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
This movie looked like the out-takes of the deleted scenes from a high school film class experiment. It made no sense! It was well acted, but I only felt sorry for the characters because they had to appear in this slop. The alien machines were created with Pentium I technology and no creativity, they were crabs! The under-lit and barely seen aliens were Frisbees with legs. WHERE WERE THE TRIPODS? The editing, done by director/writer/producer/make-up artist/gripper Latt, jumps all over the place, with some scenes repeated numerous times. Most of it seemed to have been filmed in the wake of hurricane Katrina. The next time Latt wants to make a movie, someone needs to slap him. In 2005 alone he produced 11 movies! That doesn't include the writing, editing, directing or visual effects credits on other movies. If the rest are like this snot-load, then he's just making fun of us. This was a slapped together rip-off of Spielberg's movie, nothing more. I'm looking forward to Latt's "BackBroke Ridge', "X-Man IIV", "The Hillocks have Eyes."


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


user
After watching the Steven Spielberg version of War Of The Worlds in theaters, I was hooked on the topic. I could think back to my favorite parts in the movie, people getting vaporized, people panicking, fire, explosions, it was all so great...
So a few weeks later I enter my video store, and I see David Michael Latt's version of War Of The Worlds on the shelf. "It couldn't have come onto DVD, that fast, could it?" I said to myself. I read the back of the case and saw C. Thomas Howell, instead. "Oh, I remember him from The Outsiders!" So I thought, it might have been a try.
I was wrong, dead wrong. As soon as I watched the opening credits, watched them take forever, I knew something was wrong. Something was going to disappoint me in this film and it did. The whole movie stunk like a cheese sauce that was left in the fridge for 10 years. From the acting, the special effects (stupid looking tripod things, when people get vaporized they turn into orange skeletons), and most of all, it didn't even come close to being as interesting as the Spielberg version, in fact, the plot was boring, and there were only 3 scenes of destruction! What the crap? I ended up being so bored, that I had to fast forward through the movie until I found something that looked even remotely interesting. And nothing was really.
My advice: Don't even touch this movie, stay 100 feet away from it. The Spielberg version is coming out near the end of this month, buy that one! But please, please, I beg of you! Stay away from this turd before it smothers us all!


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


user
This movie is so bad they should burn the master. You cant spoil the plot because this movie doesn't have one. The graphics are less than fake, they're horrendous. Then you've got the rambling through the countryside star gazer work-a-holic who bounces between his own lunacy & the mad rantings of the crazed preacher. & when he finally makes it to DC, they don't even have the decency to kill him; the monster (which you don't know at the time) is already dieing but how ... who knows & of course it has the ultimate sappy ending... everybody else on the planet is dead or dieing but his family & a handful of stragglers survive. Imagine that! This will be the movie that C Thomas Howell will go to his grave regretting he ever starred in. It probably gives him nightmares.


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


user
My paraphrase above of the slogan on the back of the DVD box sums it up: this film was far more horrible than horrifying.
This is the worst film I have seen in as long as I can remember. My wife accidentally rented it thinking it was the Tom Cruise version. The laughably crude special effects on the menu screen should have tipped us off. The gratuitous nudity already in the opening scene made us more suspicious.
But as the film wore on, we were benumbed by clumsy acting -- both over- and under-acting -- non-continuity in directing and editing, trite writing, and crude special effects. We gave up after a half-hour or less; after starting this badly, it couldn't possibly get better.
Since I despise reviews that pan a product without giving specifics, here are some examples of the film's especially awkward moments, even if they amount to spoilers:
- The lead says good-bye to his young old son as the latter is about to drive away with his mother, the latter prickly because it's their wedding anniversary but the lead is not coming along due to sudden business. The son asks, quietly worried, "will I ever see you again?" Perhaps it's supposed to come off as a premonition, but it instead comes off as incongruous behavior for a child that age in that situation.
- A huge alien spacecraft has crashed to earth and sits in an enormous crater. A crowd of people stands nearby, peering at it uneasily but otherwise looking generally unaroused. One woman finally says "it's gi-normous!"
- After this craft has laid waste a village and its inhabitants, the lead and a bystander, now alone near their homes and trying to load their cars for an escape, have an exchange something like this, in a quietly puzzled tone:
"What was that thing, anyway?" "I dunno..."
- A crowd attempting to evacuate over a bridge is blocked by the military, since part of the bridge is destroyed. When an alien ship shoots an explosive at it, the crowd starts to run away, seemingly only because a director told them to and not because they're frightened or in any kind of real danger, let alone unusual circumstances.
And so forth... writing about the film falls short of the experience of actually seeing it. But please, PLEASE, save yourself the bother, even if your morbid curiosity is piqued! The film is so bad it can't even be enjoyed as unintentional humor (versus, say, King Vidor's "Solomon & Sheeba" starring Yul Brynner wearing a wig). Life is too short to waste watching such nonsense. There MUST be something more productive and enjoyable to do, like walking the dog or cleaning a birdcage.


