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
Let me start by saying how much I love the TV series. The nature of class war was always going to be a subject worthy of poking fun at, but this TV series exploits it better than most. The chemistry between Yootha Joyce and Brian Murphy was always electrifying and the writers wrote almost entirely flawless episodes every time. In my opinion, it is the best British sitcom of the mid to late-1970s, surpassing the likes of RISING DAMP, ROBIN'S NEST, ARE YOU BEING SERVED? and so on. With the ON THE BUSES series having finished a few years earlier, GEORGE AND MILDRED became the next pride and joy of ITV (or ITV 1 as it's now known), enjoying a four-year run on the channel.
The movie however is absolutely terrible in almost every respect. The general essence of the TV series has almost entirely been stripped by the writers of this abysmal movie (who anyone will immediately notice are not the same ones who worked on the series). As one commenter has already pointed out, Mildred lacks the sharpness she had on the TV series and does not come across as anywhere near as overbearing.
The plot, instead of focusing on the class war with the Fourmiles that was the very foundation of the TV series, actually writes out the Fourmiles almost entirely after the first half-hour. The plot, if you can call it that, consists of George and Mildred going on holiday to some hotel and getting mixed up with gangsters. First rate talent in the form of Stratford Johns, Kenneth Cope, David Barry and Sue Bond are all wasted here. Most of these are well past their heyday and all of them look very embarrassed as if they very well know that the only thing worth hanging around for is a paycheck (which probably won't be much).
The jokes and gags in the movie (if you can call them that) rely heavily upon traditional British farce, including mistaken identities, embarrassing situations, poorly-timed slapstick, characters losing control of what is happening to them and general confusion. And it all fails miserably. As another commenter has pointed out, it seems as though the writers of this movie have never seen an episode of the TV series and instead crafted out a something resembling a CARRY ON romp. The scene where George is stripped down by Sue Bond's character is particularly out of context.
A mystery surrounding this movie is the BBFC certification provided - 15. Just why is it rated 15 when all there is to see is harmless, non-vulgar entertainment?
Not surprisingly the era of sitcom spin-of came to an end not long after this movie was released (shortly after the sad death of Yootha Joyce). And the company behind this movie, Hammer, well known for producing first rate horror movies back in the 1950s to mid 1970s, soon disappeared into total obscurity.
All in all, the movie is a near total washout. My advice - skip this and stick to the TV series. You won't be missing anything, I assure you.


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


user
George & Mildred - The Movie lacks the talents of its TV writer John Mortimer who brings the close quarter cut and thrust of George's class war with the Fourmiles alive.
The plot is cut from standard spin-off cloth - hit-man/mistaken identity - and has as little tension as there are laughs. The producers should have taken a leaf from Rising Damp, (also 1980)which was also bought to the big screen after the TV series demise, and kept much of the story in familiar setting.
Yootha Joyce died in 1980 but she should not be remembered for this creaking piece of work encumbered as she was by her illness. Mildred lacks the sharpness of her TV incarnation; cutting asides and withering looks largely directed at Georges lack of libido. George's sputtering incredulity also gets lost in the more expansive sets. This is not to say that they were much to shout about. The budget for this movies looks pathetically small; a restaurant they go to is clearly a new semi-starched house with some Christmas lights adorning the front door.
For fans of 70's British comedy or those who just want to revisit an old TV companion from their youth this film can add nothing to the experience and they should just stick to the first four TV series out now on DVD.


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


user
George and Mildred is a truly unfunny film. This attempt to translate the successful TV series to the big screen was a dismal failure, as is so often the case.
The wit and clever one-liners from the TV shows have gone missing. The plot is a typical English farce of confused characters and mistaken identities, which is neither funny enough nor weird enough to provoke many decent laughs.
Die-hard George and Mildred fans might want to see this final episode of the pair's output (Mildred died of hepatitis before the film was released), but others should invest their time more wisely.


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


user
G&M started a the odd couple downstairs in Man About the House and went on to amusing the nation in their own sitcom.
What was the typical small-scale personal charm of the couples chemistry on the small screen, G&M's transferral to the big screen was as appalling as genuis's Morcombe and Wise, and countless fine TV shows.
Unfunny. Unsatisfying and featuring an ill Yootha Joyce who died before the film was released.


