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
'Be With Me' is almost the ultimate wallpaper movie. Just leave it running in the background. chat amongst yourselves and return to it whenever you like and at some point it'll end.
Alas, as I watched it alone, and so I felt like I almost watched the world's worst, longest and most drippingly sentimental beer commercial by the time I just about managed to keep my eyes open as the end credits rolled; and I then managed (just a) a few more moments of wakefulness to witness a 'Thank you' to the movie's sponsors - which included Asia Pacific Breweries. Aha! Methought: How surprising is *that* - given all the shots of Tiger beer interspersed throughout this most forgettable washout of a movie?
Meanwhile, dialogue spurts between individuals with occasional stabs at depth, but all too usually nothing of any particular advancement to the movie's overall story is said or witnessed. It's as if one could switch off at any moment and return at any later point and you'd really have missed nothing which would have been an unmissable contingency, or part of its plot, as far as the movie's overall progression was concerned. Thus the ultimate "wallpaper movie"!
Well I wonder... What movie were those who positively reviewed this one watching? I wonder and continue to wonder... It certainly couldn't have been this arty to the point of artless Singaporean excuse for a camera's rolling. Allegedly, 'Be With Me' is supposed to be woven around the themes of "love, tragedy and redemption". But all I witnessed was boredom, a half baked screenplay with a smattering of gormless text messages, and the only redemption was that which occurred when this utterly useless movie ended. What a wistful waste of time, it ended up being! It was also said that the characters in this movie were fictitious except for Theresa Chan who is a "remarkable woman who has triumphed over adversities..." Well, no disrespect to Ms Chan, but given that she was such a marvellous & amazing character, why at all did the screenplay have to involve the stories of other characters without the most tenuous attempt to connect their lives together? Yet it still proved to be an almost insufferably boring movie whose highlights included the credits rolling. Rather than tying in the fates of all characters, I really felt that the movie ended up attempting the near impossible and evidently fell between stools as far as any viewer engagement could be concerned.
I am generally an art-house movie fan and don't usually object to slow pacing (of which here there is no shortage, believe you me!!). I hate such movies as 300, Transformers, Fight Club, but consider, e.g., Eric Rohmer as a great film maker. So I hope that puts my criticism into some perspective. Nonetheless, there was no redeemable feature whatsoever in the entire movie's conception and delivery which could prevent one's eyelids slowly drooping downwards as each minute of 'Be With Me' dripped by. Watch this movie if you need to feel like wasting time. Otherwise your life would be none the richer for having missed it. 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
I literally ran to watch it, expecting a film that will make me cry, or touch my heart.
What I found was not heart-rending, but a lame exploitation of 1 strong human character.
Interwined between a pair of young lesbians and an obese man.
In a setting that is substantially devoid of sound not to mention acting of the most common.
It was not entirely BAD, as I have seen worst - and I left the cinema $10 poorer but wiser - that a FILM well advertised is not the same as a FILM WELL-MADE.


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 about 3 stories put together revolving around 3 separate individuals. One of the worst movie that is available and even better if it is not available.
The Good : 2 pretty lesbians actress 1 true and touching story about Theresa Chan
The Bad :The main story that revolves around the blind and dear woman Theresa Chan does not need to be told in a movie format and more appropriate in a documentary format. No linkage between the 3 story lines. Minimum DIALOGUE in the film, substituted by SMSs and CHAT programs on PC. No cultural insight by the movie and it makes you forget even before you step out of the cinema.


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


user
With actors like Depardieu and Richard it is really a hard task to make a dull movie. But Weber is a master in setting a slow pace and making supposedly funny scenes without any wits and depth. This movie is high on story but low on character. You never get to know any of the characters except for superficial slapstick. Unfortunately Weber has no idea what slapstick is all about. His style could be described at hit and miss. Of course some people laugh when they see someone slip on a banana peel. Weber directs his humor at this lot. It is a shame how bad he uses good talent. Many good french comedians have been wasted away by mediocre directors.


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


user
For those of us who are part of the real world of ballet - this film is completely ridiculous. Ivan Kirov was basically a gymnast, not a ballet dancer. Viola Essen at the time was with Ballet Theater, now American Ballet Theater, and a reasonably good dancer, but except for Dame Judith Anderson, the acting is amateurish and Checkov is completely over the top .... embarrassingly so! I saw this film at age 14 and at that time, never having seen a ballet, I was very impressed. However, later in life, long after I had completed my own career as a dancer - I purchased the video tape of it, curious as to what it was like after so many years. I couldn't believe how naive Hollywood could be about the world of ballet. But it was made in the mid 40s, before The Red Shoes or The Turning Point, the latter giving a true picture of the ballet world. The entire cast of Spectre have now passed away ... Ivan Kirov (not his real name)dying at age 79. It was his one and only film, thereafter being kept by a Chicago business man .. so the rumor goes.


