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
Less than two hundred and fifty years ago, the last of the great pirates wrote their names in blood and fire across the pages of maritime history. This is the story of a buccaneer Captain whose name for one short year struck terror in the hearts of seafarers and merchants from the ports of the Caribbean to the trading houses of London.....
Hmm, that opening to the film sounds like we are in for one hell of a swashbuckling, pillaging, ripper of a movie doesn't it? Well it's not. Tho it's not totally without value as a curio piece. Out of 20th Century Fox, Anne Of The Indies is adapted by Philip Dunne & Arthur Caesar from a short story written by Herbert Ravenel Sass. Direction is by Jacques Tourneur, the score is by Franz Waxman and Harry Jackson is providing the Technicolor photography. Jean Peters is in the titular title role of Anne {AKA Captain Providence} and support comes from Louis Jourdan, Debra Paget, Herbert Marshall, Thomas Gomez & James Robertson Justice.
Originally meant to be be based on true life pirate Anne Bonny, the film ultimately turns out to be a tale of a woman seeking identity, and finding herself, in the predominantly male led world of piracy and sea based shenanigans. Filled with clichés and over familiar set pieces, the film also suffers from a cast that is largely misfiring. Peters gives it a right good go, and Paget lights up the screen with effervescent beauty. While Robertson Justice, although underused, actually looks the part and doesn't overact like the rest of the male cast does. Some reviewers have desperately tried to dig deep into the film to find intelligence and hidden meanings, purely because it's Tourneur in the directing chair. But there is no depth here, this is merely a job for Tourneur, a professional one granted, but its thinly plotted and actually lacking swash to go with the buckle in the action stakes.
Disposable at best. 4/10


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


user
After the turning point of NIGHT MUST FALL, Robert Montgomery (for the most time) came into his finest films and performances: HERE COMES MR. JORDAN, THEY WERE EXPENDABLE, THE LADY IN THE LAKE, RIDE THE PINK HORSE, THE SAXON CHARM, JUNE BRIDE. Even some of the failures he was in were interesting enough to be still watchable (RAGE IN HEAVEN, MR. AND MRS. SMITH). But Montgomery wanted to do more and more production and directing work. In 1949 he made what would be his last movie performance - he played Collier Lang, an egotistical movie star, who is dragged into helping the authorities do an investigation about a young girl's boyfriend.
Apparently my view of this film is a minority view. Most of the views given are favorable about it. I thought it was a dull, witless script, with Ann Blyth's groupie heroine not very appealing as a character. She admires Montgomery as a star, and this "helps" when he is called in to assist the authorities, but after awhile I found there was no chemistry between them. The script was also devoid of much fun, although Montgomery and Roland Winters did try. The only thing I recall to this day as a joke point was that Taylor Holmes is the wealthy father of Blyth, and he is an admirer of Winston Churchill. So he always dresses up as Churchill, and we see him wearing a floppy broad brimmed hat, smoking a large cigar, and painting (Holmes' bald head helps in the disguise). That was the most memorable joke from this film - not much of a real memory.
Montgomery went into early television, and finally won the attention and respect he always had deserved in motion pictures. His last contact with the movies was his direction of THE GALLANT HOURS about Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, starring his friend Jimmy Cagney. It is a far better film than this. For his overall film and television career, I will give this mediocre film a "4". That strikes me as generous.


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


user
Poor second-string feature from Universal Pictures about a mama's boy movie actor doing criminal investigation work for the military, fending off the advances of the brash young woman he's been assigned to romance. Robert Montgomery directed and stars in this adaptation of the short story "Come Be My Love", and his acting performances of this era are unrelievedly lazy. The plot is sappy, predictable stuff, and writer Robert Carson has given all the really funny lines (as usual for films of this period) to the feisty black maid. It's always nice to see Ann Blyth and Jane Cowl in support, but they can't do much with this hokey material. * from ****


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


user
The One is a very aptly name show, mostly because it comes close to being the only network shows on in prime time that barely more than one person is watching.
When I first heard of The One, I thought to myself "Weee!! Another sing-song show! We don't have enough of those!" and then proceeded to strap on my helmet and run about my home hitting my head on blunt objects and sharp corners. Because in all honesty, the constant, year round pain and suffering inflicted by having only one or two "talent" based reality shows running just isn't enough. We needed another one. And not just any one - "THE" One. The one with slightly less attractive contestants with slightly less talent. The one with slightly less of a point, though it's hard to imagine a scenario in which that's possible. The one with pointless footage of the contestants when they're not performing included. Because I care what Johnny Sings-a-lot does in his off hours! I really do! Now, you may be thinking "Hey! On the entire continent of North America less than 4 million people watched the first episode. Doesn't that mean this show sucks?" Well, to that I say less than 4 million people in North America have syphilis, so sometimes low numbers bring good news now don't they?. Think about it.
In the end, The One may be horribly unoriginal, a show that even the airing network couldn't be bothered to promote because they too realize how absolutely worthless it is, but it's still not syphilis! Yay!


