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
Would someone explain to me when the Ghoulies learned to speak? This was a horrible film, I loved "Ghoulies" and "Ghoulies 2", but what's this? Unless you want to kill yourself, please stay away from "Ghoulies 3". On a scale of 1 to 10, "Ghoulies 3" 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've had never been disappointed by a Kurosawa film, but this is probably the first. "Doppelganger" is the worst I've seen from this director.
Tartan Films is advertising this as "The most frightening film yet from Kiyoshi Kurosawa". What? The most frightening film from Kurosawa is definitely "Kairo". And if you think this is horror, your in for a surprise. This can't be classified as horror, or thriller. This is a drama, and a pretty bad one at that. A lot of scenes that were meant to be shocking have turned out being funny, and a lot of the plot is really confusing. And since it's Kurosawa, the pacing is slow. But it's so slow that you'll lose interest forty minutes in, and feel like doing something else. The thing that annoyed me the most was the use of CGI. Now CGI, if used well, can be really cool. But if executed with little care... It can be a disaster. I think that describes one scene here that has a very minimal use of CGI.
The only positive thing I can give "Dopppelganger" is that it has really good acting. Koji Yakusho gives a great performance, along with the rest of the cast. But that's pretty much it...
Please, do yourself a favor, and go watch "Kairo" or "Ko-Rei" if you want to be scared. This is a bad, bad attempt at a smart drama. Which it is intelligent, but... Well, there's a lot missing.
3/10 for the good acting.


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


user
Voor een verloren soldaat , for a lost soldier, is a sad example of how not to translate to film a touching, complex psychological study, of that most magical time in a man's life, when he is still a child, but starting to become a man. The novel records the real life experiences of Rudy van Dantzig, as told thru the boy Jeroen, during the waning days of WWII at age 11 as he deals with his incipient sexuality, and his deep fears of abandonment as he has been sent to the province of Friesland, north of Holland by his parents because of the lack of food in Amsterdam and has not heard from them in many months as the postal service has broken down.. The arrival of the liberating soldiers in the film, is presented in a painfully corny way, with the soldiers providing entertainment vaudeville style. Then one soldier, Walt, romances Jeroen and the pair is presented as two frolicking males.who consummate their love in a sexual experience. This taken in stride by the 11 yo Jeroen. The reality was somewhat different: Jeroen describes his encounters with Walt, 6 in all, in detail but in oblique language. But there is no misunderstanding their nature. Walt is aroused to an intense passion by Jeroen, during which he handles him roughly, so that in their final meeting, Jeroen is bruised and suffering a painful wound on the shoulder where Walt has bitten him. During this encounter, Walt rapes Jeroen, twice. Jeroen could have easily avoided Walt after their 2nd encounter, when Walt first assaults him as Walt is clearly anxious to keep his abuse of the boy from the other soldiers. Why Jeroen keeps seeking Walt out is a mystery of the human heart and not explainable, by me anyway. What the film leaves out is the aftermath: the nightmares, the dejection, the frantic search throughout Amsterdam on the chance of finding Walt, for Jeroen loved Walt, and nothing could shake that.


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


user
Read the book, forget 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
To truly appreciate this film you had to be there (acting?) or have been a crew member.
Yes, I am "Selena", and at the ripe old age of 42, have serious doubts about what we were doing/did.
It all started out to be like a "John Waters" type thing, friends acting badly in bad films. Somewhere along the line,the fun discontinued, people who were supposed to be friends didn't speak anymore, and BAD became worse.
I regret the bad image I might have projected.(Try to fit in size one gold spandex pants,)
Other than that, the film SUCKS so badly, I would not even make my mama watch it.
To my director, cast and crew I say,
"Why can't we just all get along??
It's been OVER TWENTY YEARS, PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


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


user
Three young movie theater employees are given the task of re-opening a long closed old-time theater at which many years before a shocking series of grisly murders took place. It seems many more murders have occurred since then but all of this remains unknown to these three young upstart employees hoping to finally make it big on their own. As they approach the grand re-opening night, things keep getting stranger and more unsettling with items suddenly starting to move around by themselves without any seen aid and a terrifying old man seemingly haunting the premises.
Oh, this is truly horrible. In fact, if it wasn't for Mary Woronov's secretary character being such a fiercely independent outspoken empowered young woman who steals practically every scene in which she appears and the incredibly hot chick who played the unbelievably sleazy yet totally sexy Selina, this would be a total loss. The only other good thing I have to say about this film is some of the movie theater murders are done in truly inventive, albeit not overly gory (a preference for me but not necessarily for others), fashion. The rest just wallows in constant sleaze (so extreme the rare few may actually find humor in it) and runs through the predictable slasher kills annoying characters off one after the other routine.


