather mediocre.


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


user
Well, Killshot is not awful, but it comes close. Production values are decent and the main actors do a pretty good job (except for Rosario Dawson in a wasted role), but the story is just pathetic. I don't know if the Elmore Leonard book had such dumb characters,since I haven't read it, but I'm guessing that the book was supposed to be at least slightly humorous. The movie has no detectable humor. After the first twenty minutes, you'll be yelling at the screen, "Oh, come on! Nobody's THAT stupid!!" In a nutshell, and without any spoilers, everybody acts in a manner convenient to the plot, which makes no sense anyway. A very frustrating and unrealistic movie, which may account for it sitting on the shelf for as long as it did.


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


user
There are many distinct problems with the movie "KillShot". For one, there are way too many coincidences. The husband is a hunter and just happens to be hunting on the day that the main killer shows up, with someone the killer knows. Okay I will take that one. The kid calls the real estate agency that the wife works for and asks for money to be ready when he comes to get it. Okay, I will take that one as well. Before he goes to get the cash he decided to rob our killer, who doesn't kill him but decided to go with him on the job. It's starting to get real weak. Then they show up, on the same day that the husband has an interview with his wives boss. No one is there but the wife and the husband who has decided to make his way into the empty office. They make their way into the office and the professional killer just assumes that they are talking to the right guy. That is just in the first 15 minuets.
There are a lot more holes in this movie then I care to talk about. Why the killer didn't just kill everyone at the real estate agency I don't know. Why he didn't shoot the woman on her porch, I don't know. Why he kept letting that dumb kid make all those stupid moves and mess a whole lot of crap up, I don't know. Why the girlfriend was even in the movie, I don't know. Why he decided not to pocket the gun and just leave it out on the counter, I don't know. Why they even went into the witness protection program, I don't know. What I do know is that the Casting Director did a great job, the Director of Photography did very good work, the Location Scout picked great locations, and the Production Designer was worth every penny. So my advice for anyone that is going to pick a script that is going to be so well worked by the crew, make sure that every attempt to kill someone by the hit man is not foiled by a peak through an open window.


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


user
Ugh. Even the ever-popular Diane Lane could not save this movie, and the most exciting thing about the movie was seeing if Rourke's face would move. One has heard so much "gossip" about his botched face lift, etc., so like an accident on the side of the road, we just had to slow down and see the wreck. The plot was thin. Here we have a very professional mob hit man who somehow latches on to a wild and uncontrollable punk/crook, and throughout this movie we're wondering why this guy stays with this idiot, let alone gets together with the guy in the first place. Then the crime that was not even committed has the pro to go after the witnesses. He would have popped them right then and there. But then, we would not have had a movie then, would we? And why did the realtor even agree to the extortion? There were more holes in this flick than in my colander. The acting was horrid, the entire movie predictable down to the minute, and even the ending. And so much could have been done to make this a much better movie. But if you have about 90 minutes to kill and not have to use any brain cells in the process, then this movie is just what the doctor ordered.


