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
*****Classic ****Excellent ***Good **Fair *Tragic
Review:
Oldboy is not for everyone. It's pervasive violence, its live octopus eating and it's unimaginary story.
The film focuses around a man who's been kidnapped and is imprisoned for 15 years, Oh Dae-Su is released, only to find that he must find his captor in 5 days. Now the story though may seem gripping to start with but once watching this bloated and un-original blood fest it develops into a mash of bitter blood and a forceful film.
It's directing is on par of average and by no means the standards of what a South Korean thriller should be. Oldboys acting scenes are paralleled with dull humour and a poorly writtern script.
Oldboy is occasionlly presented with thin straw performances that one could only feel shameful about.
Verdict:
Not for everyone but it's scope and vision isn't clear enough to see further than the grey abyss of fog.
*Tragic


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


user
When one of my friends recommended this to me, raving about how well it was filmed, the underlying themes and the general greatness of the film, I obviously expected an amazing, at least entertaining film.
The two hours I spent watching this turned out to be a huge disappointing waste of my time.
I understand that this movie is meant to be surreal, but even in surreal movies, there is something which anchors it down, even if it is only in the slightest. This movie, on the other hand, felt forced and fake. A lot of the shots were unnecessary and watching it made me think the director was trying to hard to be artistic.
The acting was poor, and the relationships between characters were not nearly developed enough. Maybe that's just me missing something that others could see but I hadn't even realised there was any sort of attraction between Dae su and Migo before they started getting at it like rabbits randomly half way through the film. Then again, maybe this film was just bad.
I am not against violence in movies, but in this one, almost all of it was just unnecessary. Throughout all the fight scenes I felt myself cringing at how painfully cliché it all was.
And the plot? The word laughable comes to mind. I would be amused if I hadn't wasted two hours of my life following this poorly thought out and ridiculous plot. Despite all the movie's flaws, by the end of it, I was expecting something interesting to conclude it. I won't discuss the ending, because I wouldn't want to "spoil" the movie for those who haven't seen it. Just that the metaphor "Be it a rock or a grain of sand, in water they sink as the same." cannot be used as an explanation for everything.
This entire movie was made for shock value and shock value only. I just hope sooner or later people will stop being so pretentious and recognise a bad movie for what it is. I've seen many other great Korean films and it depresses me that people have hailed Oldboy as the best.


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


user
... So some people might argue that this can't possible be the worst movie ever made, and no it's not. I have seen movies with weaker plots, worse acting and so on.
So why do I hate this movie über alles? Well, it's basically about a man, who gets kidnapped for many years, and when he comes out, he tries to find out who did it and why, to get revenge. The problem I have with this movie has nothing to do with gore or horror, but
***MAJOR SPOILERS STOP READING IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW***
our main character basically gets tricked into having sex with his own daughter, and he wants to cut out his own tongue so his enemy won't tell her, because she didn't know. It is so humiliating as he crawls on his knees like a dog in total submission. And why did he deserve this? Because many years ago, he saw a brother and a sister have a tender moment - in the wrong way. He went on and told some people, and as a result she commits suicide. And viola, it's the brother who put our main character through all this just for that. I have wondered: Maybe I hate this movie so much because I think his punishment is way too harsh. Maybe because I feel this movie doesn't condemn incest, but somehow confuses it with love. Maybe it's because I expected something else.
***END OF SPOILERS***
Believe me, nobody deserves what happens to our main character in the end, and I'm very serious; you know how some movies just go under your skin and stay there? Well, I felt goddamn dirty after watching this movie, and I REALLY wish I'd never seen it. It stayed with me for days, and some might ask: well, isn't that the purpose of a good movie? The ability to affect us in such ways? Yes, it can be, but this movie not only made me sick, it made me feel violated.


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


user
I have been reading comments on IMDb for some time now. An 8.3 average for this movie just plain gets on my nerves. I don't mean to pull one of those "I just signed up for an account so I can post on this movie" bits..... but, i just did. The only theme you will come away with from this movie is that incest does not deserve to be ridiculed.
Now, I realize many 'hoity-toity' film people love this movie; nevertheless, it is crap. The thing that REALLY gets to me is the fact that the director expects you to have sympathy for the 'villain' in the movie. If you do have sexual relations with your sister, you should probably be an outcast from society. Just my personal feelings I guess. Yet, I sat through 2 hours of this *expletive* expecting some really deep reasoning behind Dae-Soo's imprisonment.
I tend to like a lot of foreign movies, but this is my first encounter with a Korean flick and it has put them last in line in my book. Oh... i feel better already after a little venting.


