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
Am I the only person who saw and remembers Amadeus. Every scene in "Copying" has its counterpart in the Milos Forman, Amadeus - from the galloping carriages accompanied by frenzied strings, to the entrance of Anna through the dark hallway preceded by the man with the key, to the very dialog of the conclusion with Anna at Beethoven's feet a la Salieri before the dying Mozart. Does no one else recall the dialog in that script:
Salieri "Time?" , Mozart "Common time". ....."We begin with the strings..." and so it "copies".
Remember Cynthia Nixon leaning against a door jamb, tears falling down her freckled face - same scene, just replace her with Beethoven's nephew. Even the scatological humor (fart jokes) are the same. We even have a cardinal followed around by a plate of sweet cookies which recalls Salieri in the banquet hall. Does no one else remember? !!!!
And the scene where Anna cries to God "Why did you give me this gift?"... Salieri said the same thing!
And beyond all that we have a juvenile script with an opening exposition that reads like the character identifications you'd find in a children's story. "I am Mr. Beethoven. I am the composer...."
And what, after all, is the purpose of the bridge builder? Other than to juxtapose the technical against the artistic... a comparison that is not at all developed - probably because it has no meaning, especially when it comes to Beethove who was a master of the technical.
There's only one great scene - the playing of the ninth. First, the music, which of itself takes you to tears. But then, there is the highly erotic interaction of Anna the copyist keeping time and Beethoven conducting which surpasses the most explicit sexual intimacy. So intense, it's almost embarrassing.
But, please - the rest of the film - Where is the world's collective memory? You have seen this all before .... and better!


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


user
According to "Lucien Rebatet" in his "Histoire de la Musique" (Robert Lafont, BOUQUINS 1973 page 338) Beethoven's character was not very compatible with women. He had quite a number of "Platonic Passions" with female members of the "Vienese Aristocracy" to whom he dedicated some "sonatas". But Musicians , even composers did not qualify for Husbands of "Fine Ladies". Haydn was a "servant" of Prinz Von Esterhazy, Mozart died from drink or Poison and Bethoven was according to Rebatet a frequent customer of "street prostitutes" in Vienna. A British biographer, Newman says that Beethoven contracted syphilis, before he was 40. That he became deaf because of that, is possible, but not certain.
The Ninth Symphony was premiered on May 7, 1824 in the Kärntnertortheater in Vienna, along with the Consecration of the House Overture and the first three parts of the Missa Solemnis. This was the composer's first on-stage appearance in twelve years; the hall was packed. Although the performance was directed by Michael Umlauf the theater's Kapellmeister, Beethoven shared the stage with him quiet.
So what remains of this "Female Fantasy". Ed Harris interpretation and characterization are quite good, but too linear, based on the Painting by Ferninand Waldmüller date 1823. I have it in front of me. It shows a man that despises (perhaps hates) the World. With good reason.


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


user
The original Body and Soul (1947) is a masterpiece. John Garfield, Ann revere, Lilli Plmer, William Conrad, Canada Lee...and filmed by one of the greatest cinematographers to ever grace the screen..James Wong Howe. This remake is abominable. In spite of the presence of Rod Steiger, Joe Mantegna and Jennifer Beals there is nothing of value here and it is a shame this product bears the same title as the brilliant original. Only the main character's name, Charlie Davis, is the same in both films. I don't think there are any redeeming qualities in this remake. I am amazed that Rod Steiger participated. This may be the only bad film he ever made. Maybe he needed the paycheck.


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


user
After the suicide of his father, Charlie 'Kid' Davis (Ray `Boom Boom' Mancini) accepts the invitation and advice of his friend Tiny (Michael Chiklis) and travels to Las Vegas with him trying to become a boxer. On the road, they meet Gina (Jennifer Beals) hitchhiking, they give a lift to her and she becomes Charlie's girlfriend. Johnny Ticotin (Rod Steiger) is convinced by Tiny to be Charlie's couch, and the powerful agent Alex Dumas (Joe Mantegna), after watching him fighting, becomes his manager, promoting Charlie's career. This movie is so boring that it indeed does not deserve to spend much time writing about it. I do not like boxing, but sometimes I watch some worthwhile movie about this theme. But this one is horrible! Predictable, full of clichés, having an awful lead actor, a pure waste of time. My vote is three.
Title (Brazil): `Corpo e Alma' (`Body and Soul')


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


user
My only question is: Why did they make this movie? Did they have a script or did they make it up as they went along? Boom Boom doesn't look like a Charley Davis. John Garfield probably turned over in his grave if he saw this.