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


user
GEORGE AND MILDRED was a spin off from the mid 1970s sit-com MAN ABOUT THE HOUSE . Though I haven't seen the series since it was last broadcast I do remember it being fairly amusing with most of the comedy arising from the eponymous couple going to live beside the snobbish Fourmile family , a sort of LOVE THY NEIGHBOUR without the cynical racist gags .
Having seen this " big screen version of the show " I find myself asking what it's a big screen version of ? Certainly not of a popular mid 70s sit com of the same name . For some reason the movie jettisons all character interaction from the television by having George and Mildred leaving the street where they live behind and getting caught up in a plot involving some serious gangsters who want something George has inadvertently picked up and which leads to some cringe making situations and lines like:
" Did he give it to you "
" No that's the first time a man has resisted my charms "
" I meant the envelope "
You do get the impression that screenwriter Dick Sharples ( Who never wrote an episode for the original sit-com ) has never seen an episode of the source material and has got the show confused with the CARRY ON series of films . In many ways it resembles the same mistakes of the latter LOST IN SPACE movie in that it has absolutely nothing in common with the series that spawned it


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


user
This adaption contains two parts:
1. The "now" time, when Gulliver is at home in England and soon is put into a mental asylum by the Evil Dr. Bates
2. The "described" time, in which Gulliver describes his travels.
The times are interspersed with a very choppy tempo, which makes willing suspense of disbelief far more difficult than it would have been if the movie simply would have discarded that part, and followed the book as written. In the book, there is no Dr. Bates, no asylum, and Mrs Gulliver gets very little mention. The travels - in plural - are depicted as one in the movie. There are several movies covering the topic of sane people dumped into asylum by some nasty person out there, look at them if you want that stuff. The "now" time part adds absolutely nothing to the story's value, is a complete invention by the movie adapters, and takes valuable time from the real story. All the time when this was going on I was longing for the next bit of real travel to be shown.
So much for the drawbacks. The parts which actually are part of the real story are well done, and the CGI is really well done for its time. Many small (and a few medium-sized) parts of the real travels are simply cut out, but that does not make the story halt. This is AFAIK the only version which depicts all four travels, and for that the movie should get special mention.
The two interspersed parts get approximately equal time. I rate the first part 0 out of 10, and the actual travel coverage as 8/10. Averaging out, I give it a 4/10. If only they would have cut the rubbish and focused 99% on the actual travels, since that cut would have freed up a lot of time much better spent on filling in the details cut from the travels.
Why some adapter think that he is gifted enough to improve upon Swift's work, I do not know. My best guess is that CGI was so costly back in 1996 so that the movie company felt a need to incorporate a lot of filler which did not need elaborate sets, GCI, etc. in order to keep total costs under some limit, while at the same time producing a mini-series which clocked in at some set number of minutes.


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


user
By strange coincidence I've started to watch this move straight after Brice de Nice and the good thing was that not many movies could be worst than Brice de Nice, so I was really looking forward for something better which would make me forget this horrible flop.
Unfortunately OSS-117 again left me disappointed - I don't know, maybe it's just problem with translations, but since "Diner de Cons" I haven't seen ANY French comedy that I would call really good. Even when I look at the reviews on IMDb only people from France are giving the OSS-117 high notes...
For me this movie didn't really work - in some parts is as funny as real Bond movies, in others jokes were a little bit too predictable or too corny.


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


user
The plot: Four people are caught in an elevator. One is a business man, the annoying kind who is aggressive and complains about everything and everyone and is a walking-talking sample of distilled stress and hostility. Then there's his colleague, a woman who is much more pleasant in her character. A teenage rebel who just broke into a coke machine and by his mere presence drives the businessman mad, and an older guy who just stole 100,000DM make up the rest of the cast...
The movie is all about how they cope with their problem, as time goes on and on without any success in reaching the outside world, as the lights go out, and as the cables begin to snap one after the other....
And yet, it isn't too exciting. The characters are stereotypes. The story is stupid and unlikely (how could so many things go so wrong in just one elevator?). You don't like the characters very much, you just hate one of them. And all the twists and turns in the plot are not contributing to the excitement, they are just stupid excuses for filling yet another few minutes with dialogue as the screenwriters keep running out of inspiration and ink on a full-length movie set in an elevator.
Let's just hope "Phone Booth" will be a better effort...