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


user
Watched this film with an audience of....5 in total! Had a choice between Lakshya and Asambhav...(realized then I should have gone for Lakshya). A typical plot...India v Pakistan..but just isn't cricket as you have Kashmir in the middle. An Indian super hero goes on a mission to save the President of India from some Pakistani rebels who are involved in a mass drug smuggling racket. I left the film half way as it was simply boring and the plot was confusing and all over the place. The songs were also awful, the film tries to hide the flaws with its special effects but unfortunately they are outdated too.
Overall...avoid it if you can, has to be the worst 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
What has Rajiv Rai done to himself? Once a hit director of films like Tridev and Vishwatama is now making one bad film after another. I was initially excited at the thought of Rajiv Rai returning to the action genre but that soon fizzled out. As a Rajiv Rai fan I thought I should at least give it a go but I left after an hour. One reason for me leaving the film so early so the amount of Paki- bashing in the film, this was not in Rai's previous venture.
A lot of directors have tried Paki- bashing but I did not expect it from Rajiv Rai Another letdown was the music. Rajiv Rai's have always had good music until now. There is only one good song and that is Tere dekh dekh Ladgayan. The performances are not upto scratch, not even from Rai Loyalist Naseer-Uddin- Shah. Avoidable fare from once my favourite director.


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


user
Avoid this film if you are looking for entertainment.
It is filled with wannabes trying to be something that they are not and Emraan is just wasted in the role of a tour guide who falls for a newcomer who needs to go to acting school. Seriously, where to they get these people from? Just because you're pretty doesn't mean you can act or should be an actress.
Asmit Patel needs to send an apology letter to everyone who accidentally watches him makes a fool of himself in this poor excuse for a film. He plays an insipid wannabe gangster who drugs girls and forces them to fall in love with him and sells them off to the highest bidder.


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


user
Taran Adarsh a reputed critic praised such a dubba movie
The film has a weird story wherein a lover sells his love to a brothel cos he wants money to save his mother and then also gets forgived for it LOL
The movie is crap
the entire first half has it's focus on romance, comedy which fails to work The twist shocks but the entire second half is a mess and the climax is clichéd
Direction by Aditya Datt is bad Music is typical Himesh
Emraan does his serious role well but his wardrobe, his way of walking through songs.etc is similar to his previous films Geeta Bhasra annoys Ashmith Patel fails to convince this actor was good in MURDER only so far and then a downhill Mithun some screen time and he is okay but his breaking down into a song is forced Ranjeet is okay


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 an example of small budget,ineffective star cast,weak storyline and poor entertainment. This kind of movies are made for commercial breaks and not for any entertainment of die-hard fans of bollywood movies. I went to this movie because i thought the earlier one gangster was tolerable so this is also. Only thing I appreciate the way new actress put herself in the movie in a very bold way, she very much resembles bollywood actress nandita das. she is good ,sexy and acting well. she definitely go up in her career. our mithunda was all time good at his work .atleast he has some good to the movie. I didn't like imraan for his role must advise him to improve himself now as he has done many movies as new actor and he has been seen as established actor This movie has nothing except the bold scene done by new actress Never try 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
James Stewart plays Johnny Mason, lawyer. Carole Lombard is Jane Mason, wife. Lucile Watson the mother-in-law Harriet Mason. Johnny sees Jane and quickly marries her. Mother is disappointed. Mother lives with them. Many troubles are ahead. Jane can't cook. Can't set the table. Can't do many things according to mother. The interaction between daughter-in-law and mother are the highlights of this film. Stewart and Lombard are married but just don't have any real magic on screen. Stewart is Stewart. He is good as a timid husband and son but this doesn't carry the film. Can baby Mason build bridges between Jane and Harriet? A believable film for those that are married.


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 doesn't have a very clear picture of what it is or wants to be. There are some good bits when Stewart is on screen and they give him some lines to work with. It works best early on as romantic comedy, but the story keeps heading for more dramatic territory and gets itself lost in the process. By the last fifteen minutes or so, the plot twists are just a series dramatic clichés.
The part with the airplane feels like some leftover footage from another film spliced in.
The main reason I can think of to watch it is if you want be able to say you've seen all of Jimmy Stewart's films.