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


user
No surprise except in how quickly ABC reacted to the dismal ratings. According to published reports (Variety) the show garnered the worst ratings in the history of the ABC television network.
And I quote: ABC's music talent competition "The One" opened Tuesday night to cancel-me-now ratings.
The article went on to say that the show received a "shockingly low 1.1 rating/3 share in adult 18-49 and 3.08 million viewers overall."
That makes it the weakest premiere for any reality show on any network and also below all series bows in ABC history.
From the first moment I saw the commercials for this I knew it would fail. We don't need another American Idol clone. But ABC should have given this show a fair chance to succeed.


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


user
I a huge fan of when it comes to Doctor Who series and still am, But I was very disappointed when i began to watch this new series.
Children under the age of 15, or even better under the age of 10 will probably will enjoy it the best, and possibly new fans who haven't seen any of the original series, But as far as fans of the original series, will find this series missing much of the charm the made the original series so great, It took David Tennant to get me to Appreciate how Much better Christoper Eccellestion was as a Doctor in the 1st season.
I would only recommend this series for people who haven't seen much of the original series, people who are under 15, and EXTREMELY DIE HARD who fans, everyone else will just get a laugh and mumble curse words about Russel T. Davies screwed up one of our favorite TV shows.


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


user
To be fair, I didn't see a lot of this show. Probably because it wasn't as good as the original M*A*S*H, but I seem to recall them moving it around on the weekly schedule. Some shows just aren't worth the trouble of following around every week. But I really did try at first, so it wasn't all bad. Maybe I just kept expecting it to improve, but I can't give this show a 1. In all honesty, I can't give it any more than a 2 either.
It wasn't MASH (I'm not going to type those stupid *'s every time). And it was trying to be MASH without putting forth any effort, like it would just magically happen. Well guess what? No magic. The best I can do here is to compare it to other shows.
Trapper John, M.D. was a much better show by far. However, they should have called it B.J. Hunnicut, M.D. because Pernell Roberts looked exactly like an older BJ, but nothing at all like Trapper John. Keep everything else the same, just change his name and the name of the show. Presto! After MASH wasn't the only sequel to completely bomb and dishonor the original. Archie Bunker's Place was a lame follow-up to All In The Family. It had no heart, no conflict, no depth  all of the things that made All In the Family so memorable. Likewise, MASH was funny because the doctors were reacting to the impossible absurdity of war. Remove the war and you remove the drive for 99% of the humor. Potter can't yell at Klinger for wearing a dress, because Klinger isn't wearing a dress, because he's not trying to get kicked out of the Army, because he's already out of the Army, because the war is over. (breathe) All of the jokes became forced because there was no motivation for anything. The least motivated was the viewer, to stay around and watch the show.
And from what I remember, the whole show seemed to be Potter, Klinger, and Mulcahy just standing there unnaturally, facing the audience like a trio of Vaudeville performers. It was reminiscent of Good Times, where they spent 90% of the show standing behind that couch and talking to the audience, trying to make it look like they were having natural conversation. They weren't. And it felt even less natural on After MASH.
Another random tidbit I recall is that the people who made MASH never got any royalties from the spin-off. The studio used the absurd excuse that After MASH was really a spin-off of the movie MASH (which they owned) and not the TV series. Nice try, but Mulcahy was the only one of the three in the movie, and he was never deaf. I guess studio execs will do anything for a buck. Anything other than make a worthwhile sequel, that is.