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


user
It is hard to imagine anyone making a Tom Cruise film look good; hard indeed, but this one makes him look good. Very good. Actually, it makes him look like Sir John Gielgud celebrating Very Good Acting Day with a bravura performance.
The acting from the entire ensemble struggled to rise above the risible and failed. The fault was, in part let us be fair, that the plot bore as much resemblance to the HG Wells original as did the butchered carcasses of the human victims in the film to their living predecessors: both were bloodied and violated remnants of more attractive predecessor. But to describe a plot such as this to be a bit holy is to say of the Colander "My, this kitchen utensil has a remarkable lot of holes", unless, that is, holes are your bag; in which case this film will commend itself to you.
The fault in the other part was that these were demotivated, jobbing, DVD actors who knew full well, one assumes, that this was their exhibition that would wind up on the $5 DVD shelf. And overpriced at that.
So should you watch it? Why yes, of course, you should. You are a miserable sinner and deserve punishment.


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


user
Let's get one thing straight; This was BAD! So Putrid that it doesn't even qualify to be imprinted on anyone's memories.
The ever repeating storyline (who's constant recycling of not only jokes but story lines and character appearances.) A typical storyline goes as follows; Sue (the mother) opens the episode quoting on how she loves her baby son but smells awful (As if THAT doesn't get old! har-de-bloody-har!), some Australian quasi-nationalist "bogan" -look it up- appears to say how she thinks she's awesome because she's an ozzie while everything/everyone else that isn't sucks before disappearing for the rest of the episode. (a small mercy)
The rest of the plot revolves around the father (Gary) getting in some kind of disagreement with Sue and him talking to members of his band for advice on how to sort it out.
The phrase "words fail me" is an old one but this is where it is the most truthful thing to say. It is so incredibly BAD! So HORRIBLE, that I would like every trace of it's existence sent to the lowest depths of the North sea and life can go on.
It saddens me though, to see someone as good as Sally Bretton (good actress, I like her) make a prat out of herself, Ardal O Hanlon (My Hero aside) has the ability to be pretty funny - but not here - and Ben Elton, distinguished for so much good stuff somehow manages to come up with this...thing then comedy is in very serious trouble!


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


user
OK, first off there may be a SPOILER here since i don't know what constitutes giving out too much information. My subject line says it all but surely people will want to know WHY it's so stupid.
First off, this film follows a bunch of Yuppies as they go to a sports game in Chicago but wind up taking the wrong exit and winding up in the ghetto. Scary, huh? Well, first of all, Emilio is driving everyone in the world's most overblown RV/Winnebago, tricked out with satellite dishes and crap like that on it. So these guys are GOING to a sports game (i forget which, though likely the Bulls or the White Sox since they're near the oh-so-scary ghetto), yet they can't even make it down the freeway without having an onboard viewing command center that would put ESPN to shame. Yet they're smart enough to earn livings that would pay for the stuff, but are such sports fans that they don't even know which exit to get off at on their way to the game they so love.
I gave up on the movie within a half hour after that, but the reasons were plentiful. They wind up IN THE GHETTO, yet their main danger to their existence is DENIS LEARY. A WHITE GUY. I'm no racist, but COME ON. In anything RESEMBLING reality - and this film WAS trying to be an urban nightmare - Denis Leary would not be trying to kill Emilio Estevez, he'd be hitching a ride to get the f*** out of Dodge himself!!!
This is easily one of the dumbest movies ever created, although I'm not familiar with much of the rest of the world's cinema. If MST3K were still on, they surely would have devoted an episode to 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
Loving the Andersen fairy tails as a child and recently having seen some intriguing documentaries on this odd, though brilliant, author, I eagerly looked forward to see this made-for-TV film. Unfortunately the experience was nothing but a disappointment leaving me in anger and confusion. First of all the story/script is filled with inaccuracies and downright fantasies and in this way creating almost a completely new story while shamefully abusing Andersen's fairy tales, presumably in order to sell the crap to suckers like me. Secondly, pretty-boy actor (really... ever seen a picture of the real Andersen?) Kieran Brew manages to portray Hans Christian as mentally retarded rather than the brilliant though very disturbed character he indeed was. Though annoying and irritating like Andersen, Brew is missing the required charisma to create any feelings of compassion what so ever. Thirdly. The love story between Andersen and the fictional Jetta (whom actually should be Henriette, the wife of Edvard Collin)... Why? This man has lived such an interesting life, it should be enough as a foundation to a great movie!
I could continue this to be a very long list but feel it safest to simply recommend all of you to spend your time and money on something else instead.