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


user
My guess would be this was originally going to be at least two parts, and thus at least a quarter longer, because otherwise how can one explain its confused, abbreviated storyline. I was never completely lost, but I was often partially lost and usually unclear on character motivation. The movie feels as though joining plot points were dropped to squeeze it into its time slot.
If it were longer, it might make more sense, but it still wouldn't be much good. The movie's most interesting idea is of the war between Zeus and Hera as being a war between the male and female, but the movie drops the ball on this, making Hera's followers fairly horrible while not being clear on what Zeus' followers do or believe. The movie is also interesting because you don't see the gods and there's no real certainty that they exist. So it's got a couple of intriguing ideas, but it doesn't do anything useful with them.
Bad dialog, cardboard characters, and one interesting scene involving Hercules and his three antagonistic sons. Not unwatchable but also not 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
I thought there might be some level of worth to this movie, and sat through the whole thing. I can summarize by saying it left a bad taste in my mouth.
The movie started out OK, I think the initial characterization of Herc was true to the myths. Both as a child and a young adult he started out pretty strong but not the brightest bulb. But later on he somehow transforms into a charismatic speaker beloved by all. Huh?
Other problem: terrible CGI. The satyr looked OK, but the rest of the critters just looked terrible, especially the hart, the phoniest looking beast in the movie. And how come Leelee Sobieski's skin was sometimes golden, sometimes normal? The worst part for me--and everyone should cringe at this--was the twelve labors of Hercules. Because the producers obviously didn't want to cover all of them; maybe they thought us primitive screw-heads watching this garbage couldn't count that high. Instead of the TWELVE labors of Hercules, we got the FIVE labors of Hercules. Yes, the five labors! WTF?!? He did't even finish the last one, so it was really the 4 1/2 labors! Just terrible. I'll take Hercules: The Legendary Journeys over this piece of crap any day of the week.


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


user
Eh. I watch this movie in class because someone taped it and brought it in. I was expecting some half hearted attempt to portray the Herakles myths, and because the commercials for it looked serious, I was expecting something that was halfway decent.
Ten minutes into the film, I realized that it was utter CRAP. The only things in the film that are halfway true to the myth are the bare(and I mean bare) minimum. Parents, half brother, and labors seemed to be named correctly. Other than that, the rest of the film seemed to be one giant inaccuracy.
I would say that this was not much better than the Disney version of the film. The Disney version was made for little kids, therefore wasn't too serious. This movie, with all the sex, violence, and nudity, was clearly intended for an older audience, yet the story presented in this was nearly inaccurate as the Disney film.


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


user
I don't know how expensive was the creation of this movie but the effects were awful. Half of the movie was filmed on stage in front of a movie canvas (that's sure that blue box wouldn't look so artificial). When they traveled on a boat, the background canvas was moved imitating the movement of waves but the characters weren't moving. The CGI effects: terrible (I am not sure but I guess the effect were created with Paint and made a GIF sequence of them - next time the creators should hire a professional CGI maker team). It looks like the CGI creator would have drawn on the picture strip with shaky hands. Awful, that's sure. When I first saw the trailer, I thought it was created in 1983. One of my friend told me the correct date: 2005. My jaw dropped, I was so shocked, I thought he was kidding. People, I recommend you to skip this movie, the story is also twisted, you won't enjoy it.


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


user
This is easily the worst adaptation of Greek mythology I've ever seen. It utterly fails as an adaptation of the original myth, inventing silly plot twists and reducing the 12 labours to... 3 or 4, I think. It makes up utterly needless things to try to integrate other myths in clumsy ways which bring into question the writers' having ever read the myths, like changing birds to harpies, lions to sphinxes, the Oracle of Delphi to Tiresias, and bulls to a pedantic version of Proteus, even integrating aspects, never seen outside of Sam Raimi's entertaining series, concerning his first marriage, to a woman with the co-opted name of one of the Furies so it sounds appropriate to the period.
I could accept much of that, but it also fails completely in pure film standards; most painful is the dialogue, leaden, portentous pseudo-Shakespearean tripe. It is a poor re-interpretation of the myths, making a sad attempt at the kind of post-modern revisionism that Crichton's "The 13th Warrior" attempted in regards to the Beowulf legend, while still including the strictly mythological elements such as clear interference from the gods and magical super-strength. A sad, sad failure of an entertainment experience, who I'm sure many of the quality actors involved regret deeply.