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


user
When I bought 4 DVDs for £5.oo in a local shop it should have been warning enough that this movie was not up to the usual standard of David Selznick Productions. With a cast containing such names as James Stewart and Carole Lombard I was looking forward to a real treat. As many other commentators have said it is an odd mixture of plot and scenes that doesn't quite convince. HOWEVER, I am so glad that I did view this film as I now have the memorable saying 'Never let the seeds stop you from enjoying the watermelon.' to live by. This should sum up everyone's life. Pick out those seeds or spit them out or swallow them - and then enjoy the watermelon - life itself.


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


user
Carole Lombard and James Stewart gamely try to inject some life and meaning into this bizarrely constructed film about the tribulations of a newlywed couple. The scenes play as if they were parceled out among various directors, each with a different goal. Some are Capra-cute, some screwball, some melodramatic, and some surprisingly noir. There's even an extended adventure sequence, when the plot suddenly focuses on a small plane flying through a blizzard. It's hard to say which scenes are the most incongruous, when the film as a whole is so erratic in tone, and the storyline not exactly believable. Only worth watching for film students or fans of the actors--some smaller parts, such as Judge Doolittle and the intrepid pilot, are also very well played.


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


user
Extremely formulaic with cosmic-sized logic holes and a pretense at comedy. Aw, poor NYC lawyer! He's just scraping by, and when he gets a reduction in pay he doesn't go out to find another job, though he's one of the most respected lawyers in the area. We see him arguing in court so that others come up and congratulate him on his fiery, winning delivery, but he can't stand up to anyone in his firm. At home, problems are ignored until people storm out of the house.
The only character you want to root for is the final maid, who seems an actual human being who uses logic and communication to survive in the world. How laughable that the maid should bring the lawyer and his wife a chicken and wine on New Year's Eve because she feels sorry for them! (The bit's not played for laughs.)
Sorry, just too unbelievable and with a **SPOILER** pat, everyone-turns-180-degrees ending. How'd they get top-notch stars for this? If I'd been at the studio I'd have sent this one back for a complete rewrite.


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


user
I decided to watch this movie because I'd not seen Carol Lombard before in any movie. I'm sorry it had to be this one because, quite frankly, this is a dog  and even with Jimmy Stewart and Charles Coburn, both of whom were great actors.
The problem with the film is simple: it tries to put too much, too quickly, in to a story about a young lawyer (John Manson played by Stewart) who marries Jane (played by Lombard) within an hour of meeting her. What's that cliché? Marry in haste, repent at leisure...
In short, the story is a series of episodes that show the couples' worsening financial status, their troubles with John's live-in mother, their struggles to pay the bills, John's diminished status at the office, the arrival of their baby son, John Jnr (unexpected and causing additional friction at home with mother), the couples' angst about their marriage, the baby's sickness which worsens, thus necessitating an heroic flight by a lone pilot (in a fierce storm) to bring a special serum to save the child, and finally John being accepted as a junior partner at the law firm.
How many more clichéd situations could the writers include? Maybe Mother dying soon after? There wasn't much comedy; the drama was lacklustre, at best; the dialog was painful to hear. Only the acting of the four main players was adequate.
This was the period at the end of the Great Depression with the USA coming out of its long downturn  during which many people experienced all of the events portrayed in the movie.
So, it made sense for Selznick to reaffirm good ol' home spun American values of family, relationships, heroism, perseverance, and initiative  all against the backdrop of the "average" American family. Who better to use than Jimmy Stewart and Carol Lombard?
And, it should be noted that the film was released in early 1939; so, it was planned in 1938  soon after the USA began to get production going for the coming World War II. Hence, this sort of film was a great booster for the general public, at that time, many of who would soon have to join England in war. As many here would know, Hollywood and Washington formed an uneasy alliance before, during and after the war.
However, I'm glad I saw it  as a piece of disguised socio-political propaganda. But, I'll have to see other Lombard films to gain a better appreciation of her acting range.
As another reviewer noted: see this one just to say that you've seen all of Stewart's movies; otherwise, don't bother.


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


user
Ineffectual, molly-coddled, self-pitying, lousy provider Jimmy Stewart is having a bad marriage to Carole Lombard. After falling on hard times, he endures a demeaning job, a fault-finding, passive-aggressive, over-bearing live-in mother who is in dire need of an epic smackdown, and an endlessly-crying baby. The movie trowels on failure and squalor to no discernible end. Do you want to watch a couple bicker with his mom for ninety minutes? Many scenes feature a shrieking baby. The movie fails to elucidate why we would want to endure the mother from hell, or why Jimmy Stewart can't grow a pair. Who wanted to see this? Who wanted to see Stewart and Lombard without laughs or charm?
It's absolutely depressing and unendurable.