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


user
I agree that Mary Woronov (Murdoch's secretary) is one of the only good things about this film. She is my favorite actress ever, every role she plays is always done so well. Her character is sly, sarcastic, clever, light hearted, funny and cunning. She really pulls this role off well and you get a good feel for what her character is all about.
The rest of the movie is pretty bad. The music is the most entertaining thing left. One of the characters has this really strange circular radio that she brings with her while she wears her tight zebra striped tank top.
One thing that was a little intriguing about the story was the idea that someone hires these three college-aged kids to spruce up an old abandoned theater. He gives them the keys and says - go at it. That would be really fun and I wish someone would give me that chance! Imagine going into an old abandoned theater with two other people and you get to decide how to decorate it, and fix it up. You have total control over the whole building. That would be so fun! Unfortunately, the characters do not think of this as an exciting adventure, they think of it as a big chore. They walk around with long faces and fight with each other the whole time. It's kind of a bummer. But it's fun to think about the possibilities that these people aren't even excited about.
The movie does a pretty good job at making you feel helpless or a little spooked out by the theater itself. However, the acting (besides Woronov.. and possibly Murdoch, the boss - just because makes a really good money hungry fake smiley business man who never has any luck) is really horrible and you just end up feeling unsatisfied. Plus, the random slapstick is a little tacky and kind of ruins the reality that the film tries to create.
Watch this if you dig Mary Woronov, funky 80's Casio keyboard style electronic beats and if you think having a giant spooky abandoned theater to yourself is at all intriguing.


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 hardcore bad film buff will be surprised by the overall ineptness of this grade-z "film". Mary Woronov, a clever actress best known for her roles as Mary Bland in Eating Raoul and Miss Togar in Rock 'N' Roll High School, is by far the best thing about this tripe. This film is almost too bad even for MST3K - honestly!


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 so dumb and slow was it ever slow. The only good part of the film was the girl in the tight shinny gold pants. There was no gore whatsover and what is a 80's horror movie without a little gore. Plus the killer wasn't at all scary nor were the murders. But if you like to watch the world's worst horror movie then this is for you. Don't waste your time like I did watching this.


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


user
A movie theater with a bad history of past gruesome murders reopens. Of course, the bloody killings start anew. Written, directed, shot, scored and edited with an appalling lack of flair and finesse by the singularly talentless Rick Sloane (who later disgraced celluloid some more with the absolutely atrocious "Hobgoblins"), this horrendously ham-fisted attempt at a slasher spoof strikes out something rotten in every conceivable way: the excruciatingly lethargic pacing, the painfully static, grainy cinematography (there's a stinky surplus of drab master shots featured throughout), an annoyingly droning and redundant hum'n'shiver synthesizer score, the flat (non)direction, a tediously talky and uneventful script, the groan-inducing sophomoric sense of lowbrow humor, the bloodless murder set pieces, a pitifully unscary killer (he's just some wrinkled-up old guy in pasty make-up), the uniformly obnoxious and unappealing characters, a dissatisfyingly abrupt ending, and lifeless performances from a noticeably uninspired cast all ensure that watching this schlocky swill is about as fun and rewarding as eating rancid raw eels drenched with sour vinegar. This crud totally lacks the necessary crude charm and sleazy vigor required to be enjoyable junk. Instead it's just a bland, plodding and meandering stiff that never catches fire or becomes even remotely amusing in a so-shoddy-it's-smoking sort of way. Only a smidgen of nudity and the delightful presence of the always dependable Mary Woronov as a snarky, sardonic secretary provide a little relief from the overall crumminess of this lousy loser.


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 Fertile Man in Ireland revolves around Eamon Manley who is 24 year old and still happens to be a virgin. He lives with his mother in Belfast. He is also a very shy guy towards women. Everything has changes for Eamon when he is seduced by a woman(as far as I can remember a neighbour). It is not because he looses his virginity but he discovers that he has a super power. Despite having protection, this neighbour becomes pregnant. He is told by the doctor that he has very high sperm count. His mother brilliantly comes up with an idea which makes us see ginger headed babies all around in the end of the film. He starts helping out women in both side of Belfast to conceive babies. First voluntarily then with the help of his colleague runs a business out of it. The Most Fertile Man in Ireland has its funny moments but needed to come up with better jokes and with a better script. I couldn't help thinking that it gave me the impression of a TV sitcom rather than a movie. Kris Marshall is a different name on the silver screen but does not shine as star. It's more like the guy you saw in such and such movie. Like him being in Love Actually(I think he was very funny in that one)..Well, it was okay to watch but couldn't help dozing off from time to time. ** out of *****


