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
What can you say about a film that makes "The Erotic Witch Project" look like "The English Patient." Again, the plot and characters are secondary, but the plot is almost an exact copy of "TEWP."
Four buxom sorority sisters and a goofy male guide enter a forest to look for the bare wench, and the women become sexually charged. The bare wench leaves porno devices and a blow up doll, just like in "TEWP." They get lost, the doofus gets lost, and the girls find their way back to their hotel. There they reenact the end of "The Blair Witch Project," as cameras are dropped and the guide is seen playing hopscotch, a game integral to the thin plot.
At least three of the sorority sisters here have unnaturally large breasts full of dimples and stretch marks, along with the rather obvious surgery scars. The one "natural" gal here is humiliated by the director. In a very unfunny, and overlong, end credit segment, outtake scenes where she could not get a line right is played over and over again ad nauseum.
Julie Strain shows up in a fright wig to play the bare wench. This one scene seems to be added later, since no one could possibly be credited in the cast with shooting it. In the background, as the women cavort and stroke, you can see someone's picket fence. This may be director Jim Wynorski's backyard.
This is just bad stuff. The lesbian love scenes are kelvin degrees cooler than "The Erotic Witch Project''s. Most of the lovin' consists of the four women mashing their eight collective breasts together. I think they are trying to form a silicone based lifeform that would rescue them from this bad career decision. No such luck. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then the makers of "The Blair Witch Project" should be really really mad.
This is unrated, and contains mild physical violence, strong profanity, female nudity, sexual content, and sexual references.



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


user
Looking all of 29 years old, Rob Lowe is a detective in charge of a murder investigation.
When the husband of a society woman (Leslie Hope) is found dead, police suspect the rich chick might have something to do with it. Enter Rob who immediately falls for the pretty widow even though he claims that he's just trying to be 'helpful'. Rob is such a good cop, he is able to sneak some of her incriminating love letters into his coat pocket before he accidentally throws them into the fireplace. Monotonous murky drama with an endless drone of background music.
This is a good substitute sleeping remedy if you've run out of Sominex.


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 exactly the same as Ridley Scott's, "Someone To Watch Over Me", which is a classic. It stars Tom Berenger and Mimi Rogers and the bad guy from the Fugitive. It's a quality movie, with good direction and great acting. This movie is the polar opposite. It's the same plot, just minus any good acting and adding TV movie direction. I do have to say I like the interaction between Lowe and the woman. She's hot and their romance is believable on many levels. Unfortunately, that alone cannot save this carbon copy of the classic Ridley Scott film.
Usually crappy TV movies have some redeeming quality that makes them watchable at the very least. I think for me, this film's redeeming value is that Rob Lowe and the lead female have chemistry. That and I was able to watch and compare the plot to another quality film.


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


user
There was absolutely nothing in this film that hadn't been done better in a hundred other films. It was barely worth the trouble of watching through to the end. Even the bad language sounded tired. Tom McCamus, a very fine actor, was particularly disappointing here.


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


user
Orson Welles' 1974 documentary "F for Fake" examines trickery and fraud, mainly focusing on two men who have been exposed as frauds themselves. Clifford Irving is a biographer who wrote the allegedly fraudulent Howard Hughes autobiography, yet, at least it seems, purports his innocence. The other main subject of the film is artist Elmyr de Hory, a man who has spent his life painting fakes of famous masterpieces, sometimes selling them to museums as real works by the original artists. Interspersed among these stories are bits where Welles does magic tricks to illustrate points, etc., and he also addresses the fact that his career began as a fraud when he first lied on his resume and then created a radio sensation with "War of the Worlds".
I really wanted to love this film and find it profound since I am such a Welles devotee, but I couldn't bring myself to do it. Part of the problem lied with the fact that it was not just non-linear, it was completely scattered. While I appreciate stylish editing and quick jumps and zooms, particularly when used in an unusual format such as a documentary, there was simply too much of it going on in "F for Fake". They created a distraction as opposed to lending style. If the story had been more clear and comprehensive, I think that the editing probably would not have been as annoying. The scattered storytelling was made all the more obnoxious by the fact that these were truly interesting subjects, particularly Elmyr de Hory. His artistic fakery brings up the topic of fraud in the art world, and who is truly able to determine the authenticity of certain works; and if the works are not authentic, what does it say about those who admire the pieces in museums? This is one documentary that I would say to at least give a shot, but don't be afraid to turn it off if you're not enjoying it. It is certainly the most discombobulated documentary I have ever seen; it is a cross between a documentary, an art film and experimental film, none of which is properly represented or isolated. I don't have any lesser opinion of Welles after seeing it, but it certainly, in my opinion, doesn't stand out as a glowing specimen in his oeuvre. 4/10 --Shelly