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


user
I did not like this movie. I rented it hoping it would be something like the 10th Kingdom. I was disappointed when I discovered it wasn't. I also found it just plain nervracking. The acting was bad, the characters where unbelievable and the time jumps were crazy. I only recomend this film if your in the mood to see a crazy dude running around, but I'm sure there are better films with the same thing. I can't believe I wasted my time on this one.


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


user
This script was mildly original when it was written in 1935, but the poor performances and the inconsistent quality level make it impossible to recommend. Some of the vignettes are absolutely terrible and the dialogue is never natural. A few of the plot twists were creative, but I was very surprised to see it so highly rated here at the IMDB. A few scenes are worthwhile, it's as a film that if fails completely to entertain. If you like this sort of montage, run don't walk and get "Tales of Manhattan" (1942) a marvelous film that follows the life and times of a topcoat.


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


user
This movie is by far the worst movie ever, The story line is weak and never shows what happens to the people after the 20 was left they hands. This really bugs me. It drags on and on with out any meaning, very boring. The only good thing was the cast, WOW, lots of big time actors and actress in it. But besides that it was horrible, terrible and repulsive, do yourself a favor, do not watch it.
I gave it a 1 out of 10


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


user
There is nothing mean spirited or evil about this movie. It's just terribly dull. Dull is the photography--- the film stock appears old and faded and washed-out. Maybe it was even 16mm blown up to 35mm, dunno. Dull is the script, which is tedious and 'Jules Pfeiffer'-ish. That is, kind of 1960s bossa-nova cocktail party cool. Like our beatnik grandparents might have spoken if they were trying to appear really straight. The 'slice-of-life' characters were mostly annoying. True, they were real to life, but hey, if I wanted to see truly ordinary people doing really mundane and ordinary things, I'd just watch myself. I wouldn't trapse all the way down to a cinema and blow five quid, and an evening, watching someone else do it.
I expected a funny, bright rom-com. What I got was more like what two intelligent and moderately talented 19 or 20 year-olds might have produced on their first day with a new video camera.
I gave this a 4 out 10, because it appears that someone tried, at least.


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 attempts to cash in on the success of Richard Curtis movies, particularly "Love Actually" (which I loved) - a series of disparate scenes following the love lives of various couples.
It's a great idea poorly executed. The script tries to be a little too clever and simply doesn't resonate. Most of the acting is stilted which is more a reflection on the director than the actors.
The version I saw (on a plane) was called "Scenes from a Park", which is a more appropriate title as not all the scenes were of a 'sexual nature'.
I was so looking forward to this movie, but ultimately it is disappointing. Don't bother.


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


user
the acting is good.thats the positives out of the way! SOSN is shallow and superficial.Almost all the characters are middle class and English.The gay men are depicted as fickle sexual predators aiming to use children in their empty lives.This film could only appeal to people who know hampstead heath and would get minor satisfaction from pointing out any landmarks.There is no time to engage with the characters and has a result you really don,t care about them,Catherine Tate at the height of her comedic fame stars as a woman seeking a divorce from her husband and on screen for about the same time as her Nana sketches failed to convince,however if she had said "what a f****** liberty" i would have agreed
I'd rather take a walk in the Park;unintelligent rubbish!