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


user
I survived the first hour of this and came back for the last ten minutes, just to say I saw the end. If you want *real* mythology, flawlessly executed, look for Armand Assante's "The Odyssey." Great storytelling doesn't need to be tweaked - the stories are fantastic on their own. I only hope Sean Astin needed the money. And Sophocles and Ovid must be whirling in their graves - wherever those may be.
At least with Sorbo's version, the tongue was poked relentlessly in cheek - we knew it was mostly balderdash, but perhaps enough interest was generated in the backstory to send someone to the library.I'm surprised Halmi could turn out something so amusing (the TV series), and follow it with something so devoid of quality.


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


user
Paul Telfer, who plays Hercules in this TV film, has to be the hottest thing on two legs EVER. Wow.
But this film is a 100% distortion of the Hercules story. Just like "Troy," this film has nothing to do with the original story. Zero. What makes it especially insulting is that they actually contrived a gay character just so people could hate him, making him as dastardly and evil as any character in the history of TV or cinema. This is triply insulting since Hercules may have had a wife, since that was the expectation of those olden days, but he also had at least a dozen male lovers. So it is ironic that they should create a gay royal adversary character for this film. No, not ironic. Evil. The creators of this travesty should hang their heads in shame.


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


user
"Embarassing" is the only word to describe this laughingly awful production. From the blatant disregard of the source material (sure to infuriate anyone remotely familiar with mythology) to the predictably insufficient production value, this entire mini-series is a train wreck.
The cast (which includes some good actors, whom I pity) delivers the illogical dialogue in the same generic "European" accent so common to bad epics. Worse is the lack of originality in almost all other aspects, from costume and set design (blurring together styles from across time and space) to the score (which seems to poorly mimic many recognizable classical tunes as well as "Lord of the Rings"). Most offensive of all are the visual effects, which single- handedly prove that if you can't afford to do them well, WRITE THEM OUT.
It pained me to see yet another legendary tale bastardized by a cheap "adaptation." Maybe one day, someone will do it right.


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


user
I hadn't heard anything about this project until I saw that it was going to be on, so I watched it with a completely open mind. And, gee, the cast is full of strong players.
Unfortunately . . . it's awful. I don't mean it isn't good; I mean it's extraordinarily bad -- sometimes laughably so, but mostly it's just boring. Its strongest appeal comes from having attractive people as naked as US network TV will allow, but it's all tease and no substance, and having nymphs as backup characters can't justify several hours of bad TV.
There are two basic problems that the cast can't overcome. First, the script is *awful*. Yes, making changes to the Hercules myth (which is certainly not a single monolithic story in the first place) is traditional, but this version is relentlessly dull and much too frequently dumb (and sometimes downright head-shakingly peculiar), with terrible pacing, bits borrowed from here and there (and several parts seemingly belonging in different films), and truly awful dialogue. The dialogue is frequently unbearably bad, in fact, to the point where you feel embarrassed for the actors. Sean Astin, apparently now typecast as second-banana, seems especially burdened by one awful line after another. There's no consistency of tone or atmosphere and little cohesion to the plot.
Second, most of the special effects are really bad. REALLY bad. There's occasionally a decent bit of CGI, but mostly, again, you feel really embarrassed on behalf of the cast. I have no idea what the budget for this project was, but it sure looks like crap compared to "Clash of the Titans" or even "Hercules: The Legendary Journeys" and doesn't even compare very favorably with the old Lou Ferrigno and Italian 'spaghetti' Hercules movies. Just painfully miserable.
There are plenty of other problems -- the story is needlessly complex and can't keep up with itself, and Hercules himself isn't presented as a very interesting character. Almost everyone who doesn't have a European accent tries to fake one of some kind, which is not merely amateurish and dated but never really made sense in the first place: drama doesn't become better just because the actors use British accents, after all. But the terrible script and equally terrible effects sink the whole thing right off the bat.
In fairness, "Hercules" was apparently intended as a four-hour miniseries but truncated (for this airing, anyway) to a three-hour TV movie. I don't know what they cut, but it's possible the edits made things worse. I don't think you could make "Hercules" good by adding to it, but that doesn't mean that the continuity, say, hasn't suffered from the network edits. There's no way I'll watch the USA version to see, though.


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


user
The problem with this movie is that it is trying to compile a 6+ hours movie into 2 hours. The result is clear. It seems too forced, unclear and too simple minded.
The only plus side is the beginning. It explains well why and how Hercules was born. The rest of the movie was...just mumbo jumbo that is put together. It has a potential to be a great movie like LOTR if only it is not forced into 2 hours.
The acting is not very convincing either. OK not all is bad. But most of them are. Special effects are stupid and look like it is made ten years earlier (although the 1st monster is pretty good) Overall, I give it 4 out of ten for the reasons I described above.


