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
Started watching this but didn't believe in any of the characters. In particular the relationship between the bakery assistant and the waitress just didn't work for me at all. The scenes between the bakery owner and the assistant were nice but the rest was just very slow. It was a very superficial movie and it gave me the feeling that I was watching play rather than a film. The characters were very 'stagey' and the storyline was a lot like a stage farce. By the time the pyromaniac waylaid the assistant I was bored and didn't care what happened next and so I switched off. Glad I didn't pay to see it. Didn't laugh or even smile once. There seems to be a strange tendency for Americans to classify their films as 'comedy' when they are funny peculiar rather than funny ha ha. I have finally learned to avoid what Americans term dark comedies which usually turn out to be gruesome weird and unfunny. Now it looks like I will have to be a bit more discerning when they call a film romantic comedy as well. Maybe comedy means something different when applied to a film rather than a series in America. I don't understand why America can produce amazingly funny comedies like Two and a half men, Will and Grace, King of Queens but can't seem to produce really funny films without resorting to toilet humour. This film wasn't gross or anything. But it wasn't anything at all just one big yawn...


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


user
!!!! MILD SPOILERS !!!!
The premise goes like this : A store gets burnt down and assistant Sergio is asked by the father of the man who started the fire to take the wrap to which Sergio agrees .
So far so good , but there`s a fair lapse of logic involved Sergio agrees to do this for the sum of 25,000 dollars but why ? Come on guys if you were a good looking white boy would you run the risk of getting a long spell in a tough jail ( A very real possibilty for arson ) for the sake of 25 grand ? I know I wouldn`t , and seeing as you`d have a criminal record no employer would want to touch you with a barge pole so is $25,000 dollars all that much for a life of workfare and welfare cheques ? There`s also something else that seems to have gone without notice from the premise , since Mister Lumpke has told Sergio that his son did the fire he seems unware of the possibility that he may know too much . Wouldn`t alarm bells be ringing in your mind about someone wanting to keep you quite if they told you something ?
I guess we`re not suppossed to think about such details since A PYROMANIAC`S LOVE STORY isn`t suppossed to be an intelligent thriller , it`s a light hearted romantic comedy/ chick flick that`s probably best apprieciated as a girls night in . Looking through this comments page it is obvious that the movie has its defenders but as a cynical male I wasn`t too impressed and William Baldwin does go way over the top


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


user
Not having any idea what this film was about, but based on the fact that John Leguizamo was appearing in it, we decided to watch it. Well, it turned out not to be the wisest decision. In fact, as another commentary in this forum puts it, we felt embarrassed for the actors that participated in this movie.
While the film is by no means horrible, it doesn't make sense at all. The over the top performance by William Baldwin doesn't help the situation either. John Leguizamo is a multi-talented actor who deserved better. The basic problem it seems to be the film was a project that started with good intentions in making a little comedy and the people in charge ran out of ideas along the way. The result is an uneven film.


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


user
This was an attempt toward a romantic comedy, and one which did not work. Although the film was cast in an interesting manner, the dismal script betrayed the best efforts of all. The director's fey mannerisms may have succeeded if he had adopted a point of view. It was embarrassing to watch William Baldwin and, in particular, Armin Muller-Stahl.


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


user
Not really worth a review, but I suppose it's my duty to warn you all - especially since there are some pretty good reviews of this Canadian bomb floating around out there... Bad acting and a slow moving, absolutely atrociously boring 'coming of age' tale in which 3 boys lives are turned upside down when a man on the run shows up at their clubhouse in the woods. At firs the boys make good with the intruder and at one point even view him as some sort of a role model... However all this changes... and you still won't care. You will recognize Chris Penn, whose biggest cinematic impact is Corky Romano, and a young Devon Sawa, whose career peaked at 'Casper'. I was hoping for a '12 and Holding', 'The War', or 'Lie' and all I got was a waste of time. This film struggles to keep it's audiences attention and never makes an impact or maintains a note of anything remotely interesting.