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


user
Since I'd bought the DVD, I watched as much of this as I did out of a sense of obligation to my wallet.
The plot has Kirk Douglas as a successful first novelist who hired Laraine Day as a secretary, falls in love, and marries her. Complications ensue.
Douglas is usually thought of as an intense actor, given to heavily dramatic roles, sometimes hero, sometimes rat. He's not bad in this thoroughly comic part. The problem is that the part isn't particularly comic and neither is anything else.
The plot rambles on. A dozen "quirky" characters come and go -- most prominently Keenan Wynn as Douglas's friend who does nothing but make wry comments. Thelma Ritter was better at this sort of thing.
Well, if the plot is weak it could still have been rescued by some sparkle in the dialog but there is none to speak of. Some gags are silly. Others don't clear that bar. Here's what I thought of as an amusing line. Douglas has just hired Day and wants to get her down to the beach house and seduce her. Day is disturbed and remarks that she's never heard of a writer working in a beach house. Wynn asks if she liked Douglas's previous book, "Last Year's Love." Yes, of course she did. "Well, most of 'Last Year's Love' was done in the beach house." Ha ha.
Nice cast, including support, but a failed comedy. There have been better sitcoms on television.


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 starting to wonder, after reading some of the opinions here, if I watched the same film as the other reviewers but after checking my facts I am forced to the sad conclusion that I have.
This witless wannabee screwball comedy has to be one of the the longest 94 minutes I have spent, and one of the most unfunny things I have seen, for ages. Now don't get me wrong, I love screwball comedies, but this boring, set-bound drivel falls so far short of the dizzy heights of Preston Sturges and Howards Hawks that it doesn't deserve (to mix my metaphors) to be thought of in the same breath as those greats. Writer / Director Charles Martin's dialogue is neither witty, subtle or interesting - and there's so much of it. He doesn't know how to end a scene either, with some ruthless cutting, especially of people exiting rooms and saying goodbye to each other, the pace of film would have been lifted and then the fact that the limited number of characters are doing stupid and motiveless things for no other reason than this is supposed to be a comedy would have been a little less obvious. Characters in this movie fall in and out of love with each other, and move in and out of apartments, at a moment's notice only to move what little plot there is forward. One moment people are desperately yearning for one person, the next they are getting married to someone else - having wooed and been wooed off screen so we know nothing about it until one of the characters tells us - "Oh, they're getting married!" (usually after someone has made a faux-pas or jumped to the wrong conclusion). If we had known that these two characters were in love or supposed to be engaged before hand we, the audience, might have enjoyed the experience of watching someone making a fool of themselves in front of them. As it is the characters just come over looking like selfish, petulant idiots and we have no sympathy for any of them.
The sets are limited and the action confined to them in a way that makes the whole thing look like a badly filmed stage play. The only moments of relief from the tedium are Keenan Wynn who looks like he has wandered in from a different movie and has decided to hang around and be slightly funnier than all the unfunny stuff going on around him.
Highly avoidable.


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


user
... BREAKER MORANT and ROMPER STOMPER . It has also given us watchable films such as BOOTMEN and THE ODD ANGRY SHOT . Unfortunately for everyone involved in this debacle THE WOG BOY won't be joining appearing in either list .
I was looking forward to seeing this movie simply because of the politically incorrect title , so politically incorrect that when it was broadcast on BBC 2 late at night the announcer didn't even mention the movie's name so I was expecting something so offensively anachronistic that my jaw was going to drop in disbelief . It did drop in disbelief , I found myself not being able to believe that the financiers thought this was going to be a major international hit
The problem lies with the cast and the script . I do know that Australia with its small population doesn't have a large pool of actors so I'll be forgiving for the most part , but this doesn't stop my criticism of Nick Giannopoulos as Steve . For this type of comedy to work you must be impressed with the comic skills of the lead actor and I'm sorry to say but Nick G just doesn't have the skills . I'd never heard of him and seen nothing else he's been in so perhaps he's much better at other performances . Here however he's just plain irritating , unconvincing and I lost count at the number of times he mugged for the camera . The jokes themselves are very flat and predictable and getting back to the script it seems very under developed , I mean who thought a running gag about a female Minster Of Work who's having it off in the back of a limousine was funny to begin with ? You do get the feeling that someone in the production should have been more honest and said " Look mate , this screenplay's not nearly good enough . Go and make it more subtle and structured "
I've been harsh and harshness has been called for in this review . I gave the movie four out of ten and it would have only got three if it wasn't for the one genuinely funny sequence where Steve is watching a current affairs show only for himself flashing up on screen and labelled a " Dole blodger " . This shows that the screenwriters were aware of comic timing and social comment . Such a pity that they didn't come with a much better written movie