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


user
that Welles said was that he's been in decline his whole career.
There was an interesting story here. Unfortunately, Welles seemed completely incapable of telling it. Instead, he was trying to tell a bunch of different stories, about Elmyr, about Clifford Irving, about his pompous view of critics and experts, oh, yeah, and trying to jump start his current girlfriend's career by giving her unneeded screen time. (Oja, honey, when they told you to sleep with the director, they didn't mean one washed up like a whale on a beach!)
Welles was probably trying to cash in with a bunch of footage of Clifford Irving as Irving was becoming a household name with his role in the faked auto-biography of Howard Hughes. Unfortunately, it means the subject of his film, Elmyr, didn't get the time he deserved and he was probably the more interesting story.
The great tragedy of Orson Welles was that he peaked early, and then spent the rest of his career sputtering, finally doing wine commercials and awful documentaries...


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


user
Every once in awhile I'll remember that I've actually seen this bizarre fiasco that's a cross between "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?", "Sunset Boulevard," the Lana Turner LSD movie "The Big Cube" and the Manson murders, which also took place in 1969 but maybe before this so-called "movie" was made! There are some descriptions of the plot already here, so I won't go into it. But it's worth noting that Miriam Hopkins plays a parody of herself: a chattering, ego-maniacal, fading actress. Perhaps she thought she was making a movie that would be as successful as one of the Bette Davis horrors. The old gal Hopkins never stopped working, so you have to hand it to her. She shows a little too much flesh in this movie, something Davis and Crawford would never have done. And there's a scene with Miriam in the actual tacky Hollywood Boulevard Christmas parade, which must have been filmed Xmas, 1968.
Gale Sondergard is old, old, old. It's just shocking how wrinkled and awful she looks. John Garfield, Jr. looks a bit like his father, but not as interesting. I think one of the Three Stooges is the tour guide at the beginning. If it's not one of the Stooges, it's somebody.
I was astounded to come across this thing in the form of a commercial videotape given to me by a friend who knows all about junk like this. It's amazing!!!


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


user
From the brilliant mind that brought us "The Exorcist"...and "Cruising." "Rampage" is unfortunately more like the latter. It's an overall messy movie that has a major made-for-TV vibe going for it. The whole film pretends to hinge on the question, "What if the 'Boy Next Door' was a serial killer?" but instead it winds up being an uninspired courtroom drama and meditation on the the insanity plea and death penalty that makes little sense. The movie is very loosely based on the Richard Trenton Chase case, culling a few facts here and there to make a fake character and a different outcome. One of the main points of the film seems to be that ending the life of a terminally braindead child and ending the life of a murderer are somehow analagous. "Sometimes you just have to choose," says the lead character. Yeah, sometimes you have to choose to pull the plug...on your TV!


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


user
Man this thing bites! I am sorry I ever sat down and watched it! Friedkin was insane for making a film attempting to win over the viewers sympathy for this lunatic If it were up to me I'd have made the audience hate that low life instead of getting all misty eyed over him! He killed people! Quite grizzly I might add too! And Friedkin wants you to feel sorry for him because he's "not right"! I say Friedkin can forget it! I hate the guy this movie is partly based on and hope they did wise up and give his sorry butt the juice!!! In a nut shell, don't waste your time! It's sick and perverse!


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 first heared that there was going to be The World is not Enough video game for the Nintendo 64, I was so excited. When it finally came out, I was one of the first ones to rent it. I rented it for 7 days, and I got through the whole game!!! The game was to easy and gave out too much hints. A majour dissapointing sequel to GoldenEye. Take my advice and DO NOT RENT THIS GAME.
Sure the guns and gadgets are cool, but one gets tired of a watch lazer that looks like it was taken right from GoldenEye with the exception of being a red color instead of a blue color, a poor excuse for a dart gun, horrible stunner and a stupid grapple hook that can only attach itself to things that are yellow and black.
I think that RARE should of made this game instead of EA who should stick to games there good at making, like sport games and should stear clear of first person shooters and let the masters do the work.