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


user
I do not find this show at all funny. I actually think it is much worse than any of the other terrible Disney channel sit-coms right now. Charlotte Arnold is an interesting choice to play Sadie, because she can't act. The jokes on this show are terribly unfunny, and it makes it even worse when the only cast member that has a little bit (and I mean little bit) of acting talent is Justin Bradley as Sadie's brother Hal. Jasmine Richards and Michael D'Ascenzo portray Sadie's friends. There both really stupid and just terrible actors. Two words that can really describe this show is terribly corny. It's corny humor that only little girls find funny because their brains have not developed yet. Now I've explained my hatred for the acting and the horrible humor, what's next? The whole premise of the show is a stupid idea. She changed again (not so sciencey an Ben-loving) and suddenly nobody recognizes her? It's moronic. In summation, I hate this show, however little girls who do not have a concept of funny will enjoy it, so I guess that's what they're going for over quality. Although i can say as much as, the first season is clearly better than the second.
BOTTOM LINE: JUST DON'T WATCH ANY OF IT.
My rating: Awful show. TV G. 30 mins.


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


user
The first time I saw a commercial for this show was when my sisters were watching the Kim Possible movie. The commercial showed Sadie and her friend discussing the meaning of the word nothing.It is one of the stupidest commercials I've ever seen. Basically, they go back and forth with lines like "Nothing is a thing, so technically nothing is something,". When I saw that, I figured it would be yet another lame Lizzie Maguire knockoff by Disney. But I had no idea how bad.
Fast forward about 3 weeks, when my sister turns on the T.V. Naturally Sadie happened to be on. What I saw had to be one of the most unintentionally funny shows I've ever seen. How'd it go? Something like this:
Sadie, a vegetarian tree hugger, has an incredibly unhealthy,obsessive crush on the very monotone and poorly acted acted out Owen. For some reason, her friend Margret decides that Owen needs to be "tested" to see if he is as good as he seems. What exactly do these tests involve? Well, one thing they do is put a cockroach on her notebook. Why? So that she can be squeamish and ask her monotone knight in shining armor to get it off.How is this a test? Because if he squishes it, he's mean and uncaring and doesn't believe that bugs, as Sadie puts it, "are innocent animals too,". THEY SPREAD DISEASE AND PESTILANCE! THEY DESERVE TO BE SQUISHED! But of course, Owen just brushes it out the window, and Sadie is still in love. But that's not all! Margret says he needs to be challenged one more time, on something that "no guy can pass". This one involves shoving scarves down their pants( yes, you read that right)and walking buy him to see if he notices their large butts. Predictably, he doesn't notice, and we see Sadie in her bizarre and strange notebook world. Sadie decides that she wants to be with Owen forever,raise a family with him, and as she puts it, "live like wood ducks with their brood,". That's just plain wrong.
Bottom line: This is the strangest, most insane show I've watched. For those who like to make fun of dumb stuff, you'll love it. For anyone else, skip this show.


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


user
Naturally Sadie sucks big time, I have no idea what the people were thinking about when they wrote this garbage. This is not funny, its not cute in any way shape or form, its just disturbing and a waste of money. Sadie is such a bad actor. I lost all my brain cells watching this show, it honestly seemed that this show is forced, it was such a huge over hyped pile of crap.
This show sucks.
Its a waste of time, and money, don't bother watching this garbage. The characters are so stupid and ridiculous. In the first season its just dumb and stupid then when i saw the second season i just couldn't take anymore, it made me want to kill Charlotte Arnold. The second season is juts absolutely a disgrace to Disney This show is also a racist piece of sh**


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


user
Every time I by pass this show on TV, I absolutely and truthfully want to claw my eyes out, and rip my ears off.It's so unbelievably horrible.The jokes aren't funny, the acting is completely terrible, and the whole entire show is one major disappointment.I hate Charlotte Arnold's guts, and I just want to punch her in the face or stab her with a knife every time I hear her talk. She is a no talent, low IQ, big waste on society, and I think she would be doing the world a favor if she just shuts the f*ck up and went away for a long time. Please, I say this with all my heart, DO NOT EVEN WATCH ONE EPISODE OF THIS SHOW!!!!!!It's not even worth 30 minutes of your life, and there are thousands of better things to do, including killing yourself, than watch this show for half an hour.