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


user
After seeing the TV commercials for this film I marched to my local cinema expecting a lot of laughs. In the end it was one of the longest 90mins I have ever spent. The Wog Boy really did fail to provide a story line with enough substance to hold my interest and predictable and sometimes tasteless jokes didn't fill this void.
A scene where the two 'Wog Boys' dominate the dancefloor of their local nightclub was the only one that impressed me at all. The only character that was worth watching was 'Nathan', played by The Castle's Stephen Curry, his struggle with the opposite sex providing most of the few laughs.
A word for this flic is boring. Save yourself the time and just watch the TV commercial as the only laughs are shown on 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 the first movie I have watched in ages where I actually ended up fast forwarding through the tedious bits which there are plenty of. Very ordinary movie. I'm glad I missed it at the movies & got a 2 for 1 video deal which included this movie instead.


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


user
This totally UNfunny movie is so over the top and pathetic and unrealistic that throughout the whole 90 minutes of utter torture I probably looked at my watch about 70000 times! Lucy Bell is so much higher than this crap and for her to sink this low is quite depressing. I have to admit that the whole audience I was in was laughing hysterically but the majority were Greek or Italian so I guess that this humour will probably make them laugh but not me. All this movie does is make you sick watching all these slackers make excuses for their stupid actions for 90 minutes. God, and I can never get that 90 minutes back!


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 wanted to like this film however after an amusing opening few minutes I hardly cracked a smile. I agree there was no chemistry at all between the two leads and the other characters were cliche ridden. The script totally wasted the talents of Bud Tingwell and Kim Gyngell.
It must be said however that there was plenty of laughter around me and even a smattering of applause at the end. Perhaps I just couldn't relate to it enough. I'm just glad I went on cheap tickets.


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 glad I didn't pay to see 'The Wog Boy'.
I sat there hopefully waiting for something original and/or funny to happen.
It reminded me very much of those predictable English comedies of the 1970s.
I won't bother with a synopsis of the plot, I suggest you do something else for 90 minutes



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


user
Humour is a very individual thing and the audience at the sneak preview of The Wog Boy seemed to enjoy it more than I did. I found it an anachronistic affair, more representative of the old fashioned racial humour of the Australian cinema of the 1960s and 1970s. The boy meets girl plot never takes off because of a lack of chemistry between Lucy Bell and Nick Giannopoulos while I found laughs thin on the ground. If you want to spend your money on this, wait until it's on video.


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 another of those films I can remember from when I was a kid and I recently managed to acquire it off ebay - 20 years on, it's nowhere near as good as I remember it being.
The story is 'vaguely' kick started, by a 'cosmic event' (there's another extra film-crew member in the credits for 'weak story development') which makes collective ants become super intelligent. Ant species who used to war with each other have ceased rivalries and are now working together. The thing I wanted to know throughout was, TO DO WHAT EXACTLY? You never find out what they want. Nigel Davenport and his sidekick travel out to the desert where bizarre ant activity has been noted, and begin to study the ants from an impregnable igloo shaped laboratory. Probably the most chilling scene in my opinion was when the two scientists visit the giant square in the crops (like a square version of a crop circle) a result of the ants chomping away.
This film was not very scary quite simply because you don't know whether to fear the ants or like them. All you know is that the ants want people to leave the area so they can get on with their hijinks - but you don't find out whether they are really baddies. It ain't a sci-fi because the 'cosmic event' explanation is too vague to be properly taken into account. It is deffo more of a chiller. TBH the flares, daft hairstyles, tight shirts with big collars and Nigel Davenports unnaturally big facial hair-do freaked me out more than the ants! Did you notice that there are only six actors listed in the credits? Yup, that right - SIX, and you won't see any other human beings in this film at all. Not even in the distance! This is a plainly obviously low budget film which is a bit watchable because you probably won't have seen one like it. I can't think of any anyway. The filming of the ants is pretty good, they must have done months and months of filming before they had the shots they needed to stick in the film. You may well say to yourself 'how the Hell do they get the ants to do that?' over and over, but it is all quite simple. You will also notice that the film makers sacrificed millions of innocent lickle ants to make the film too, so animal rights peeps STAY AWAY! Good for novelty value, but you may not watch it more than once.


