empathielabs/imbd_dataset_v0 huggingface dataset:
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I got to watch this one without commercial interruption, and let me tell you, even for a TV movie it was pretty predictable. The actors did a workmanlike job with what they had, and the cast was pretty accomplished -- Barry Bostwick, Jane Seymour, Frances Fisher, etc. However, the script was not only predictable (except for the last scene), but the dialogue was treacly and sounded as if it was lifted from a third-rate romance novel. Jane Seymour's psychotic monologues were laughable. I'm sorry, but I find it hard to believe that anyone that creepy would arouse no suspicions whatsoever. As bad as Theresa Russell was in "Black Widow" -- and she sure stunk it up -- she at least had the sense to play her pseudo-characters somewhat straight. Seymour is a much better actress but didn't overcome the material here.
Lastly, the musical score is incredibly cheesy. It's almost a satire of its genre, like a Kenny G meltdown. A movie with such a lackluster and derivative script really should have gone for something edgier.


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


user
Debra Winger's 1987 "Black Widow" is MUCH better.
This is like a lame version, and Jane Seymour usually does better.
Chad Allen is pretty poor in this too. Just playing his usual role as a boring rebellious child.
Maybe the both of them being from Dr. Quinn was supposed to make us get excited.
If it's on, go grab a copy of "Black Widow".


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 film last night and came online specifically to see if others thought it was as awful as I did.
Granted, obviously some people see a lot in this film that I didn't, so if you're one of those people, fine - good luck to you. But I'm a patient person. I've enjoyed extremely long films before. But this was an exercise in torture for me.
I honestly felt that this was one of those films with little to say, and that it was more about style than substance - however, the style, too, made me feel like tearing my hair out. Pretty much anything interesting that happens during the course of the film happens OFF-SCREEN. It's like a deliberate attempt to make a film entirely from outtakes - the bits that would usually be reserved for the deleted scenes section of a DVD, if they were shown to the public at all.
You don't even get to find out, in the end, ANYTHING about the main character, Francois. I had no sympathy for any of the characters in this film, except perhaps the violinist & his goat, and the old man who believes that octopuses live to 300 because they're really smart. Seriously, I was excited when it cut to a shot of Francois holding a gun to his head. I felt so ripped off when even his inevitable suicide turned out to be gut-wrenchingly boring.
Oh, and where was the editor? Off smoking opium, too? I swear, I almost screamed every time I was subjected to an extended shot of absolutely nothing happening, except perhaps someone pacing backwards and forwards, and then FINALLY there would be a very abrupt cut to the next scene, and it would be A YEAR LATER, and WE'D MISSED EVERYTHING INTERESTING THAT HAPPENED IN THE MEANTIME, and everyone was STILL wearing the SAME BLOODY CLOTHES....!?!?!???
So, in conclusion, if you liked it - great. But this review is intended as an antidote to the fawning "you'll love this film if you love cinema" dross I've seen posted here and elsewhere. (See? I hated the film and I STILL included a sly winking reference to its content!)


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


user
Well , of course everybody is entitled to have an opinion about a thing ...everything. The presentation was interesting : black and white movie , the year 1968 , students manifestations , general strike , youth , ideals, love.....etc. Sorry but I did not sense LOVE , ROMANCE . A lover who is all right that his girlfriend sleeps with no matter who ? That is love ? But not only that , the movie is very long and for no reason , I had to stop watching the movie several time because I simply lost interest. I waited for something to happen but .......NOTHING. The only thing I was impressed during the movie : Gypsy fiddler playing in the streets , yes that was nice. I do not think that art should be complicated , encrypted , hidden in secret meanings , confusing .Big disappointment and waste of time !


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 clearly a French film. It is about young group of idealist/revolutionary/anarchistic people. It moves very slowly. Long takes. LOng closeups. A minute or more devoted to an attempt to light a pipe full of hash/opium. A long take on how a group overturns a car and burns it. It is a black and white film. The subtitles were white, so about a third of the time they were unreadable. (Why do they do this?) I walked out after about an hour and three quarters when it became clear that this picture was going nowhere, slow. I was not the first to walk out. It was the first time I walked out of a picture in my long lifetime. (Well, maybe the second.)