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 spent the last half an hour reading through the other reviews and I don't know if I want to laugh or cry. There's no way that ADJL is like Harry Potter, Danny Phantom, Fairly OddParents, other then a secret magical world, which has been close to overdone. Also, no way is ADJL anime. Anime is very much a drawing style(and some will say more, such as plot and Japanese origin), either way ADJL is not anime so stop saying it is and if you're looking for something that is like anime, look else where, like Teen Titans and Avatar.
ADJL is typical. It's just like all the other Disney shows. An arrogant main character kid who thinks he knows everything and doesn't bother to listen to people who're older than him and continues to make the same mistakes. Best friend sidekicks. Repeative plot with a hint of a twist. And sibling rivalry. Can't they once make a character that has brains and isn't full of himself? Can't they have kids respect their elders? Can't they think of something different with the plot? Can't they have the siblings get along and not hate each other? ADJL is just too generic, because you also have bad guys that get defeated and come back again, and are also complete idiots, that have no background for their hate. C'mon, you'll think that someone who's at least 30 will be able to out-wit a 13 year old.
Watching ADJL is like watching nearly anything else on TV these day, same thing over and over again. Nothing special, just new designs characters and one small idea that has been used again and again.


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


user
Loosely based on novels by Earl Derr Biggers, 20th Century Fox's Charlie Chan series proved an audience favorite--but when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor the studio feared audiences would turn against its Asian hero. This was a miscalculation: actor Sidney Toler took the role to "poverty row" Monogram Studios, where he continued to portray the character in eleven more films made between 1944 and his death in 1947.
20th Century Fox had regarded the Chan films as inexpensive "B" movies, but even so the studio took considerable care with them: the plots were often silly, but the pace was sharp, the dialogue witty, and the casts (which featured the likes of Bela Lugosi and Ray Milland) always expert. The result was a kindly charm which has stood the test of time. Monogram was a different matter: Chan films were "B" movies plain and simple. Little care was taken with scripts or cast and resulting films were flat, mediocre at best, virtually unwatchable at worst.
Thanks to an adequate cast and a few interesting plot devices, THE SHANGHAI COBRA is among the best of the Monogram-made Chan films--but even so it barely manages to achieve a consistent mediocrity. In this particularly entry, Chan (Sidney Toler) is called upon to investigate a murderer who kills with what appears to be a cobra-like bite; at the same time, he decides to make certain that a government supply of radium tucked away in a bank vault, of all places, remains secure. Do these two seemingly unrelated plot lines come together? Well... could be! Sidney Toler is always enjoyable as Chan, but most of his Monogram performances seemed "phoned in"--and that is as true of COBRA as it is of any Monogram Chan film. As usual, the really enjoyable performer is Mantan Mooreland. Changing times have led us to look upon Moreland's brand of comedy as demeaning to African-Americans, but he was an expert actor and comic, and taken within the context of what was possible for a black actor in the 1940s his work has tremendous charm and innocence.
Fans of the 20th Century Fox series are likely to find Monogram's Chan a significant disappointment and newcomers who like the Monogram films will probably consider them third-rate after encountering the Fox films. Like other Monogram Chan films, THE SHANGHAI COBRA is best left to determined collectors. Four stars, and that's being generous.
GFT, Amazon Reviewer


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


user
Not one of Monogram's better(not trying to be amusing here either)Chan entries. The Shanghai Cobra has a lot going for it, but, in the end, is just way too confusing and cluttered to be overly satisfying. The film opens with a murderer named the Shanghai Cobra having already struck twice and now is about in a scene at a diner in some way. We have a guy, a girl, and another guy having some implied connection when one guy dies in the streets. Yes, I am simplifying things here for the sake of brevity, for this really is at the core of the problems with this film - it has too much going on without any real, fulfilling explanation. I haven't even gone into the diner cook who has some involvement and a juke box that talks to you and has a screen and everyone doesn't seem to have a problem with that! All this is in the first five minutes or so. Then Chan enters film working for the government and flying out to help a friend. He also has right to check a bank's store of radium and is looking for a man wrapped in bandages that he helped arrest in Shanghai many years earlier. I found the plot very involved as stated earlier. Toler is back as Chan. He is ever affable. Benson Fong and Mantan Moreland are back too. Both do good jobs and are quite amusing. But the convoluted plot just didn't convince me, and much of the film was watched with a weird, questioning glance. This isn't a bad movie not just a very interesting one except for the most devoted of Chan fans.


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


user
Admittedly, I am not a fan of the Monogram Chan films. . The plot, involving radium theft from a bank vault, is a bit far fetched and a long way from the atmospheric mysteries that Fox produced. Mantan Moreland and Benson Fong (as No. 3 Son Tommy) provide some laughs as usual. But otherwise there isn't much here. Great title that is wasted.


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


user
The Shanghai Cobra starts out like gangbusters, with a rain soaked diner scene straight out of Shack Out on 101 or Gun Crazy (the first one). Unfortunately the film then proceeds to plod its weary way through a standard Chan formula that is only barely enlivened by the always wonderful Mantan Moreland. It's as if director Karlson blew half his budget in the first five minutes, just getting the set up the way he wanted it. Watch the beginning and think about The Phenix City Story.