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


user
If you really really REALLY enjoy movies featuring ants building dirt-mirrors, eating non-ants, and conquering the world with a voice-over narrative, then this is the movie for you. Basically, a couple of scientists working out of a bio-dome communicate with highly intelligent ants (the most intelligent actors in this film) in an attempt to try to thwart their plans of conquest and extermination. Throughout the movie the two scientists (and a girl they rescued from the ants) use everything at their disposal (computers, green dye, and horrid acting), but to no avail. I guess they just couldn't afford any pesticides because the movie would be over too quickly.
The title of the movie "Phase IV" is something of a mystery. This is not a spoiler, but "Phase I" starts right after the opening credits whereas you don't reach "Phase IV" until the end credits roll. Apparently the director knew the movie would be tedious to get through and so placed Phases 1 - 3 throughout the movie as a kind of progress report: "Hang in there buddy! Only 1 more phase until final credits!" As a MST3K episode, this one wasn't very good for two reasons: 1) This one is from the Season 0 on KTMA when they were first starting out so the riffing is not as good as in later seasons; and 2) This movie is so bad not even J&TB can lighten it up. There are one or two Gamera references as they had just finished riffing 5 Gamera movies.
The movie does have a trick/surprise ending, but I was so glad to reach the end the effect was lost on me.


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


user
Ants are shown in cartoons as being able to carry away chicken legs, watermellons, people, etc. This may be an admirable characteristic because ants carry the film Phase IV. This is not because they want to, but because they have to.
The movie opens with a narrator cryptically explaining that some cosmic event has come over the earth, and that a fellow scientist has been working on the effect this disturbance has on the ant population. The movie is broken up in segments; the first part after the cosmic event is Phase I, and so on until the end of the movie, which is Phase IV.
What is Phase IV? Who knows? We don't get to see that part; presumably it has something to do with the bonding of one of the scientists studying the ants and a girl who lived in the area. The girl, who looks like a cross between Alicia Silverstone and Liv Tyler, is mad at the ants because they killed her horse, but except for one angry outburst, goes around the biodome with a blank ("Clueless"?) look.
These ants are pretty smart; or the scientists are rather dumb. I'll give credit to the ants. Why? Anything that usually ruins my picnics that can then build reflecting towers, blow up trucks, and adapts to poison with the greatest of ease gets my vote for being the smarter species, at least in this movie.
Sterno says stomp on this anthill.



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


user
To me, this movie was just plain confusing, slow, and uninteresting. Why did the aliens choose to communicate through ants? It makes no sense. The ending was muddled and made no sense whatsoever. In the end, I was hoping that the ants would kill everyone.
Avoid this one at all costs. Not even MST3K could save it.


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


user
I'd heard this Japanese flick is edgy, creatively interesting, a "cool new thang" on the Asian movie-making scene ... maybe even something as innovative as Hideo Nakata's "Ringu" or Chan-wook Park's "Oldboy", especially the latter.
You can imagine my disappointment when, instead, I found the movie disjointed both narratively and cinematically (though not in a way that a film aficionado appreciates), cliché-ridden, even sadly silly instead of funny --- on the whole, a very bad knock- off of the "Pulp Fiction" style.
I stopped watching after 30 minutes, when I gave up on it becoming something more than it is.


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


user
Let me first state that I REALLY REALLY wanted to like this film. For the most part the actors and actresses looked their parts, and did fairly well in their roles, but the movie lacked any real plot. It seemed so wraped up in seeming 'wacky' that no interesting story ever shone through. Also, the camera work was often sloppy, attempting snatchlike camera work and failing miserably. Most of the time, shots meant to look cool ended up being confusing. Perhaps something was lost during translation, but some of the characters were just... stupid. The crazy pretty boy who sniffs people like a dog? Uhhhhhhh. OK. Overall, a fat stinking 1/10. Not worth your time.


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


user
Although I found the acting excellent, and the cinematography beautiful, I was extremely disappointed with the adaptation.
One of the significant portions of the novella is the fact that Ethan and Mattie decide to kill themselves, rather than go on. This is never presented in the movie, they show it as if it were a sledding accident.
The character changes in Mattie and Zenna are almost non-existent. While in the novella they almost change places, at the end of this adaptation it appears as if they are both invalids.
Lastly that Mattie and Ethan consummate their relationship fully nearly destroys the power and poignancy of the finale.
The change of the narrator being a preacher was one effective change.
Neeson and Arquette are superb in their portrayals. Joan Allen was also wonderful, however her character was much watered down from Whartons novella.
I do not expect films to faithfully portray novels, but this one went to far and in the process nearly destroyed the story.
Overall, I would not recommend watching this film unless you have read the book as you will come away confused and disappointed.