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


user
Edge Vs. Michaels-Boring in general (loved the sweet chin music into the chair) 4/10 Taker Vs. Heidenreich-One of the worst matches I've seen, predictable as hell 1/10 Tripe Threat WWE match-Why do I watch them, nobody ever wins a championship at the rumble, its not the main event. Liked it when Show drove JBL through the wall. 3/10 World Heavyweight Championship-Pretty OK match, kind of more a beat-down by Tripe H than a match, but I was happy to see it after watching crap. 5/10 Royal Rumble-Good Rumble,Liked the brand showdown,the Hassan thing, and the end. 7/10 Overall still crap. Why does anyone watch the rumble???


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


user
OK, so it's a silly movie, but I think they knew that when they made it. And there are some neat little twists on the otherwise tired, overdone "Godzilla"-type genre. Borrowed a tape just because I knew someone in it, but I did loan it out to a couple pals, who also kinda 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
Aliens let lose a giant monster named Zarkorr, then send down a hologram that looks your average stupid teenage girl to tell postman, Tommy Ward (Rhys Pugh, in the only movie you ever see him in) that has been chosen to fight. Also if he loses the plant goes doom, so he goes off to fight Zarkorr the Invader! This movie is bad, very bad. So bad it you need negative numbers just to gave it a rattan. Horridly written, bad directing, way below Power Rangers over-the-top wooden acting that you're just whiting for a horde of Lumberjacks to come out of no where and cut them down! And don't get me started on the theme song at the end. The people who made this stemming pall of S$@# should not be aloud near a camera or any thing to do with films. Zarkorr is a cool looking monster that should have been in a movie a million times better than this one. Do your self a favour and don't see this movie, it's 80 or so minute of life. The actors that are in this never worked again by way.
3/10


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


user
Zarkorr is one bad movie. This doesn't even rate in the so bad its good category. It's just bad. From the (lack of) set design to the acting to the special effects, everything about this movie stinks. For starters, the film looks like it was filmed in just empty rooms with a couple of props thrown in to make it look good. Then we get acting that is so bad that it makes a high school play look like it was an Oscar candidate. And to top it all off, there's the special effects that are so bad that they look like an amateur pulled them off in their garage. The towns that the monster is supposedly crushing look like my nephew's train set. So obviously fake that they scream out at the viewer. The only good thing about the movie is the monster suit. Its just too bad that they spent all their budget on that and left nothing for the rest of the film. And maybe a decent script would have helped too.


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 an utterly forgettable picture. A friend of mine picked it up in a bargain bin at a local rental place for $.50. He should have demanded a refund. Or at least a discount.
The plot is something like this: A giant monster threatens the earth and aliens decide that the most average human being on the planet must be chosen to save the earth. Thus a tiny holographic space alien appears before a postal worker and tells him that he's "it."
The devil is in the details when it's time to rate a movie, and on that count Zarkorr! The Invader fails miserably. The monster Zarkorr only has a few brief moments on the screen, totaling maybe 5 minutes tops (with a generous estimate). The cute alien hologram has even less screen time and might be the most interesting character to look at, and only because she's wearing a "teeny bopper" stereotype outfit, complete with a teasingly short pleated skirt. The climactic final battle with the monster is over before you can say "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over." In the next moment you are left to ponder whether you've just experienced a train wreck or if someone just drained 3 pints of blood out of you.
Admittedly though, this movie did deliver one line that my friends and I to this day still repeat and laugh at and was about the only bright spot in this otherwise abysmal picture. As the cast of "protagonists" is being "interrogated" by the fuzz, one of them responds to the questions with the statement "What are you, some kind of a question asker?" It is delivered in such a preposterous manner that if you're sitting with a group of friends (who won't be your friends long if you actually talked your friend into watching this) you may actually experience a howl or two of incredulous laughter.
While this is no Manos or Eegah (It's not even bad enough to be classically bad) this movie will still bore you with its awful dialog, unimaginative characters, and nonexistent special effects and still deserves to inhabit the bottom 100.
1.5/10


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


user
This movie stinks. IMDb needs negative numbers in its rating system to properly evaluate this turkey. The acting is either wooden or over the top; the film was apparently NOT written by anyone in particular; and the monster scenes were mediocre at best. Even as a movie driven solely by the monster scenes, those shots were so disappointing that they could not inspire any sympathy for the rest of the movie. I want the 80 minutes of my life back that this movie stole.