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


user
This film is about the encounters of 7 couples on Hampstead heath in one sunny Wednesday afternoon.
It shows 7 different types of couples: married, divorced, breaking up a relationship, homosexual, elderly, blind date and escort service. They are not connected to each other apart from the geographical location, so that is a disappointment. The film is a collage of conversations, without any discernible plot. The film jumps from a pair to another without any logic. I find this film boring and purposeless. The only redeeming feature is the great weather throughout the film. It is sad that talents like Ewan McGregor and Sophie Okonedo get wasted by 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
If you never have read the book and never intend to read it in the future, go on and watch the movie (6/10). It is a nice fantasy movie with well done CGI, nice acting, a beautiful environment and an above-average fantasy story.
If you have read the book like me about 10 times or more and really love it, don't expect too much (or better: don't expect anything at all). The story is totally different from the original book. This may explain that the movie is voted 1/10 from people around 40 or more (like me) and much better from people who most probably never read the book before and thus expect nothing.
Most of the differences between movie and book are not really necessary and change the setting (in my opinion much to the worse):
- The magic in the book works with rituals for classic magical effects. (Changing weather, creating illusions, transform into animals, ...) In the movie the magic is more like "jedi-school for the middle ages" (TM) (wooden sticks instead of lightsabers). That the devil is looking like emperor palpatine (after part III) doesn't make it really better.
- The mill in the book is not totally cut off the world like in the movie. In the book the story is set near Dresden, which Krabat visits one time with his master and also he visits some nearby villages for festivities. (This part might have been changed to cut costs.) I also don't understand why in the movie the mill is located in the hills while the nearby graveyard is set in the high mountains.
- The whole surrounding is the average run of the mill fantasy medieval style. Lots of mud everywhere, dirty faces, not an orderly kitchen, only very rough houses. The book never suggested such an environment.
- In the book the master tries to make Krabat his successor but Krabat rejects. Krabat is somewhere between admiration, distance and silent rejection. In the movie Krabat rejects the master always openly like a stubborn schoolboy.
- The movie is set in 1647 instead of around 1720. This makes it impossible for the master to tell some stories from his youth probably around 170x. OK, the stories are missing anyway in the movie.
Also some explanations given in the book would have been helpful and would not cost so much minutes:
- In the book all work done at day is effortless and work in the night is like normal work. This explanation is missing in the movie. Sometimes the boys are sweating and sometimes they are happy.
- The book explains why only a few "Gesellen" try to confront the master: If the master dies by any mundane reasons, the "Gesellen" are free AND keep their magical powers. If the master dies at the confrontation, all will lose their power forever.


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


user
My Age: 13
James Cole, played by Steven Seagal, is sent to help Detective Jim Campbell, played by Keenen Ivory Wayans, solve a series of killings in which the victims are crucified. Since Cole has arrived on the spot, he notices that the killings have changed a little, and thinks there is a different killer. It becomes personal when his ex-wife is murdered, and Campbell finds his fingerprints on the body. Campbell investigates the mysterious Cole, and finds out about a very shady past.
I am not a fan of Steven Seagal. I enjoy action movies, but he is the worst actor I have ever seen. This film is not much fun to watch at all, incredibly dumb, and, obviously, Steven Seagal's acting performance is absolutely horrid. Keenen Ivory Wayans isn't too bad, though. The only redeeming thing in this film is the occasional good action scene, although most come round because of insanely stupid reasons. The plot in this film is absolute gibberish. I didn't care for it at all. The whole "glimmer man" past of Seagal's character was stupid, all the Mafia fights and fights in the restaurant were there for almost no reason. Give this film a miss.
Australian Classification: MA 15+: High Level Violence
Rating: 35 out of 100 (quite generous)


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


user
Two L.A cops track down a serial killer nicknamed "The family man" who has wiped out whole families and when one of the police officer's wife takes the deep six, questions are raised and it turns out that a serial killer isn't responsible but rather mobsters. The idea of Seagal in a serial killer movie is an interesting concept, indeed one could see Seagal play a good serial killer however making him a cop who has a ridiculous penchant for prayer beads and razor sharp credit cards comes off more stupid than likably ridiculous. Also a running joke involves Wayon's enjoyment of eating powdered deer penis and well this raunchy material is utterly out of place. Not to mention the beginning of a school being taken hostage, due to a boy's breakup with his girlfriend. After Seagal neutralizes him, the girlfriend tells the young lad that she loves him. Now there is a lesson to be learned from all of this, if you want your girlfriend back, taking the school hostage may get you back on her good side. I myself would think flowers or the old fashioned phone call might work, then again though, i'm old fashioned. Besides who am I to put a damper on somebody else's brilliant reconciliation plan.
* out of 4-(Bad)


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


user
New Year 2006, and I'm watching Glimmer Man again. Say what you like, I find Steven Seagal's movies amusing. Like many comments, good fight sequences - I particularly liked his answering of the phone at the restaurant saying how long it would be closed for restoration. Bit like Schwarzenegger's humour in the earlier action films - although that tended to be self-deprecating.
But the one I like here is Brian Cox. One of the most versatile actors around. Pity about his hand and foot, but so much for withstanding extended interrogation - must have flunked that class at the "farm".
As the films went on I wonder just how the ever thickening girth of Seagal affected his movement?. Never mind, it's entertainment!.