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 bad movie. There is no denying it as much as I'd like to. Tommy Lee Jones is about as good as he possible can be with the script they gave him, and he had a couple of decent action sequences that felt really out of place due to their acceptable quality.
Somewhere along the line someone figured that all of the shortcomings of script could be counteracted if they were to hire every single workhorse actor in the business, unfortunately even truly, deeply talented actors like Goodman, Beatty, Sarsgaard, Gammon, Steenburgen, MacDonald, Pruitt Taylor Vince, and lest we forget Mr. Jones himself can't fix the wooden dialogue, and plot progression that went absolutely nowhere.
In fact at one point I looked up, sure that the movie had been running for the past 2 hours only to find that I was 51 minutes into it.
Perhaps the most painful point of the movie was the subplot about the ghost confederate soldiers that seem to be of little to no help to the story. Other than slightly detracting from the confusing business at the end with the picture. *if you haven't seen this movie disregard this past statement which may seem tantalizing and know that it is not, you will not understand it any better after having watched the movie.
The most interesting thing about this movie may be that it is actually a sequel to the movie "Heaven's Prisoners" starring Alec Baldwin in the same role carried by Tommy Lee Jones in this movie. I may have to watch it now, first to see if it is as bad as In the Electric Mist, and second because I can't seem to (no matter how hard I try) break my man crush on Alec Baldwin.


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


user
I have read and enjoyed many of James Lee Burke's Robicheaux mysteries. When I read 'In The Electric Mist With The Confederate Dead' was being filmed and Tommy Lee Jones was playing the lead, I was thrilled. After watching it last night, I ending up turning it off with about twenty minutes left, not wanting to see any more people shot or beaten up. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind blood and gore-I love 'The Untouchables' and 'The Godfather Trilogy'. Perhaps it was just that I had previously seen 'Birth' and 'What Just Happened' before watching this. I know that Burke's books are violent, lyrical, and especially in the case of 'In The Electric Mist', can be like the Cajun swamps he writes about, full of things that are never fully explained. In a book, that's fine. In a film, that's confusing. Many of the previous reviewers are also ardent admirers of Dave Robicheaux, which makes it more understandable that they really liked the movie. Or they are admirers of Bernard Tavernier or both. Even as a fan of all the actors (and especially Vince), I felt it was such a waste of their talents overall-they gave good performances in a film that didn't hold together. Now, I say this, having only seen the USA DVD and hoping that Tavernier's cut will make a huge difference. On the plus side: The soundtrack was wonderful. The scenes at Robicheaux's place were perfect-just as I imagined the bait shop to look like. Mary Steenburgen was excellent as Bootsie, as was Walter Breaux as Batist. If you read the books, you know why Robicheaux is an even-tempered person in the beginning of the film, and then starts whacking people with various instruments. Overall, I wish that they had filmed more of the 'Electric Mist and the Confederate Dead' and left out large portions of Robicheaux's methods of interrogation, explaining Elrod's gifts and his bond to Dave, as well as Dave's to the General. Then I wouldn't be feeling today as I did last night when I turned it off, "What just happened?"


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


user
I've read all the Dave Robicheaux novels and consider James Lee Burke to be my favorite contemporary fiction writer. I've also visited New Iberia and much of Acadiana to be able to better visualize the setting in most of these books. Needless to say, I greatly anticipated seeing "In the Electric Mist," especially since I thought Tommy Lee Jones would be terrific as Robicheaux.
I was greatly disappointed. The story was very choppy; the interplay with the "ghosts of Confederate dead" was shallow and lost the impact and nobility it added to the book; and Tommy Lee Jones was doleful, expressionless and difficult to understand as DR. The best way to describe this forgettable film is to add my "ditto" to an earlier user comment that this movie was like one of those old made-for-TV movies. I expected Jill St. John or Cameron Mitchell to show up at any time.
The location settings were accurate, and the photography at times captured the essence of the steamy bayous, smoky juke joints and eerie above-ground graveyards of South Louisiana. Too bad the story's disjointed presentation and Tommy Lee's sub-par performance interfered with the unique mood and spicy zest of the region.
Next to final comment: In the novels, Dave Robicheaux's nickname is "Streak," because of the distinct streak of silver-gray hair on one side of his head. (Similar to how the Sopranos' Paulie Walnuts would appear if he were seen only in profile.) Tommy Lee had no such streak in this film, probably because the editors are James Lee Burke fans and they airbrushed the streak out after witnessing Mr. Jones's poor imitation of Dave Robicheaux.
Final comment: While I generally find Alec Baldwin to be pompous and obnoxious in most roles, he was by far a better Robicheaux in "Heaven's Prisoners" than Tommy Lee was in "In the Electric Mist." Also, Heaven's Prisoners is much more interesting and exciting, with uniformly believable performances and more evocative atmosphere than this new movie.
"In the Electric Mist" is okay to watch when one feels like "veging out" and there's nothing better on TV. But then, so are infomercials.