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


user
First, let me make it clear that I'm a big fan of bad sci-fi, especially when it involves gigantic, city-stomping monsters. But this one is so fantastically lame that I can't even like it for being bad. They apparently didn't shave enough money off the budget by skimping on the props (the only prop we have to indicate the size of the alien girl is an oversized novelty pencil, available at Spencer's Gifts for about fifteen bucks), they also decided not to outlay for concept or plot. The monster DOES look okay, in my opinion, but it doesn't have enough interaction with the backgrounds, i.e. not enough destruction to suit most fans of the genre. The general rule of giant monster movies is: If you don't have a lot of fake-looking buildings to smash, then you'd better have another fake-looking monster to wrestle with. This movie has neither. I can't make my final complaint about the movie without giving away the ending, but suffice to say the origin of the monster, and the method found to get rid of it, just don't hold water. Not even as well as most of these movies. Skip it.


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


user
Explores the frontiers of extreme boredom. Life in a small Canadian town in winter as an experiment in extreme sensory deprivation. Absolutely nothing happens as viewed through the eyes of a blank, deadpan, totally uninteresting protagonist. Viewers of this film should be prepared to hallucinate in the style of "Altered States".
In a groundbreaking study, David Snowden found that he could predict Alzheimer's thirty years in advance by comparing the autobiographical essays of nuns as they entered the convent. Those who eventually suffered the disease wrote in simple direct prose. The essays were quiet and contemplative with little optimism or episodes of joy.
Now, why did I mention that? Perhaps , my mind begins to slowly unravel watching this interminable, autobiographical, contemplative film which shows, in simple direct style, the bleak and stoic life of a small community, living next to giant slag heaps of asbestos.
This film became popular at the height of the Quebec separatist movement because of its presentation of this community as permanently wounded victims. Tragically, its writer-director was soon diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in the early 1980s and apparently committed suicide.


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 to watch this one for my Canadian cinema course and I was told that it was considered to be the "best Canadian film." When I watched this I really did not agree, considering I've seen a lot better ones. I understand that there were Canadian themes and messages, but the fact that the characters and the plot were so disconnected with me (as a spectator) it made me not really care what the film was trying to tell me. The plot was too dry. The characters did not have many positive personality traits, but this is to emphasize the messages, not to tick off spectators. This film shows a little about the history of Quebec. Not a very interesting film; it definitely does not deserve to be put on such a high pedestal.


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


user
I only rented this stinker because of its relatively high ratings. It totally sucked! I cannot imagine how anyone would think this a good movie - even an OK movie. None of the characters had ANY redeeming qualities of any kind. To varying degrees they were each selfish and mean-spirited - or abused and damaged personalities who hadn't a clue about the spirit of Christmas (when this takes place!) I know Canadians and like them - but I cannot think that even THEY would think this a good movie. I'd rather a sharp stick in the eye than watch this offensive movie again. A colossal waste of time and money. Do not believe the person who wrote the opinion that it was "worth watching." This person probably would enjoy having a dentist drill their teeth without anesthesia, too. Don't mean to be unkind but for the life of me I cannot imagine what this person was thinking. Unless they had ulterior motives. Maybe s/he was the director or the producer. If so, I'd like to ask them to give me back my money. If your money is important to you - save it instead of renting this piece of drek - or rent something (anything!) else. I'm running out of good reasons NOT TO rent this film. If I were Canadian I'd be ASHAMED that it's supposed to be a favorite Canadian flick. If so, I would say that those who think so are definitely in need of great quantities of powerful drugs. YECK!


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


user
1940's cartoon, banned nowadays probably because of the 'Black Beauty' gag, in which Daffy rides a black person as if it were a horse.
The whole story takes place in a bookstore, where the characters of the books come to life every evening. So we have, among others, the Ugly Duck (Daffy) and the wolf of Wallstreet. They wind up in a chase after the wolf tricked Daffy with a phony duck (hence the title).
And chase is all there is in this little cartoon, that doesn't have any real appeal nowadays. Only fun if you're a true fan of the Looney Tunes I guess...
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
Well, the episode I just watched had the older "Gastineau Girl" whining about why people keep mentioning her husband (Mr Gastineau, a famous American Football player apparently). She seems unwilling to accept that he's the only reason she isn't flipping burgers, she married someone famous and that's why she has cameras pointed at her.
When challenged by an interviewer to explain what she actually does, she gave a wonderfully circular reason for why people should pay attention to her: "I work really hard on my reality TV show". Then she said "I'm not a celebrity... I'm a personality."
I'm not quite sure who this series is meant to appeal to, except people who've had all their intelligence removed. It's certainly no role model to anyone except gold-diggers as the two stars do nothing but spend money, and all it tells you about rich people is that they have no money problems.