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 at the Toronto Inter. Film Festival in Sept. 2005. The description seemed intriguing--how wrong I was! This could easily be the worst movie I have ever seen--in 50 years! I see the director is my age (b. 1948) and lived with Nico of the Velvet Underground, which leads us to Andy Warhol, which coincidently is the one I thought of while watching this--Warhol's 24+ hour movies of nothing much happening. This is not art, this is boredom.
Specifically: black & white. OK, maybe...but what is the purpose here? Surely they had color in 1968! And there is no contrast with the present. And yes, the subtitles were in white, naturally. I don't think I missed much, but that made about 20% of them illegible.
Next, it's pure chronological order, but with seemingly random events thrown in. What's the purpose of the conversation with the old man at the dinner table? It adds nothing to the movie. There were many similar scenes--almost like someone took a camcorder and filmed random people and spliced them together to make a movie.
Plot? None. The "riot" consists of some figures in the distance occasionally heaving a rock off screen. Mostly it's an excruciating length of time watching people (in the distance!) stand around. The repetitive opium smoking is just as boring. When the main character got a cute girlfriend, I perked up, but no, she was boring too! This is perhaps the only French film I've seen where no one takes off their clothes. Probably they were too bored to bother.
Romance? None. The girl seems totally indifferent to everything--maybe her sculpture holds some interest, but if it does, we're not shown that. We are completely indifferent to the fate of the characters because they are all unappealing. Maybe that's the point of all this?


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


user
I caught this film late at night on HBO. Talk about wooden acting, unbelievable plot, et al. Very little going in its favor. Skip it.


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


user
"The Patriot" staring Steven Segal is a late 90's thriller/action movie that is not really a thriller and not really an action movie; rather it is Steven Segal playing Steven Segal by another name, but this time he is a Native American country doctor who kicks butt every now an again. Baring the obvious plot line holes, the movie itself is absolutely amazing in terms of the blatant disregard for character devolvement.
From a marketing standpoint, I was left asking myself, "who in the world were they aiming at?" The bio-thriller plot-line is way off the mark for the middle America crowd and Segal as silk cowboy would never sell to anyone even if you deep fried him and put him between a kripsy-cream donut. The whole movie is just way out there, even for Segal fans, because it simply does not deliver on any level.


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


user
The Patriot (nothing to do with the Mel Gibson film of the same name) came out Steven Seagal was still doing that 'saving the environment' thing in his movies. Which is fine. But it doesn't make for good action.
When the plot(?) of this film finally kicked in I saw the twist(?) coming a mile off. Seagal's anti-warfare, care-for-mother-nature stance is not very subtle. For a film that was originally going to debut in the cinemas it is shot very much like a TV movie despite some wonderful shots of the country by Dean Semler, the photographer of Dances with Wolves.
Steven Seagal does like 1 fight scene in the entire film and it's totally boring. As an action film it fails, as a drama it stinks, as an environmental message it's obvious. Avoid like Ebola crossed with plague.


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


user
Steven Seagal's intent is to be commended, and his acting in this film is equal to that in many of his others, if you ignore the fact that he is supposedly portraying a brilliant scientist. The problem I had was with two items of the plot, which stretched my suspension of disbelief beyond the breaking point.
First, how is it that a carefully engineered variation on a nasty germ, whose antidote must be just as carefully researched and engineered by a big lab, is cured by drinking tea from a flower growing high in the mountains? and that Grandpa's family seem to be about the only people who know anything about this?
Second, and this one really takes the cake: Having gathered up enough of the cure to fix a whole town, wouldn't you expect the army to land the helicopter and start rushing bags of flowers to all the homes in this small town? No, they instead decide to sprinkle the flowers all over the town and force the sick people to go out and gather them up all over again. Just plain silly, unless under Native belief the power in the drug somehow depends on one's having gone out and gathered the flowers oneself.
Add in the cardboard nature of the villains and the unsuitability of the title, and you might think my vote on this movie is actually high.


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 known fact, Mr. Seagal cannot smile, he can act, he can kick butt, there are faint smiles, no real smiles no laughing out loud and no real point of watching this confusing movie. We see an over weight Mr. Seagal as Dr. Wesley Maclaren, who is in desperate need of a haircut and his real daughter Ayako made an appearance as his office assistant. Story: Okay so Wesley lives in another darn outback with his sweet daughter Holly. They sit and enjoy their red flower tea and omelettes and on the other end of town some over weight militia leader decides to make the whole town sick by spreading a virus that travels by air and kills in a matter of 2 days thinking he can survive as he had an antidote. Problem, there is no antidote and the one that exists only holds back the virus for a while. The CIA are contacted and even they can't help and only one person isn't ill, Wesley's daughter Holly. So she gets hunted thinking the cure is in her blood. Wesley manages to grab his daughter and take her to her grandfather, who is a native indian. Together with his sister in law Ann they go to a base where there is a hidden lab to find a cure but even the soldiers there are dying slowly and so will others if they don't find a cure in time. And to shorten the moment, neither Ann or Wesley are infected by the virus...hmm. One weak fight scene. Terrible movie and all the men in it are in desperate need of a stair master.