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


user
Jack Lemmon was one of the finest actors that had ever graced the screen. He could effortlessly switch from dramatic roles to comedic with ease, making most of his peers green with envy. While his performance in "Save The Tiger" is Oscar-worthy, I feel it was given to him as he had missed out on his other opportunities to win the award due to other, better roles that had preceded this current one.
This is also one of those pretentious movies that comes out to basically showcase the talent of the cast, or in this case, one particular member. It's too bad the screenwriter's output didn't match that of Lemmon's. Don't waste your time with 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
Jack Lemmon was one of our great actors. His performances in Days Of Wine And Roses, The Apartment, Some Like It Hot, Missing (to name the first ones that come to mind) were all worthy of Best Actor nomination. His only win was for Save The Tiger, and that's a shame. He gets melancholy down to a science, but never brings it into balance with the driver in his character. He actually did a similar character much better toward the end of his career in the one-note Glengarry Glen Ross.
As for the movie, wonderful supporting work by Jack Gilford as Lemmon's partner and Thayer David as an arsonist, go for naught because the rest of the script is a muddled jumble of cliched vignettes, angst, neurotic nostalgia, and pointless moralizing. Worth seeing once as a time capsule into 1970's style experimental direction by Avildsen.


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


user
This film's premise seems to be that the passing of the World War 2 generation in America, with its apple-pie phoniness and hypocritical morality, was a terrible tragedy. Those awful hippies ruined everything apparently.
What holds the film together are the excellent performances - particularly Lemmon's which is truly remarkable. Otherwise we have a boring slice-of-life drama (just over 24 hours of Jack's life) with pretensions.
I found it a chore to sit through.


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


user
The Canterville Ghost (1996).The director made this too sappy a production. Maybe it's the generation, but I really liked the Charles Laughton version. There is a time and place for "emoting" and this production does not translate very well. Patrick Stewart, reciting Shakespeare was very good, but still inappropriate. Would neither recommend nor watch again. The close-ups and padded text and sub-plots were lost on me. Adding extraneous material and scenes takes away from a truly great work. The screenplay writer should find another profession in which to misplace his talent, maybe afternoon soap operas would be a better venue. Check out the really good version and pass on 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
There is nothing like an Oscar Wilde comedy, and this movie is nothing like a comedy. The melodrama labors from scene to scene and the comedy is completely absent. In the original story, the humor comes from the Americans who are oblivious to the ghostly traditions of Canterville Chase. The American father even offers some oil to the ghost to quiet the creaking chains. Read the book!


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 a certain irony in a parody of the Gothic genre being turned into a mess of clichés by filmmakers who either had no idea what the story's purpose was, or just didn't care. All of the hallmarks of your average family film are present- rambunctious younger siblings, a grumpy teenager who doesn't want to move, unsympathetic parents who are unable to see the apparition, and of course a romantic subplot. The movie has very little in common with Wilde's original story, which was largely written to poke fun at the melodramatic Gothic novellas that were all the rage at the time. If Wilde saw this version, he'd probably laugh- and then of course, write a parody. One can only hope that the children who watched this bland, mass-produced pap eventually discovered the wit and sparkle of the original version.


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


user
I was really excited when I read "The Canterville Ghost" would be shown on TV. However, I was deeply disappointed. I loved the original story written by Oscar Wilde and sadly nothing of that was transferred by the movie.


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


user
I watched this movie by accident on TV and it was so unbelievably awful I could not switch it off. Every single piece of wit and intelligence has been removed from the Oscar Wilde story by the inept screenplay writer. It barely matters because the dire acting, clichéd camera-work and cloying music would have ruined anything resembling like a decent script anyway. The worst performance comes from Patrick Stewart who comes across as the most hammy, talentless, minor mock-Shakespearean nincompoop as the ghost. "Get thee out of here!" he screams at one stage while waving his arms like a pantomime villain. A truly terrible film and why wonders why Stewart, who can act when called upon to do so, has soiled his reputation by making worthless pieces of crap like this and the XMen.


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


user
As a Genghis Khan "fan" I was looking forward to this movie. After devouring Conn Igguldens epic novels about Genghis and reading up on loads of historic records I feel I know something on the subject and was thrilled to share my knowledge with friends via this movie...
That turned out a deception. This movie is practically made up from beginning to end. There are a few things that seem correct but mostly it is pure make believe of the writers. That does not have to be a problem, I like good entertainment just like anyone else unfortunately it is mostly boring. Nothing of the greatness comes forth in this movie.
I would NOT recommend this movie if you know anything on the subject.