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


user
Heaven, Mary and all the Saints above! A young man has got super sperm, it's miracle bejesus, call the Pope, all you ladies out their desperate to get preggers, line up out side his door and drop your marks and sparks finest! Risible retro ealing comedy type comedy, trying to bring you a bit of the auld Irish charm. Has an effect like placing two fingers down your own throat, voamitus maximus! One out of ten!


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


user
Amidst all the many problems that make this a dire piece of celluloid is the stupidest plot device in recent cinema history. Richard Gere determines who the Jackal's real target is through some form of revelation. He does not work anything out, it just comes to him. When in doubt "He's going after the First Lady!". This film blows chunks.


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


user
Laughably awful. One might think that all the big-name actors involved in this movie would at least make it believable, but they do not--this one is a stinker.
Characters either sprint around without having a good reason to know where they are going, or they stand around making constipated faces when they should be running for their lives.
Check your higher brain functions at the door if you intend to try watching this movie. Or, get a bunch of your most clever friends together and give this one the "Mystery Science Theater 3000" treatment. That's what I was doing through the second half of this turkey.
And PLEASE don't confuse this with the excellent movie "The Day of the Jackal," a far-superior thriller from 30 years ago.


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


user
Spoilers!! Bruce Willis, the part-time Comic and funny guy plays a Hispanic assassin nicknamed after an African scavenger prairie dog? I guess all the good Hispanic nicknames like Sicatriz (Scar), Scorpion, Viper, Cobra, Snake, Tarantula, Latigo (whip), Navaja (blade), etc. were not available?? And why would some South American assassin be acquainted with a terrorist from the Irish Republican Army?? Last time I checked, the IRA is not looking to open any branch headquarters in South America. And why would some prison-tough, battle-weary Irish terrorist look like a middle-aged Richard Gere? I thought maybe this movie was going to be a spoof of "The Crying Game" when Gere's character was introduced as the person who was going to hunt down "The Jackal." What bad casting! And why would the FBI be hiring depraved terrorists in order to track down assassins?? It seems like a terrorist goes for mass destruction, and an assassin usually hits one target in a non-spectacular manner. But Gere is the only person who has ever seen Willis alive, according to the FBI. I thought this movie was supposed to be a remake of the very great film "Day of The Jackal" but this movie is just a dumber version of "Assassins" with Stallone and Banderas. Both of these movies are really dumb, and part of the dumb-ness is the fact that as the audience we are forced to watch Bruce Willis go through his routines and we should say "Wow! isn't he smart!" THE PROFESSIONAL with Jean Reno was a much better movie about assassins. "The Jackal" is just a movie about two fat middle-aged millionaire actors who could get paid for standing around looking pretty and pretending to be smart! "The Jackal" is so poor, that I expected to see Sly Stallone, Dennis Rodman, Mickey Rourke, and Jean Clod Van Dumme making cameo appearances as "other" hitmen or FBI. Needless to say, "The Jackal" has eluded the FBI for twenty-five years, but as soon as Richard Gere gets on the job, it is only a few days before "The Jackal" is kaput! I guess the positive message of this movie is, "Thanks to terrorists, our streets are safe from assassins." Overall, the "Jackal" has no redeeming qualities.