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


user
Every time I watch Larry King Live, he rolls out the most softball questions for his guests. He rarely gets any useful information because he doesn't ask the hard questions. This comes from his start on radio.
King established himself on the radio and basically has not changed one bit of the format for television except for his talking head being visible. He becomes like a puppy for his guests & the only time he really gets useful information from them is whee they volunteer it or a caller to the show actually asks a hard question.
Larry is a nice, fatherly type of interviewer. This means he should not have a prime time show on a major news network if you consider CNN one. I don't because of the history of CNN.
Copying (ie. Cable) New Network was started by Ted Turner as an alternative to network news in that it could broadcast news 24/7. When it first started, the only TV competition was from NBC,ABC, & CBS. Because of this, CNN Copied the format of their competition & achieved respectable ratings.
This worked fine for CNN until they got competing networks which were innovative & provided better/ fresher news coverage. In response to the heating up of competition, CNN went into denial & panned its competitors who were eating their lunch & ratings because CNN wanted to resist change. This didn't work very long & their ratings began to plummet.
Now the Copying News Network is trying to re mold itself by re-inventing itself by copying the leading news network format. Unfortunately, this show represents a big piece of the problem. It is 21 years old & showing it's age very badly.
Sorry to say, King needs to be moved out of Prime Time or scrapped altogether.


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


user
Larry is a perfect example of the Democratic Party in the United States, of which he is a staunch member. King used to be somewhat fair and unbiased and had a variety of guests on. The Party used to be centrist, too, but that was another era. Now, like, Larry, it's Far Left.
At least 90 percent of all the guests on King's show in the past year or two are Liberals who sit there and bash President Bush and every Conservative they can think of.....night after night. Bill Mahar, one of the more viscous ones, is - and you can look this up - the most frequent guest in the history of King's TV show. You can count on other outspoken Left Wingers to be on King's show each week, but don't hold your breath waiting for a Conservative. They are few and far between.
King was also one of the innovators of the media overkill. That all began with the O.J. Simpson trial. Night after night after night that's all you ever saw back in the mid '90s. Whatever latest gossip on Anna Nicole Smith, or the Petersen murder case, or Paris Hilton, Britney Spears or some other tabloid subject, you can bet Larry will beat it to death. Sadly, all the other networks do the same thing now. Larry was a leader in that regard.
King also has the nerve to sometimes give advice, such as on marriage. I am not kidding; I 've heard him say it. The joke is that he has been married and divorced a half dozen times! This man has few scruples, believe me. When it comes to morality, he is clueless. Maybe that's why he has Dr. Phil on, to explain some facts of life to him regularly. Larry will nod, but he doesn't understand any more than when Billy Graham used to talk to him.
King also is becoming famous for the "softball" interview, meaning he asks no hard questions. That is a lot due to the fact that most his guests are of his political persuasion. People know being on King's show is liking having an hour public relations gig.
What all this has meant is a serious decline in ratings the past five years. People see through him and his Liberal-and-tabloid-TV mentality and switched over from King and CNN to Fox News.


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


user
Let's describe Larry as an interviewer: a complete suckhole, in every way possible. He laughs at all his guests jokes, he asks the most boring questions and he would never dare contradict them. He hits me as the type of person who wants to be liked by...everyone. Friendly, boring, ol'predictable Harry. He probably owes his success to being a dream interviewer for celebrities because they don't get bombarded with what we, the people, want to know and have a right to know. Let's put it this way: he interviews as if he's in a red country. 02/10, 2 for the guests that come on the show yet it all seems pointless when Larry starts asking his mind numbing questions such as "What's it like to be a mother?" followed by the usual answer along the lines of "Being a mother is the greatest thing that ever happened to me: it's wonderful, but tiring".


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


user
I can't honestly believe that this is a sequel or follow up of John Landis classic comedy horror movie from 1981 . I suppose you can't really describe it as an original werewolf movie either since the bare bones of the story steal elements from the one set in London: An American tourist visits a famous European capital , he narrowly survives a werewolf attack that kills a colleague , he embarks ( Pardon the pun ) on a sexual relationship with someone in the medical profession , he turns into a werewolf , he's visited by apparitions of his dead victims , etc etc . and reading the previous line I've just discovered how much the storyline has in common with the original that it seems very similar indeed . The difference lies in how enjoyable and entertaining the Landis movie is
With this Paris based movie there's no scenes that really stand out . There's no naked man waking up in a zoo wondering how he's going to get back home with no money or clothes , there's no bizarre dream sequence of Naziwerewolves and there's no spectacular climax . AAWIP does try to be funny but is there anything more embarrassing than failed humour ? I'm thinking of the scene where Andy McDermott has to convince someone he's got chewing gum in his pocket and not condoms ! Perhaps the biggest difference between the two movies is that there's no poignancy involved with this dubious follow up . You really do feel sorry for the protagonist's fate and dilemma in the London movie , here you just feel Andy is nothing more than a cypher going through the literary motions of a script . There's also a large number of plot holes visible . Is this the first time The Lunar Club have carried out a massacre ? If not then aren't large numbers of corpses with their hearts torn out been reported in the world's press ? Why haven't the police got leads ?
Everyone else has mentioned it and so will I - The visuals are poor . Look at the bungee jumping scene at The Eifell Tower , it's painfully obvious that it's achieved via some blue screen projection while the werewolf transformation is done by some very cartoonish CGI . I won't put Anthony Waller in the same bracket as Stephen Sommers as a director who totally ruins a movie because of an over reliance on CGI ( The major problem with AAWIP is the screenplay coupled with a high degree of expectation from those who saw the 1981 movie classic ) but I would have preferred the Rick Baker type special effects used for the transformation . To be fair it's reasonable to speculate that perhaps the budget didn't stretch that far . But at the end of the day this is a fairly poor horror movie that didn't need to be made and DOG SOLDIERS is much better entertainment