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


user
I watched this film a few nights ago and it was awful!
Awfully long - even though they managed to skip through the majority of his life!
Awfully boring - the parts they included were long-winded, and for some reason the director chose to cut away from some of the action and left huge parts of the film unexplained!
Awfully inaccurate - the whole'mystical' side to this film was a joke, and last time I checked Ghengis Khan wasn't exactly a nice guy!
Awfully acted - I found several of the characters hard to believe, they were very two-dimensional and lacked and kind of depth!
A saving grace of the film was the cinematography. That is why I gave this film a 2 star-rating rather than the bare minimum! However, if you want to look at something pretty I would recommend buying a picture instead!
All in all this film was an awful waste of my time and money! Please do yourself a favour and give this Mongolian turkey a miss!


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


user
I was waiting for this movie for a time. In the first day of the air in Turkey, I watched it. It was totally a disappointment for me. I was planning to watch a historical movie, but the one in the screen was a fictional one. First of all, the main character of the movie Cengiz Han, the great conquer was portrayed like a soft, calm, even a loser one. You can not feel the power in the movie. Historically, the war machine he created was conquered ¾ (even more) of the world know in those years. To do that, Cengiz first unite the Asian tribes. However, in the movie, this loser man is in one scene poor-alone man, and in second scene, he is commanding armies. War scenes were incredibly week. In the final battle, the Mongol horseman were using double swords on their sides and cutting the enemy. : ) As a consequences, me and my friends just laugh at that scenes. Mongol army means Mongol archery horseman. You can not see that in the movie. Another ill thing was the use of fantastic elements in the movie. I do not want to go into the scenes which was portrayed Cengiz as a prophet. We can say in the integrity of the movie, it is acceptable. However, the scenes when the old monk saw the future and go to find the wife of Cengiz Khan after Cengiz gave him a mission is really funny. When the monk died in the desert, Cengiz's wife feel this dead and she find the corpse in the continent. We are talking about the Asia Again we laughed. There are a lot of more things to say but, I don't feel that this movie has value to talk more.


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


user
The narrative was clear and concise but overall the film never caught my interest- scenes felt flat and uninspired.. Ghengis khan, historically speaking, had a very interesting/epic life but the film failed to capture that- instead focused on small skirmishes as a youth and a love story I think I've seen disguised in a slew of other films. I never felt sympathy nor empathy for the lead- yes he had to overcome slavery but then seemed to have an easy ride to khan- pillaging, killing and double crossing his way to the top. The one redeeming quality was the photography- the landscapes certainly helped the bleak atmosphere of the film, unfortunately combined with the bleakness of the story- I left unmoved, and disappointed..


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


user
The worst film I have seen in the last 12 months. The plot of the story was uninteresting, the movie ended when he became gingesh khan, i always thought there happened something really interesting afterwards. i knew that Mongolia and all the areas where the movie played have beautiful landscapes but the movie didn't profit from that. The jokes where really poor. The narrator, gingesh himself, could have told a bit more about Mongolian history, traditions etc. My co-viewer knew nothing about that at all so he was a bit lost. I was so looking forward to see this film but was really disappointed after all. It was one out of 3 movies I have ever seen in cinema where I considered to leave before the end.