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


user
This may well be the worst remake Hollywood has ever produced, and that's saying something. I'll take it further than that and say this movie is so stunningly, deliriously bad that IT MUST BE SEEN. I don't know if I'm even capable of tackling all the things wrong with it--like the fact that the casting director appears to have pulled names out of a hat, or the mind-blower of Richard Gere's character being allowed to walk away scot-free at the end (I'm sure the people saying, "It's just fiction, who cares" would have no problem if it was a former Al-Qaeda operative who just wants to return to his home country)--so I'll just devote my review to the utter hilarity, which is mainly the scene where Bruce Willis is testing out his gun.
In the original version, you'll recall, the Jackal practices his kill on a pumpkin. The pumpkin explodes on impact, an effect known as "understatement." In THIS version, Willis sets up a pumpkin target, but he doesn't use a sniper rifle--he uses a gigantic remote-controlled cannon which costs tens of thousands of dollars and can only be stored in the back of a huge conspicuous minivan (this man likes a challenge). He reveals the cannon by pulling away a tarp, at which point Jack Black, who is there to observe, jumps around and says, "That ROCKS! This thing ROCKS!" about 18 times (I guess Willis didn't have to disassemble it first, he just lifted it, tarp and all, out of the back of the van, despite it probably weighing several tons). The scene then turns into an Austin Powers movie as Willis misses the pumpkin and takes out a tree, then has Black run through the mud with his pants falling down, finally blowing off Black's entire arm. The pumpkin falls to the ground, unharmed.
If I can recommend this movie for ONE non-ironic reason, it's for the Diane Venora character as a tough Russian major who becomes romantically linked to Gere despite having a facial disfigurement--a bold move for a Hollywood feature. By mid- movie I was really liking this character, so it was a shame when she had to be killed. I would have liked to see a movie about her. Other than that, this pile of crap is only useful as an objective intelligence test. 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
It is hard to screw up this story. GREAT book / GOOD Film version from Fred Zinneman, yet this film is AWFUL! First the casting was terrible. Richard Gere should of played the Jackal himself as Edward Fox was a similar type of cypher and they didn't need to mess with the original script by adding so much worthless (expensive) fluff. This film reminded me of so many Bruce Willis films, as you see huge expense with NOTHING cinematic to show for it. (It is his "Conspiracy Theory") It takes some real doing to make a film this bad from such a fine original script. EVERY person from Michael Caton Jones down should be banned from making films for 10 years; such is the insult this film is to real filmmakers. Were Hollywood to go on trial for having no idea what they were doing, this film would be Exhibit A. Shame on you ALL!


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 looking forward to seeing Bruce Willis in this, especially since I remember being mesmerised by the original when I was young.
This movie is a perfect example of how movie companies can take a very good story and dumb it down until it's just another formula ridden hype of the fabled American law enforcement system/army VS, (the Russians.... no sorry the cold war is over, make that WITH the Russians) VS the TERRORISTS, similar to probably 50 other movies.
Furthermore it treats its audience like a bunch of idiots. The choice of weapon is well, plain ridiculous, are we seriously expected to believe that the world's most feared and experienced hit man/terrorist would select that for an assasination?
The whole point of the original story was the tense dual of intellects between the ordinary detective who is given the responsibility and the professional who crafts a ruthless but elegant plan to reach his target and then get away. None of that survived. All we have is the tired old American CIA/FBI/army vs the evil terrorist plot, we've all seen 1000 times before.
But of course the movie company's MBA's realised that a new intellectual angle here would lose them revenue from the short attention span gang, so the answer is ......Bruce Willis, BIG explosions and a crippled plot. They assume the American audience wont be able to relate to a threat to a foreign statesperson (where is France on the map afterall) so it has be an American!
Another example of a movie defiled by the boardroom.


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


user
A ruthless assassin has been hired to eliminate someone at the very top of the U.S. government. Constantly changing his identity and location, he is known only as the Jackal. Everything about this hit man is a secret. Aware of the Jackal's presence but uncertain of his purpose, the FBI's Deputy Director faces the biggest challenge of his career. In order to track down this cold-blooded killer, he and a by-the-book Russian intelligence officer enlist the aid of an imprisoned Irish terrorist. These unlikely allies enter a global race against the clock to stop the mysterious mercenary before he can complete his assignment. If you are looking for a non-stop action movie like Die Hard, then The Jackal is not your movie. It´s a slow spy thriller with many cool gadgets and weapons. Richard Gere does a good job playing an impassioned terrorist who is helping the FBI for a deeper cause than just freedom. And Willis puts forth a good effort as the Jackal. OK film but nothing more.


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


user
Very shortly: a bad film. If you are looking for pure action and no brain (or brain 'illusion') or you are under 15 years old and like Bruce Willis this is THE movie. Also, don't expect the scenario to be consistent or even believeable if you think a little, so don't if you just want to enjoy 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'm normally a fan of Bruce Willis, and despite him playing the cold-hearted professional killer, I thought him the most appealing character here. That said, his character makes such a mess of his professional activity, it's incredible he hasn't been caught before. The plot is thin to the point of being nonsensical. The end was no less annoying and insulting for the fact that it could have been predicted from about 20 minutes into the movie.
** spoilers follow ** In Hollywood morality, the good guys always win, with a few casualties along the way, and the bad guys die, or are at least heading for justice by the end. The breathtaking insult of the film is the way that our IRA terrorist, who has somehow become a cuddly, touchy-feely character, gets to walk off to a new life. As does his former terrorist playmate (who is now a loving wife and mother).
Who's the bigger villain? The former (and, so far as we can tell, unrepentant) terrorist, or the hired assassin? I don't see much to choose between them --- in real life, or in the film.
This is the poorest film I've seen this year.