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 first read about "berlin am meer" i didn't expect much. but i thought with the right people, the right locations, the right music and fashion you could at least make a trivial movie about the hip berlin everyone seems to be talking about. but eissler failed, it's so ridiculously unauthentic. it's a complete misrepresentation of what it is going on in berlin's so called scene. of course it's not all about hippness, but you should expect more from a movie that's being sold as "the definite berlin movie".
and apart from all the credibility stuff, it really is a bad movie. mediocre acting and a rather boring plot. interestingly some of the actors have proved in other movies that they are actually quite talented. so it really must be poor directing skills.
don't bother watching "berlin am meer" unless you are 17, come from some small town in western Germany and want to move to the big city after you finished school. then you might actually find it enjoyable and totally cool.


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 prepared for a bad movie, and a bad movie it is, so I guess I shouldn't complain. Twentysomething Tom (gay poster boy Robert Stadlober) has so many issues he doesn't know if he's coming or going. I wouldn't have stayed but for the pretty girls: Serious Mavie (Anna Brüggemann); no-nonsense Angie (Emma Daubas); Sarah Baumann as the star of the movie within the movie. And then there's Tom's soul mate, wild-eyed Margarete (Jana Pallaske). She reminds me of Béatrice Dalle and Gina Gershon. If you've got to remember, these are fine memories. She looks good even in the most ridiculous outfits, and I mean ridiculous, even by Berlin standards. I wonder whether I'd have liked this movie when I was the characters' age. My guess is I wouldn't. Watch out for indie idols Oli Schulz and Max Schröder of "Der Hund Marie" performing as street musicians, feeling no pain.


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


user
While I have seen and enjoyed similar movies to this one that were silent films about the Russian Revolution, such as POTEMKIN and TEN DAYS THAT SHOOK THE WORLD, I did not particularly enjoy this one. This was mostly due to the annoying and "artsy" way that the director chose to shoot the film. While POTEMKIN excelled in its editing style, this movie used similar techniques with a lot less finesse--in some places, the editing seemed very choppy and amateurish. Plus, and this was truly annoying, the use of zombies throughout the beginning of the film and late in the film really was over-the-top. What I mean by "zombies" is that to illustrate just how depressed and oppressed the Ukranian peasants were, the people stand like mannequins in many scenes. And, they stand like this, unmoving, for a VERY long period of time, while the "evil" Capitalists and exploiters of the masses walk by. Gimme a break! This movie is a wonderful example of style over substance--and it's only a movie for those who enjoy or can overlook the overindulgent direction.
By the way, the DVD for this film is improved, somewhat, if you leave the audio commentary on. This makes the movie easier to follow and gives a few interesting insights.


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


user
The film itself is only a compilation of scenes which have no inherent meaning to someone living outside of Russia. I won't deny that some of the images and techniques were quite revolutionary at the time (filmed 1928) but the problem with the film is that it has no interest to the intellectual or common man. We are merely watching an arranged form of pictures, ranging from a one arm man beating a horse, to a toothless soldier in the war. Everything in between is awkward, haphazard and quite unnecessary. It would have been possible to invent a forum which kept the viewer interested but this would not be it although the method of the director is quite brilliant.
In all, one should view this if they are an art student, on hallucinogenic drugs, or a student of pre-Tarkovskian cinema.


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


user
This was a very nice concert by the one and only MJ. The choreography was excellent and the costumes were decent. The vocals were okay. i have to admit that his vocals were crap on Human Nature and Billie Jean. You couldn't hear him half the time. The other songs make up for the singing. The Highlights of the show are: Jam Smooth Criminal I Just Can't Stop Loving You She's Out Of My Life Thriller Billie Jean (The Dancing Not The Singing) Black or White Man in the Mirror The concert was almost perfect. If it was anybody but Mj it would have been a 9. It is a must see. I wish I was born then so I could have gotten a ticket to the best concert of 1992.