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


user
I'm really amazed that this got an 88% on Rotten Tomatoes and a nomination for best foreign film at the Oscars. The 7.3 rating on IMDb... that's not so much of a surprise, seeing the way IMDb users have been voting recently. I just can't get into a film in which the actual facts about its main character have clearly been distorted, and not at all in a way to make the movie artistic, but rather to make it melodramatic and less boring. Which, it turns out, actually makes it very boring for anyone who was expecting to see a serious and credible interpretation of the life of Genghis Khan. The far-fetched and over-dramatized Mongol often echoes the likes of 300, a film that couldn't be happier to be ridiculously inaccurate; but unlike 300, Mongol takes itself seriously. It's stoic seriousness, mixed with the obvious inaccuracies, is what makes it truly the most boring film I've seen this year; possibly the most action or biopic movie I've EVER seen. The characters were pathetically written. Honestly, I doubt Genghis Khan was as boring and passive as shown in this film. Which is funny to me, because if there's anything that I'd think should be changed for the sake of theatricality, it's making a boring person into an interesting person. The romance between Khan and Borte is similarly boring, simple, and stupid. Also, without giving anything away, Mongol contains the single stupidest scene I have seen in a LONG time- where there should be a good 20 minutes of plot development, the film just skips forward without any explanation. It looked like something out of a Saturday Night Live skit that parodies epic action movies with horrible pacing. (Did I mention how seriously Mongol takes itself?) Meanwhile, it drags like no film I've ever seen before. Even now, I could swear it was three hours long. About 45 minutes into it, I checked the time, being pretty certain that it was almost finished. Besides some pretty scenery and quality acting from Asano (naturally), Mongol is honestly just a disaster. It completely failed to entertain me or enlighten me in anyway. I would never give this film a second chance. And not to sound racist or patriotic or whatever, but give me a trashy and mindless American epic over Mongol any day. At least then I know what I'm getting, unlike with Mongol, where the reviews and ratings led me to believe it was actually something worth seeing.
The saddest thing about how much I hated Mongol is that I have friends who I know, without a doubt, would simply love 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 film did not excite me. While on vacation in Turkey I noticed that it was playing at the local cinema and decided to take the chance to go see it. The action sequences in the film are well choreographed, however, the story drags during the middle of the film.
One thing that I did not quite follow is how Borte was able to get the money to bribe the guards.
The other thing that I did not particularly like was the missing segment of Khan's life. It did not go into detail as to how the bad guys were able to find him and re-imprison him after he had gone missing for so long.
Overall, I rate this movie a (4) because I enjoyed the action sequences, but they were too few to justify a higher rating as the dialog left me less than impressed...


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


user
For Native Mongolian speakers the film lacked emotion and emphasis. Used too many non Native speakers especially Jamukha. Too many diversions from the actual history. Terrible terrible subtitle!!! I wonder where and who did that subtitle. It was both in English and Thai. I wonder how bad the subtitle was in Thai if the English subtitle was soooo bad! Described the one of the greatest leader's life very uninteresting. There are better films made by Mongolian directors with very low budget from 1980's. Honestly, I'm wondering if the film critics of Academy award is that lenient or what? Only good thing was some good CGI in some fighting scenes only moderately... not over the top CGI


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


user
First of all I dunno if I was supposed to use my imagination in this film or the director was trying to save money or low on budget! Here we go....
Basically there were so many years and gaps that I don't understand, its like the movie was jumping from 9 years to 20 years to 30 and so much gaps that makes you ask questions how the hell did this happen? and why? I think this is a big flow. Forget the reviews who keeps whining about the history , this movie doesn't have only history facts issues, but also has so many flaws. So most of the people keep saying watch this in cinema you will lose all cinematography like rivers, deserts etc.. thats true they are beautiful thats why I waited for BluRay release 1080p. OK! beautiful scenes but whats the point of that? I turned off the movie after 1 hour and half, I just lost Interest. The movie kept on doing the exact same things jumping in years ( At least Mr. Director put for example, after 2 years after 10 years!) I mean i couldn't watch the movie I lost understanding of whats going on! Anyways i wish i could include spoilers but when u decide to watch this movie, just ask yourself how did this happen? you will know what i mean! Don't watch this movie its a waste of time.


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


user
The best part of this DVD is the cover. It goes down hill from there. There was no chemistry between the leads, the kisses looked like something I traded with my grandmother.
The sound was so bad that at least I was spared some of the dialoge.


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


user
Well Folks, this is another stereotypic portrayla of Gay life however, the additional downside includes poor acting, horrible script, no budget, terrible sound and let us not forget the impossible storyline.
It is Christmas in New York City and our story immediatly "focuses" on two male individuals, apparently lovers for some time. One of them has not let his parents (the right wing, religious zealot types) know that he is gay (adding to the impluasability of the story 'cause this guy is as efeminant as gay guys come these days) and his parents are coming to viusit him. They will stay in his New York apartment where he and his lover have just decorated for Christmas.
The story continues to develop around the arrival of the parents, who noone will like anyway and - how through only obvious and predictable ways - they come to learn there son is gay. Tears are shed as was my interest in this movie.
The cast of charecters, seemed like an intro acting course at the local community theatre. The lovers in this film are mismatched, and there does not appear to be any cohesion to their union.
The landlord is flat and her attempt to be humanistic in the situation are undercooked and certainly didnt help move the plot any further.
The dragqueen friend who steps to the aid of one of the lovers in his "time of need" is stereotypic and gives a bad name to the unique art of drag.
Although some guys night find one of the lovers to have a nice body (again, stereotypic imagery) it does not help this story.
Stay away from this film, especially if you are considering a purchase. You'll shoot yourself if you do!