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


user
OMG what has Disney done lately..most of their new shows really suck. Suite life of Zach and Cody are pretty good but other shows like Cory in the house, Wizards of Waverly Place suck and are unwatchable.
Naturally Sadie is just beyond stupid and dumb. Its about a teenager named Sadie who likes science and grows up and goes through her everyday life. There are her friends Margaret and Rain and her older annoying brother Hal. There all annoying and stupid. Especially Margaret who thinks she's the most popular girl in school and thinks she's soo pretty...its just beyond awful. I hate all the seasons of this show, its just terrible in every way (the first season was better though).
If you value your life, you wouldn't watch this crap, its painful and stupid


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


user
when this show first came to Disney, i love it started watching all the time. It quickly became one of my favorite Disney shows ever but this show somehow transformed into something that is disturbing and disappointing.
I do now find any of the second and third season fun, they seem like a re-watch of some teens shows. I hat that garbage. The first season was very unique because it showed Sadie who loved science and animals and creatures. The first season was very entertaining. I mostly don't like the second season because of Ben. He annoys me and pisses the crap outta me. The plot in the second season also sucks and is just awful


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


user
Naturally Sadie is by far the worst show i have ever seen, it is such a piece of sh** and loaded with complete bullsh**. I didn't find any of the gags to be funny or somewhat clever, it was all awful jokes.
The acting sucks, many of the characters sucked at acting, Charlotte Arnold (Sadie) is such a terrible actor, the other characters suck too (Magaret, Rain, Hal).
The plot isn't unique and creative at all and the show is soo very much predictable. This is one of the worst shows made of all time, it shouldn't have even been made, the idiots who are responsible of writing this garbage should get fired (if they already didn't) The fist season was actually watchable but the second season was just a disaster, its too hard to watch this show, it is beyond awful.


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 saw this show i thought to my self " What is this!!!!!?" Its one of those shows where there is a perfect fake high school world with stupid problems that are considered "huge". Then there's Sadie. This complete misfit for her friends and well her family. Shes completely obsessed with nature not that thats a bad thing but she compares high school students to animals! like what is that!? also they made her another Lizzie Miguire clone ( yeah because the world definitely needs another one of those!) shes also very perfect like most TV girls are which makes me sick! So please this is a stupid show it makes no sense just skip it unless you liked Lizzie McGuire or any other shows like that.


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


user
i think that it was just like Lizzie McGuire except that it was a lot worse than the original. the only thing that is different is that she likes animals and science and all of that geeky stuff. everything else is the same. she likes a guy that she is too nervous to ask out. and later she finds a guy that does like her and she has no clue. i think that people need to quit making that same kind of shows. and another thing that is the same is that it is always thaw the friends are two girls and one guy. don't people think that these things get old and tired and these ideas keep being used over and over and yet they keep using these ideas. but i do know people who watch this show and i know that they like them.


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


user
this show is pretty alright and fun to watch, its a great Disney channel shows and sometimes entertaining.
I really enjoyed the first season but i hated the second and third seasons. This show has completely changed around. In the first season it was more about science and animals, all that is gone now in the season and third season. Its more about her life and dating. Ever since that gay kid (Ben) came along, this show has sucked. The writers took a perfectly good kid show and changed it to a crappy teen comedy. Disney took a turn for the worse. I cant stand to watch the newest episodes anymore, they're all garbage.


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 alright show to watch, its not the best nor the worst. I've watched it for a long time and i don't like any of the new stuff. This show has changed into some teen trash and is living much differently. I dislike that crap..i have no IQ why they completely changed the theme of this show. The first season was really enjoyable to watch and is was partly amusing. The 2nd season is just out of this world dumb. I seriously don't know why the writers/directors changed this show up. many more people liked the 1st season better than the 2nd and 3rd. I will only watch the first season of this show from now on, whenever i see a new episode, ill change the f*ckin channel...ya heard me! It gets a 3/10 because i somewhat enjoyed the 1st season but hated the 2nd and 3rd


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


user
Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy are the most famous comedy duo in history, and deservedly so, so I am happy to see any of their films. Ollie is recovering from a broken leg in hospital, and with nothing else to do, Stan decides to visit him, and take him some boiled eggs and nuts, instead of candy. Chaos begins with Stan curiously pulling Ollie's leg cast string, and manages to push The Doctor (Billy Gilbert) out the window, clinging on to it, getting Ollie strung up to the ceiling. When the situation calms down, Stan gets Ollie's clothes, as the Doctor wants them both to leave, and he also manages to sit on a syringe, accidentally left by the nurse, filled with a sleeping drug, which comes into effect while he is driving (which you can tell is done with a car in front of a large screen. Filled with some likable slapstick and not too bad (although repetitive and a little predictable) classic comedy, it isn't great, but it's a black and white film worth looking at. Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy were number 7 on The Comedians' Comedian. Okay!