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


user
Woeful and unnecessary sequel to a bonafide classic. An American Werewolf in London was, indisputably, a gem of a movie: humorous, demented, with just a dash of romance and so very, very British it made me want to stand up and sing God Save the Queen every time the movie ended. Then came this abomination. You know you are in real trouble when the leads are so utterly unlikeable you are glad when they are slaughtered, and actually start cheering for the lycanthropes. Tell you the truth, folks, I only got about half way through this CGIed travesty before losing the will to live and turning it off. Absolutely pitiful and a putrid waste of anyone's time.


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


user
Once upon a time there was a great American film. Which combined horror and comedy with equal thrills. This film featured clever direction. Groundbreaking special effects and superb comedic and serious acting. It was entitled 'An American Werewolf in London.' Sixteen years later the long awaited sequel was finally pinned onto the poster board outside your local theater. Surely it would have at least some of the thrills of the original. Think again. 'An American Werewolf in Paris' is an incomprehensible mess from start to pitiful finish. The problems begin with the leading man. Tom Everett Scott's performance is stiff and tiresome. From the outset he seems intent on proving that all young people are simpletons. In his defense, not even a seasoned Shakespearean thespian could have extracted a good performance from the juvenile and witless dialogue. At one point, one of Scott's deceased friends, who's soul is doomed to walk the Earth after being carved up by one of the werewolves, Is finally able to leave for the afterlife. He then quips to Scott and his friends. 'Okay guys, see ya.' What a memorable goodbye. Julie Delphy soon shows up as Scott's mysterious European love interest. Basically, she's a French girl playing the French girl. It isn't much of a stretch. But all this stupidity isn't even the most disappointing thing about the film. The special effects, such an integral part of the superb original film, fall far short in this flop. The werewolves look like cartoons. And no matter how well you sculpt a cartoon with sinewy lycanthrope muscles. It's still hard to get scared of a cartoon. So instead the vacationing American gang, led by the ultra weak Scott, keep finding excuses to return to the werewolf's catacombs lair. Here it's much easier for this incompetent special effects crew to keep the computer enhanced creatures or absurd beast masks under the cover of darkness. Some have said that if you don't look on this film as a sequel it's not as bad by comparison. I disagree, this film can not stand on its own, and is even more of a disgrace when compared to the brilliant original. If it doesn't want to be looked on as a sequel it should not have borrowed most of the title from the 1981 film. I , don't care how much you love werewolves. Or how much you worshiped 'American Werewolf in London.' as I myself did. This one is simply not worth wasting your time. 'Okay guys, see ya.' Terrible. 3 out of a possible 10 T.H.


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


user
God, that sucked. You can't end a horror movie with a happily-ever-after family setting. Yeash. I was kind of ambivalent going in to the final act. But, my god. He didn't have to kill the girl, she didn't die, the ghost father appears with a cure (which makes no sense, because his spirit would have been liberated after the yank kid killed all the bad werewolves). What a hunk of junk. This is the worst horror movie I've seen in a long time, and I've watched a lot of horror movies. This is a slap in the face for Landis and everyone else involved in American Werewolf in London. Blegh. I hope that this ruined the career of every one in it bar Julie Delphy. And CGI: Kind of new and chic back in 1997, but today it just looks drab compared to the artful prosthetic/makeup work of London. Anyway, I'm done, I hope I've scared a few people of. Get the original instead, or failing that The Howling. Or failing that watch American Idol reruns. Just don't watch this mess.