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


user
The horrific production doesn't qualify as a "film." It was obviously shot on video tape, and very poorly at that! There is a constant screaching sound for the audio(sounds like a bad microphone), which is so annoying that you sometimes cannot understand what the characters are saying. Badly dubbed-in music will suddenly appear in a scene, and the entire editing of this thing rates about a ZERO!
The plot is contrived and ridiculous. A late 20's gay man trying to hide his live-in lover from parents visiting? PLEASE! And the reaction the mother has when she finds a picture of her son kissing his boyfrioend is beyond melodramatic and rolls right into stupid. Talk about a stereotypical view of gay life! The acting is worse than a porno movie, and the direction is very poor!
As far as "production" goes, there isn't any!
This title is simply a lame videotaped attempt to call itself a "Film." There is no heart and soul to give it even the smallest bit of praise.
It's just a stupid waste of time, so avoid it at all costs! BAD ACTING! BAD WRITING! BAD DIRECTING , and the title of "producer" is vanity as this trash probably costed them the price of the videotape they shot it on.
This ametuer garbage has no business getting released onto a dvd as it's deceptive to the cunsomer. I cannot stress how horrible this "SUGARPLUM" crap is!



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


user
his has to surely be one of the worst gay-themed films of all time. Who told any of the so-called actors that they can act. Bad sound - bad script - gestures so overboard that they defy reality. A nightclub scene with only one actor and dubbed crowd scenes.
After seeing other low budget films similarly made I was prepared for something innovative - but not plain pathetic.
Parents and friends really should not encourage anyone to make such tripe.
And the DVD - No menu access; its worse than a VHS tape. Once you start you have to watch the whole thing through - luckily the fast forward button works - with this film and DVD nothing else does.


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


user
This is a joke, right? This can't be a real film? It's not even a real video? Give any Harvey Milk High School kid a video cam and they could make a better movie than this. The film maker's can't be serious... right? Is this satire? Comedy? Drama gone horribly wrong? The script is about as single-minded and dull as is conceivable. Ten monkeys locked in a room with a laptop could come up with a better screenplay. The dialogue isn't clichéd. Clichéd dialogue might elevate this holiday mess to something akin to camp fun - but it doesn't and it isn't. Worst of the worst - a landlady wanders into a dramatic scene in a private apartment dressed a bathrobe carrying a frying pan like something out of a "Honeymooners" episode. Whaaa??? I have seen better acting from middle school drama clubs. One of the leads is an attractive lunk, the other is not. Both can't even manage a convincing kiss. So much for romance. The supporting players are jaw-droppingly over-the-top.
Everything is underscored by a nauseating soundtrack and the sound seems to have been recorded in a back room toilet. Most of the dialogue is (mercifully) unintelligible.
This stale cinematic fruitcake isn't even worthy of being the next ROCKY HORROR or a gay holiday installment of MYSTERY SCIENCE THEATRE 3000. It's just plain bad. In every way. VISIONS OF SUGARPLUMS will not dance in your head - they will trample your every expectation. Have an eggnog and stare at mindlessly at the neighbor's holiday lights - it will be time better spent.


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


user
GOLD RAIDERS (1951)
A dull western/comedy feature with the Three Stooges (including Shemp Howard at this point, who I've always enjoyed as the "third Stooge") doing their usual schtick, and directed by the normally dependable Edward Bernds, who also did some of their funniest classic shorts -- so one has to wonder, just what went wrong this time? The most probable answer is that what worked pretty good as a 15-minute two-reeler comes up as too much for a 55-minute feature film. Unlike so many of their classic short subjects, GOLD RAIDERS is not worth revisiting.
*1/2 of ****


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


user
This is a serious film about black revolutionaries and not really an action film. Billy Dee plays a young man fed up with racism who decides to take things into his own hands. It's fairly gritty and realistic without exploiting the characters but still it's not that interesting either and Billy Dee's character, though maltreated by white authority figures, doesn't really come off as sympathetic. It's also hurt by it's extremely low budget. Still, it's interesting to look at as it's a good depicttion of 1970s social issues.