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 thought this would be a good movie, boy...was I mistaken! For a quick summery: B grade acting C grade special effects D grade for the overall movie. Don't get me wrong, the story was pretty good and not kiddish so an adult too ride along with it, the "hero" is good looking so most women will like it :-), not a total chick flick as it contains some fight scenes and some blood
but the way it is shot... horrible
the special effects->would be better suited for TV->on a kids show
and lastly...send some of the actors back to acting school if they ever attended a class there.
Trust me there are much better ways to waste 2 hours.
You have been warned.


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


user
OK, so Herc is a hunk... but the rest of the 3 hours were wasted, wasted... oh the humanity!
Poor Sean Astin had to follow his master up the very same hills of New Zealand that ... wait! Couldd it be? Someone in the production crew of Lord of the Rings was making home movies in his spare time! Yes that's it!
I wish I could at least say he was promising.
The Special effects were often laughable.
But, Herc was a hunk.
NH


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


user
Hercules: The TV- Movie Hercules - A very twisted and molted version of the story about the Greek superhero. Paul Telfer makes a good attempt to play this hero. Sean Astin rehashes his Sam Gamgee image by playing Lupin, a thrown in character to make the whole thing a buddy-movie picture. I almost expected his to say at one point "We're in a bad situation Mr. Frodo, uh I mean Hercules. An unexpected good performance comes from Timothy Dalton (one of the lesser James Bonds) as Hercules's father. Herucles's love interest looks like Paris Hilton, something which just turned me off right away. Unfourtunetly someone has twisted and molted the original story into somewhat of a murky and sometimes incomprehensible story. The special effects don't help either. While the Hydra scene does the original story justice, the Nemean Lion and Harpies are just....well lame. I believe the creatures and effects from Power Rangers flashed across my mind at least twice. And the Golden Hind felt rushed and very computer generated. And they took out Cerberus! One of my favorite parts of what was originally a very cool story. The movie can't decide whether it's Greek, Roman, or American. And it almost ruined the original story; a classic epic. Don't bother looking for this one on the direct to DVD. - C


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


user
Just saw it....the story, the plot, the script makes absolute no sense!! Its Samvise the brave part 2(without the RING), its characters showing up out of the blue(for no reason),its Hercules hated by everyone(no one knows why), its Leelee Sobiesky showing her true talents(two of them), its crappy special effects, its a few good actors wasting their talents(did I mention Leelee's two talents??)... do I have to say more??? ITS JUST AWFUL, even for NBC-TV standards!!! Its just the lowest....what a waste! by the way: how can you people give this mini-series so many stars????? Its beyond me!.... Shame on you! Have to make 10 lines, so this is my final word: AVOID, AVOID, if u are considering buying it!


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


user
In Chicago, four electricians leaded by Dean (Richard Grieco) come to an old building to disconnect power. They accidentally activate a portal and arrive in another dimension, where Chicago was destroyed by a Spider Queen and inhabited by mutants. The group meets survivors leaded by Crane (David Nerman) and Elena (Kate Greenhouse), and finds the inventor of the portal, Dr. Richard Morelli (Colin Fox), who has been living in this dimension for thirty years. They join forces, trying to rebuilt a portal to bring them back home. "Webs" is a watchable plagiarizing of "Sliders", only worse. Most of the dialogs seem to be written by a person who has not concluded the elementary school, so imbecile they are. Further, the story is illogical, and seems that Chicago is the only city in the world. The scientist trying to start his sophisticated machine with broken wires as if he were stealing a car is very funny. The face of Richard Grieco looks like a white version of Michael Jackson and is horrible. If the viewer shuts-down his or her brain, he or she may like this forgettable TV movie. My vote is four.
Title (Brazil): "Na Teia do Terror" ("In the Web of Horror")


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


user
A Sci-Fi Network original. Not the best. Not far from being the worst. An electrician(Richard Grieco) stumbles onto a "key" that can open a gateway to a parallel Earth that has been taken over by mutant spiders. The mutations have been controlled by a super-sized alien Queen for the past thirty years. She has already eaten up the population of this parallel world that resembles Chicago minus inhabitants. Guess what? Now she must find another world to feed on. The electrician leads a four man team that reluctantly finds themselves with the task of saving the world. The finale confrontation is probably the best part of the whole movie. The cast also features: Richard Yearwood, Colin Fox, Kate Greenhouse, Jason Jones and David Newman. One would have thought that the Sci-Fi Network could have spent more money on special effects.