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


user
Perhaps I'm being too generous when I give this film two and a half stars out of five, but there was an occasional moment. However, as "An American Werewolf" movie this one is a missed chance! There are no real plot connections to the superior original to speak of, but the story is similar in some ways to "London".
*Possible Spoiler Warning* American kids go to foreign country, one falls in love with a beautiful girl. Another one of the kids gets slaughtered by a werewolf in the same night that one gets bitten, and despite his undead friend's warnings, by the light of the full moon he sprouts fur, fangs, and claws!
But there are some differences in the story, for one; the girl is one of the werewolves. Second; there are three American Kids. And third; there's some weird-@$$ werewolf cult intent on taking over the world! As crazy as it sounds, that last one, WASN'T a joke! *Spoiler Ends*
The films suffers from many things, first the weak acting drags it down immensely! Tom Everret Scott's performance is amatuerish at best, and he and Julie Delpy, who plays his love interest, don't seem to have any chemistry together at all. Second; A weak script that seems to be all over the place. Many elements of suspense and dark comedy, that made the original one great, are missing in this one. And whoever said that eating out the heart of the werewolf that bit you will change you back human? Last I heard this wasn't part of werewolf lore at all! Third; terrible special effects; The werewolf effects are done with computer animation, which works for things such as dinosaurs, ghosts, and space ships. But seems choppy, fake and artificial, when used for furry creatures like werewolves.
However there were a few things that saved this one from total "turkeydom", there's one hilarious scene in a Paris cafe when Andy (Scott) is having coffee with Serafine (Delpy), he drops a bunch of condoms on the table, and tries to pass them off as chewing gum, by chewing and blowing a bubble! Also; the soundtrack, a very cool mix of alternative rock bands like Bush and Smashmouth. Although none of the songs have the word "moon" in their title, like the original movie, the soundtrack is great nontheless. And another funny scene when a rotting corpse, played by Julie Bowen, attempts to whistle and her eyeball pops out, had me laughing out loud.
But as a whole this film seems to lack the wit and suspense of the original. And the overly contrived ending doesn't help it out much either.
**1/2 Two and a half Out of Five Stars (Average.)


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 a fan of the AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON movie and so was curious whether a 16-year later sequel could be done with French language and local re-cast major, supporting, and minor characters. Tonight I watched the "edited for FOX Network" version that was some sort of curious hybrid of several hyperactive sequels. The screenwriters and directors pay homage to certain of the key plot concepts: Tourist gets wolf bite, full moon comes out, boy meets girl, boy becomes beast, boy dies heroic death after help from ghost victim. For me, the oddest aspect of this "formula" teen horror special effect-ride was the casting of the school teacher-love interest of the TV comedy "ED" as one of the werewolf's clueless victims who is more or less totally unsympathetic in the scripted lines they handed her. I haven't seen another horror-flick that this movie is "sequelling" (a vampire fighting flick titled BLADE), but I guess that parts of its plotline must explain how villain werewolves (they're spoofish) are threatening the "good" werewolf pair during a long part of the movie. There is also a final conflict in a Paris subway train, a la SPEED. This 1997 studio product is an odd hybrid of a film since considerable technical effects are shown for scary purposes but the authentic terrors of the original have been completely undermined, in my opinion. Such an odd re-write of the werewolf legend and "movie-mythology" !?! My suggestion to those considering this at the video store -- go for a classic "top of the line" Thriller instead : Alfred Hitchcock's PSYCHO!


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


user
The odd mixture of comedy and horror sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. Had the main male character been a little more interesting, the film would have been as well. A trio of young Americans visit Paris, run into a beautiful werewolf, and the problems confound from there.
Numerous logic holes make the possibly intriguing story difficult to take.


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


user
This DVD is missing its calling as a Heineken coaster.... This is a great example of why no one should ever go see a sequel with a different director/writer than the original. Two hours of this turkey left me begging for Exorcist 2 reruns.
NO legitimate laughs. NOT ONE decent scare. The script was just a mess and I felt bad for the actors who had to perform it (they must have had sick relatives at home or monster coke habits or something).
The original was a makeup effects landmark. So naturally, the producers of the sequel thought it would be a great idea to to scrap makeup FX and do CG werewolves instead. These CG werewolves had me laughing a lot harder than any of the "comedy". It was just a total miss. If ya want a night's entertainment, go rent the original again. Or go take a film class and make your own horror film. You're bound to do better than these fools did.


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


user
Well, what can be said about a "horror comedy" that features neither horror nor comedy? There are no characters in the film, but much too many plot lines - all underdeveloped and mostly superfluous.
The computer generated creatures look bad, a bit like Disney versions of oversized rats without a tail. The walking dead are the biggest rip-off apart from the title, the shall look like the dead in Landis' movie, but are far removed. They just look like bad actors with abit of plastic and bull's blood added.
Two plot lines really showed some promise (the love story and the "company" story), but failed as miserably as the director, the writers, the SFX department, the production and the actors.