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


user
I must give credit to Billy Dee for trying to pull this off. Knowing this was a blaxploitation film, I started my DVD with a certain expectation. I knew it would be low budget... the acting sub-par... but hoped for a few gems to be sprinkled throughout. If there were any diamonds or gems sprinkled within this film, they were successfully buried under tons and tons of coal... or perhaps overacting. As an actor and filmmaker, I cringed often when potential poignant moments were ruined with atrocious performances. Yet, I must admit, I could not look away. I don't know if this was like a car wreck you can't turn your eyes from, or some mysterious power in the film that kept me there. This film is a good case for an excellent story that was told wrong. If Walter Kronkite were to tell "the Aristocrats" joke, it would be a total flop, although the joke itself is hilarious. Let Dave Chappelle tell it, and we are all rolling on the floor laughing. This film needed a "Chapelle." Now, with that said, if you have the opportunity to purchase this film for the dollar that I did, do it. It is well worth the money. Perhaps I will take another dollar, purchase the rights to this film, and remake it. Who knows... it might not be any better, but it surely can't be any worse.


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


user
"The Final Comedown" wants to "say something" about racism and inner-city violence; unfortunately, the message is invalidated by the nonsensical script, the amateurish production, and the heavy-handed polemics. How heavy-handed, you ask? To give you just one example, a black doctor comes out of his hiding place, unarmed, with his hands up in the air, ready to surrender to the police: one of the (all-white) cops says "Don't shoot him, he's a doctor", to which another cop replies: "So what? He's still a n****r", and proceeds to shoot him in cold blood. The cops are portrayed as ignorant, racist killers, even though at the end there are just as many dead people among them as there are among the black people who staged the riot. And this whole event was meant somehow to "sensitize" the white folks to the demeaning treatment of the black folks, when in fact something like this can only breed more hate and violence on both sides. Pamela Jones, as Williams' girlfriend, briefly lights up the screen with her smile and body, particularly in a tender sex scene, and elevates the rating of this movie from 1 to 2 out of 10.


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


user
I grew up watching the "Bowery Boys" on the weekends and even at young an age I could tell this was low rent stuff as the name implies. Still it was fun to watch Satch (Hall) get the better of Muggs (Gorcey) after Muggs would beat the crap out him. The East Side Kids stuff were never shown even though it was public domain stuff and probably cheap to run, it was just to low a standard for kids to tune in even though we only had like 5 channels to watch. Enter the year 2005 and I am repossesin about my childhood. I can't find any Bowery Boys on DVD but I found The East Side Kids on disc and also on a public domain website. Thankfully I saved my dough and saw Bowery Blitz on the web for free, and it really really blows. Now I can see there are some Bowery Boys and maybe Monogram bad movie lovers here that gave this melodrama crap a 7 of 10 but c'mon folks, this ain't even trying to be funny. It's an East Side Kids drama, not a comedy so it's no good. The best part was seeing Muggs fight at the end, he reminded me of my grade school days flayling away like a girl when I would get in a fight, it was kinda abusin. Leonard Maltin said in his mini bio that this flick is one of the better ones, so you can just imagine the rest. If you wanna see some halfway decent East Side action see Ghosts on The Loose maybe but the bottom line is usually a comedy team starts out strong in their career and tapers off, these mugs blew chucks early on then slowly picked it up until Hall's antics dominated than they were at best. Still 2nd tier stuff way below the 3 stooges, who they imitate but amusing for those who grew up with them. This feature won't bring back pleasant "Bowery Boys" memories and is best left to Monogram fanatics.


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


user
Well, great costumes and a wonderful `feel' for Pre WWII Italy. But what happened here?
Great actors...Kristin Scott Thomas, Sean Penn, Anne Bancroft, James Fox, Derek Jacobi ...if you can't get memorable performances out of this `A List' then the problem with this movie must be blamed on pitiful direction and an inadequate script. I rented this on DVD after having liked "Angels & Insects" (1995) also directed by Philip Haas.
Yipes! I can hardly believe how dull this thing was. It just dragged on and on and no one was able to save the poor thing. This is not even a good intriguing-foreign-dudes-and-young-things-in- pretty-clothes chick flick!
"Tea With Mussolini" Gone Amuck!



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


user
Let me be clear. I hate these kinds of movies. I do not like anything where the protagonists are all bourgeoisie English. I find this kind of literature and film awfully pretentious. You will never get me to read a Jane Austen book willingly. That said, the only reason I read W. Somerset Maugham's book and watched the subsequent film was for a class.
Mary Panton (Kristin Scott Thomas) is a beautiful English woman living in a borrowed villa in Florence before World War II. One night after dinning with some of her rich royalty related friends, she willingly picks up an Austrian refugee, has sex with him and ditches, and then he kills himself. As the movie gets further and further, you really want to dislike Mary.
What a load of crap this movie was. First of all, there were many subplots and characters invented in the movie that weren't even in the book. I doubt very much the late Mr. Maugham would've appreciated them. The characters, though wealthy, were some of the most superficial and self-centered people I have ever seen.
The only reason I didn't give it anything less than three stars was because the acting was the only thing redeemable. The always talented Kristin Scott Thomas is perfect for the role of Mary. In fact, I couldn't picture anybody else filling her shoes. Sean Penn and Anne Bancroft also had supporting roles, that were just as good as the lead.
Save yourself the pain of watching this movie.