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


user
Truly appalling waste of space. Me and my friend tried to watch this film to its conclusion but had to switch it off about 30 minutes from the end. And i can count the films I have switched off before the end on one hand.
The script and direction are leaden and deeply uninspiring. I wouldn't be surprised if they found the script in a pile of cast off scripts from 1983. For example the irritating scroat threatening the real estate guy from his house phone. I mean seriously. The police would be beating his door down in minutes. The scenes and events just wash by you like turds in a river. It is difficult to understand the actual thrust of the film. The narrative flicks between characters in a seemingly random manner breaking up the pathetic attempts at building the characters. Oh and what "characters" they are. The protagonist played by Rourke is dreadful. He could have just sent a cardboard cut out of himself and stayed in bed. After 60 or so minutes of the film I had built absolutely zero attachment to this character. He is neither sympathetic nor hateful. Just a disfigured dummy from a shop window blundering through every single scene. His motivation is impossible to discern from his generally mumbled and emotionless delivery. Is he happy? Is he sad? Angry? No idea. Just those same dead eyes staring out at you from a disfigured chunk of flesh. And the native American theme is just awful and pointless.
The good guys are at best unlikeable. A dull white collar stereotype and a simpering neurotic ex-wife stereotype. Cue archetypal wife with shotgun face off with bad guy, "you aren't going to shoot me" that is both tiresomely unoriginal and annoying.
The richie nix character seems interesting at first but soon descends into an irritating one sided psycho character. Which seems at odds with the seeming intention of making the bad guys in some way sympathetic or at least realistically motivated.
Roasario Dawsons character starts with some promise but soon descends into a sickening and childlike parody of the gangsters chick scenes from Jackie Brown. You really want me to believe her character was SO attracted to Rourke's? Or worse she is just a floozy who sleeps with anything that moves? Realistic female characters FTW!
In summary a complete mess of a film. Hopeless characterisations and performances. A leaden and hackneyed script along with uninspired direction. And ultimately extremely dull. Its not even comedy bad either. Laughing at Rourkes haggard face gets pretty old after sitting through the first 15 turgid minutes of the 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 decided to watch this movie in order to fall asleep. It kept me awake, so it was interesting; however, it was pretty bland.
The acting was good. I don't think any of the actors did a bad job. Mickey Rourke is as believable as an over-the-hill hit-man can be. The dialogue in this movie does not provide much opportunity for these actors to show off their full potential, but they still shined.
The atmosphere was great. Music was good and colors matched the mood that the director wanted to paint for the viewers. Even the weather enhanced the mood of the movie. Everything was well done.
The failures of this movie are in its story development. The storyline with the mafia vs. Blackbird doesn't get enough attention. The storyline for Carmen and Wayne's divorce doesn't get explained. The FBI seems to work extra fast here. Is there no paperwork for all these processes? Is it really that easy to dig up your brother's body from his grave, burn the corpse, and have it be identified as you? There are too many loops in the storyline for me to give this movie anything higher than a 4 out of 10 rating. I wouldn't recommend this movie to people unless they're really bored and have smoked some really good weed. Even if WoW is down for maintenance, go find something better to do than watch this movie.


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


user
I am so disappointed in this movie I can't express it. I was so excited when I started watching this film to see Mickey Rourke all leather faced and that kid from Third Rock From The Sun acting like I psycho. I thought, wow, this is going to be a winner, freakin' Natural Born Killers style. And it got better. The production value was great, the directing was great, the acting was great, the cinematography was great, and the plot was, well, the plot, well, what WHAT PLOT? About half way through this film I was pulling my hair out yelling "What the hell is going on?" and I mean that quite literally? Nothing makes any sense whatsoever. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Aaaaaaahhhhhhggg!!!!


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


user
Mickey Rourke hunts Diane Lane in Elmore Leonard's Killshot It is not like Mickey Rourke ever really disappeared. He has had a steady string of appearances before he burst back on the scene. He was memorable in: Domino, Sin City, Man on Fire, Once Upon a Time in Mexico, and Get Carter. But in his powerful dramatic performance in The Wrestler (2008), we see a full blown presentation of the character only hinted at in Get Carter. Whenever we get to know him, Rourke remains a cool, but sleazy, muscle bound slim ball.
This is an Elmore Leonard story, and production. Leonard wrote such notable movies as taunt western thriller 3:10 to Yuma, Be Cool, Jackie Brown, Get Shorty, 52 Pick-Up, and Joe Kidd. This means that we get tough guys, some good, some not so good.
It also means we get tight, realistic plots with characters doing what is best for them in each situation, weaving complications into violent conclusions. Killshot is no different. Tough, slim ball killer Rourke stalks unhappily married witness Lane. Think History of Violence meets No Country for Old Men. It is not as intense, bloody or gory as those two, but it is almost as good. If you like those two, including David Croneberg's equally wonderful Eastern Promises, you will like Killshot also.
Director John Madden has not done a lot of movies. His last few were enjoyable, if not successful: Proof, Captain Corelli's Mandolin and Shakespeare in Love.
Diana Lane hasn't had a powerful movie role since she and Richard Gere gave incredible performances in Unfaithful. Lately she is charming and appealing in romantic stories such as Nights in Rodanthe, Must Love Dogs, and Under the Tuscan Sun. Here she is right on mark, balancing her sexy appeal with reserved tension.
This is a small part for Rosario Dawson. Yet Dawson does a good job with it. You see a lot more of Lane, including an underwear scene to rival Sigourney Weaver in Aliens and Nicole Kidman in Eyes Wide Shut.
While you are in the crime drama section, also pick up Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang, and Gone Baby Gone, and Before the Devil Knows Your Dead. The last has wonderful performances by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Ethan Hawke, Marisa Tomei and Albert Finney.
Killshot flopped at the box office. More is our luck. It is certainly worth a 3-4 dollar rental, if you like this genre. 6/20/2009