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


user
I had been wanting to see An American Werewolf in Paris for a long time because I loved its predecessor, but this film didn't impress me as much as An American Werewolf in London. Actually, to be quite honest, it didn't impress me at all.
Tom Everett-Scott and his dude pals are wandering Paris and, in a preposterous bungee stunt off the Eifel Tower, rescuing wolf-babe Julie Delpy from death. Before you've time to work out if the constant mugging and lumpy dialogue is meant to be the stuff of comedy, a full-moon has hit and the brats are being chased by dreadful CGI werewolves down Parisian sewers.
The script is disgustingly poor, the actors were made to make this film, they're horrible performances match the status of the movie. From start to end, this movie is never entertaining, engaging or even slightly watchable. I had trouble watching this whole film without throwing up my dinner, to be quite honest.
The action scenes aren't exciting, the jokes aren't funny and the werewolves aren't scary. In short: Miss out or be haunted forever.
I rate An American Werewolf in Paris 2 out of 10.


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


user
AWiP tries to be funny, scary, tense, and romantic ... and fails in every respect. The acting is average at best, but mostly stupid. The special effects are not enough to make up for the stupid plot devices, and the chemistry between *ANY* character is juvenile.
If you don't want to be mad at yourself, don't pay money to see it.


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


user
Take an utterly stupid story. Couple it with unprofessional performances, 2 bit graphics, add ultra-lame comedy bits, and you get this film. I thought the original was bad, but at least that story was simple and straightforward, though idiotic. May nobody produce another in this series.


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


user
I just don't get it. Why call this a sequel to the film "American Werewolf" when it has absolutely NO connection with it whatsoever? The first film was funny *and* scary with ground breaking special effects. (If memory serves, the Oscar category for special make-up effects was *created* for this movie). "Paris" is none of these things. Awful effects, and not much else. Do not see this movie. Rent the original "Werewolf in London" instead. You'll be much happier.


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


user
One of two movies I have actually thought about asking for money to stay until the end. Most movies have at least one thing that is worth staying for, even if it just to laugh at how bad it is. I never found it for this movie. Nothing was good, from the script, to the very bad effects. The worst movie I have ever seen.


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


user
Hello people,
I cannot believe that "Shades" from That Thing You Do took this role. I don't think Cory Feldman would have taken this role. This movie was a fuming pile of dung. Save your money and time, and see every one of the top 250. I swear I wanted to slap the lady at Blockbuster silly for permitting me to rent this. Stay away!!!!!!
Mr. Hipp


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


user
you will likely be sorely disappointed by this sequel that's not a sequel.AWIL is a classic.but this movie is about as far from being a classic as you can get.what a joke.special effects that aren't very special,horrible dialogue,non acting.and a laughably ridiculous subplot quickly and unconvincingly,(not to mention fleeting)tacked on with about a third of the movie left.did i mention the story is less then lame.there's no way this was supposed to be serious horror movie,yet it's to stupid to be funny in any good way.the rating it currently has(4.8/10)is too generous if you ask me.my rating for An American Werewolf in Paris:a 3.5/10


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 title in search of a movie. It's a pitch that sounded lucrative to some studio executive and the rest be damned. When this film was made there were still two things that CGI did not do at all well: people, and fur. Furry people were thus not destined to look good when rendered by computer. This is the only example I can think of where effects for a well-funded sequel took a giant leap back landing well behind those of the original movie. For the record, the design of the werewolves doesn't help a bit. The film-makers apparently couldn't decide between quadruped and biped, tried to do both, and wound up with a creature that looks equally awkward either way. The transformations are anatomically nonsensical and the end result with a relatively high forehead and short snout looks like a cross between Ron Perlman and a hyena. But back to the crass part. This is a movie which exists PURELY to cash in on its forebear. I am not a fan of Landis' original film but boy, does it look good in light of this. If you thought some of Landis' humor was forced try some of the excruciating attempts here. The bubble gum scene, the corpse humor, the dog that...you know, you'll just have to watch that bit yourselves. Thomas Everett Scott is on vacation in Europe with friends and decides to take a break from acting the "ugly American' and bungee jump off the Eifel Tower in the middle of the night. This leads to him rescuing a young woman (Delpy - Julie it's not worth this just to become a star in America. Ask Rutger Hauer) from jumping to her death. She turns out to be part of a cult of werewolves who are plotting to...I'm not sure, something bad. Ghastly French stereotypes, gaping plot-holes, a muddled ending. No matter, the studio cared only that the title would likely fool millions of "American Werewolf in London" fans into handing over their cash. For the most part, happy to say, they were wrong.