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


user
For a while it seemed like this show was on 24/7. Then apparently there was a second season or some other kind of continuation of this horrible show about the two most vapid and conceited people who have ever been filmed. All the other comments have captured the essence of these two selfish, haggish, airheads perfectly. Not much less can be said about them besides what everyone else has said.
I doubt these two ladies have souls, and more than likely they made some kind of Faustian Bargain in order to get their lizardly snouts on a television series. May the fates protect the human race from any more exposure to the Ghastly Girls!


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


user
I remembered this awful movie I bought at Camelot music store in the summer of 1989 when I was visiting my Grandparents. It was a time when I had just discovered movies like Re-Animator, From Beyond, The Return of the Living Dead, and Dawn of the Dead. I was ready for all the horror/gore genre had to offer.... or so I thought! I was only about 12 years old at the time so I really don't remember it all that well. I remember a psycho running around with a corkscrew killing people, and a couple of cops (I think) who were riding in a car that wasn't actually moving, but being rocked side to side to look like it was... true cinemagic. I also remember it being the worst film I had ever seen up to that point and I promptly threw it in the garbage.
Something tonight made me think of that movie (I can't believe I actually remembered the name), so I jumped on imdb to see if it was listed. To my surprise... IT WAS! And a full other 5 people have seen it.... Amazing. Even though I remember hating the film at the time I sort of wish I had kept it hidden away somewhere because I'd love to check it out again for a laugh (it would probably make a good drinking game movie). Anyway, I'm glad I'm part of the elite few that's seen this little "treasure". I would love to pick it up somewhere for a couple of bucks.... but beware, this is not a recommendation... it is awful... it's just for nostalgia.


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


user
I bought this movie at a garage sale when I was like 15. I hated it then, and watching it again, just for the hell of it, it's even worse now. You can hear the director and cameraman in the background yelling commands like "Zoom, zoom, zoom!!!". The are no special effects, just a raw piece of meat that is supposed to be a brain. This is utter crap, and i originally thought it was a one of a kind home movie or something that I bought. But this was distributed elsewhere and it's just really weird to know that other people have seen it. Whoops I need 10 lines....well....this can be an interesting thing to watch to see how no-budget movies were made before the invention of digital cameras. This sucks. Actually, yeah do watch this just to see if you can sit through the worst. If you can make it through this you can make it through anything.


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


user
I've already commented on this film (under the name TheLegendaryWD). But I see there are others who have commented since. All I can say is: WHAT THE F**K!?". I cannot believe that a whole 16 people have commented on this film or even seen this movie. Add to that the fact that a couple give it great reviews (probably the makers of the film who went to one of those places in a strip mall that provide internet service and wrote a good review - seeing as how there is no way they could or would pay for their own internet provider... just look at their movie). Although I still admit I got a soft spot for this movie. I thought that some of the other people writing about this one might have it confused with another... until I read the reviews... especially the person who identified the tag line on the front of the box: "The Ultimate in Frontal Lobotomy" (what the f**k is that supposed to mean anyway? "frontal" lobotomy?)... I totally forgot about that until I read it in the review. People, we are a select few... I say we meet once a year to view this film... wait, does anyone still have it? If anyone does have it please contact me... I'm dyin' to get drunk.


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


user
The worst film ever made, bar none. Give yourself a pat on the back if you can possibly sit through every excruciatingly painful minute of it. Except for the bit where the hard-luck loser turned deranged psychopath from forced medical experimentation pours his pea soup on the doctor's head and laughs like any good raving lunatic should...that's all.


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


user
Hard to believe that director Barbet Schroeder once did the majestic and very funny Maitresse (1976), and now only seems to do "by the numbers" Hollywood thrillers.
This is very lightweight John Grisham material, crossed with the plot of a TV movie. Bullock is Cass Mayweather, a feisty and independent crime investigator specialising in serial killers. Ben Chaplin is her reserved police partner Sam Kennedy, and together they make an uncomfortable duo. Not good, when two unbalanced college maladriots (Gosling and Pitt) decide to send them on a wild goose chase - by planting very clever and misleading forensic evidence at a crime scene.
Fair enough, but while Bullock and Chaplin fail to create any sparks, we also have to endure a several dull overly-melodramatic flashbacks illustrating an important event in Cass's history. Then of course there are the frequent shots of a cliff-side log cabin where there's absolutely no doubt the OTT ending will be set. Oooh... the atmosphere.
Watch any episode of CSI instead. It's to the point and far more exciting.