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


user
Frederick Forsyth's books are always so intricately plotted, with twists and turns, and usually a great surprise ending. This adaptation had none of that.
So much of what was great in the book (the history of Monk and the betrayed agents; the plot to influence the outcome of the Russian election) were completely missing in this adaptation. Instead, there's this completely new plot about bio-weapons that was a yawner.
Forsyth's protagonists always operated in the shadows, forever just slightly beyond the reach of the antagonists. The joys of his books have always been the machinations of carrying out their mission. This film resigned itself to gunfights and car chases early on.
Swayze's Monk might as well have hung a sign around his neck saying "I AM A SECRET AGENT" for all the attention that he called to himself during the film. And with all of that attention, the amount of time that it took the bad guys to catch up to him was surprising.
Granted there was some energy to this film, which is why I'm giving it a "3" instead of a "1". It was also great to see some underutilized pros like Patrick Bergin, Ben Cross, Michael York, and Barry Morse.
I hope that someday, someone will once again do justice to a Forsyth film adaptation like "Day of the Jackal" did.


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 just finished reading the book, and was really looking forward to seeing this TV adaptation which was broadcast on the Hallmark Channel on Monday night (5/30/05). The key to the whole book was the manifesto which was stolen by the man with steel teeth, but I watched for an hour (out of 3 1/2) and I saw the man with the steel teeth but I never saw him steal a manifesto. I saw someone steal some virus but what did that have to do with the book? It's too bad because this film had great production values and a good cast, but isn't the idea of turning a book into a movie (TV or film) to get the people who read the book to be part of the audience. They only kept me for an hour. I thought the premise of the book was great and what did they do but throw out the whole premise. This book had a great McGuffin (to paraphrase Hitchcock) but they ignored it. And it said in the titles that Forsyth was involved in the production. They sure must have paid him a LOT of money.


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


user
Such a BS movie. It's just some stupid anti-Russian propaganda, with a completely BS plot, not in any way related to the book.
It looks like the production team got more money from the people who ordered the movie, than they will ever be able to get from selling the movie. The plot of the movie includes references to some of the real recent events in Russian and other parts of Eastern Europe, but puts them in such way that has nothing to do with reality. It looks like the movie is a brainwashing instrument, which helps to portray Russia as a place populated by evil people that always dream about killing someone.
An of course there are hundreds of stupid mistakes like using the map of USSR instead of Russia when running news reports, showing a crowd with Ukrainian flags and commenting that it's Russian elections, etc.
Also there are many bizarre episodes (i.e. a character runs though the Red Square in Moscow and in a second he is in downtown Sophia, Bulgaria).


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


user
I recently rented this promising mini series, I didn't even know they had adapted it for television. I was really looking forward to it since the book Icon is one of the best spy thrillers I have ever read. What a disappointment it was. The plot only loosely resembles the one in the book, the characters are completely miscast and there's some appalling acting. A shame really. The story behind Icon is perfect for the silver screen, but I think television budgets just aren't big enough for a decent adaptation of this spectacular book.
Forsyth deserves much, much better than this. Avoid and stick to the book, which is a must-read.


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


user
I just have watched Icon on DVD and despite being a great book, the movie is a weak substrate from it. Those responsible for the writing should be banished to Siberia. Why they maul the great story with all kind of C-film subploys which are totally irrelevant to the story is totally beyond me.
Yet the filmmakers and cast do there best to make something out of it, but at the end the film was not satisfying at all.
Can someone please make a decent movie out of this to show how it is done. I'm sure that the crowds will rally for such a masterpiece novel turned into a book, not into a cheap C-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 just finished reading Forsyth's novel 'Icon'. I thought it was one of the most in depth, detailed, and page-turning books I ever read, definitely in my top 10. I acquired a DVD version of the book starring Mr. Swayze. OK, let me first point out that to fit a decent adaptation of the novel into 2.5 hours film time would of been impossible, so I understand the teams reason to sway from the book version and differ. However, when I say "differ" what I really should say is "take the characters from the book, add a few, leave a few out, take away the book's plot, add a modern new plot, add Frederick Forsyth's name in there somewhere". Im not saying this was a bad picture, far from it, some of the effects were top notch and the acting wasn't half bad. The story sucked and didn't rely on logic or reality. Forsyth's novel was so good and real and altered the facts of reality instead of exaggerating them.. This could of been so much more if it had taken its time and been made into say a 10 part series. If you haven't read the book then expect a decent TV movie with a good acting cast, if you have read the book then try and forget it when watching this.