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


user
I would ward off any temptation to view this movie, it is quite simply dull. The characters are predictable and mindless. The assassin is quite unenigmatic. There is no tension, fun, no style or even a glimmer of originality to be found in this train wreck. And the morass of Hollywood cliché's are stifling. Oh, and you have a movie that makes a hero of an IRA terrorist. Cute. And now I need to speak some more to fill up the ten lines. And a little bit more Is that enough? Not quite, how about now? No, well further confabulation should do the trick, but The Jackal is really not worth ten lines of exposition. The original was great though.


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


user
So lets say you are a producer, you have some money, and you somehow got Richard gear and Bruce Willis, so now all you need is a script...but , why bother? see, this movie is really terrible, the acting is pretty good, but the casting is awful gear and Willis did their best to play these characters they simply cant play. now, this movie has no plot, or rather, there's something that tries to pass off as a plot: there's a mean hit-man (Willis) who is cool dangerous and sophisticated (actually he's none of those things, but from some dialog between the other characters, you are supposed to get this impression), so this hit-man is on a mission to kill someone, now there's an ex-IRA prisoner who is kind and nice and very likable (gear) who the FBI release from prison so he will help them. so now the FBI is "investigating" to find this hit-man, the investigation consists of a series of unlikely information - like some random person lost his wallet and someone used his name to buy a car - which is always right on the money. since there's no real plot and the script is so crappy, you cant expect any real character development, or tension, so instead of creating them through the story, they simply add some disconnected dramatic music, which signals you that something very dramatic is going on , instead of actually creating something dramatic..
the bottom line is that this is a very bad movie, and a complete waste of time which somehow got an incredibly high score for its level, probably because of the cast - and this is exactly what the producers where counting on.


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


user
"How many ppl know about this?"..."Lets keep it that way!" I wonder at least some new dialogues can be made or not? The movie is a real poor copy of the original. Bruce Willis probably did this movie while he was half asleep. The way he looks at Richard Gere's face with his cold-blooded stare when they meet near the port...oh my god! scared the hell out of me. Why does he kill Major Koslova and her mates isn't still clear to me. Another thing that I could not understand was the poison solution that he put on the car (what in the world was it?).
The movie plot is haywire and climax is dull. Another funny thing was how the Russian was killed in the club. I fell off my chair laughing when I saw that scene. Also, what was that thing about the gay guy..what purpose was it serving. I think the movie is made too swift to be easily understood. You have to really think what the hell was on Director's mind. LOL.
And the best scene after all was Richard Gere trying to hold on to the pillar between 2 fast moving trains. must have made someone loose his head if not contact with the pillar.


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


user
I could not believe how terrible and boring this Hollywood remake was.It's so dreadful. It easily lands a place in my top 10 worst films of 1998.About the only thing it had going for it was Bruce Willis,who should stick to action films,as a completely emotionless killer who'd kill his own mother for the right price.But I'd rather listen to Robbie Coltraine talk American for a week than listen to Richard Gere's nauseating Irish accent again.But this film is also implausible,unconvincing,uneven,unexciting,unimpressive and lands Sidney Poiter in a rubbish role to make a possible career comeback.One for filmroll-footie purposes entirely.


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 mildly entertaining if one neglects to acknowledge its numerous incongruities of plot and sheer lack of believability. Bruce Willis as "The Jackal" never seems to live up to his reputation as a cunning mastermind of the underworld. Instead, he bumbles about in broad daylight, parading a mishmash of shoddy disguises. Why this man has never been captured before (or even identified) is beyond me. Not once is the audience impressed by his cleverness or daring; considering the price he demands for his services (an exorbitant $70 million), his methods are decidedly low-budget and stupid.
As for those in pursuit of him, they are at least as ridiculous in their behavior. They show no sense of expertise, instead relying on half-baked conjecture which sends them traversing across the country at their whim. Incredibly, these far-fetched guesses (maybe he bought a boat, maybe he's in Chicago, etc etc) invariably lead them straight to the Jackal, who yet again escapes their clumsy grasp.
Richard Gere, whose Irish accent fades in and out like a distant radio station, plays the inexplicable role of an imprisoned convict who is released from jail to work alongside the FBI. He actually makes a compatible partner, if only because his means are as amateurish and inept as his professional pals. At one point, he actually confronts the infamous Jackal, but unfortunately the FBI, although they trust him enough to leave him out of their sight, fail to equip him with a weapon or any means of communication. What kind of operation are they running here?
The film also appears overly reliant on gruesome violence, which is entirely superfluous and provides no suspense whatsoever. The supposedly stealthy Jackal acts more like a demented and senseless serial killer, eliminating people for sport and writing on a victim's cheek with blood.
The film's action scenes are both predictable and unrealistic, and many moments are ruined with melodrama. This movie is poorly executed on many levels, the one bright spot being the ever consistent Sidney Poitier. Avoid this movie if you are in the mood to think as you watch it.