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


user
I had seen this movie just days before Halloween 2004. I noticed it around lunch-time and it was an interesting description in my menu box so I decided to watch it. Seriously only a movie only suitable for late night TV...you know, after Conan but before the infomercials sorta deal.
Although this movie has very little to do with webs, it does have a lot to do with spiders, refer to my heading if you need a refresher.
I found the idea behind the story absolutely fascinating. A hidden nuclear generator, a scientist and a believable portal...Would have been a good start to a cool fantasy but then it goes downhill after 15-20 minutes.
The cast is poor with no memorable performances, poor quality queen who has had her breasts amplified...considering spiders don't carry breasts. As well as poor sound effects. An obvious low budget movie though the cast has tried.
SPOILER:
4 electricians stumble upon a hidden nuclear generator while on a job. They fiddle with the buttons and open a portal. 2 workers fall into the portal and it closes...scrambling to figure out what is going on, the party still in our world seeks help while the other party observers their surroundings.
Help does not arrive so they open the portal and follow through meeting up in a parallel dimension. They encounter a race of human spiders dubbed soldiers. After a death and chase they are saved by survivors.
Now it gets boring...they hide, talk a bit, try to build another portal then attack the hive. After losing 2 more electricians they open the portal and escape returning to our world...some 200 million years ago.
Sounds interesting huh?


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 so much wrong with this movie. Greico with a girls wig, old man scientist time machine fixer, tough guy Jones who stays behind with a shotgun that has three rounds, Spider people with tentacle hands and bad teeth, etc. The make up was so bad and they only had a few visible spider people on screen at one time (Aliens Cameron technique could have been used) instead they chose to dress every spider person the same way...badly. The nice thing about Greico's acting is that he bobs his had at every syllable as if he is counting how many words he gets to speak in the script. It amazes me that with all of the information out there on DVD commentaries, people like this still exist who make movies. This movie could have been worse, how I don't know. Oh and one last thing. I am going on a SCI-FI movie hunt down. The people running that channel should not be allowed to procreate to further continue the nepotism that exist in Film and Television.


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


user
OK we have 4 city electricians who find a mini nuke reactor, turn it in and fall into a parallel universe inhabited by a Giant spider queen also from a parallel universe, who managed to slip through with a few of her kin to take over the earth, but alas she is the only one left? If so why did not the rest of humanity join up and hunt her down. Also what happened to the military, no way a few billion plus round of ammo could have been used up and why hide out in a basement when a lot more defensible places had to available. Also not a dig on city workers, but how is it they knew what a mini nuke reactor looked like and how if they did not have one in the parallel universe, could they reopen the rift? Sorry but there was nothing likable about the movie


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


user
Someone said that WEBS is a lot like an episode of SLIDERS, and I have to agree. Spoilers: I never liked the actors on Sliders, and rarely have seen it except when nothing better was on. WEBS is the kind of movie to see if you have no other choices. Read a book. WEBS has those kind of TV has-been actors that look like they are there as part of their PROBATION or Work Release Program. Some low budget TV movies have actors that at least look enthusiastic. The actors in WEBS look like they were getting paid minimum wage and were working on a Time-Clock. They have that desperate, "The-Paycheck-Better-Not-Bounce" look. The Queen Spider looks great, except it is rarely seen, and there are no other spiders (and no webs). The Queen Spider bites people, and they become Spider Zombies, which means that they try to keep their eyes WIDE OPEN when they are attacking the humans. The humans are all fighting among themselves over a number of different reasons, and they are not sympathetic. After meeting all the "humans" I would have recommended charm school for the characters. All that WEBS made me feel was APATHY. I was numb to the characters, and hoped for some interesting gore and special effects. The gore was minimal, and the special effects were reserved for the ugly spider queen, who looked good. If WEBS had a bunch of Spider Creatures eating humans, it would have been more entertaining. Apparently they could only budget "spider-zombies." WEBS is a sad entry into the field of SPIDER oriented movies. It may qualify as the worst Spider movie ever, because Eight-Legged Freaks had great special effects.


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


user
WEBS is a pretty odd movie, albeit slightly watchable. Richard Grieco plays an electrician who gets suck into a parallel Earth overrun by mutant spiders, or something like that. The film itself was made with a modest budget, which explains the limited locales, and the somewhat tedious screenplay that manages to do very little with quite an interesting premise. Basically a 90 minute episode of the TV show "Sliders", and nothing more.
4 out of 10
(go to www.nixflix.com for a more detailed review and reviews of other films in the genre)


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


user
There can be no worse criticism for a movie than the word BORING.
Some "bad" movies are lots of fun, some "fun" movies are really bad, but to be BORING means no-one will ever buy the DVD to watch it over and over again.
It appeared to be a movie that employed the drama class from the Antartic, they were all too busy running around to stay warm instead of acting. The lead actor, spoke is a near whisper, husky style voice, damn, it seemed that he was gonna seduce someone, and he didn't care who.
The movie can't make money if it's boring, I hope this one dies a swift, never to be seen again, death.