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


user
You get a good portion of Steven Seagal environmental anxieties, and some breathless mountain views along with cow-boy scenes (or alternatively use parts of any remains of the HORSE WHISPERER). You then add a large piece of OUTBREAK virus or similar (attention it must be more lethal and at least Biohazard Level 4) wrapped around a fat Militia group leader. You add one teaspoon of martial arts, and a zip of explosions and gunfire for the taste. Add the classic red Indian herbs for the extra taste. Serve immediately.
What is the name of the film you get ?: The Patriot. Perhaps the worst film of Steven Seagal. I am sure that Seagal tried to say something in this film except the usual I-am-a-cook (but-also-an-ex-seal) but his recipe was confusing and the taste was awful.


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


user
[POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT]
It's unlikely that Seagal will ever again scale the heights of lousitude he did with *On Deadly Ground* (mainly because no one's ever going to let him direct again), but he sure tries, don't he?
This one's a typically brainless and badly-written little fantasy about how Indian folk remedies are much more effective than Western medicine. Seagal seems to actually believe this nonsense, although he never explains why life expectancy in the Americas and Europe is so much higher than it was in 1492.
Kinda like he never explains how his supposed "water-fueled engines" work in *On Deadly Ground*.
Even the "action" in this one sucks.


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


user
Forget the fact that most people expect an action movie form Seagal. This movie simply had no substance. Very long, drawn out, and boring. Scenes were much longer than they had to be - the camera would often focus on something for long periods of time when absolutely nothing was happening. Cure for insomnia. Worst Seagal movie by far (I do like some of his other movies). 1/10


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


user
Seagal was way off the mark with this film. I'm a fan of his and come to expect cool fight scenes and sharp one liners but this film had none of this, instead it had injections and cheesy music. Even if you're a fan of his i strongly recommend you keep away from this film and watch under siege or even on deadly ground instead.


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


user
Since I am not a big Steven Seagal fan, I thought this was a pretty good movie. It is apparent that his fans are very displeased with this drama that lacks an over abundance of martial arts and brute force.
Gailard Sartain plays a self claimed patriot leader of a militia in a standoff with the ATF for weapons violations. He surrenders with the intentions of releasing a deadly virus. Seagal is a former CIA agent turned country doctor that pressures himself to find the antidote for the lethal bug that has incapacitated a small town. His Grandpa's Native American herbal remedy figures into the salvation.
Notable appearances by L.Q. Jones, Camilla Belle and Silas Weir Mitchell. My personal favorite in this movie is Whitney Yellow Robe. She is stunning and appears to have what it takes to take on a more challenging role.
Despite the far fetched ending, this was a decent movie that could have used a lot more action.


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 without a doubt the worst action film I have ever seen. I am sorry, but it is just pathetic. In fact, the best part of the movie (this movie is supposed to be a serious one) is when a chicken speeds across the road, on foot, at about 100 miles per hour. This pathetic editing mistake makes the film absolutely hilarious for approximately 2 seconds, then it is back to "non stop, on the edge of your seat, as you try to find a comfortable position to sleep in, action!"


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


user
Steven Seagal has made a really dull, bad and boring movie. Steven Seagal plays a doctor!!!!!!???! This movie has got a few action-scenes but they are poorly directed and have nothing to do with the rest of the movie. A group of American Nazis spread a lethal virus, which is able to wipe out the state of Montana. Wesley(Seagal`s character)tries desperately to find a cure, and that is the story of The Patriot. The Patriot is an extremely boring film, because nothing happens. It is filled with boring dialogue, and illogical gaps between events, and stupid actors. Steven Seagal has totally scre#¤d up in this movie, and I would not recommend this guff to my worst enemy. 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
Apart from some quite stunning scenery, this Steven Seagal vehicle is devoid of reasons to spend any time watching it. For a Seagal movie it has very little (almost no) action but he does put in some reasonable (for him) acting in contrived character development scenes. Not recommended. To anyone.


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


user
Wow, I haven't seen a movie this bad since "Fire Down Below". Wait, that's a Seagal movie too. Like "On Deadly Ground" and "Fire Down Below", Seagal centers the movie around his environmental awareness message and how the military, FBI, and CIA are incompetent idiots. Problem is that both reality and a sensible plot are secondary to whatever gobbleygook social commentary Seagal is trying to get across.