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


user
When recounting these events that took place some years ago, (hard to believe this actually happened)i thought, well, there is a basis for an interesting story here. Many secrets were never uncovered, the horse never found, the main conspirators never captured etc.
However, this film seems to be distracted by character study, and very little attention payed to the plot. Some other questions are raised though, like why on earth would Mickey Rourke be in this film? Its good to see rourkes career has taken off again, but he must cringe at the mention of this rubbish.
If the subject matter interests you, do an internet search on the topic, you'll be more educated and dare i say more entertained. Avoid this.


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


user
Rourke does his usual bit part,as a sinister,rancorous,Neanderthalian,ferocious,evil jerk,in the same mold as in "Picture Claire","Out in Fifty","Get Carter","Double Team" and the rest of the garbage he happens to be in.
He has very few lines.
Of course,all this is just junk,undervaluing Rourke,abasing him,and doesn't matter for his characterization as an actor.Still ,after seeing "A Prayer ...","Johnny Handsome","Barfly","9 1/2 Weeks","Year of the Dragon",etc.,etc.,for many years I considered Rourke an outstanding,smart,intelligent man.I think he has changed since.
He looks callous,calcined.
"He went about with gloomy looks;/Despair inhabited his breast/And made the man a perfect pest."(Belloc,"The Example").
I had absolutely no other reason to watch this dull movie except that Rourke was in.


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 pretty run of the mill family move that I am sure most children will enjoy but with really no that much to please any adults viewing the movie. The premise of the film is that Belushi's cop character takes his retirement but gets drawn into a case which results in him becoming a private investigator. The movie's plot is so obvious most of the kids will surely pick the ending before it happens. But additionally to that there seem to be story arcs and sub plots that are forgotten about as the movie progresses. This coupled with a sub plot where the titular K-9 gets pimped out by Belushi. One to be avoided I am afraid.


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


user
I am sitting here watching the film, Tango and Cash. IT led to a discussion about other great late 80s movies. The ridiculous Tunrer and Hooch, K9 connection came up.
Granted I have never seen K9PI and if I still value my life, I never will. Joshua quotes this as his movie of the year. Wow. Wow. I am utterly astonished that this movie exists. But so much more than that the fact that Joshua likes this move disturbs me to the core. I think Joshua is one interesting guy
K9
K9


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


user
sorry, sorry but sorry. nice, very nice production, very nice actors, also funny. But, this type of the movies with a dog (Rex German, Gery-Jerry American) with a private detectives, with a pretty rich woman???????????????????????? Hello producer, how many movies we have out there with the same plot?????????? What do u have on your minds when you make the scenes like dog having a pupu. Or any king of that dog activities????? Micro chips who can make you rich? Micro chips who wort a fortune? There is three master chips, wow? And the creator of the chips can't make the same chips again? Hello, wake up. can give us something smarter than that? Best, D


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


user
Dooley and his canine partner, Jerry Lee are together again in this 2nd sequel (?!!?) I sincerely had no clue that they made one sequel let alone two. And for a film that was only slight better than "Turner & Hooch"? This time after Dooley retires, he has to mate his dog (with other dogs, people) and wait around for Jerry Lee to poo. Real classy stuff. I mean come on now. The original had at least a few good laugh. This one has nary a one. Jim Belushi just looks old and worn out. Both Belushi brothers were great in the '80's. If John hadn't died, would he be so bad today like his brother? That thought makes me sad for some reason.
My Grade: D-
Where i saw it: USA network


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


user
sure this movie may have had its funny moments with the sat question people and i know the movie is not supposed to be totally believable the movie made it too outrageous for example a girl like that would never in a million years go out wit ha guy like that also people in movie had lackluster performances there acting was so bad. Also the plot bad they could have don e a better job on the scripting at least and focused more on the comedy the comedy was also a little dry and got really boring after the first few jokes, it was like 10mins was laughter then the old when is this gonna end started to kick in The bottom line if u want a a lackluster of acting mixed in with a stupid plot and a romance go ahead and watch this movie.