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


user
Friz Freleng's 'Snafuperman' is one of the lesser Private Snafu shorts. A warning of the importance of studying your field manual, 'Snafuperman' makes it point rather clumsily. The story, in which Technical Fairy, First Class makes Snafu into a superhuman in order to help him see the error of his ways, is predictable and unfunny. Freleng's earlier Snafu short 'Rumours' had been bursting with ideas and laughs but here the director is lumbered with a rather boring topic and he struggles to make an entertaining short from it. Even at around three minutes long, 'Snafuperman' seems to drag and, unlike the best cartoons in the series, it feels like an instructional film first and entertainment second. Though they were knocked out more quickly than the usual Warner cartoons, the Snafu shorts largely maintained a surprisingly high standard. 'Snafuperman' is a reflection of the sort of quality you'd more reasonably expect from a less talent bunch of creative minds.


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


user
This good-guy-vs-the-evil-tyrant story, set in 19th century Russia, may have been an attempt to extend Steve Reeves' career beyond those "Hercules" movies. However, despite the different costumes, it's still a "Hercules" movie with the usual stilted dialog, haphazard dubbing, and cardboard characters. On the other hand, there's lots of action, the pace rarely flags, and Reeves gets to do yet another one of those scenes where he's stripped to the waist, bound with ropes, and given a vigorous whipping which, needless to say, has little effect on his defiant character.


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


user
The White Warrior is definitely one of,if not Steve Reeves weakest films. Set in 18th or 19th century Russia (??) Steve plays a cossack warrior who tries to over run a mad man Russian czar by running up a mountain side with his rebel band in a goofy looking Russian white tunic..... For the most part the great Reeves physique is hidden in a goofy, knee length tunic, with an even more sillier looking russian hat.
The action is rather minimal, with only a good wrestling scene from the mid waist up that shows off the great Reeves physique. This is an apparent attempt by the producers to move Reeves out of the sword and sandal genre into another historic era, with poor results. The dialogue from the script is hard to understand at various points, and only commentary from the narrator allows the viewer to understand what is really happening from scene to scene. I would image Reeves regretted making this film, but in an attempt to try and get out of his toga and sandals and tribune armor it helped launch him to other historic characters such as Morgan the Pirate and the Thief of Baghdad.


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


user
Reeves plays Haji Murad, a hero in 1850's Russia.
This is a badly dubbed movie, with June Foray doing some of the voices. Unfortunately who ever was suppose to sync the voices to the lips was blind since the words never match the lip flaps. Anyone who says that Japanese films are bad have never watched this film.
The film's plot is instantly forgettable and so I've forgotten it in the time its taken the movie to end and for me to sit and write this down. Perhaps it has more to do with the fact that the film is one of the many that Reeves made in hopes of moving away from action to more plot driven sort of films. It may have been a good thing for Reeves, but its deadly for the audience who have to slug through nooze fests such as this, where its all court intrigue with very little action.
In Reeves defense, he was a good actor, he just had no real luck in picking films that were any good. They all looked great, but very few of them didn't put the those watching them into a coma for the film's running time.
This film will put you in a coma. Watch it only if you have the need for sleep and all other gentler means have failed.


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 quite bad, aggressive, not played well, not directed well, seems low budget, low quality,emotionaly weak and disconnected. after watching earlier comments, went to see it, but if u try to compare it with apocalypse now, PLATOON, or any others, u'r really off the tracks. this movie looks like a 60's old and purely made film with cast of grown neanderthals, not to mention (or actually do), not paying attention to details like changing rounds, low budget fireworks and all sorts of poorly filmed characteristic. is watchable though, if u'd like to see it as an early development of the movies document.. not to go back!!
p.s - afterall, the guys are quite alright.


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


user
This has some of the stupidest fight scenes of all time. If I was a veteran of any war I would cry when I see this movie, not because I would remember being in Vietnam, but because it is a poor representation of any veteran of that war. Even though the troops are carrying M16s, that movie resembles nothing like Vietnam. The Viet Cong even uniforms look like old leftover Japanese uniforms from a WWII movie. The setting is obviously some crappy Hollywood back lot. The worst scene contains a US soldier fighting "hand to hand" like in a bad martial arts movie. After he dispatches several enemy troops he says, "hey come down here and lets kick some butt!" to a helicopter in the air. He then is shot. This movie is trash.