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 disappointing adaptation of the James Lee Burke novel "In the Electric Mist of the Confederate Dead". It is rather poorly acted mainly due to the miscasting of the principal players. Tommy Lee Jones, a normally fine actor, just doesn't capture Burke's "Dave Robicheaux". As Robicheaux's main nemesis, John Goodman does a sloppy job as the "heavy". The guy who plays Robicheaux's actor-buddy doesn't look like a former "A" lister leading man. The rest of the movie is mainly cast with no-name locals who just don't do justice to a big-time novel.
The movie and Jones' performance is way too hurried for one thing. Robicheaux in Burke's series of novels, gives one the feeling that he fits well into his environment most of the time, being laid back and slow-moving. This is just like the deep south and southern Louisiana. Then at times Robicheaux is nearly manic in his exertions. Jones just moves at a fast pace through the whole movie. He doesn't vary. Ned Beatty is wasted. Mary Steenburgen is out of place. About the only good thing about this is the setting. On the whole the movie gives one the impression of a TV movie.


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


user
If you've ever listened to any of the James Lee Burke books on tape or CD and the reader was Will Patton you may agree with me that Will is the personification of Dave R.
Tommy Lee Jones is a native Texan (or so I've heard) and no one portrays a Texan better IMHO, but he's not a Cajun. His delivery is all wrong. I lived in the state for several years and I can still hear the strange patois that a Louisiana accent contains. TLJ doesn't have anything like that.
I thought Marry Steenbergen was a good choice for Bootsy, but I missed seeing Cletus (who will be cast in this role? The Rock? Mickey Rourke? whoever, he'll have to be big).
Overall, I thought the movie was only a 4 - the plot flopped around like a fish out of water and didn't have the normal interesting, yet non-linear continuity that the book typically has.
Hopefully, Hollywood will try another JLB book, "Last Car to Elysican Fields" would be a good choice. We'd get to see some of the best villains from JLB ever.


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


user
I have to be honest and admit that this movie did basically nothing for me except baffle me completely. It's burdened with a plot that revolves around the mysterious murders of several young women, which then gets linked to the discovery of a body over 40 years old. The story never really seems to make much sense, especially when Robicheaux (played by Tommy Lee Jones) starts having his conversations with Confederate General John Bell Hood (I never really did figure that out.) Jones was OK in his role, although I thought he was really starting to show his age here. Horribly miscast was John Goodman as Julie "Baby Feet" Balboni, who I guess is supposed to be some sort of local mob figure. I simply didn't think Goodman worked in this role, although I'll admit that just could be because I'm not much of a John Goodman fan. Somewhere in the mix appeared Justina Machado as an FBI agent, although I never really did understand what the FBI was involved in, which could mean simply that my attention kept wandering from the screen. If it was explained, though, I missed it completely. Fortunately, this is a fairly short movie, so you won't waste too much of your life on it. 2/10


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


user
I saw this movie last night at the Berlinale as part of the competition. It was billed as the "world premiere" of the movie by the host (though it seems that people here have seen it previously). I have to say, I still don't really know what to make of the movie. I am unfamiliar with the book, purchased the ticket only two hours beforehand and had only limited knowledge of the plot. Not enough, as it seems, as I had problems getting into the movie. The movie is sometimes being narrated by Jones' character but somehow that perspective did not fit for me. And I really cannot say if some of the laughs the movie got were calculated or not. The cuts were abrupt and disruptive, the scenes seemed somehow slapped together and the storytelling did not always make sense right away (even leaving out the supernatural parts) - the actors were really good but could not really save the movie somehow. It was entertaining but sometimes only in the sense that I sat there thinking about technical details of movie making and what went wrong with this one. I still do not know what kind of mood the director intended the movie to have. It was a strange mix of light, dark, supernatural. It sadly did not draw me in at all and I rather watched it with a technical eye. But thinking about what is wrong with a movie while watching it is the best sign that a movie somehow has failed. I would have definitely expected something else with these actors involved...too bad!


assistant
0