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 1990's TV show,not the movie from 1979.it looks to be three episodes totaling just under 90 minutes.before watching,i thought it was one of the movie versions,and i noticed right away,it had a TV show Feel to it.i didn't care for it too much.i just felt the story wasn't there,and there wasn't much in the way of excitement or drama.i was looking at the time elapsed on my DVD player frequently,as i was really bored.i also thought some of the dialogue was,to put it politely,not good.plus, i thought the acting left a lot to be desired. but that's just me however,it is good clean,wholesome family entertainment.there's certainly nothing offensive here.kids will likely enjoy it.for me,The Black Stallion is 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
River Queen attempts to pack a complicated, sweeping, historical narrative into just under two hours. There are some breathtaking battle scenes and the Wanganui scenery is beautifully captured. However, the film did suffer from some poor leads - Samantha Morton (Sarah) especially came across as unconvincing. There seemed to be an indecisiveness about how the role should be played - as a helpless waif tossed by fate or as a strong, determined character with a clear view of her destiny. Kiefer Sutherland's character - Private Doyle - seemed to be pointless and for the most part - unintelligible. Keifer's Irish brogue needs a little polishing. On the other hand, Cliff Curtis, Temuera Morrison and Rawiri Pene (as Sarah's son "Boy") were well rounded and believable.
The last 20 minutes of River Queen came across as particularly compressed and rushed. It seemed as if they decided they had to tie up all the loose ends before 120 minutes were up. E.g. How on earth did Wiremu know how to find Sarah and Doyle? No explanation and very unsatisfying.
I did go to this movie with an open mind. I hadn't read or heard anything much apart from its troubled production. What I experienced was a mish mash of New Zealand history, beautifully photographed but ultimately disappointing.


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


user
As the above suggests, I was ultimately unimpressed with this movie. It is lovely to look at, the scenery is lush, but the detail of the story, in particular the characters, are totally unbelievable. Films don't have to be believable, but films like this, with a political edge and social commentary do.
Similarly, I have no problem with commercialism as such, but once again, films like this shouldn't be making casting decisions purely based on box office draw. This is absolutely the case with Sutherland, who is frankly rubbish as Doyle. His accent was far from authentic, but he fell into the biggest trap of all, his accent IS his performance, and we end up with a caricature of Irishness with no personality outside of his nationality. I find it totally implausible that anyone involved thought he was the best man for the job. All in all, this is a clear case of commercial interest over quality and when you're trying to be The Mission, this kind of thing wrecks your chances of success.
Speaking of accents, there were a couple more problems, one being the striking modernity of Boy's accent which acted to dispel the feeling of being transported to another time. More surprising was Samantha Morton's much lauded Irish accent, which was variable to say the least. Her voice meandered between strong north and soft south, even in the voice-overs, where I would've expected any such discrepancies to be picked up.
However, these are minor gripes compared to the motivation and actions of Sarah. She never seems at home with the English, and almost instantly at home with her son and his tribe, the dilemma between the life she knew and the life she if offered just seems like a no-brainer. Perhaps a lot has been lost in editing, perhaps this was meant to be a three hour film or a mini series where these things could've been fleshed out, but I can only judge what I've seen.
Now the biggest problem, Sarah's (Morton) relationship with Doyle (Sutherland) is incomprehensible. The fact is that her affection for him is not conveyed in any way until her having to choose between him and her son, the conflict she goes through at this point was frankly ridiculous and killed the movie for me.
As you may have guessed. this movie didn't work at all for me, but it is top notch to look at, you really won't see anything more stunning in terms of scenery, there are some good performances and my wife liked it.


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


user
Set in the mid 1800's when the British is clearing New Zealand outback wilderness to establish colonies. The daughter of a British army surgeon, Sarah(Samantha Morton), falls in love with the son of one of the Maori leaders. The Maori is an indigenous tribe and a dangerous people for the Europeans to deal with. By the time Sarah's child, which she calls "Boy", is born, his father is dead. By the age of six, "Boy" is kidnapped by his father's family and Sarah will begin her search for him with a man(Kiefer Sutherland),who is deeply in love with her.
Two-time Oscar nominee Morton is definitely the star of this movie. Sutherland is a total waste. Also starring are: Cliff Curtis, Stephen Rea, Temuera Morrison and David Rawiri Pene. This movie is rated R for some sexual content and violent battle scenes. I find the title RIVER QUEEN very misleading and the DVD cover with Sutherland only and making you believe he is the leading star should be a crime.


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


user
Reading through most of the other reviews, I tend to agree with most of the comments. The one thing that I would add is the disjointed way the movie has been Directed and Produced. I think that some of these new wave movie makers think that they are being clever using unusual (sometimes jerky) camera angles, and flitting from one scene to another. It goes down well with these movie festivals, and with some of these Indie type critics, but it spoils the movie for me. I noticed in the reviews, one comment saying that none of this movie makers films have become blockbusters. This would maybe prove my point, as the film has that 'rushed to finish' feeling that makes you wonder why such a beautiful film appears to be lacking a smooth flow. As for the comment about Kiefer Sutherland being a big name to put on the poster, I would bet he cringed when watching the final cut. This is a story with real potential, spoilt by trying to be different in it's production. Worth watching, but not many would come back for a second view.