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


user
This is the perfect example of how a great book is turned into a poor film. The direction just gives the impression that the film was made up as they went along and Patrick Swaze is so wooden you can almost see the puppet strings on his body.
Spy Vs Spy films are not - or should not - be about car chases and shootings, the bad guys in this movies are really bad shots and miss the main characters even when at point blank range.
Even the action shots are just a cliché with the usual mounting sidewalks and crashing through tables and chairs - yawn.
I got half way through and switched off - completely bored.


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


user
the movie is complete disaster. i don't know who write scripts for movies like this one, but i would definitely love to meet one of them and talk to him a little bit. perhaps script writers really don't know sh*t about situation in foreign countries in present or recent past? or they just don't give a damn and write everything that they think it's interesting.
a great and everlasting formula with mad dictator + 1 lonely hero (an American of course) might seem like a good idea, but come on?! we had such a tyrant in serbia (milosevic) who did a lot of bad things to it's people, but i simply can't imagine him yelling "shoot them, shoot them" with such a barbaric passion, like in medieval times. maybe they wanted to show how evil he was, but it was a stupid idea. much better impression would be if he just did it in cold blood, like the real monsters do.
the list of nonsense is too long, but the funniest thing is: no matter how many national TV stations there are in Russia, Russian president watch American SNN (CNN) news?? OMFG!
give me a break!
burn this piece of rubish please!
AWFUL!


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


user
FREDDY FORSYTH has come up with a storyline which will suit the mood of the West's suspicions about Putin's Russia. Forsyth installs a nasty guy as the Ruski president who wants to return the country - not so much to Stalin's Communism but more to Hitlerian Fascism. In fact, his Political Manifesto could have come straight out of Mein Kampf rather than Marx. And, the loon has the latest weapons of biological destruction to achieve the ethnic cleansing pogrom of the Russian Federation. American mercenaries connive with the Russian Prez to realise his fanatical, genocidal dream, but then enter Dirty Dancing's Pat Swayze...and,yep,things get really down and dirty. He's a former US operative-turned-drifter,Jason Monk, who is enlisted by the British Government to see what the Russians are up to. As a corny sidebar, Swayze's character who is no Monk (!)has sired a Russian beauty Elena (played by the gorgeous Marta Kondova) on his previous missions to the former Commie state. Hardman Swayze does a passable job in setting out to defeat the evil Russians. But young unknown actress Marta Kondova steals the flick as his nubile, 18-year-old Russian daughter Elena who helps dad root out the terror threatening her beloved Mother Russia.


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 not seen and heard the original version.
I am no Russian, but I am learning right now.
I also have no preferences for Russia, Bulgaia, the US etc.
But what I have to mention is:
In the German synchronisation in the whole film all Russians speak with Russian accent. Americans talk "Hochdeutsch" (without accent)! I have never heard such a stupidity! Besides, this is boring.
I hope the original is better.
The rest is a simple thriller, not really good ideas. Like a cheap version of a James Bond film.


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 saw that Icon was on TV, I was surprised. I know that the first clue of where it was headed was the fact that it was on the Hallmark Channel - Has to be said - sorry!! I was hopeful when I saw that FF himself was the Exec Producer but very quickly saw that the only real way that the TV movie and the book were similar were in the name and the character names only. The TV plot was a ho-hum to say the least but I concur that in and of itself, the action was worth a 3 stars. In my personal opinion, Mr. Swayze could have portrayed a valid Monk, however I think that in order to do the movie justice, it would have been a far longer movie, and I don't think Hollywood itself would have gone for the plot of discreditation by subterfuge. A case in point is the terrible film version of The Sum of All Fears - need I say more?