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


user
Very Cliched. Quite corny. Acting gets worse as the show goes on. Don't believe anything that folks say about the "realism" that this movie is supposed to portray. It's just a shoot'em up. Interesting twist in that the VC sieging the base were given a human face and weren't portrayed as evil incarnate.


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 not realistic at all, more of a comedy than a serious war film. Very old-fashioned too. Maybe I was just expecting it to be on a same level with "Platoon". I wonder, why 50% of the voters gave it 10? Something must be wrong.


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 think this movie had the effect on me that was intended: seeing American soldiers shooting wounded soldiers from the other side, and punching wounded prisoners in their wounds to torture them into making them talk made me root for the other side. It certainly made the US forces look anything like "the good guys". Was this supposed to be acceptable?


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 the worst war movie I have ever seen, possibly the worst ever made. I find it incredible that some people have actually rated it as a 10. It has a stunning lack of even rudimentary traces of realism. Almost every war movie cliche appears in this film and is done badly. On the other hand, I wouldn't have watched it to the end if it hadn't been so remarkably bad that it amused me.


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


user
I also have been a wife of an abusive husband, even if in my situation the attacks were psychological, not physical. He presented a very respectable, responsible and generous personality to anyone who saw us together, which, in contrast to myself, resulted in having others treat me as dull and unstable. Initially, I was so incredibly flattered that anybody like Gus (who worked in a bank and was handsomely confident) would even give me the time of day, and I fell completely head-over-heels for the IDEA of him, rather than the person he was. If I'd had my head on straight, and gotten to know him much better first, there's no way I'd have married him. However, that's my mistake. It wasn't my mistake to be abused. I didn't deserve that, nor did I see it coming until I was embroiled in the mind games, criticism and isolation. He acted like I had no business holding an opinion that differed from his own - actually he went further. If I didn't agree, he assumed I misunderstood, and increasingly simplified his wording ... by the time I finally lost my self-respect, I was incapable of recognizing the predicament I was in, and I had to be jolted to reality by outside influence. My dad said Gus called me a bitch. Well ... it was still a half-year before the rage that began at that moment finally exploded and I packed some stuff while he was at work, and I left. .. and it was still another several months before I could grasp the fact that I had been abused, and that it wasn't my fault he was doing the things he did. ..... so please, anyone who assumes it's the fault of the victim, THINK!!! If a puppy is kicked by a cruel owner when, in an anxious situation it has an accident on the rug, do you blame the puppy? by the time the abuse in a relationship reaches an obvious violent level, the target of abuse has been so wounded and depersonalized (much like in Nazi concentration camps) that it's nearly impossible to judge the circumstance accurately, because by then, the victim believes all the horrible things spewed by the abuser. Have a heart, people. Labelling abuse victims as stupid morons is like kicking someone who's already terribly beaten. -------> and this helps how???


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


user
In fact, parts of it I liked a lot. It had some interesting twists. But it just left me with a been there, seen that feeling after all of the SAW movies. Granted the ending was different from a typical Saw, but let's face it...a group of guys, unknown to each other (or so they believe) tossed together in an abandoned chemical factory....
But then it loses something. There's no intensity, there's poor group dynamic, there's no sense of urgency.
Some nice twists at the end, and definitely worth a watch if there's nothing else on your plate, but it just left me empty...it passed the time, but it didn't satisfy.


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


user
I seemed to find the trailers better than the movie. They did their job and made me interested in watching UNKNOWN. The interest waned early. A simple premise laking in scenery. Five men wake up in a chemical warehouse not knowing why they are there; let alone know how in the hell they got there. Confusion and paranoia brings with it fear and distrust. The men learn that a kidnapper is on his way with plans to kill his hostages. Now the men size each other up trying to distinguish if all are victims and who may actually be one of the kidnappers. The cast includes: Jim Caviezel, Greg Kinnear, Joe Pantoliano, Bridget Moynahan, Barry Peppper, David Selby and Adam Rodriguez.