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


user
With an interesting premise (in the conflicts between Europeans and indigenous peoples sometimes the battle lines were not so clear), this should have been a good film. But the story is sabotaged by the director's overriding infatuation with his own cleverness twinned with a very poor script.
Yes, the natural setting is beautiful and, yes, the movie is authentic to its 19th century historical setting. But the filmmaker keeps gilding the lily over and over again, adding layer upon layer of over-the-top musical accompaniment, not to mention a completely unnecessary voice-over, to the soundtrack, that ultimately overwhelm the viewer and, by calling attention to themselves, take away from the story.
To me, it was clear the director, with his microscopic closeups and the endless recurrence of the musical motif of "Danny Boy" (of all things!) was trying to make a New Zealand version of an epic Sergio Leone film, something on the order of Once Upon A Time In The West. But given the earnestness of the story (most of Leone's westerns were tongue-in-cheek), not to mention that it's no longer 1968, he succeeds in making a parody of one.
Too bad.


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


user
This was one of the dullest movies I have seen in some time. I'm in my late 40s, and watched it with my son-in-law (early 20s) and son (17). The scenery was beautiful, but the story was a bust. We watched about an hour of it and turned it off. I spent more time on my iphone during the hour that we watched it than I spent actually watching the movie. I gave it a 3 because I enjoyed the scenery and cinematography; otherwise I would have given it a 1. I'm sure there are people who are really into the "art" of it all who will find my review appalling but we're all entitled to our own opinions, right? I couldn't figure out if this was supposed to be a "chick flick" where the focus was on the mother, or if it was supposed to be a movie for guys, with the focus on battle and adventure. In my opinion, it didn't succeed in either.


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


user
A good example of reversed, politically correct racism where white men are presented as senseless brutes who're only there to be massacred and their aboriginal adversaries as noble heroes, superior both in their appearance and abilities. Apart from making the story overally dull, this also prevents the neutral viewer to identify himself with one or the other side - it's just too simplifying. The repetitive score is incredibly annoying (as is the voice-over), the characters lack any depth and the viewer is soon lost between questions like "who is this character" and "what the hell is that supposed to mean". Photography is wonderful, though, and on the whole there's a lot of atmosphere to it but nice shots of misty landscapes alone don't save this movie. The DVD box uses Kiefer Sutherland as an eye-catcher. In fact, his character could have been played by anyone else because it's basically just an empty shell (like most non-Maori characters), and disappears anyway around halfway the film. But if you are eager to see Jack Bauer in a kilt, that's your kind of movie...


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 really looking forward to this movie but sadly it didn't live up to expectation.
A good movie has the audience identifying/empathising/sympathising with the main actor. Unfortunately this was very hard to do with Samantha Morton.
The storyline seemed very disjointed and didn't flow as it should/could have done.
Keifer Sutherland appeared to be little more than window dressing and made me wonder why he agreed to play what appeared to be a bit part. Beautiful scenery and the acting of Tem Morrison and Cliff Curtis was about the only plus.
Maybe by being a kiwi I set the bar higher for locally made films. Maybe the change of director/ supposedly hard to work with main actor has biased my opinion.
Maybe I'm just trying to make excuses for a movie which could have been great.
A lot of maybes which still does not explain why this movie just lacked anything special.
It could have been great, it wasn't.


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


user
Wait... wait... wait... wait... wait... wait..... WHAT!? This movie is terrible, absolutely terrible. 1. The only reason Kiefer Sutherland is on the cover is to sell it to Kiefer fans, only to have their hearts broken. He kills one guy, gets shot, and dies before half the movie is over, not to mention he was only in the first 10 min and then disappeared until the point which he died...WHY put him on the cover if his character BLOWS. 2. Where are the EPIC battle scenes promised in the preview on the back cover? 3. It was way too confusing, i mean whats up with the girl? She had to narrate the movie to TRY to get our attention, she failed! 4. If Kiefer dies in a movie..... it fails. Now I am going to go watch 24..... THIS MOVIE FAILS!


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


user
For weeks I had been looking forward to seeing this movie only to find myself hugely disappointed after wards. In my opinion, the only good thing 'River Queen' had going for it was the amazing scenery used as backgrounds. The story line was all over the place, Samantha's character Sarah was very difficult to understand and what on earth were all the many close ups of her face for? It brought absolutely nothing to the story-if there was one at all!A better actor for the part of Boy could also have been selected, to me it sounded like he read his lines straight of the script while shooting his scenes.Overall, a real shame as it could have been such a good movie.