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


user
Having been pleasantly surprised by Sandra Bullock's performance in Miss Congeniality, I decided to give Murder By Numbers a shot. While decent in plucky, self-effacing roles, Ms. Bullock's performance in "serious" roles (see Hope Floats, Speed 2, 28 Days) leave much to be desired. Her character is at the same time omniscient, confused, and sexually maladjusted (the sub-plot of Sandra's past comes across as needless filler that does little to develop her already shallow character). The two teenage boys gave decent performances, although their forensics expertise and catch-me-if-can attitude is belied by stupid errors that scream "We did it!" Chris Penn as the all-too-obvious suspect is wasted here, as is Ben Chaplin's token partner/love interest character.
***Spoilers Ahead*** Mediocre acting aside, the biggest flaws can be traced to a TV-of-the-week plot that never has you totally buying into the murder motives in the first place, and as mentioned, the stupid errors (vomiting up a rare food on the murder scene, an all too convenient and framing of the school janitor, the two boys hanging out together in public, a convenient love interest to cause friction, etc. etc) cause the view to go from being intrigues to being bored and disappointed by the murderers. The ending was strictly "By the Numbers" and was probably the most disappointing aspect of the movie. Using the now-cliched tactic of almost showing the climactic scene at the beginning of the film, and then filling the audience in how we arrived at that moment, the final scenes surprise no one and lacked any of the so-called intelligence the film purported to arrive at it's conclusion. A somewhat promising concept, but poorly executed and weak in nearly every way. * out of ****.


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


user
There's something frustrating about watching a movie like 'Murder By Numers' because somewhere inside that Hollywood formula is a good movie trying to pop out. However, by the time the credits roll, there's no saving it. The whole thing is pretty much blown by the "cop side" of the story, where Sandra Bullock and Ben Chaplin's homicide detective characters muddle through an awkward sexual affair that becomes more and more trivialized the longer the movie goes on. Although Bullock is strong in her role, it's not enough to save the lackluster script and lazy pacing. Ben Chaplin's talents are wasted in a forgettable role (he did much better earlier in the year in the underrated 'Birthday Girl') as well as Chris Penn, who has a role so thanklessly small you feel sorry for a talent like him. Anyway, the plot really isn't even a factor in this movie at all. The two teen killers played by Ryan Gosling and Michael Pitt are the only real reasons to see this movie. Their talent and chemistry work pretty good and they play off of each other quite well. It's too bad they weren't in a much better all-around film. Barbet Schroeder is treading way too safe ground here for such a seasoned filmmaker. Bottom Line: it's worth a rent if you're a genre fan, but everyone else will live a fulfilled life without ever seeing it, except maybe on network TV with convenient commercial breaks.


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


user
Alfred Hitchcock invented any kind of thriller you could think of:he set the standards so high that any director who makes a suspense movie will be fatally compared to him.
The main subject of this Bullock vehicle ,all the ideas,almost everything was already in Hitchcock's classic " Rope":the two students who commit a gratuitous crime, Nietsche's philosophy,and the clues that the boys disseminate ,the Master was the first to transfer them to the screen.And with an eighty-minute movie which was a technical riveting tour de force.
"Murder by numbers " does not take place in a single room,like "the rope" ,mind you.And ,what a supreme originality,it pits two cops against the evil youngsters;and ,you would never guess it,these two cops are very different:actually,Bullock plays the part of woman living like a man ,and her partner (Chaplin) is as shy as a clueless girlie.The two boys' performances are not really mind-boggling ,not as good ,as ,say ,that of Edward Norton in "primal fear" .
Well,you know ," Rope" was so good ....