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


user
A not so good action thriller because it unsuccessfully trends the same water as early Steven Seagal films because there is not a very good set piece. Steven Seagal plays the same kind of character that he has played since Above the Law. In my opinion the performance of Keenen Ivory Wayans is wasted in such an average film and belongs in a much better film. Bob Gunton is okay as the main heavy. The best acting in the entire film belongs to Brian Cox who is very frightening in the role of the murderer. My favorite scenes are the fight scenes with the Russian mafia. One of the film reasons to see The Glimmer Man(1996) is for the brief appearence of the beautiful and voluptupus Nikki Cox. Its too bad that there were not more scenes with her in them.


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


user
Imagine if you will an alternative universe where someone has made SEVEN where instead of a talented cast and crew they've cast a politically conscious environmentalist and a stand up comedian as the leads . If your imagination can't stretch that far just watch THE GLIMMER MAN as it's the next worse thing
!!!! MILD SPOILERS !!!!
Jack Cole is a cop with a hidden past and it's very ironic that he's played by Steven Seagal since he's also someone witrh a hidden past , but don't tell anyone because it's top secret . Perhaps the biggest secret is how someone like Seagal became a movie star in the first place since THE GLIMMER MAN continues in the vein of all of Seagal's other movies in that it's utter , utter crap . Look at the way he's introduced as his partner walks into his office " Yoi love beads man . In you're in the wrong office " Steven replies with something that is side splittingly witty , or he would if anyone was able to understand a bloody word he said because for much of the movie he just mumbles away . In fact the only time I could make out his dialogue was the scene at the school where he bursts in on the gunman holding the class hostage
" Don't make me kill you "
Is this what a cop would say to a suicidal gunman ? I'm just thinking that in another movie where Steven isn't the hero ( ie A good movie ) the cop would say something along the lines of " Don't kill me , I've got a wife and a couple of kids waiting at home " . So anyway suicidal gunman goes to blow his head off but Steven saves his life by hurtling them both through two sets of windows . It goes without saying that you shouldn't try this at home
As the story progresses Steven ( I've given up on calling him Jack though credit to the screen writer for giving Steven a sensible name ) becomes involved in a case a plagiarism where someone has been stealing bits out of other superior movies featuring serial killers . As Steven finds more victims you can see him thinking " What was that movie that starred Morgan Freeman as a cop ? " as he inspects the bodies , oh and the action keeps switching back to the hero's domestic life just so we know that this guy's good as a family man , this guy's very good as a family man such a pity he's so bad as a movie star


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


user
Typical Steven Seagal fare: that is, it's crap. The plot relies on a series of incredibly improbable coincidences; there's a hefty dose of conspiracy theory which would be much more palatable if we didn't know that Seagal takes it all literally; and once again, bad-movie multi-millionaire Seagal tells us all about the evils of The Rich.
Seagal's survival relies, as usual, on the fact that Bad Guys never fire their guns from out of arm's reach, and always like to give a little "I'm gonna kill you" speech before blowing a man's head off.
Watch this one right after the even-worse *Fire Down Below* and note how the carpet in Keenen Ivory Wayans's apartment is more flammable than a big puddle of gasoline.
Oh, and watch in the final fight scene for the Incredible Disappearing Forehead Wound, which is probably the most entertaining thing in 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
Kennan Ivory Wayans was so funny in Low Down Dirty Shame that I had to see this one and it was one of the worst he has done and Steven Seagal didn't help much. It starts off with some odd religious killings that don't make much sense to Jim Campbell (Keenan). He is surprised to see a new partner waiting for him to work by his side to crack the case but Jack Cole doesn't seem to be who everyone thinks he is until Jack's ex wife is killed in one of those ritual killings that end up making him the suspect as well. It's the same thing as all of his other movies: Smoke past, CIA involvement and now trying to be a normal cop. Why does Steven dress up like he is from a Western movie? And the prayer beeds on top of that make things a little confusing.


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


user
Maybe it was the excessive weight gain Seagal had put on. Or maybe it was the horrible acting of Wayans in an action flick. Or was it the total lack of chemistry between the two leading characters? These and other considerations lead me to conclude that Seagal should have never made this acting nightmare. True, the story line was good. Yet, as an avid follower of Seagal's career and background, his physical appearance was inconsistent with his genre of clean, pure, healthy Zen Buddhist living, notably in his on screen discussions with Wayans. (Then again his real life affair with the "nanny" was inconsistent also!)
If Seagal wants to become a more diversified actor, then he should do what a fellow action figure did in "Kindergarten Cop"...put humorous material or situations in the script where the actor has no choice but to react in a comical way. Otherwise, leave the wise-cracks and the futile attempts at humor out of it while chasing a serial killer. Seagal is not a natural humor type of guy. It did not work.