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


user
The most stupid of Seagal's movies I've ever seen. The final scene is just crescendo of stupidity. My recommendation - if you really like Steeve Seagal's movies, NEVER , NEVER rent or buy this one - do not repeat my mistake and keep a good impression of him, which I've lost


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


user
Dr Steven Segal saves the world from a deadly virus outbreak. This movie strikes me as foolish earnestness that has morphed into an unintended camp classic (the best kind). Memorable lines include "Knowledge is like a deer. Chase it, and it will run away from you" and "Drink this. It will make you feel better." It is so sublimely bad -- they couldn't have made it any worse if they tried.
Segal tries to convince you that he is 1. sensitive -- by saving a stricken pony; 2. a good father -- by a saccharine cooking scene for his daughter; 3. a man of science -- by looking at a fake spectrum; 4. in tune with nature -- by using homeopathic remedies; 5. politically correct and multicultural -- by having Indian friends; 6. an iconoclast -- by opening a rural practice after a former life in a national research lab; and 7. an action hero -- by being really fat but yet can still fight. ROTFL.
It's good to see on as a late-night Saturday flick, with friends, preferably (but not necessarily!) inebriated.


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


user
I discovered "The Patriot" in a DVD-store and thought it could be a real action thriller. No, it´s instead a low budget movie with a ridiculous story. It´s no doubt a cable-movie and not one for the theatre. Fortunately after 90 minutes the movie stops otherwise the audience should have taken an anti-virus against sleep. One thing came over: it was the nice country the film has been shot. You can really feel the American air but that´s all. I hope for Steven Seagal that he finally succeeds in a big hit. It is not a must see because I and my wife voted average 4/10.


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


user
I don't know about the rest of the viewers of this movie but personally I'm dead sick and tired of Steven Seagal films. When Above the Law came out, it was a great action film. Wahoo. Now in the Patriot, Steven Seagal plays Steven Seagal from Above the Law. I get tired of seeing no character changes. It's the same character, time after time, after time. He needs change. This movie was probably one of the worst action films I have ever seen. Calling it an action movie is giving it almost too much credit because there's too few action scenes and they're spread far apart throughout the film. I guess they wanted to go for some drama but it was a meaningless try as the film portrays nothing but the regular squinty-eyed-Steven-Seagal we've seen thousands of times over. Get a new look and lose the pony tail is all I have to say, I definitely do not recommend viewing this film in any form, go out to eat, heck, rent Barney goes to Vegas but do not under any circumstances rent this movie under the precept that Seagal will make a great performance.


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


user
Okay, some other people have commented that this isn't an action flick, so I don't need to rehash that (even though I just did). This isn't exactly a let down, in fact, it's nice on occasion to see an actor try something different. But, unfortunately, this isn't one of those occasions.
Now, the story: non-existent. This film lacks in storyline almost as much as 'Showgirls' did. Sure, they throw in a couple environmentalist, no, not even environmentalist, something else, tidbits here and there to please Seagal (being that that's what he's into). This doesn't make a story, not even close. Now, the ending... Even those amongst us who actually liked this film... the ending, you have to admit it was a bit much, or a lot stupid.
Now, from what I understand this was a direct-to-video film (at least in the states), but this is even too good for this one. This piece of garbage should have been cable only, on TBS or Starz (late night).


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


user
Steven Seagal played in many action movies. Most of them were bad but not bad as The Patriot. This one is a Z-series action low-budget movie. After Operation Delta Force, Act of War, The Substitute 2, Plato's Run, The Base, Drive, Sabotage, etc comes The Patriot. Now Steven Seagal is sure to be considered as a bad actor like Mark Dacascos, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Treat Williams, Jack Scalia, Gary Busey, Chuck Norris, Michael Madsen and many others. The scenario was full of holes and the characters were not realistic (maybe because of the very bad actors) and the 4.25 bucks you spend by renting The Patriot are called Lost Money!!! I give it 0and a half( for laughs) out of 5.


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


user
Seems Sensei Seagal is getting more and more moralising and less "action packed". To date this has to be his worse movie... no action, a poor story line, an impossible plot and to make things worse, one of the CHEEZIEST endings I have ever seen.
Seagal films are like seeing a Dirty-Harry, you do not go see it for the great social causes or impeccable acting... you want a good action flick.
On a scale of 1 to 10, this one gets a 1...