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


user
From director Barbet Schroder (Reversal of Fortune), I think I saw a bit of this in my Media Studies class, and I recognised the leading actress, so I tried it, despite the rating by the critics. Basically cool kid Richard Haywood (Half Nelson's Ryan Gosling) and Justin Pendleton (Bully's Michael Pitt) team up to murder a random girl to challenge themselves and see if they can get away with it without the police finding them. Investigating the murder is homicide detective Cassie 'The Hyena' Mayweather (Sandra Bullock) with new partner Sam Kennedy (Ben Chaplin), who are pretty baffled by the evidence found on the scene, e.g. non-relating hairs. The plan doesn't seem to be completely going well because Cassie and Sam do quite quickly have Richard or Justin as suspects, it is just a question of if they can sway them away. Also starring Agnes Bruckner as Lisa Mills, Chris Penn as Ray Feathers, R.D. Call as Captain Rod Cody and Tom Verica as Asst. D.A. Al Swanson. I can see now the same concept as Sir Alfred Hitchcock's Rope with the murdering for a challenge thing, but this film does it in a very silly way, and not even a reasonably good Bullock can save it from being dull and predictable. Adequate!


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


user
So, I'm wondering while watching this film, did the producers of this movie get to save money on Sandra Bullock's wardrobe by dragging out her "before" clothes from Miss Congeniality? Did Ms. Bullock also get to sleepwalk through the role by channeling the "before" Gracie Hart? As many reviewers have noted before, the film is very formulaic. Add to that the deja vu viewer experiences with the character of Cassie Maywether as a somewhat darker Gracie Hart with more back story and it rapidly become a snooze fest.
The two bad boy serial killers have been done before (and better) in other films. As has the "good guy partner trying to protect his partner despite the evidence" character been seen before. In fact none of the characters in the film ever get beyond two dimensions or try to be anything but trite stereotypes.
One last peeve - using the term serial killer is false advertising. Murdering one person - even if it's a premeditated murder - does not make you a serial killer. You may have the potential to become a serial killer but you are not a serial killer or even a spree killer.


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


user
At first the movie seemed to be doing great, they had the characters profiles set...the plot seemed to be going in the right direction... however, as the movie progressed it seemed the director focused on the wrong kind of things...or just a lot was edited from the movie. The characters' identities changed for the worse within the movie. Also, there seemed to be a lot of implicit meaning -- in other words -- they had things within the movie that didn't seem to fit the movie itself. AND the title... no where in the movie does the title fit the movie...I suppose the title works for the previews.... Actors did well with what they had.....if they had a better director and writer, maybe this would have worked out better. But it didn't. So now there's a new terrible movie coming out this Friday.... My opinion!....don't waste your time or money.


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


user
well, the writing was very sloppy, the directing was sloppier, and the editing made it worse (at least i hope it was the editing). the acting wasn't bad, but it wasn't that good either. pretty much none of the characters were likable. at least 45 minutes of that movie was wasted time and the other hour or so was not used anywhere near its full potential. it was a great idea, but yet another wasted good idea goes by. it could have ended 3 different places but it just kept going on to a mostly predictable hollywood ending. and what wasn't predictable was done so badly that it didn't matter. the ending was not worth watching at all. sandra bullock was out of her element and should stay away from these types of movies. the movie looked rushed also. the movie just wasn't really worth seeing, and had i paid for it i would have been very mad. maybe i was more disappointed because i expected a really good movie and got a bad one. the movie over all was not horrifibly bad, but i wouldn't reccomend it. i gave it 2 out of 10 b/c i liked the idea so much and i did like one character (justin i believe, the super smart one). and it also had some very cheap ways to cover plot holes. it was like trying to cover a volcano with cheap masking tape, it was not pretty. anyway, if you see it, wait for the $1.50 theater or video, unless you like pretty much every movie you see, then i guess you'll like 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
Murder By Numbers is one of those movies that you expect is made-for-TV but isn't. Considering the only actor of any note is Bullock (although Michael Pitt seems to be moving onto bigger and better things), it isn't a great surprise that this movie quickly fades away from memory to be replaced by more important things. Like... remembering to lock your front door when you go out. Or putting clothes back on when you come out of the shower.
Bullock plays Cassie Mayweather, a cop with personal issues (don't they all). Together with her new partner (a wet-looking Ben Chaplin), she is called to investigate the murder of a young woman. Nothing unusual there except that the perps are a couple of teenage students who think they've planned and executed the perfect murder. As the investigation continues, a battle of wills emerges between Cassie and the main suspect Richie Haywood (Ryan Gosling).
The crippling issue here is that the two leads are hopeless. Bullock, though she is very nice to look at, is about as believable in the role of a hardened cynical cop as Rodney Dangerfield (actually, he'd be better!). Chaplin, for his sins, is a complete non-entity and I feel sorry that he has to put this film on his CV in his attempt to break into Hollywood. At least Gosling and Pitt, as the conniving sneering suspects, acquit themselves adequately. As if dodgy leads weren't bad enough, a story that would send anybody to sleep and a highly predictable (but illogical) ending shoot this film in the head before it has a chance to run.
"Murder By Numbers" has absolutely nothing going for it, even a pointless nude scene by Bullock wouldn't redeem it. Well, just a little but still not enough to save it. Forgettable, predictable and redundant - this is one film that isn't going to move the cop genre forward. As Cassie probably says on her next case, there's nothing to see here people. Move along, keep moving...