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


user
There is really but one thing to say about this sorry movie. It should never have been made. The first one, one of my favourites, An American Werewolf in London, is a great movie, with a good plot, good actors and good FX. But this one? It stinks to heaven with a cry of helplessness.



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


user
An American Werewolf in Paris wasn't really that good compared to the original.The original didn't use computer effects for the werewolf and they looked more realistic .The werewolf effects in this film looked too cartoonish.most of all,the movie did not have enough for me for a horror film to enjoy.


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 probably would have been good,if they didn't use CGI (computer generated imagery)for the werewolf scenes.It made the creatures look fake and the werewolves looked cartoonish.CGI is great for certain effects like the dinasours in Jurassic Park or Twister.But when we see a film where the creature must look completely real,CGI is not the way to go.Look at An American Werewolf in London.No CGI.Just makeup and a mechanical creature and what you come up with was more realistic than what was shown in the sequel.This film did offer a few gags that was fun to watch and the humor in this movie seemed to have drawn me in but it's nothing more than a film that I thought was O.K.And that's not good enough.In my opinion,An American Werewolf in Paris doesn't hold up to the original.


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


user
An American Werewolf in London had some funny parts, but this one isn't so good. The computer werewolves are just awful: the perspective is all off, it's like seeing them through a distorting mirror. The writers step on the throat of many of their gags. American boy says to Parisian girl, "Is there a cafe' around here?" Instead of just leaving it at that, they have to have the girl sigh and respond, "This is Paris."


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


user
Jeff Speakman never really made it beyond the lowest ranks of martial-artists-turned-actors (lower than Don "The Dragon" Wilson, for example), and with vehicles like "The Expert", you can see why. There are three major problems with this movie: 1) The plot - or should I say plots - are all over the place, there are some characters who get a lot of screen time but serve little purpose, 2) There are only 4 fight scenes in total, some of them completely unrelated to the main plot and some taking place in the dark, 3) The music score is overzealous and overbearing. Strange as it may seem, this is really the most annoying thing about this film: the score persistently tries to convince you that you're watching some sort of grand epic, instead of the low-budget limited-action film you are indeed watching. With all that said, at least there's James Brolin around to lend a touch of credibility. *1/2 out of 4.


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


user
Oh, well I thought it should be a good action, but it was not. Although Jeff Speakman stars there is nothing to watch.Only two fight for almost 1,5 hours, yak.A lot of talking and everything is so artificial that you could not believe it. The plot is clear from the beginning. If you want good action don't rent this movie.


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


user
THE EXPERT, starring Jeff Speakman, is the definition of DULL!!!
Dull, characters, dull situations, dull direction, dull actors, dull cinematography, dull music.
I don't really understand this movie. Is it supposed to be an action movie? It's almost as if Speakman wanted to be in a serious movie but the level of acting and writing found in THE EXPERT is below your average TV drama. And there are some typical "Speakman pummeling bad guys" scenes here and there but the main aspect of the movie relies on some sort of believable drama, which is totally wrong for Speakman or is so badly directed that it just doesn't work with the action star. In the end, this confused movie looks and feels very nondescript and bland. The worst aspect of THE EXPERT is the music. The composer is a Jerry Goldsmith wannabe, with his pompous and melodramatic score, which simply doesn't belong in this kind of (dull) movie. It's as if the producers knew they had a very dull product on their hands and they asked the composer to make the film feel more compelling and dramatic with his score, which makes the entire movie look even more confused, goofier and dull.
Don't waste your time watching this, even if you're a Jeff Speakman fan.


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


user
I think I would probably not hate this movie if I spoke Polish. I selected the English version at the first menu, but it gave me Polish dialogue with English subtitles, just as the Polish version did. Maybe the dialogue was so disjointed because the person that did the subtitles could not translate it into English very well. To exacerbate the issue, some of the dialogue had no subtitles at all. The acting was pretty bad, especially the female lead, who was melodramatic about everything! One scene that bothered me was when a German woman was caught stealing and as the mob was jostling her around, her shirt opened and the director showed close-ups of her naked breast for the next 15-20 seconds. I couldn't see how her breast added to the drama of the scene or the film. Maybe the director was trying to increase the numbers of teenage boys in the audience. Much of the film takes place in an extermination camp liberated by the Americans. First, the "American" uniforms did not look anything like U.S. Army uniforms. Second, none of the extermination camps in Poland were liberated by the Americans. I would think that a Polish film director who turned 19 in 1945 would know better than an American born in 1966 that all six extermination camps were liberated by the Russians. All in all, it's just not a very good film if you don't speak Polish.