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 by far one the most boring movies I've ever seen! And if you don't believe me go ahead and watch it for yourself.
The movie starts of slow, the storyline makes no sense at all. People fighting doesn't make any sense. I could not make sense of what they were talking during the movie (in most cases I didn't even bother) It does nothing to keep you watching the movie, the only plus point would be the cinematography. New Zealand looks awesome. Everything else just plain sucks.
The actors try their best to keep us awake, but unfortunately you will go to sleep instead.
Do us all a favor, even if this gets on "On Demand", Don't WATCH IT!


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


user
wow, i just got one watching this.
How CRAPPY post production is on this movie.
I kid you not, I literally could've done a better job myself.
ALL of post production is flawed, all of it. Whoever cut this film should be banned from the film industry.
That aside, the script was a trainwreck. absolute rubish.
Not to mention Jack Bauer and his Patchy the Pirate in Spongebob accent. WTF is his character doing there? But to me, the biggest flaw of all was character development, intereaction, dynamics, dialogue. WOW. I cant believe how bad it was.
I give this movie a 2 out of 10. 1 for Samantha, who is a great actress, too bad the production made everyone look like amateurs out there.
the other 1 goes to cinematography, which was indeed good.
Other then that my friend, this is one bad movie.
I don't even feel like making an elaborate post on this, it was just horrible production. Poor actors, didn't know what they were getting into...


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


user
River Queen's sound recordist should have been fired, in this day and age there is no excuse for poor recording on the set. Mumbling voices was the end result, and the cinematography was average to fair at best. The story had potential and I feel sorry for the overseas actors who must have known they were on a turkey shoot while they were filming. Its obvious that the movie was suffering from el cheapo budget syndrome, and the scene where Temuera is procreating inside the house while a battle rages outside is just too stupid for words.
I noticed a few shortcuts taken on the Maori protocol side of things, but this was probably due to movie length time restraints etc. All in all I wasn't impressed with this movie, the Whanganui river has many beautiful spots but this movie gives us a cold, drab and claustrophobic image, with none of the beauty. The movie needed more sunshine and better camera angles, less on screen confusion, better sound recording, and more thought needed to be put into what the movie goers would be seeing on the big screen.
Hats off to all involved though for completing what must have been a very difficult shoo. I have the utmost appreciation for anyone who can make a feature film, sadly I did not enjoy this one.


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


user
Apart from the beautiful imagery thanks to New Zealand cinematographer Alun Bollinger, this film is not worth seeing.
The storyline is so fragmented and lost that it's hard to know what is going on at any given time, and just when you think you're following then the direction changes again, like a lost bi-polar puppy dog.
The musical score is awful, relying too heavily on extremely emotive pieces that try to force the audience into feeling a certain way, as if the instruments were acting as an emotions queue sheet  'feel sad here'; 'feel shocked here'; 'feel scared here'. On top of that, the repetitive samples used over and over again leave the audience on the verge of laughter.
Gone are the days of silent film, where musical instruments were the sole portrayal of voice  but you wouldn't think so while watching River Queen.
The voice-over was so over-utilised that one has to wonder if this film really even needed any accompanying imagery. It could have easily been a radio play although even then it would be hard to follow the story.
And the stolen ideas from Jane Campion's The Piano are too obvious to overlook. Not only are the beach and forest shots almost identical to those in The Piano  perhaps some of this comes down to Alun Bollinger's camera work on the latter  but the voice-over feeling and levels too are strikingly close. And who could forget when Holly Hunter's character has her wings clipped, in the form of her index finger being cut off by Sam Neill. Does it remind you of when Wiremu has his 'trigger finger' amputated, and surprisingly too with an axe? I thought so.
All in all I cannot recommend this film for viewing, unless you wear some ear-muffs and just go with the scenery in mind.