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


user
I remember when this came out it was the first kung fu film ever seen around our way and we were all excited about seeing it for sure .Although the action was mediocre at best it gave us our first taste of kung fu and our first taste of bad dubbing as well as bad film making or more precisely the way Chinese people were making films at the time . They were admittedly inferior wlthout question but there was entertainment value here and that caught on for sure . The kung fu craze had begun and Bruce Lee and ''The Chinese Connection'' would soon follow either that or ''The Chinese Boxer'' with Jimmy Wang Yu . In any case this film was chosen to lead the way .


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 indeed the film that popularized kung fu in the 1970s. However, if it ever had any kind of excitement or even halfway interesting plot, it doesn't seem to have aged very well.
Long story short: extremely drawn out, slow-moving, confusing plot with run-of-the-mill choreography, typically annoying and exaggerated whiplash sounds with every punch and kick, and constant "plot twists" that never come to an end. By the time the film reaches its emotional climax, I had long had all the wind knocked out of me to actually care.
Watch it for its historical value as a milestone of Chinese kung fu cinema -- just leave your expectations at the door, or you'll be bitterly disappointed.
For hardcore fans only.


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


user
I really liked this quirky movie. The characters are not the bland beautiful people that show up in so many movies and on TV. It has a realistic edge, with a captivating story line. The main title sequence alone makes this movie fun to watch.


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


user
After hoo-hooing American Indians scalp number one son, frontiersman Bruce Bennett (as Daniel Boone) seems, at first, like he wants to get even; but, he really wants to make friends with the natives. When sad-eyed Indian chief Lon Chaney Jr. (as Blackfish) also loses number one son, it gets more difficult to clear up misunderstandings. Apparently, this was Republic Pictures' attempt to do for their "Daniel Boone, Trail Blazer" what Disney Studio's had successfully done with "Davy Crockett, King of the Wild Frontier" (1955).
The "Dan'l Boone" song, whistled and sung by a group of children in a wagon, did not follow Fess Parker's "Davy Crockett" up the Hit Parade. Singer Faron Young (as Faron Callaway) doesn't perform the title song (perhaps wisely); he does sing "Long Green Valley", and makes a good impression as a blond boyfriend for Boone's daughter. But, Spanish actor Freddy Fernandez is the film's most valuable player. In a cute scene, Mr. Fernandez reminds Mr. Young the name of the character ("Susannah") he is supposed to be in love with.
**** Daniel Boone, Trail Blazer (10/5/56) Ismael Rodríguez ~ Bruce Bennett, Lon Chaney Jr., Faron Young, Freddy Fernandez


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


user
Big D.B. tries to keep peace between the settlers and their red brothers.
Boone (an aging Bruce Bennett) has to try and prove to the local Indian chief (Lon Chaney, Jr., appearing to be drunk, as usual) that his son was killed by the tribe's leading jerk who has also been dealing in rifle-trafficking when nobody's looking. Faron Young sings, though he holds his rifle like it's a mop.
OK western-adventure directed by two guys, neither of whom has many credits on his resume, but this flick ain't too bad and it has a nice short running time of 76 minutes.


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


user
Reports of this film's brilliance appear to have been greatly exaggerated, and unless the other reviewers were watching a different movie, I fail to see how anyone can find this film anything other than dull, unscary, uncreepy, overlong, and at times, unbearably irritating. I'm not some schlocky horror fanatic. I love j-horrors and euro-horrors over American horrors any day, but I feel the need to warn any potential viewers about this film before they invest two hours of their life in it.
It could have been so great. A reporter is investigating a series of bizarre deaths and occurrences, which seem ostensibly unlinked, but a series of unnerving tropes appears to connect them - dead pigeons, thudding noises, the presence of strangely tied knots... Our reporter goes from person to person, interviewing them, filming them and then passing on. Three important characters are among this jumble of people, a young, shy psychic girl, an immensely irritating, insane psychic man, and a crazy old woman and her boy, whose importance is not revealed until later on.
The problem is that the film is not even remotely interesting, which makes its two hour running time unforgivable. It's also not even remotely scary or creepy. Supposedly scary scenes, like shots of ghoulish faces are done incredibly poorly, shown twice, or worse, we are told when they are about to happen. Other techniques, such as telling us that a family just interviewed "died five days later" simply don't make me care, let alone mildly creeped.
The film does pick up a bit towards the end, as our reporter, cameraman, psychic and cursed woman go to a village in order to 'remove' the curse which is linking all these deaths. However, by that time, I was in a state of catatonic boredom, and couldn't care less, so all the fairly creepy camera-work and shocks were wasted on me. The "final tape" is quite good, but once again, I'd given up caring and just wanted this film to end.
Boring and dull, not scary and not creepy, I would advise you keep away from Noroi. It has promising moments, but this is a film that was poorly made and not worth your time.