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


user
Let me first state that I rarely review movies, I only comment if I'm blown away or disappointed in something that I thought was going to be good. Killshot was a major disappointment on so many levels. The script was horrible, the acting was sub-par (espically coming from heavy weights like Rourke and Lane) and the editing and effects were comical, (blowing up cars etc. etc.) Rosario Dawson had a horrible role, I can't believe would even accept it, it was such a misuse of her talent I can't even put into words. I should have know after I saw the trailer for this movie 3 years ago and it kept being put on the shelve that their was a serious problem with this film.......... B movie all the way.........don't bother unless your really bored........


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


user
Diane Lane, Mickey Rourke, Rosario Dawson & Thomas Jane.....Not a bad cast in my opinion however they were totally wasted in this movie.
There was no real direction, there were no unusual turns, in fact the whole movie was very predictable from start to finish. Mickey Rourke had a really annoying sidekick who did nothing but irritate you from the start. Rosario Dawson was totally wasted and there was hardly any point in even having her character in the film.
I really do believe this is one of those straight to DVD movies that everyone will forget about very quickly which is a shame as the movie could have been so much better.


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


user
Most predicable movie I've ever seen...extremely boring, I feel like I've seen a hundred movies with the same storyline as this one. Acting is OK at best, there's no action really and there is definitely no thrills. Capable actors with terrible script i think it could have been written better by a 10th grader. Felt like more of a chore to watch because I was hoping that there would be something in this movie that was going to set it apart from all the other garbage but this fit right in on the heap. The whole movie I was waiting for something good to happen but it never came. I never rate movies and I never review movies but this movie was so bad that i had to log in here and post a review to try and save a few poor souls from wasting their time (and/or money) with this movie. I pirated it and wish I never even wasted the hard drive space. If I spent 10 bucks to see this in theaters I would kill myself.