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


user
Utterly ridiculous movie which makes fun of the college admission process. While it is true that the SAT's is not everything in evaluating a student for admission to college, what the movie talks about is utterly ridiculous and not worth repeating nor viewing.
College admissions officials are made to look like stupid people who have an extremely narrow view of the entire process. The film is an insult to hard-working high school students who work hard and then have to suffer through a long process until they receive that letter of acceptance or rejection from the schools they have applied for.
This movie certainly deserves rejection on all levels.


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


user
PDQ Bach did it better. Much of "Bach"'s speaking part is letters written to various patrons complaining about the amount and speed of his payment. Anna Magdalena's diary, mostly about the death of children and sundry other family matters, is an iota more engaging. The music is disconcerting: 17th century sized chapel orchestras and choirs producing 20th century concert hall sound. The overall production quality reminded me of a junior high slide show. J S Bach was a brilliant man whose music speaks for itself. This film adds nothing. Netflix sent me 2 discs that wouldn't play, so I streamed the movie. Clearly Netflix was trying to tell me something.


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


user
"Dogmatic," as another reviewer described this film, is a fitting word. The director's idea was to present Bach without plot, acting, fun, theatrics, dialog, narrative, or drama. Mission accomplished, Monsieur Straub. "Pretentious?" Yes. "Cinematic?" No way. This is anti-cinema. No one moves. Hardly anyone talks. The camera holds static shots for 10-12 minutes at a time: very very occasionally the camera will dolly in. You may catch a glimpse of Gustav Leonhardt's fingers moving over the keys. That's it.
If you like the idea of staring at the back of a harpsichordist's (bewigged) head for 7 minutes at a stretch while listening to Bach, this is the film for you. I'd rather listen to Bach on my stereo with my eyes closed.


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


user
Like another reviewer, I really wanted to like this movie. I went with my father who was the biggest lover and booster of classical music but neither of us could stand this movie. I wouldn't even call it a movie. A better description might be a record of a few chamber concert pieces. As I recall, the camera never even moved. Rather, I just sat on a tripod for the entirety of each piece. The only attempts at dramatic effect were at the very end of each piece when the movie would cut to trees waving in the wind or little wavelets lapping at a beach. I'm sure the director would have preferred to have used footage of some really big crashing waves but the best he could find were a few inches high at some nearby lake, and again using a stationary camera. Truly pathetic. I can't imagine how anyone could justify rating this movie higher than a five. When we walked out, my father and I were completely mystified as to how it was possible to make such a bad movie. I don't know of of any good movies about Bach. The world really does need one, but just because it doesn't exist is not a reason to see this one. Someone will make one someday. Until then just keep rewatching _Amadeus_.


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


user
Very stark, very drab, no real drama. Why not just make a documentary? This isn't exactly The Passion of Joan of Arc. The only reason for seeing Chronicles is to hear the performances. I love Bach's music and even I found it hard to sit through this misery of a film. The great Gustav Leonhardt plays (in two senses of the word) Bach. We don't get much of a sense of him as an actor, since he's given so little to do dramatically. Mostly, he gets to walk purposefully or angrily out of various rooms. Bach's life, of course, was not an Errol Flynn movie. It was indeed fairly drab and more than a little hard. This probably means that the life isn't a terrific candidate for a film. The music, of course, is another story. I recommend The Stations of Bach. Far more information, for one thing, and some insight into the music, which is, after all, why Bach interests us in the first place.


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


user
After reading the reviews I decided to rent the DVD version.
I like classical music and wanted to learn more about Bach.
I was disappointed. I guess I do not know enough about Bach music and the the comments were not enough for me to understand the importance or what music was being played.
Maybe it would be appropriate with the guidance of an expert in Bach's music that can explain the film.
I really tried and saw the whole film hopping that I would be able to enjoy at least some of it, but I did not.
See it at your own risk.