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


user
I haven't seen any other films by Antonioni and the people that saw this one with me agreed that it shares themes and imagery with the rest of his works. Maybe if I had seen other stuff by him I would have enjoyed this one, knowing what to expect.
I saw it as an almost complete failure for so many reasons. First of all, the film introduces interesting, deep issues about social relationships, feelings, the nature of reality versus fiction, but this is very often done in the clumsiest of ways making the characters speak as if they were delivering speeches, rambling on and on, juxtaposing declarations rather than having dialogues. The scriptwriters seem to be so worried that we will not get the point that they prefer to tell instead of showing.
Secondly, the movie has no rhythm, especially in its first half. It is not only that it is slow. Some slow films have been made with an excellent sense of pace and rhythm (El Sur by Victor Erice Or Scorsese's The Age of Innocence are examples I like), but for that to be successful it is necessary that we find the characters so engaging or the story so moving that we can adapt to it. This does not happen in Beyond the Clouds, where the first episode seems to drag endlessly, and the relationship between John Malkovich's "reality" and the love stories "fiction" is at times fluid, others abrupt, others confusing.


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


user
If rich people are different from us because they have more money, then film makers are different from us because they think the world cares about their every thought.
This self-indulgent piece of tripe seems to have been made just because the director felt it was time to make another movie, and someone would finance it. Not every trivial idea or reflection is worthy of a movie (unless you are a college film student trying to complete a course). When you don't have anything to say, sometimes it is best to remain quiet.
The visuals are not breath-taking. They are quite ordinary. The dialog is inane and unbelievable. They speak words no one would every sequence together in situations that are beyond imagination. Germaine Greer's zipless f**k is finally brought to the screen. Even if you believe in love at first sight, no one falls into bed as easily as these characters. They screw before they talk. Even more unbelievable is an aging, balding director finding instant sex with the most beautiful chick in town, though gravity is already getting to Miss Marceau at a youthful age.


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


user
What a shame. This could have been good. The main problems are the script and the star. The film cannot decide whether to be a slapstick comedy (of a very uninspired and routine kind) or whether to be a insightful satire on the old East Germany and its mores. Its attempts at the latter flop totally, however. The film does not hold together well and the ending is very artificial and unbelievable. Any stereotypes one might have about German comedy are sadly reinforced.
The characters are stereotypes one and all, and the leading character, played by Kim Frank, is colourless in the extreme. He just cannot carry the film and appears to have been chosen largely for his baby face. It may not be all the actor's fault (he is a pop singer), as the script does not give him much to work on.
One plus -- the recreation of the East German 'style' and period is good.
The worst thing is that the film feels somehow dishonest and demeaning. The film seems to have been churned out by people who were not necessarily giving it their best and just wanted to make a quick buck from a few cheap laughs. (If they were giving it their best, it is a sad case indeed!) I watched it at the cinema with an East German audience and I felt sorry for them. The GDR regime was awful in almost all respects, but those who lived through it deserve better than this.


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


user
I didn't expect too much from this movie, but I was still disappointed. It's supposed to be a comedy, but there are only four or five scenes where I actually laughed, and I think that's rather poor. There is no real plot either, I always had the feeling that most of the scenes could have been put anywhere in the movie because there's no connection between them. But the worst thing was the "acting" of Kim Franke. He has ONE facial expression during the whole movie, as if he was supposed to play some retarded guy, but I believe that's not the case. All in all I rate it four out of ten, I've seen worse movies than this, but I wouldn't spend money on this one again.


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


user
As was mentioned before in other comments, the major problem of NVA is that it cannot decide what it wants to be, slapstick of the cheapest kind or an honest parody of the East German Army. There are a couple of moments which are quite moving, for example when one of the recruits returns from the army prison in Schwedt with a completely broken personality. But in the end, Leander Haußmann goes for the infantile humour. No wonder the film flopped at the German box office as it's historically untruthful to the real situation in those training camps and led by an actor who is unfortunately incapable of giving a nuanced performance.
However, there is the camera work of Frank Griebe who - as always - does a wonderful job. If it wasn't for his beautiful images I would have rated the film far worse.