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


user
I would like to say something different about this movie. I saw comments how beautiful is Russia and the views from Russia have been great. Hey guys this is not Russia it's Bulgaria more specific the capital Sofia. So this is not Russia it's my country. About the movie - well in Bulgaria, maybe except the Grey Zone - all movies from American directors are in one word awful like this one of course. It's a shame that Patrick Swayze has to play in such a low budget movies. Most of the actors are Bulgarians but really this movie has no plot twist has no energy what can i say-weak and boring movie a cliché not more. Hey people remember it's not Russia in reality it's Bulgaria.


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


user
Its gonna be hard to make this fill 10 lines.... But ill give it a try (just to prevent others from making the same mistake as i did - to watch this (awful and boring) movie.
I like Patrick swayze - he did a excellent performance in films like Ghost - Dirty Dancing - Point Break - North & South (TV series), but in this movie..... ARGH....This movie is so booooooring, the acting is awful - the script sucks - well.. i cant even find ONE good thing, nothing, absolutely NOTHING. I was watching it with 2 other friends and we all agreed that this was one of the most boring films we had ever seen, and the fact that it lasts for more then 3 hours (which we didn't know) - when part 1 was over and it said "to be continued", we almost cried "nooooooooooooo, do we have to watch 90 minutes more of this movie!!!!".
Its painful to see this movie: At no time do you get the impression that the actors are Russians, the action scenes are extremely bad. The ONLY good scene is when the truck explodes in the beginning of the movie! The rest is CRAP! GO clean your toilet, instead of watching this movie (and don't come running, crying if you do see this movie - you were pre warned!) Personally i would recommend Patrick Swayze to call his agent and have them recall this movie - its that bad.


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


user
along the history of cinema, there's been a few films that deceived the viewer, such as hitchcock's "stage fright", alejandro amenábar's "abre los ojos", David fincher's "the game" and this one "ausentes" ("absent"). to begin with, i don't like this kind of films, i feel like somebody is trying to pull my leg.
furthermore, after seeing this film one doesn't know what happened, is such a confusing film. kubrick's "the shining" may be a better or a worse movie, but definitely is more honest than this load of pretentious and dubious situations.
technically is fine -nice photography, fair performance and so on, but the script is so poor i wonder what did the producers see to carry on and shoot this crap.
and this film remarks the 3 guys that wrote the script (calparsoro, loriga and quiroga) are lost in cinema trying to make a masterpiece -or trying to do something to fulfill their stomachs, awaiting for more personal projects.


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


user
'The Shining' has wit, visual flair and an iconic performance by Jack Nicholson. 'Ausentes,' however, has none of these things; although it does borrow from its classic forebear; to wit, a man hacking through a door and a woman running around shrieking while clutching a huge kitchen knife. Unlike Stanley Kubrick's great psychological horror film, 'Ausentes' is a work which resonates with a singular lack of genius. It is magnificently, comically awful; it makes the Spice Girls movie look like a work of vital art. 'Ausentes' is the tale of a family that moves to a gated community in the suburbs. All is to be well with the world. They will live in peace and tranquillity; they will calmly go about their business away from those mean old city streets. But no. Ariadna Gill's character Julia starts getting spooked by those things that insist on going bump in the night, by empty supermarkets and doors that close themselves; and her husband Samuel, played by Jordi Molla, switches in an instant from laid-back family man to wild-eyed permanently unshaven nutter, injecting Julia with a drug to keep her under his sudden cosh. Molla, much respected as an actor, is absolutely dreadful in this. Comic rather than menacing, he simply cannot pull off a threatening expression. He just come across as a barroom slime ball who's had one drink too many. So is there anything to redeem this film? No. The script is clunky, the plot non-existent and the cast without merit. Completely without tension and full of be scared now moments, 'Ausentes' is an exercise in how not to make a psychological thriller. It is ridiculous and overblown, but as one of the most unintentionally hilarious films of recent years it's well worth a watch.


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 saw the trailer for this film, I really wanted to see it. I thought some of the director's other works were quite good, but I must say I was disappointed. The plot involves a young woman, who lives with a widowed father and two his two sons. They move into a well-guarded community, yet all is not as it seems; a sort of Twin Peaks. The woman begins to see, or not see, things an people. During the first reel, I had a hypothesis, and thought, "this can't be the whole reason?" Well, the ending lived up, or better DOWN, and gave us what I felt was a truly weak final act. The sound mixing and quality is excellent. Saw it in a THX Certified Theatre, and was impressed.. by the audio, and only the audio. The picture is missing substance.