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 not in favor of death penalties but in this movie, it couldn't happen fast enough. Just to end the movie. I don't understand why this movie is rated as high as it is. It fooled me into a bad night.


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 difficult to imagine how the engaging Dan Brown novel "Angels and Demons" could misfire as badly as this film version. Here are ten reasons why the film was a failure. Due to the spoilers, please do no read on unless you have already seen the film.
(1) In the film, there was no love relationship between Robert Langdon and Vittoria Vetra. Worse still, there was not even any chemistry between the two leading actors.
(2) The breathtaking locations in Rome, as described in the novel, were not realized visually in the film. I am aware that director Ron Howard encountered difficulties in filming on location. But there are superior photographed depictions of Rome on The History Channel than in this film where the Eternal City was presented in eternal stock film footage. The great art works described in the novel were only briefly depicted in the film. The magnificent Bernini sculpture of the "Ecstasy of St. Teresa" was only momentarily glimpsed, and the West Ponente relief in Vatican Square was not visible at all.
(3) The most tasteless choice made by the film-maker was in the depiction of the deceased pope who actually resembled the beloved John Paul II. In the novel, the pope is clearly fictional with no resemblance to any real pope.
(4) One of the most colorful (and important) characters of the novel, Maximilian Kohler, Director of CERN, was cut out of the screenplay.
(5) There were numerous instances when the lines of dialog were inaudible due to extraneous background noise.
(6) There were moments when the faces of characters were not visible due to the shadows and chiaroscuro film lighting. This technique worked in "The Godfather" films, but Ron Howard is no Gordon Willis.
(7) The College of Cardinals was quite a motley crew with one of the electors speaking in a Southern drawl. This dude would have been more at home on a Texas ranch than in the Sistine Chapel.
(8) The crucial relationship of the Camerlengo and the deceased Pope was not defined in the film. This relationship was central to the theme of science vs. religion and the relevance of the Illuminati to the plot against the church.
(9) In the novel, the character of Hassassin was an unforgettable villain. In the film, that assassin character's role was a cardboard cutout villain.
(10) As a whole, the filmmakers did not trust the workings of the successful novel.
In the novel, Langdon makes an impossible fall out of the sky and into the Tiber River. In Ron Howard's film, it was the movie itself that landed in the Tiber.


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


user
Personally, the book was a very well written, amazing, thrilling piece that was not brought to justice to the movie. Watching the movie at 12.01 in the morning to see that major parts of the book were left out frustrated me, seeing that it affected the "different" outcome of the movie. There was something to be desired out of this movie, but all in all, it lacked in plot.
For someone who has NOT read the book, I could see how this movie would be seen as inviting and entertaining with its controversy and suspense. However to a dedicated reader who has read it seven times, I did not see the strong connection between the two: both the movie and the novel.
With major characters missing (such as Maximilian Kohler) and the abrupt turn in plot with the survival of the last cardinal in the preferiti, the plot of the movie was slightly strewn thus leading to a different take in the conclusion of the story. The Hassassin too was portrayed as a common white man, compared to that of in the novel where he was portrayed as a Muslim; his motives in the book are predominately based his ties with the Illuminati, however, in the movie, his motives are based on money and seemed more like work than some personal tie to the task at hand.


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


user
I went to see this movie tonight, trying to keep an open mind. I had hoped to enjoy a movie that I expected to be different from the book. There were considerable differences from the book, much like the changes made in the DiVinci Code. I went to see the DiVinci Code with the same thought process and managed to enjoy the film, in spite of, the changes from the book. It was still enjoyable, filled with action, and the process of deciphering the symbols was interesting and mentally stimulating. Unfortunately, Angels and Demons disappointed on almost every level. Throughout the movie, symbols are found and figured out quickly, without any interest for the viewer. They blow past the various Immuminati symbols so quickly that we had no chance to get a look at them and appreciate how they work. The final Illuminati symbol, which was the most interesting and creative one in the book, was replaced with the crossed keys symbol. In my opinion, that was a missed opportunity to focus on and spend a little more time on the symbols, which is what the Langdon character is all about. Overall, this movie is a very poor interpretation of the book, and fails at the attempt to be an action movie / thriller. 4 out of 10


assistant
0