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 have been to the east of Europe (or even in their armed forces), you might find this movie interesting. I don't know why calls this a comedy (sure, there are a few funny moments), but it is not a good movie if one of the orderly officers talks for 15 min about the achievements of socialism on a Christmas dinner, and the officers in general act like funny oafs, the soldiers are running of the base to meet their girls at night, and surprise, surprise, one of the girls is the daughter of the commander. The east German army was known for its abusive and humiliating service of its conscripted men, and the comedy was basically not filmed on the facilities or with the equipment to make a good movie of the east German army and their time now gone by. Despite this, some of the actors and actresses tried to act well, but it came out only in the roles they're known for from East German TV and some small films. I would not recommend this movie to anybody, it was basically boring and very cheap made.


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 expected a comedy about the NVA, but this is a parody. It shows the national army of Eastern Germany in a light that is not appropriate, and definitely not true.
One can make a comedy about everything, as long as the underlying facts are not changed. Even a comedy about the German KZ is possible, as Roberto Benigni with "LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL" has shown.
The movie NVA would be an "OK" comedy, because the jokes in it are overall OK. Nothing special - not hilarious, but enough to live with it.
The point is, that the movie makes a farce and a parody about the NVA. A death machine that was ready to attack WESTERN EUROPE along with it's friend the RED ARMY. An institution that used everything to get the utmost from it's soldiers. An army that marched into the CSPR in 1968, and was ready to march also in POLAND to destroy the SOLIDARNOSC. You can't make a movie without showing the tiniest bit of evil, or would you make a parody about a KZ,Guantanamo or 9/11??? Showing Osama bin Laden as a funny screwed guy? 90 minutes about a funny Osama in a Afghan Taliban camp, where he makes jokes and is training his soldiers would be comparable to what this movie is doing about the NVA!


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


user
A young man, who never knew his birth parents, receives an old farm in an isolated section of West Virginia upon the death of his natural father. He visits his property with a cross-section of potential victims including the comic relief black guy and a trendy lesbian couple. (Hmm, will there be skinny dipping? Take a guess.) Unfortunately, the party comes to an end when the spirits of drifters killed by his evil great-grandfather and used as scarecrows come back for revenge. This film starts out well. An artful montage of depression-era photographs and phony newspapers set against a speech by FDR - this, I believe, is his first appearance in a killer scarecrow movie- establishes the mood. I developed some hopes for the film, which were partially realized. The story was serviceable enough. The setting was sufficiently bucolic. The photography was mostly in focus. The acting, while no great shakes, was slightly above par for horror movies in this budget range. The film might've actually worked within the narrow demands of the genre if the scarecrows were scary. But they weren't They looked cheap. They weren't frightening at all. The better the monster, the better the movie. These scarecrows wouldn't scare Dorothy, let alone Toto.


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


user
Rent this only movie if you're in the mood for laughs (for sheer stupidity) , as this movie wouldn't scare a bunch of kindergartners at a Halloween party! The trouble is, there is too much gore for kiddies, so definitely don't put this in your VCR for the toddlers. It starts off with a little bit of promise, giving you the impression that the box cover artist may have actually started watching this film before designing the cover, but then descends quickly into epic stupidity. The "killer scarecrows" are clumsy oafs that are about as scary as the one in the Wizard of Oz, but not quite as smart. If they'd only had a brain...? I got this movie for $1.20 at a local discount/close-out store and even so, I feel somewhat ripped off. I think with all the other comments posted here, if you actually pay to see this, you can only blame yourself.


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


user
I was in Blockbuster and I saw a film called "Dark Harvest". The cover art looked great, the plot wasn't that bad, and the tagline (You reap what you sow) made the movie look pretty good. But I was dumb that day, because I did something I should have never done. I rented a "Straight To Video Independent Horror Film" Walking out with my much better rentals, I went home, popped Dark Harvest in the DVD player and it began. I figured I would watch the trailer after the film was done (BAD IDEA) but went ahead and watched it anyway. NOW to the review.*POSSIBLE SPOILERS* First off, the acting by the "kids" sucks, and the scene when the 2 (main characters) are talking, the lighting sucks, and the buildings even look fake! Now they go to this house, where Sean Connel's (I think he's the main character, I don't care) relatives lived there. All of a sudden one by one, they all start getting killed by...(gasp) A KILLER SCARECROW!!!! AHHH!!!!! The scarecrow is obviously the definition of low budget, and the scenes where the scarecrow is computerized looks so fake it's hilarious. It makes dinosaur noises and everything! And then at the end...they shoot the scarecrow with a gun (that is red for god's sake and looks like it was purchased at a local family dollar) and it pauses for a while and then.....(gasp) BLOWS UP!!!!!!
Save yourself some time, I'm telling you this movie sucks. if you need to pass an hour and a half, look at the wall, because looking at the wall is A+ fun compared to this disaster. It is quite funny though.
Overall Grade: F If there was anything lower **F-** Than I would give it that.