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


user
This (allegedly) based-on-a-true story TV movie concerns a woman on the run from the FBI and a *seriously* stupid guy.
First, we have Roger Paulson (Tim Matheson), a "regular guy" type with a mind-numbing job, an ex-wife, a kid he hardly ever gets to see and some cats.
Next, there is "Elaine-Lisa-you name it" (Tracy Pollan), a smart, sexy, good looking woman whose tongue would burst into flame if she ever told the truth.
Roger and Lisa meet when she answers a lonely-hearts ad. Roger is one of these poor saps who can't seem to handle living alone, so after his wife dumped him, he places his ad.
It doesn't take long for Roger to figure out that Lisa is *not* a good person, but he has no idea how to get rid of her. He doesn't even have enough sense to change the locks on his apartment door after he throws her out.
Go ahead and watch this if you don't have anything else to do.



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


user
Although a well produced made for television movie, Dying to Love You reeks with low grade melodramatic splendor.
The film opens up to Roger Paulson (Tim Matheson, looking much older than I remember him to be), who is a struggling businessman that leads an empty, lonely life after his wife Ruthie (who looks suspiciously like Roseanne Arnold) leaves him with the quickness. Now all Roger has is his cats....and his ad in the newspaper.
Once his ad is answered, he calls Johnnie-Elaine-Lisa-oh it doesn't matter I'm whoever you want me to be-Lawrence. Then...they have phone sex.
I'm not sure where you're from or when you were born, but I remember that phone-sex bit was played out by the late '80's. I'm sorry but that was trashy.
Soon Roger and the broad hook up and have a whirlwind romance. They fall in love, visit the zoo to see gorillas, and then have some kinky sex with Roger's son in the other room. She ties him to the bed and seduces him.
Roger is just so stupid that he does not realize that Johnnie-Eliane is just a bimbo that loves to sleep around. God forbid women only sleep with one man. Soon enough, strange phone calls begin to occur, Johnny Girl wants Roger to marry her with absolute quickness, and she keeps ranting and raving about her ex-husband who used to beat her. It's funny to see Roger believe her through all this stuff. That's until a frumpy co-worker tells him to go snooping through her belongings like a nosy housewife. He takes her crappy advice and lo and behold, he finds a suitcase crawling with fake ID cards and wigs and guns and a crossbow. He immediately takes the suitcase to the police and has her arrested. Even though all this jazz, he still loves the dumb broad. She tells so much lies, it seems her tongue will catch fire if she tells the truth once.
Roger goes on with his life and meets an ugly woman named Angela who looks like something off of Gremlins 2. She has a child as well and Roger takes quite a liking to her. But something inside Roger's subconscious keeps him connected to Lisa Rohn (if that's even her real name) and he keeps going back to see her.
Now Lisa is the "ex that won't go away" as she "earns" herself a get out of jail free card and shows up at Roger's doorstep and his son Matt is so busy trying to check her out, he pours juice all over the floor. IL' Rog is so stupid, he throws Lisa out and doesn't even change the locks. Boy, if all people were that stupid, I wouldn't even be writing this review. The ending of this movie is so corny, you won't believe.
Tim Matheson is a Made-for-TV-Movie king. he just looks like such a dawm mummy in this movie. He's a little wooden and stiff. The dazzling Tracy Pollan works well with her role and her trampiness rings true. She is extremely beautiful and I do see what Michael J. Fox sees in her.
This movie is great to watch when you're on that late night tip, but then again, you might fall asleep, considering how dull and bland it is.


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


user
Okay, so this was made way back in 1993. Directed loosely by Robert Iscove and written loosely by John Miglis, it's supposed to be based on a true story. Hard to believe anyone could be so stupid and blind to the truth. For certainly it was obvious from the beginning that this dame was after all she could get.
Tim Matheson, looking somewhat older than I remember him, played the empty headed man who was looking for romance in his somewhat dull and empty life. Well, it came to him in the likes of Tracy Pollan, a somewhat vacant looking girl with kinky sex as her means of conquering her guys.
Come on, phone sex, even in the 90s was old hat. Can't believe someone would fall for that old line. But Mr. Matheson seemed to buy it. And it cost him plenty.
The hardest scene to take was when he finally threw the dame out of his apartment, putting all her junk in the hallway (IN FRONT OF HIS APARTMENT) and then had the stupidity not to change the locks. That's when I had enough of this trite movie. It made me want to wish the dame had tried it on me so I could have the satisfaction of telling her to take a hike.
I give this chestnut a 1 out of 100. That's how bad I thought it was. I guess you can't blame the actors. But they were awful. Did they actually try to play this with a straight face?