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


user
Based on the Elmore Leonard novel of the same name, Killshot suffers from a lack of focus, direction, and creativity  all elements which the original story likely had, and negative test screenings forced severe edits, (including the complete excising of a character) resulting in a film that feels almost nothing like a Leonard story. Far too many characters populate a storyline too simplistic and straightforward (not a typical trait of the author's work) and the focus continually switches between two hit men who are difficult to like and a troubled couple who don't command our sympathy. While the story itself provides precious few twists and turns, sadly by the end of the film its appeal still remains a mystery.
Washed-up hit-man Armand "The Blackbird" Degas (Mickey Rourke) follows a strict code during his missions that inadvertently sours his latest assignment. Now on the run from his former employer, he haphazardly joins forces with inept misfit criminal Richie Nix (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) to gain some quick cash by extorting a wealthy realtor. When struggling couple Carmen and Wayne Colson (Diane Lane and Thomas Jane) are privy to the thieves' blundered plot, they are forced into hiding as the crazed killers will stop at nothing to silence the two witnesses.
Killshot proves that being based on an Elmore Leonard novel isn't grounds for immediate success or even a promising adaptation. The characters, situations, and even resolutions in the film are all tired and unoriginal and only very randomly hint at something more. It's not that there wasn't potential, especially when Rourke's black-garbed, calm and collected assassin perfectly executes a hit during the opening scene  purpose and principals are just continually abandoned as each minute ticks away. The style and manner in which each character is introduced is the most intriguing; visually the roles of Bird and even Wayne are fleshed out befittingly, giving immediate interest and depth to personas that typically end in a creative impasse.
The pairing of the cold and calculating Black Bird with the irrational and explosive Richie is an enticing combination (comparisons to Fargo would be extravagantly too kind), except that each character seems to slowly lose track of the traits that kept them initially interesting. As Richie starts picking up the more experienced killer's habits, Bird loosens his grip on his own methods of murder. Regardless of what he sees in his momentary lighthearted fling with Donna (Rosario Dawson), it's hard to imagine that his final confrontation with panicky Carmen would provoke a confession of his true nature and subsequent carelessness that drastically affects his outcome. Likely or not, this is Killshot's unfortunate downfall  and little entertainment can be garnered from these characters who steadily lose their originality by continually contradicting the habits that once made them intriguing.
- The Massie Twins


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 sorry guys, all who thought this film could be something great, I'm afraid you would be disappointed.
The standard, the movie wanted to set is completely ruined by some very simple plot. So simple, that the movie is not evolving until the end. I asked myself if the plot wasn't about the action but about the main character (played by Mickey Rourke), but I found that the character was inconsistent - either he is a professional killer or some guilt haunted brother. But both don't go together, because the kid he tries to guide poses him in dangerous situations where no professional killer would put himself. Now, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, is a good looking actor, but he played his character a little unnatural. I didn't believe his acting, it looked like the director tried to pull out of him some personality he couldn't provide. And he didn't have to, because his less crazy behavior was creepy enough. The only one whose acting was great, was Diane Lane. If not her, i would give this movie 1 star.
In conclusion, I expected to see some well played movie and some interesting plot. And I completely blew it with my high expectations.


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


user
Unfortunately House of D is just awful, with a ridiculous plot, terrible writing, some mediocre acting, and in fact just about everything else about it is sub-par.
Tom flees NYC to somehow survive as a lone child in Paris, and manages to convince the beautiful Parisian girl he eventually marries that he's French, despite a poor grasp of her language. She's shocked when years later he reveals his "secret" to her! Riiiight!
He then "gifts" his tale of woe to his own son, and who we are expected to believe thinks that's just the greatest birthday gift a dad can give his 13 year old boy. If only such things were so easy! David Duchovny miscasts his own wife Tea Leoni in the role of his mother and strikes out yet again. Leoni makes me laugh as a comic but she's just plain wrong for this role.
One of the problems with that is none of the characters are sympathetic. I just didn't give a damn what happened to any of them. I did rather hope that Robin Williams and his trademark "child in a grown-up's body" schtick would fall into a Village pothole, but alas, it was not to be and we had to endure his simpering performance all the way.
Anton Yelchin and William's daughter Zelda were not bad, but I suspect the rave reviews others are giving them is simply because they weren't anywhere near as bad as everyone else in this movie. They weren't great, let me put it that way.
There are so many silly and contrived aspects to this film - Erykah Badu, the bicycle, the Catholic school and it's staff of morons, the conveniently stupid characters, etc - that this review would go on for ever, so I'll just finish up by saying that House of D is a very poor movie, and I'm almost embarrassed for Duchovny.
The thing that really annoys me is how I was so strongly encouraged by online "friends" to see this that I traveled a long way to do so.
I would not have been so annoyed that this movie is so bad if I'd just wasted a couple of hours down at the local movie theater, but instead I lost a whole day, and discovered that my so-called "friends" are either stupid or dishonest, because this is an awful movie!