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


user
Since the characters begin with "Unknown" identities, they not identified by name, so you start with handsome James Caviezel waking up in a warehouse. He finds out the place is locked up tight. Don't ask - the windows are made with security glass, and it's impossible to get out. Four other awakening men make it a quintet - Mr. Caviezel in his "Jean Jacket", Barry Pepper in a "Ranger Shirt", Greg Kinnear with a "Broken Nose", Joe Pantoliano as a chair "Bound Man", and Jeremy Sisto shot and "Handcuffed Man". Oh, Man
These five men have collective amnesia. They think that three of them are kidnappers, and two are victims - but, they don't know who is which or which is who. The forgetfulness is due to a pipe leak. Don't ask - it happens. Meanwhile, on the outside, lead lawman David Selby (as Parker) sends his cops to solve the kidnapping while one of the men's wives, Bridget Moynahan (as Eliza Coles), frantically waits. But, criminal element's gang leader, Peter Stormare in "Snakeskin Boots", is also on his way to the scene.
Like the DVD synopsis says, "As secrets are revealed and clues unraveled, (the five men) must race against time to figure out who is good and who is evil in order to stay alive." This story reads a lot better than it looks on film, unfortunately. When the secrets are finally revealed, and memories become clear, there is no longer much interest in what has happened. Simply, director Simon Brand has a great premise with Matthew Waynee's idea, but they encumber light investment in the characters holding the short end of the stick.
**** Unknown (11/1/06) Simon Brand ~ James Caviezel, Barry Pepper, Greg Kinnear, David Selby


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 That Hey Hey Fuss & I Saw The Jackson Jive, It Was A Pretty Straight Forward Comedy Skit But I Saw This & It Is Free & Is Out In The Clear? Have I Missed Something? If The Black Community Should Be Complaining About Any Racist Comments In A TV Show It Should Be This & If You've Read My Earlier Comments I Am Not The Easy-To-Offend Guy. The Basic Plot Is That An African/American Moves In Next To This White Guy & They Make These Racist Comments Like The Value Of A House Will Drop Just Because Of Black Neighbours & The White Guy Makes References Like (If Your Easily Offended By Racial Slurs Do Not Read On) Nig-Nog Jungle Boy Sambo. (I Apologise But That Really Happens In This Show I Really Am A Guy Who Is Fine With The Black Community) People Might Say Hey Lighten Up But Even When You Take The Racial Slurrs Away It Is Un-Funny No New Jokes Badly Acted & I Can Swear In One Episode I Saw Someone's Eyes Focus On Something Unconnected With The Situation. All In All Horrible Comedy.


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


user
The promotions for "Clubbed" project a slick looking film based around the clubbing scene of the 1980's. What we end up with is a film with identity issues. The sub-plots end up taking over from what viewers would assume to be the main plot, so the focus on this film being mainly about "clubbing" ends up being left in the gutter.
Boxing, depression, self-loathing, gangsters, bouncers and drug-deals, are all hastily crammed into 90 odd minutes. On no less than 4 occasions I had to check the run-time of the film, as the worry grew that this film was bound to disappoint.
What club scenes we do see are bland and repetitive, featuring approximately 3 extras dancing in what is barely recognisable as a "club", hardly capturing the vibe of the day.
If you're looking for a film about the 80's club scene, something along the lines of what "Human Traffic" did for the late 90's, forget "Clubbed".


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


user
This movie was an absolute waste of time. It's nothing but a wanna-be gangster movie. It contains a very predictable plot. My feelings are unsympathetic to the characters, and the dialogue is mediocre at best. Half the time you are looking for something else to do, because the movie is that boring, since you already know what's going to happen. The other half of the time you're desperately hoping the protagonist grows a pair of balls or just ends his life by jumping off a bridge or something. Also, the secondary characters are for the most part one- dimensional. There's no depth to any of the characters in this movie! No depth!


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


user
"Clubbed" is yet another 'will-this-do?' entry into the Brit fisticuffs genre and is sure to keep punters who aren't expecting too much moderately entertained for ninety minutes after a few beers. However, for anyone seeking intelligent, quality entertainment it's really best avoided.
There are so many misnomers in the appalling script that even an actor of the calibre of Colin Salmon is left looking daft. The action is set in the 1980s, but it's never clear why, especially when they haven't been able to pull off any convincing feel for that decade - it takes more than a few 80s soul records on the soundtrack, the occasional zoot suit and a handful of 30-year-old cars. Then we see central characters studying texts such as Sun Tzu's "The Art Of War" and speaking about how violence should be a last resort, while the same characters seem only too willing to start doling out punches with all the testosterone-fuelled, unthinking abandon of a bunch of chavs fighting over a bag of chips.
Character development does not exist in "Clubbed". Nor does irony, subtlety or pathos. This is a film which trades on fond memories of Guy Richie's early gangster films, which despite their flaws certainly had much more wit, better editing, snappier dialogue and packed more emotional punch than this limp little saga. They're a decade old now, anyway - isn't it time we moved on from trying to emulate them?


assistant
0