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


user
**Warning - this review may contain spoilers **
The idea behind the character of Danny (Jet Li) is a good one - young boy is taken by hoodlum and raised to behave like a vicious pitbull, controlled mainly by whether his collar is on or off his neck.
However, the writer did not know how to deliver this idea within the constraints of believability.
He has Danny meeting a blind pianist, Sam (Morgan Freeman), who has to be the most trusting fool a man ever was - along with his nit-wit, endlessly babbling, rather unattractive step-daughter, Victoria (Kerry Condon). I was stunned, by the way, when I learned Victoria was supposed to be 18 - she looked 25 or 30 to me.
Amazingly there is no romance between Danny and Victoria.
When Danny turns up again, wounded, what does Sam do but take him straight home. Danny is out for 2 days, but do these nit-wits take him to a hospital? Nooooo. I don't know if they even called in a doctor.
Now Danny is obviously not a mentally stable person, this is apparent from the get-go, yet Sam takes him into his home, where both he and his step-daughter could have been seriously harmed or even killed by this rather strange, young man.
Why Morgan Freeman took this insipid role in this asinine film I can't even begin to guess. Surely Mr. Freeman is not that desperate for a paycheck.
Then we have Bob Hoskins as Bart, the gangster who "owns" Danny - now you talk about a son of a gun that's hard to kill. The car Bart is in gets riddled with bullets that would have rivaled Bonnie and Clyde's demise. We think he's dead, but no.
Then we have another car accident - and yet again, ol' Bart escapes unscathed.
In addition to that, we also have Danny fighting half a dozen tough guys at a time, plus a scene where Danny has decided he doesn't want to fight any more. I don't care how much a person doesn't want to fight, when it is down to the wire of you fight or you die, I think anyone would fight.
As I said in the subject heading - this film is about 40 miles outside the boundary of reality as we have come to know it. It's not just a case of suspending belief - it's completely beyond that.
Furthermore I never did understand why Danny's mother who turns out to be a nice lady, rather than the prostitute Bart claimed she is, became mixed up with Bart and his gang and got shot. Maybe that was my fault, I got distracted right about the time that scene came on--but it seemed highly unlikely she and Bart would have ever crossed paths.
4 stars out of 10 - and that's being generous.


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


user
I though that it was hard, if not impossible, to watch, and not because of the horrors it depicts but by the way they were depicted. Imagine what Costa Gavras could have done with this true horror story. What I object to is the idea the need to denounce, which I subscribe to, is enough. What about showing it to us with the power of powerful cinema. I feel that the eagerness of the filmmaker, maybe even the justifiable anger, didn't allow him to see it clearly from a cinematic point of view. Or, if this was a cinematic point of view, I mean, a choice, then, I didn't like it at all. I was more disturbed by the way the movie was shot than by the movie itself. Well intentioned I'm sure, but, unfortunately, that's not nearly enough.


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


user
It may have been thrilling for an audience in 1946, but the movie is now a bit boring. I had a hard time sitting through the whole thing, and it was very predictable: I mean, we know from the beginning of the movie that Welles is the nazi war criminal, and I'll give you one guess as to whether he is caught and appropriately punished in the end.
Not worth watching. It's sad that Welles only made three movies worth seeing in his long career: Kane, Ambersons, and A Touch of Evil.


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 award that made me lose all respects for the Hugos.
If such a "distinguished" panel can't see or care about the obvious story-telling problems of Battlestar Galactica, then what worth is their award? The answer: not much.
Award-winning shows should be examples of creativity and excellence, neither of which are in evidence in BG, in this episode or any other that I've seen.
Shooting in drab video is not "artistic", it's just cheap. Shaking the camera is not "creative" it's vomit-inducing and lazy as can be.
All BG has shown is how corrupt most award-giving "academies" really are and how easy it is to buy awards with a lot of PR money.


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


user
Frankly I'm amazed to see that this movie is getting relatively good reviews. I'll be completely honest and say that the only reason I even got through it is because of Ryan Phillippe, and not for reasons particularly connected with his abilities as an actor, though I think over the last years he has proved himself to be a better actor than his first major roles in the late 1990's indicated.
As far as action/suspense movies go, this movie fails in nearly every respect. The acting is OK, I guess, but the script is absolutely horrible and makes very little sense, a fact which the filmmakers try to cover up by adding absurd references to Chaos theory, as if it would convince anyone that the film is actually 'clever' - but then again, judging from other reviews, some were. Don't be fooled: the script is a boring, derivative mess and no other element of the movie makes up for it. Wesley Snipes has probably never had a less interesting role in a film, and Statham is a thoroughly dull actor.
Not recommended.


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


user
those people,who told me"this movie is good"-shame on them!this film is for an audience,who has no problem to watch everything{especially when it's all about tough guys,guns,chasing&heists}.i 'd compare this movie with"The Inside Man"{the same loss of time}. i'm tired of copy and paste movies.and i'm discontented,but what can i do?fans of that types of movies are much more.... if you want to watch good movie from that type ,i will recommend to you "Lucky Number Slevin". i'm not mean, i just dislike this movie{weak actors,weak script,weak action}.probably someone else will like it.many people-many tastes.HOWEVER FOR ME"CHAOS"IS TASTELESS!