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


user
An American boy goes to Paris after his mother commits suicide, becomes and artist and then discovers himself and returns to the States so he can make things right with his former friends.
I have to think that the people who are rating this movie so highly are all X-Files fans, even though there are no aliens or serial killers in it. Don't be fooled, this movie blows chunks.
The story is incoherent, with little or no explanation of what people are doing or why. When you do get an explanation, it doesn't fit the story that went before it. What it does is bore you. For all the acting talent in the film, it just isn't interesting. I spent the whole movie wondering when sex-addict Duchovny was going to bang someone. Maybe he was doing it behind the scenes; they should have filmed that instead.
What comes across is a story of a self-obsessed artist worrying about minor incidents in his life and wanting to make them right somehow - even though they didn't seem that wrong to begin with. There aren't any particularly interesting or shocking revelations, despite the mention of a big secret in the first few minutes. It's just a guy thinking that his life is as interesting to you as it is to him. It's not.
I saw in the trivia that Duchovny claims he wrote the script in a week, that's entirely believable. The guy can act, there's no doubt, but writing and directing are obviously beyond his talents.
Why Hollywood keeps greenlighting these self-discovery stories is beyond me. I discover myself in the shower every morning but I don't bother making a movie about it. Mine would probably be better than this one, though; at least there would be some nudity.


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


user
They say David Duchovny took six days to write the script for this movie. That sounds about right.
This movie is one of the worst films I've ever seen and I've seen Gigli. It's not as bad as Gigli, but that's like saying Saddam Hussein wasn't as bad as Adolf Hitler.
Tom Warshaw has been living in France with his French wife and 13-year old son. He has been pretending to be French all this time. He reveals to his wife that he is actually American. For some reason, this comes as an earth-shattering reveal for her, despite the fact that she always commented on her husband's American accent. Also, their son - remember, he was born in France and never knew his father was American - speaks perfect American English without a hint of French accent. That's just one of several huge plot holes in this movie.
The main bulk of the movie is a flashback to Tommy's youth in New York City during the 1970's, as he explains to his wife why he has been hiding in France. His best friend as a boy was Pappas, a retarded adult played terribly by Robin Williams. I assume Duchovny thinks that "retarded" is someone who is just sort of dumb, because Pappas comes off only mildly slow at times, while other times he comes off as just Robin Williams. Yes, Williams actually fits in his tired improv schtick although he is supposed to play a person who is mentally slow.
Tommy's mother, played by Duchovny's wife Tea Leoni, is a pill-popping nurse who is distraught over the recent death of her husband. Leoni does a good job, but she mainly just smokes a lot and yells at Tommy for things that don't seem to be too important. The script didn't give her much to work with. Tommy also befriends a lady (whom he calls "Lady") who is in prison and offers him advice through her jail window (this house of detention is called "House of D" for short, thus the title). Tommy has no qualms yelling his personal problems out loud on a city street so this incarcerated felon can offer him advice, and he does so many times without care.
I don't want to bore you with the entire summary of the movie, but plot holes are abound in this film that tries way too hard to be touching but comes off as, well, bad. Real bad. Real real bad. Near the end of this train wreck, the script gets cornier and cornier and ends with a laughably crappy ending.
Critics tore "House of D" apart and rightfully so. I can't believe some people actually like this movie. It is a painful film to sit through and I felt weak afterwards - not from emotion, but from how terrible it was.


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 movie with a wonderful concept, but very weak writing. It should never have been released with out at least three more re-writes (assuming it got any). The story is too loosly held together, and there are too many 90 degree turns in the story to make it a cohesive movie. It would be great to see what a decent screen-writer could do with the story.


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 are having trouble sleeping or just want to take that nap in the afternoon but just can't seem to drift off, pop in this movie. The only neat thing about this movie are the electric planes. Aside from that prepare for some sweet zzzzz's. It boggles the mind how big name stars such as those in this movie can be part of the one of the dullest movies I've ever seen. Now, if you will excuse me, I will finish my nap.