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 possibly the worst of the worst. I am a huge fan of the horror movie industry and I can believe this movie was allowed to be made. The acting was juvenile and the story completely idiotic. The camera work was also juvenile. One scene that comes to mind is outside a store. It is nighttime and you can see the moon, yet the characters all have shadows that cast on the wall. There was no street light to be seen. One character gets gutted at one point, yet manages to resurface later after removing herself from a post. Come on!!! It felt like I was watching a middle school play. I kept expecting the characters to wave to their family members off camera and mouth "hi mom". I can only give it two positive comments...it ended and it was good for a laugh. Please do not rent 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
Few videos in recent history have been as amateurishly produced as this one -- at least none that have been released by such a reputable distributor. Every frame of this film is a plaguerism of better films of the past. The word 'cliche' is given new meaning by a talentless writer/director who should reserve his imagination for lesser masturbatory efforts that don't victimize film viewers. Assisting in the amateur night 'horror' effort is a number of less than capable technicians who contribute poor cinematography and laughable make-up and special effects. Unfortunately, the one or two of the amateur actors in the film who display a hint of talent that will go unnoticed due to the reputation that this atrocity will produce.


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


user
I think there's a reason this film never came close to hitting theaters. It was probably my neighbors down the street who filmed this movie with their mother's video camera. The acting is very amateur. This movie is definitely not something you would want to watch unless you were extremely bored. The actors even seem to double as directors and crew members, with no "professionalism" whatsoever. Should the director(s) and/or actors choose to continue with their endeavor of making movies, I would definitely advise them to brush up on their skills and perhaps take a few (ok, many) classes on film-making and acting.


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


user
Dark Harvest is about a group of friends that go to a farm(it belongs to one of the friends relatives or something) for a getaway. But there are killer scarecrows lurking there(there was something about a curse in there too but I forgot what that was about).
The acting in this movie is awful, I don't know what the director was thinking when he was casting actors and actresses. The script is the same story as the acting "awful"(this statement coming up is very obvious but..) if there was better acting and a better script this could have turned out "okay".
The directing stunk too, I see no potential in this guy's future. After all these negatives this movie still maintains a "fun" factor that bumps it up to a two. The last plus is they don't use CGI! My overall thoughts on this film are it's bad, real bad, but so bad it's "fun" so it gets a 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
pardon my spelling. This is probably the funniest horror movie that ever existed. Think evil dead * 1000. The acting is horrible, you can see the makeup line on a certain lady's face. there is a lesbian scene, which makes no sense at-all. And the ending, haha ohhhh the ending... be prepared to have your stomach hurting from laughter. Now if you watch this film for more then 5 minutes and are still expecting something, take a look at your self, and ask what the hell is wrong with you. This is a very bad movie, meant to laugh at and enjoy for its pure silliness.
Don't forget to watch all the outtakes after the movie, you can see just how low budget the whole thing really was. All in all this movie is a rare gem in demonstrating the pure and udder lack of talent/care/ability/money/ and anything else you would ever need to make a successful film. But its definitely worth watching.


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


user
Now, I am going to do this without putting spoilers if I can. My cousin and I were renting movies the other weekend, and we stumbled across this, with the big freaking' scarecrow on the cover. It looked cool, so we rented it alongside Kungfu Hustle.
Wow... Just... Wow.
To start off, the movie was horrible. Now, the box art, opening scenes, and music was decent-to-well done, but the movie itself is horrendous. The acting is sub-par (Sean, the lead, shows hardly any emotion and/or effort in his character), the scarecrows look nothing like the one on the cover (False advertising, perhaps?), and the camera shots and angles were that of a bad wrestling event.
And trust me, I'm a wrestling fan. I KNOW bad camera angles. And honestly, this is right up there with Gigli and Pootie Tang. It's done so bad that it AMUSES me. It makes me laugh. So, somehow, this movie takes its place as a good comedy to me.
But, to be fair, it does serve as a what to do and what not to do in movies, especially of the slasher genre. I recommend that people DO watch this, just to get a good grasp of what to avoid.


assistant
0