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


user
I don't know why all the previous comments are approval of this movie. IT IS , well not by far but...,THE SUCKIEST MOVIE I'VE SEEN LATELY, full of clichés, bad acting, actually no...very bad acting and has a silly plot...If I would have seen it in a cinema I would have walked out after the first 20 minutes. I f you hate somebody , make him/her watch this movie...that's how bad it is. A girl who has an imaginary boy/friend that gives up a relationship with a real one because her imagination is jealous....but i think it figures...she takes after her parents who also have some mental issues...plus the character who is supposed to be I think the laughing stock of it, the thing that should make you laugh, cal's room mate is a serious nut case and just makes me feel sorry for him...and the whole 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 expected a lot more out of this film. The preview looked interesting so I decided to check it out. Bottom line is that "The Adventures of Sebastian Cole" only had one decent thing: Adrian Grenier.
I really like Grenier and found his performance to be very pleasing. The character is designed well, but everything else sort of just drifts along through the duration of the movie. Clark Gregg is really good, but I don't think that his character was explained too well. I mean there's not too much to explain; he wants to become a woman. Still, something was missing.
The obvious low budget of the film was nice to see. I enjoyed that the movie was filmed on just a script (a bad one at that) and just a few actors. It was a nice change.
While the main idea of the film was actually okay, it became disappointing to see a lot of scenes that had nothing to do with it just thrown in here and there. Like I said, the script looked promising and I must say that I was interested where director Tod Williams was headed, but it was basically a very slow movie with not too good of dialogue.
"Sebastian" started to look good towards the end, but again, it fell right back down into a hole. The acting was mostly good, the writing is in need of some work, yet the budget of the film helped it out in the long run.
I would recommend this to someone if they wanted to watch a quiet movie with a strong lead character, but other than that I would stay away. Personally, I wouldn't watch it twice.


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


user
The Adventures of Sebastian Cole is about a boy named Sebastian (Adrian Grenier) who fancies himself becoming a writer at some point, given he actually puts effort into it. This movie is presumably the years where he gets his material for writing, the adventure years, hence the title and the previous quote. In it we experience the very typical coming of age stories and warnings of loves, drugs, and sex...changes. Yeah, there's a slight twist here that is very interesting, and that is that Sebastian's step dad (Clark Gregg) very early on makes a rough decision to get a sex-change that has a huge impact on Sebastian's family and his relationship with his step-dad.
Clark Gregg plays Hank/Henrietta, Sebastian's step-father and is very good in the part, very believable without being over the top, which is a route this film could've taken rather easily. Thankfully they didn't. Adrien Grenier, who I'm only familiar with from Entourage, is also very good in his part as Sebastian, and together, he and Gregg have a great relationship on screen. It's always quite engaging to watch these guys (?) relationship as it develops and is genuinely heartbreaking at times.
And that's the best of what this film has to offer. Unfortunately, it brings with it some mediocre camera work, direction, and cinematography. It's not bad, but it's a far cry from being good, or memorable in the slightest. The characters are also thinly written, and it's clear from the get go how most of the arcs will pan out. The only truly fascinating character through and through is Clark Gregg's Hank/Henrietta. I've already said Grenier did well acting-wise, but the character of Sebastian is not only not engaging, but is completely unlikeable. I don't honestly see why anyone in the audience would route for his character in anything he does. He mopes, whines, cheats, lies, and lacks any aspirations other than to be a complete slacker. It'd be different if he was maybe a side-character or comic relief, but to have him as the main focus and to be asked to take the character seriously? Come on.
And I don't really hold it against this film, but I just want to say...pick a different song in all these films, Hollywood! No more "Where Is My Mind" by the Pixies, we all know it's a good song, stop using it in every other film!
I feel like I could just keep tearing more and more of this film apart, but in all honesty I didn't hate it. I just didn't really care for it, and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. The Adventures of Sebastian Cole isn't a bad or boring film, it's just not a very good or engaging one either. It's very uneven and the script could've used quite a bit of work. I guess the point of the film is to be a loose sort of look at the life of a writer before he made it, and it worked...if that writer put out pieces of fiction that I wouldn't want to read.