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


user
Of all the films I have seen, this one, The Rage, has got to be one of the worst yet. The direction, LOGIC, continuity, changes in plot-script and dialog made me cry out in pain. "How could ANYONE come up with something so crappy"? Gary Busey is know for his "B" movies, but this is a sure "W" movie. (W=waste).
Take for example: about two dozen FBI & local law officers surround a trailer house with a jeep wagoneer. Inside the jeep is MA and is "confused" as to why all the cops are about. Within seconds a huge gun battle ensues, MA being killed straight off. The cops blast away at the jeep with gary and company blasting away at them. The cops fall like dominoes and the jeep with Gary drives around in circles and are not hit by one single bullet/pellet. MA is killed and gary seems to not to have noticed-damn that guy is tough. Truly a miracle, not since the six-shooter held 300 bullets has there been such a miracle.


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


user
I have been a huge Lynn Peterson fan ever since her breakthrough role in the 1988 blockbuster movie "Far North", and even though I loved her in her one other film "Slow" (2004) where she plays "Francis", this is by far and away her strongest role.
Lynn, as I'm sure you all know (or should), plays the critical role of "Driver".
Unfortunately, other than Lynn's amazing performance, I'm afraid this movie doesn't really have much going for it.
Oh wait - there was one other thing - the amazing creativity of the editing to remove profanity for TV viewers. Memorable lines like: "You son-of-a-gun!", "You son-of-a-witch!", "Shoot!", and "Well, Forget You!"
O.K. Bye.
P.S.: Does anyone know where I can get another Lynn Peterson poster?


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


user
A handful of nubile young college sorority sisters decide to go camping with a professor. A giant druid want to sacrifice them to prevent the apocalypse come the year 2000, they also have to contend with bikers, an Indian and a loch ness monster type thing. Worth watching for only 3 reasons, George 'Buck' Flower (a sadly unsung B-movie staple) is on hand as a hobo and the other 2 belong to the stunning Savannah (in one of only 3 non-porn roles she had). Both have very small roles. Too bad everything else in the movie is horrendously bad.
My Grade: D-
Retromedia DVD Extras: Original Trailer
Eye Candy: 4 pairs of breasts, 2 asses


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


user
Oh my. Started out with such great potential - a bunch of cute sorority girls walking around practically naked, check. Then off to a bar where the 80's cheese gets turned up a notch, check. Off to a woodsy state park the next morning, check. A bunch of girls and their professor, rowdy bikers, a General store guy, and that dood from They Live acting as the local drunk - makes for a nice body count, check (and speaking of body count, notice the strong resemblance on the DVD cover to the foreign horror flick - Body Count! aka Camping del Terrore). A whacky Indian in the woods doing some sort of ritual, hmmm, OK I'll let it slide, check. And then, oh brother, all downhill from there. Terrible. The Lochness monster head in the pond had me cracking up though.


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 so irredeemably bad, NOTHING about it makes it worth seeing. NO effects, no suspense and poor dialogue poorly delivered. Oh, and neither a CAMP or any FEAR does it contain. Do yourself a favor and go see the original Friday the 13th or (preferably) Sleepaway Camp, but what ever you do, DO NOT see this movie.
Even Michele Bauer's appearance at the very beginning can't save it. Usually, in these kinds of films you expect violence, suspense, and a little gore and some T&A. The violence was poorly executed, the "suspense" was laughable, there was NO gore, and the T&A is plentiful IN THE FIRST 5 MINUTES, then, NOTHING. At least one of these things, properly done would have at least made it watchable.
To say at least one nice thing about it, Buck Flower is great, he seems to be the only one who understands they are making schlock and rightly hams it up. If everyone else had fit that tone it would have been campy fun, no pun intended.


assistant
0