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 hire out this movie along with a few other old horror movies.This was the worst,some of the killings were good and theres a bit of humour but i couldnt stand this,everytime a killing happened they would show scenes of all these old movies that the killer used to be in,i give this 2/10.


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


user
The ABC gears up it's repertory company for another unrealistic representation of rural Australia. Yes folks, it's all there Baca Bourke (Jeremy Sims,an actor of little talent) Fire hero , Lill (Libby Tanner plays Bronwyn Craig in the bush), Fifi (Nadia Townsend) town slut, preggers by Baca's brother Joe (I think). Then there's Uncle Geoff the, Big Daddy of Lost Springs. Uncle Geoff's scenes are like Tennessee Williams on speed. Only saving grace is Russian actress Natalia Novikova as Baca's loony missus. She is great. I can't understand why John Waters took the gig as Lilly's psychologist husband. Must have needed the money I expect! Still, he won't last long as Lill and Baca will be having it off toute suit. Just watch this lemon to see how bad an Aussie show can be. Frankly, I'm ashamed.


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 say at the outset that I'm not a very artistic person and that I don't "get" new art. That being said, this film is absolutely crazy, and in my opinion not crazy in a good way. Filmed entirely in black and white with a series of very loosely connected stories, Avida is a film for those who can look at modern art and say "wow, I feel the energy and passion of this painting." The only reason I give this film a 3 out of 10 is because I actually did manage to laugh at some parts, though mainly laughing at the sheer insanity of the film. Two of the characters throwing chairs on a lawn, as to do what these characters were doing, I have no idea. I wouldn't recommend this film to anybody.


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


user
Avida is a game of words mingling life and eagerness, but I personally think this movie was overblown by its ambition and does not make justice to its title. It gathers a set of awkward characters united by unbelievable links. Furthermore, the way everything is connected at the end is, in my opinion, a bit pathetic. What remains of it was a set of images... an interesting one, but not enough to make this a good movie.
I believe this film is supposed to be a comedy, but I surely didn't noticed! The nonsense and caricatural nature of the movie is actually the only good thing about it, but when it drags on an on and on it becomes no longer bearable. I have to say I fought hard to continue seeing it until the end, and I am still not sure it was 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
If you are planning to schedule your program for a film festival, do not be misled by what it says in the booklet. This is a complete waste of time and energy. I have watched Bunuel, I have seen Dali, and admired them; but this isn't surrealism, this is not supposed to BE at all. Didn't they ever think about the reputation of human race while taking this picture? After we become extinct by global warming, these will be the remainings of our civilization. What if the aliens sample this as an example of our intellectual capital? With all due respect to the effort put in this, maybe it would be a good idea to terminate all the copies of this film - or whatever it is.


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


user
Set in a post apocalyptic future, the new highlander is an effeminate little twerp named Quentin MacLeod, who is being mentored by a new Ramirez while his little sister tags along on their quest to thwart an evil immortal overlord. To do so, Quentin must absorb all the knowledge of other immortals before this overlord, Korton, does.
In short, this is pure crap, much like the Highlander sequels. Quentin is a fairly stupid character, constantly whining and moaning and bitching in a "woe is me for I am a reluctant hero" kind of way, and he never catches on to the fact that he's an immortal and can't be killed, at least not easily. Ramirez would have done better to ditch him and thwart Korton himself.


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 had the biggest advertising campaign any movie ever had in Russia. "Epic movie about Russian culture", "Great saga of Russian spirit", endless articles and interviews. For me this movie was the biggest disappointment. The main character played by Oleg Menshikov is a stupid immature boy ready to set up his comrades because of a woman who doesn't even look like a lady. What is there to admire? In the first part of the movie the story doesn't develop at all. People's festival scenes look like boasting about Russian audacity.
I respect Mr. Mikhalkov for his previous works both as actor and director, but this movie just demonstrates his ambitions to be considered the "Tzar" of Russian cinema.


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


user
I saw this ego-centric "effort" at achieving a film of "epic" status in the company of several native Russian family members. Five people gave 5 different reactions, from Mikhalkov worship to my cynicism.
I saw a movie that looked like Mikhalkov took a lot of "Canal +" money, put some of it in his (and other's) pockets and turned the project over to a bunch of film students. I counted at least 4 different "styles" in the movie. There is no way that the same director is responsible for these different scenes. Contrast these for yourself:
·Cadets polishing shoes with a dog.
·Train station scene (saying goodbye to Andrei).
·Outdoor panorama shots.
·Ormond talking through the keyhole.
·Initial attempt on the Grand Duke and later chase scenes to get Andrei back to sing in Figaro.
·Fencing sequence
Julia Ormond is faster than superman. Learning about his transfer belatedly, she gets all the way across Moscow in one minute to say goodbye to Andrei.
The Russian natives felt that the impression given of Russian life was "caricature" and not history. They called it "tourist postcard" Russia.
They were all proud that a Russian director/producer/fixer has managed to break into the "big time" and be able to waste over 30 million dollars of other people's money while maybe putting a little into local pockets during filming.
If you want to "think" you have seen Russia go see this movie. Drink some coffee before you go.