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


user
Seeing the names of the starring actors (Statham, Snipes and Phillippe) I thought that the movie should at least be decently funny or interesting. Instead all I got from it was not just boring 92 minutes, but the frustration of knowing everything that was about to happen, and hearing tons of lame and shabby "bad cop" phrases.
The main problem is that the movie doesn't have a good story to begin with. And when you have that, than no one can help you, not Statham, not Wesley Snipes...not even John McClane could save this movie :-) It could be cool for the kids, if they aren't over 12 years of age, because they don't care so much about the story, and there are some big explosions in the movie.


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


user
I went to see this because of snipes / statham, but honestly, Chaos is terrible. This movie has absolutely nothing going for it - it should not have been made.
Don't read this review if you don't want to read spoilers, cause I'm going to address a lot of plot-holes here.
First of all - the opening scene. It's the great big event that made the two semi-lead characters (Statham and Snipes) turn crooked. But it's boring and mundane. Only at the very end we get to see what really happened and by the time you won't care anymore. Also - this whole event, where one bad guy and his hostage get killed is hardly big enough news to fill hundreds of newspaper articles, as referred to in the movie.
Then the bank job - it doesn't get off the ground for any second. The bank robber makes some un-needed references to chaos theory (which has NOTHING to do with the whole story, by the way). The way Statham gets summoned is very 'Die Hard With a Vengeance', but more boring. Then the things that happen in the bank are strange and pointless. -What's with the safety deposit box. There seems to be some plot unfolding there, but then, it doesn't. -Why go through the trouble of stringing up two people, when it leads to nothing? It involves a lot of preparation and it's used for nothing at all! -Why doesn't the SWAT leader listen to the officer in charge when he tells them to stand down?
And this is only the first 10 minutes. It keeps getting worse and worse.
-The whole romantic / love interest story (with the 'he wasn't just a better cop, he was a better man' remark to finish it of) is painful to watch. It's just pointless -Why would Statham's character point out the change in camera position in the footage reviewed from the bank. This essentially leads to finding the 'virus' that will get him all the money. -Why go through the trouble of forging some guys signature and killing him, but then NOT kill the guy that can identify you.
I could go on for ages (really), but it's like this movie is... pointless. The whole script is a mess. The 'smart' references to chaos theory are really laughable and quite pathetic. The plot 'twists' can be seen from miles away and the lead characters seem to be making mistakes all the time. It is really painful to watch a movie like this, where the audience is taken for granted as dumb popcorn crunching people, of which the director hopes they won't see all the plot holes and the over-all ridiculous script. The 'explanation scene' at the end only adds to insult. It is really, really not a good movie. In any way.
People who come to see an action film don't get what they come for. People who come to see a cop-buddy movie don't get it. People who come to see a smart thriller don't get that. In essence, everyone gets the same - a huge disappointment and a waste of time and money. Do yourself a favor and skip this one.


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


user
Obvious tailored vehicle for Ryan Philippe. It seem the studios were hoping he could play a lead tough cop and not look like he's eternally 16 (he can't).
Heavyweights Jason Statham and Welsey Snipes serve as bookends to Phillippe, but when they're not on the screen Phillippe flounders; his shallow acting style has nothing to bounce off of.
The script is a typical late 20th century potboiler good cop/bad cop with a ridiculously predictable plot and dialogue lifted out of 1970s TV cop shows, such as "The Streets of San Francisco." Snipes reprises his role as the eternal black-hat villain, playing a slightly less crazed madman than his Demolition Man role. However, there wasn't much for Snipes and Statham to chew on. Statham's character announces he'd given up nicotine and caffeine - something this movie badly needed injections of.
Truly forgettable moment: Ryan Phillippe expounding on Buddhist dogma: Galloway: Are you a Buddhist? Dekker: No. It's just something I picked up along the way.


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


user
I have just watched this movie on DVD late this morning and was so disappointed that even thought it was a good joke for the audience. In other words - the creators planed to make comedy not drama. Howsoever, at the end I realized that Mr. Tony Giglio was earnest about this movie. It's a pity because: the dialogue is ridiculous, the acting is poor and lifeless, the story is a fishy tale! Poor Ryan Phillippe - despite of his efforts his character in the movie remains probably his worst performance! What to say for Jason Statham - lack of all kinds of skills to develop the role which is an imaginary fiction... For this reasons I vote: 3/10


assistant
0