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


user
UP AT THE VILLA (2000) **1/2
WARNING: YOU MAY FIND SOME SPOILERS AHEAD
It's hard to know what is the point in UP AT THE VILLA, a gorgeous but shallow period piece, one of those made with the only objective of earning Oscar nominations for best costume design and art-set direction (one for cinematography and another for score are also welcome). It has the same basic idea of thousands of period pieces produced every year: a good-looking, intelligent woman trying to find love in a strange place to her. She has many difficulties but ultimately finds her happiness in the arms of a man that is not the one that she had an accomplishment with. In this case, our lady is in Florence, some time before World War II. She is an English widow engaged to a rich-but-old man (whom, obviously, she doesn't love). One day she meets another man, who has not a good reputation but for whom she falls in love. Of course there is her friend who will help her for better or worse and a third man- who commits suicide here, in the lady's room, setting up a risky situation for her. Guess how the story ends...?
UP AT THE VILLA is not a bad film. I was always quite interested in the story, but never got excited. The problem is not the slow pacing, but the screenplay. Adapted from a novel, it needs something more spicy, exciting, twists and suspense. Every time you think the story will get warm, it gets cooler again. If you think there is a conspiracy involving the mean police chief of Florence, well, there is, but it doesn't change almost anything in the story. It just keeps going and going, till the predictable ending.
As I said, UP AT THE VILLA is not bad. If it is a bit bland, it never gets sappy and too sentimental. The acting is half and half, but surely convinces. Kristin Scott Thomas made some really bad choices after THE ENGLISH PATIENT (the saaaaaaappy romantic drama THE HORSE WHISPERER and the dull/irritating RANDOM HEARTS). UP AT THE VILLA is undoubtly better than those pieces and Kristin is also better, but she can do more than that. Sean Penn is good as always, even if his character is a big dude. Anne Bancroft is a terrific actress (THE GRADUATE, my God!), and here she doesn't let her character become ridiculous. Now, the supporting actors are pretty bad (Jeremy Davies is sooooooooooo irritating!).
The directing is good, but not audacious. It was interesting to know that the director is the same of ANGELS AND INSECTS (also starring Kristin Scott Thomas), another so-so period drama, but more audacious than this. What matters here are the visuals. Florence is wonderful, the costumes are great, the scenery, the music...
In the end, UP AT THE VILLA is an average romantic drama, but of course it could have been much better. It is watchable and interesting, but don't expect a suspense film- it is not! This film kind of fails because it wants to have some mystery, something to behold... However, there is not much to say mainly because of the shallow screenplay. Now, about the Oscar nominations, don't worry- it will probably get them.


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


user
Boring as hell and kind of a chick flick.
It's the story of a neurotic woman who struggles with the concept of marriage as a business arrangement, the romantic nature of a one night stand, and the uncertainty and pitfalls of true love.
Many of the story's motifs are reminiscent of other recent KST movies (e.g. the English Patient), but have far less appeal.
After the first half-hour I started checking my watch, wondering if I'd make it home in time to catch Leno on tv.
I passed up "Gladiator" to see this!?!


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


user
can someone please help me i missed the last view moments and i don't want to pay money to see the whole film again. i got to just where they are in the train carriage and she says 'what about that drink now?' and smiles. what happens after that? is there anymore dialogue or action? surely it doesn't just end there? i was a bit bored in the film and kept hoping it would get better. i love Kristen Scott Thomas does anyone remember the UK TV series she was in about some nuns? i am wanting to know the name. Sean Penn was brilliant Madonna eat your heart out! everybody else in fact the film a bit predictable, it was a 'spot a star cast'. the ending took me by surprise i really thought she had burnt her boats.....if you are a fan of any of the stars its worth watching.


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


user
UP AT THE VILLA fooled me into thinking I`d be watching something similar to GOSFORD PARK . The film opens at a ballroom in 1930s Italy which is populated by vulgar Americans and uptight upper class Brits , but in truth UP AT THE VILLA plays out far more like a Merchant -Ivory production which is very bad news because it`s a very slow , and I do mean very slow romantic drama with some of the romance being very unlikely . If you like slow romantic dramas you might like this movie . I didn`t


assistant
0