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


user
Most critics have written devastating about that Michalkov-movie, but I wanted it to see myself. And, unfortunately, they are right. The film had the greatest budget ever in Russian movie history, two international stars, colorful mass scenes, apparently shot quite close to the Kremlin - but in the end it appears to be a nice, sweet nothing. You would not believe, that this director earlier has made masterpieces like Urga and Burnt By the Sun. The characters in the storyline are not convincing, neither Jane nor McCracken nor Andrej. Only general Radlov worth being mentioned. It remains on the surface all the time. Politically it is to me a glorification of the army, and especially the Russian one with values like honor and duty. And, having lived at least half a year in Siberia: My Russia is much more than the one that is depicted in Michalkovs movie. Regarding "Burnt By The Sun" by the same director as a no-question-10-points-movie, one of the best I ever seen in my entire life, I was totally disappointed by that one. Sorry. Nevertheless, Michalkovs unique talent in delivering amazingly beautiful pictures is still there.


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 suffers from the fact that for years Hollywood had no clue as to how to package Jackie Chan for the masses. His low-budget Hong Kong movies were all fast-paced kinetic thrillers that highlight his amazing gymnastic skills and talent for light comedy. His early Hollywood films stuck him in the same movies that were being packaged for Stallone or Chuck Norris. There is nothing about Chan's character in this movie that requires the character to be Asian except for his being the star. In his Hong Kong films Chan is never dull, with the movies being one rapid-fire martial arts sequence after another, but "The Protector" is lifeless throughout. Danny Aiello isn't given much to work with either and the lacking chemistry between the two probably is more a result of the script and direction than how the two actors got on together. Both have been better in worse movies. The best thing about the movie is the Hong Kong settings. The worst part is the appalling way that Jackie Chan comes off so colorless and drab. It wouldn't be until the made-in-Canada "Rumble in the Bronx" that the west would finally figure out how to make a good Jackie Chan movie.


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


user
THE PROTECTOR. You hear the name. You think, "ah, it's a crappy Hong Kong movie." Guess what - it's not Hong Kong. And yes, it is crappy. This amazingly stupid Jackie Chan film, ruined by us, yes us, the Americans (I'm boiling with anger, ooh, I think I'll jump out that window!), has Chan as a New York cop hunting down a gang, avenging the death of his buddy. Sounds cool...but it's not. Don't waste your money renting it. To prove he could make a better cop film, Chan made the amazing POLICE STORY (1985).


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 very mediocre Jackie Chan film and one of his absolute worst James Glickenhaus ruined it!. All the characters are decent i guess, but the story is so so, however Jackie Chan is still amazing in this even if he did look bored. Jackie and Danny Aiello had zero chemistry together, and it was very boring a lot of times, however the finale was above average and managed to be fairly entertaining, and had some good stunts!. I have not yet seen the Hong Kong version, however i'm sure it's better then this dud, plus the twist is very predictable!. It's really lifeless and bland, and i don't blame Jackie for not looking happy in this, and if he didn't star in this it would have been unbearable and completely unwatchable. The opening is supposed to be memorable, but it's nothing i haven't seen before and done better at that, and i thought the whole film was rather lazy and could have been an awesome film if Jackie had control of it!, plus i really didn't root for any of the characters. This is a very mediocre Jackie Chan film, and one of his absolute worst James Glickenhaus ruined it!, not recommended even for Die hard Jackie Chan fans. The Direction is terrible!. James Glickenhaus does a terrible job here, with extremely bland camera work, bad angles, and keeping the film boring for the most part throughout. The Acting is so so. Jackie Chan is AMAZING as always, however he is not his usual energetic self, and looks bored and Ps*ed off throughout the film, had zero chemistry with Danny Aiello, and i really don't blame him either! (Jackie Rules!!!!!). Danny Aiello is OK here, as Jackie's partner, but his character is a bit of an ass, and he had zero chemistry with Jackie, he did OK i guess. Roy Chiao is decent as the main villain, but was just going through the motions and wasn't all that menacing, he still is damn cool though. Rest of the cast are average at best. Overall Not worth your time or money. *1/2 out of 5


assistant
0