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


user
This should be re-named "Everybody Loves Sebastian". The 1983 rural go-nowhere town high school junior (or senior? - they seemed to flip flop on that one) with weird hair and "Leo-like" good looks has a big plate full of issues. His step-dad announces definite plans to have a sex-change operation, upon which his mom calls the marriage quits; Sebastian is called the "f" word by everyone and their mother, all-the-while "kissing around" with various girls, getting high on Ready-Whip at a supermarket, and saving a "strawberry" prostitute from the clutches of her ruthless pimp.
Sebastian's "buddies" make Eddie Haskal look like a choir boy; bad association doesn't get much worse. Sebastian seems to go for "Harold's" suicide attempts record (although he won't admit suicidal tendanccies). For no apparent reason the genius level SAT scoring Sebastian MUST graduate a year early, although he has no clue about the future, nor does he want to attend college (what gives with this nonsense?).
This film is a look into a few weeks in the life of someone who is PRETTY MESSED UP. The final scene suggests that things will be alright, although the HOW is left entirely up to the viewer.
The makers of this film seem to bank solely on the undisputed appeal of the very attractive male lead. The "story" leaves a lot to be desired. Looking for "what will this gorgeous kid do next...?" doesn't exactly satisfy. The lackluster production values just don't measure up to other films, independent or otherwise. A low budget and weak story need more than a pretty face to carry it through. The "results" of this project are forgettable and an insult to intelligent cinema fans.


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


user
I love comedies and I love independent films, but this was much too slow and the humor was extremely regional. I guess It would have been better if the main characters were likeable, but they were just typical gen-x slacker types, just like the people that have been causing trouble in high schools for forty years... I can understand High Praise for a young indie film-maker when it is deserving, but this is an extremely average film.


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


user
I saw this movie when it first came to the theaters in 1988 and though I knew it wasn't of award winning caliber...I kinda liked it. It tales the tale of 5 former cub scouts reuniting to take on the one task they never got to finish as kids - which is to climb Mt. Whitehead. Of course now the cub scouts are all grown up and have developed their personalities in a variety of ways, but none too differently than they were as children. Richard Lewis is still neurotic, Richard Belzer is still a playboy, Franklyn Ajaye is still sort of the Dear Abby of the group, and Tim Thomerson is still the surfer dude of the group. Of course the top billed star is Louie Anderson, a "true believer" in everything Cub Scout related. He still lives in the same house with his mother, still goes over the Cub Scout manual daily, is brave, reverent and clean, and is the one who reunites the others for one more grand adventure in Scouting. Compounding their task, however, is the Grunski brothers, two bullies drummed out of the Cub Scouts by the above mentioned. By coincidence they run into their old den and decide to harass them a bit, albeit harmlessly. Not so harmlessly is three escaped convicts, who think Pack 7 is from the FBI and are intent on wiping them out. All in all, the movie still has bits of charm. Observe Richard Lewis trying to get comfortable on a folding cot, for example, and you have a really funny bit going for you. Upon further review, the entire film needed more of that type of observational humor. It doesn't hold up well after all these years but still remains a guilty pleasure.


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 absolutely the worst comedy I have ever seen. It's hard to explain though, because (unless you've seen this) I bet you've never seen a comedy that was not good or bad; it's just there (That's the original part-not good or bad, just there)!
Let me say that I have seen every comedian appearing in a main role, and like them all. That's what makes this such a mystery. The supporting leads are actually acting (although the dialog is bad). The only character that is fairly good is the one played by John Goodman. He does a pretty good job with what little dialog he has, and actually has one funny line (I won't spoil the only funny line in the movie, in case you decide to watch anyway. It involves a pancake.) The big mysteries are the main leads. I won't call them characters, because no characters have been developed. This script is so juvenile that they don't even bother to give the leads fictional names. They all just use their own. They don't even seem to be trying to act. It's as though they are all reading out loud to each other from scripts that the local junior high sent to them. I actually wrote a paper like this for my English class when I was thirteen-it wasn't funny either.
Bottom line, just don't bother to rent this. It isn't funny. It doesn't even have the kind of bad dialog you can groan to. I just sat there and stared through the whole thing. It was so boring I couldn't even work up any irritation at how bad it was. I can't imagine how this is even getting a rating of 4 here.


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


user
Five guys who were in the cub scouts together reunite years later to go camping. Were they run into their childhood nemeses as well as escaped convicts in this supreme unfunny supposed comedy. Most of the cast are content to simply phone it in, and don't really seem to care about the film in the least. The writers were so lazy that the names of the characters are, for the most part, the name of the actors that respectively play them. Richard Lewis's shtick gets really old REALLY quick. Even the late great character actor, Brion James can't save this stinker. (Even though he's one of the few actors in the film that doesn't totally embarrass himself) I hardly cracked a smile, much less had anything that would reasonably be even misconstrued as a laugh. Awful.
My Grade:F


assistant
0