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 strange mainly because the plot was so incoherent. The title refers to a vicious wind which renders the surface of the earth almost uninhabitable when it blows, but this seemed to have nothing whatsoever to do with what was going on. The movie seems to be an extremely poor rip-off of Bladerunner ie rogue android being chased by bounty hunter(or ruthless cop in this). Luke Skywalker turns in a surprisingly good performance as afore-mentioned rogue cop. Nothing seems to be resolved at the end of the movie, we never find out anything of any substance about the android or what his intentions are. There is one baffling scene where Bill Paxton(who has kidnapped the android) plays one particular song in his cardboard airplane for no particular reason(the song is called "Shape of things", by The Yardbirds). This happens again in a later scene where the same song is played for no apparent reason. Does this song have any relevance to the movie? Don't think so.


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 fails on many many levels. The script is the first failing, and as I understand it, if the script stinks, there's nothing that can fix that. The plot is boring, after the first 45 minutes, I'm looking at the counter on the DVD saying to myself, "how much longer?" The cinematography is pretty awful. I'm not sure how bad the transfer was to DVD, but it looked like a VHS copy. Also, the sound was bad. I realize this isn't going to get remixed for 5.1, but yikes, it didn't even sound like it was in Dolby Stereo which had been around for almost a decade when they cut this film.
Slipstream was far too similar to both Mad Max and Blade Runner for comfort. Because of the lack of decent special effects and high quality dialog, it is extremely disappointing. If I recall, the pointer scene took place during the last 20 minutes, usually it should take place in the first 20. Most people will be totally confused as to what the heck is going on until the final 20 minutes.
The film's music was excellent in parts, and then completely inappropriate in others. Elmer Bernstien did the scoring, but it sounds like someone else had a hand in sticking in 'other' stuff elsewhere as it doesn't match the overall good orchestral score (with some synthesizer music.)
There were great actors cast, Bob Peck, Mark Hamill, Ben Kingsley, Bill Paxton. And they did a great job breathing the little available life into their characters. (Well, Paxton's character was pretty stupid, and the whole movie was centered on him. I'm not sure a heroic stooge is a good choice for the main character who carries the film.) Again, a major flaw with the script.
Thank goodness I watched this from a mail order DVD service, and not the theater. Overall a major disappointment for Sci-fi fans, or fans of Paxton, or Hamill. 90 minutes of your life, you'll never get back.


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


user
The quote above just about says it all for "Slipstream". I should have bailed out of this film after the first half hour, but decided I ought to be fair and give it a chance. I won't watch it again, so if anyone with the temerity to do so can get back to me with the number of clichéd lines in the movie, I'm sure it will set a record.
Some otherwise fine and talented actors got mixed up with this clunker; Mark Hamill portrays a futuristic bounty hunter and Bill Paxton is his quarry. Paxton's character has hijacked Hamill's prisoner, an android taking his name from the poet Byron (Bob Peck). Tasker (Hamill) shoots Owens (Paxton) with a dart containing a tracking device so he and his companion Belitski (Kitty Aldridge) can keep tabs on the pair. The real question though is why didn't he just fire the device at Byron thereby cutting out the middleman.
If you enjoy scene after disjointed scene with tedious characterization and artsy fartsy pretense, then I suppose you'll find something of interest here. But you can't convince me that the film makes sense on any level. Scenes of a futuristic Stone Age make way for high society snobbery, but the pinnacle of poor taste is reached when Paxton's character is displayed following a night of revelry with hickeys all over his torso. If anyone thinks there's some hidden meaning here, you're really stretching.
Patiently waiting for the frame proclaiming "The End" to come into view, alas, even that was denied. If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then so is understanding; this movie had neither. Yet there was a single redeeming feature as the closing credits began their run - an awesome view of a half dozen hot air balloons. Apparently the film was keeping them afloat.


assistant
0