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


user
Ever had one of those nights when you couldn't sleep and just turned on the tube to see what was on? That is how I ran across this tripe. For myself, I would have been better served tossing and turning for the 97 minutes I wasted with this film.
In its attempt to "be real" this movie's characters come off as such gangsta stereotypes that the story should have been the premise for a Wayans brothers movie. The dialog? Please! It sounded like a white man was trying too hard to write this film.
The editing was horrible. One of my "favorite" scenes involved a car chase down a bunch of narrow alleys. Cut to the characters being chased, though, and they are driving through a park complete with baseball fields in the background.
When any of our "homies" get shot in this film, he bleeds miraculously through clothes that have no holes, which is more than I can say for the plot of this predictable load of....baking soda.
Indie films can be great even if they are low on budget and effects, but they still need to have some cinematic integrity. If I could have given it a 0, I would. If you watch it, I hope it is on cable, because even the cheapest rental would be too much to pay. Actually, 97 minutes was too much to pay...


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


user
I'll give it this: I didn't stop watching, and it's not corporate, which is kind of cool. But my internal critic cut it to pieces -- I suppose I see too many movies. Wooden script, the slang just sort of clanks out of their mouths without any kind of flow. Editing, mentioned before, is hit and miss; sometimes it evokes a good ghetto feel, but mostly its irritating -- jerky, quirky angles and really dull lingering facial closeups. The actors were marginal, though Letisha had her moments.
I'm not sure why the audience supposed to care about Curtis, he's a total screwup and the actor is entirely expressionless and not particularly funny or endearing. The directing doesn't help make you love him or hate him, even; I just wanted him to shut up and get shot already. I didn't care about his impotent vengeance when that rolled around. The completely predictable ending isn't credible at all. I'm not sure why we're supposed to believe that some erstwhile successful dealers he deposes are stupid enough to fall for his petty scams. "Oh, you just got out of jail and are on probation? Here's thousands of dollars worth of cocaine, go run it around the corner for me. Now don't steal from me, etc."
A good sex scene in the beginning gave me hope, but it was let down in the end. Handling of a rape scene was slightly eyebrow-raising, if only mildly interesting. There are better movies in this genre that don't insult your intelligence by trying for some kind of authentic ghetto realism while more resembling a film-school offering. 4/10, an F.


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


user
Dustin Hoffman's debut feature isn't as bad as it's reputed to be; a Spanish/Italian co-production filmed in Italy with the director using the pseudonym "Dan Ash"(!), the film is uneven but generally diverting and deals with a plethora of shady characters in search of a $1,000,000 hidden by gangster Cesar Romero (who, despite being third-billed - after Elsa Martinelli and Hoffman himself - expires before the credit sequence has even rolled!).
Hoffman's performance, obviously, is nowhere near as nuanced as in later films but manages to dodge embarrassment by playing what basically amounts to an amiable klutz - an accident-prone American treasury agent of Sicilian descent (named Puzzu, which nobody seems to be able to get right!) sent out by his firm to retrieve the money and told to remain "inconspicuous" but, instead, is forever getting into trouble - though he ultimately proves surprisingly resourceful by finding the loot, foiling the crooks and winning the girl (Martinelli as Romero's daughter, who's somewhat wasted here)!!
Still, the film's best moments are provided by suave gangster Riccardo Garrone: apart from his would-be hard-boiled persona and the hilarious use of dialect, he's flanked by a trio of nitwits who more often than not prove a hindrance in the fulfillment of his various schemes! Also, in view of the story being set in Rome, it's odd that the police officer investigating the case is a Spaniard (doubtless an exigency of the co-production deal)!
Along the years, I've missed out on Hoffman's other Italian comedy - ALFREDO, ALFREDO (1972) - a number of times (I guess, mainly, because Leonard Maltin only rates it *1/2 in his "Movies & Video Guide"...but, then, MADIGAN'S MILLION gets a BOMB!); with Pietro Germi directing and co-starring the luscious Stefania Sandrelli, the credentials of that film are certainly more respectable, and I really hope it turns up again on Italian TV soon...


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


user
Warning, spoilers ahead (even if I doubt that anybody hasn't seen this yet)
The movie starts off rather well, but about halfway through it falls apart and becomes a corny, sugary sweet, predictable and unrealistic 'harmony romance' mess. I mean, it's very obvious that there are serious problems in the main characters' marriage, but these problems are never solved but just forgotten.
Basically, as soon as she decides to have a baby behind his back (without even asking) all of their problems magically disappear without a trace or an explanation. Given what had happened up until that moment it would have been far more logical if the marriage fell apart rather than becoming the trite and cliche' 'having a baby will change everything' ending.
The two main characters' families and neighbours are also extremely one-dimensional, and don't seem to serve really any purpose if not to irritate the viewer, and they also mysteriously disappear from the movie as soon as the 'harmony moments' start.
I am sorry to be ripping this movie, but given the start I would have expected something more. 4/10 for me.


assistant
0