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
A young woman nicknamed "T.N.T." for being virtual dynamite in a fight and a knockout in terms of looks to boot, goes to the most lawless part of Hong Kong in search of her missing brother Stag Jackson. When she learns he has been murdered, she decides she will bring the killer to justice in a fashion only she can.
Sounds good, doesn't it. Well, there's really nothing wrong with the basic premise as a starting base for a martial arts/blaxploitation action thriller, which is what this aims to be. The leads actually prove pretty good too with Jeanne Bell fitting nicely into the role of "T.N.T." and Stan Shaw doing well as the ambitious, power-hungry Charlie. Where this fails miserably is in terms of the fighting action it offers up. The fight scenes are totally and completely unconvincing and/or sometimes so completely over the top it reaches the point of ridiculousness which doesn't at all help when the basic focus of your movie is a Kung Fu action heroine. Also the poor lighting, actors sporting accents making them hard to understand, the confusing camera-work and the sometimes poor sound doesn't help this obvious low budget effort out either any. This does deliver in one area which may delight some fans, it does offer up plenty of the T in "T & A", in fact practically every fight scene in the film is proceeded by some type of nude scene and Jeanne Bell actually does have one extended fight scene in which she is completely topless.
In the end, this fails to be something you want to revisit because the fight scenes are so pathetically, laughingly bad.


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


user
Now any Blaxploiation fan will recognise the ingredients: big Afros, topless babes, surreally bad fashions and some 'jive' talk. In this case add in a lead who can't act, a plot that makes little sense, editing by someone with no hands who has been blindfolded and the most god-awful fight scenes and you have 'TNT Jackson'. Not quite bad enough to be good, but not good enough to be bad, this is a wonderful mess from start to finish. I especially loved the endless continuity errors and the lead's white stunt double.
This is so '70s bad Far Eastern martial arts meets black power that it hurts, but boy it hurts so good! I am ashamed to admit that I almost enjoyed 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 extremely bargain-basement Blaxploitation/Kung-Fu hybrid was in my country released by a questionable DVD label that usually speaking just occupies with the transfer of pure crap onto disc, so that wasn't exactly a favorable herald. Several other titles were released in the same series, like "The Black Six", "The Black Gestapo" and "The Black Godfather" and judging by all their low ratings and negative reviews none of these belong to the elite of the 70's Blaxploitation hype, neither. "TNT Jackson" is a pretty lousy film, completely lacking a significant plot but featuring far too many laughable fighting scenes and horrible acting to compensate. Apparently Roger Corman  never too embarrassed to make some easy money  assigned two of his most loyal acolytes to rapidly invent a simplistic story that would appeal to fans of both oriental Kung-Fu movies and contemporary trendy Blaxploitation flicks. The result Cirio H. Santiago and Dick Miller came up with was "TNT Jackson"; the tale of an arse-whooping black babe traveling to Hong Kong in search of her missing brother. She quickly discovers he was killed by a criminal network of drug-smugglers and swears to avenge him. Mrs. Jackson smoothly infiltrates into the underground and encounters macho pimps, helpful undercover agents, loads of vicious Kung-Fu fighters. Only one thing's for sure; they all want a piece of TNT's ravishing body in one way or another. I sincerely doubt movie concepts get any more elementary than this, but  unfortunately - all the other aspects suck too. The battle scenes are overlong and moreover pathetically staged. Jeannie Bell and the other poor suckers try really hard to stare menacingly and assume a tough position, but eventually all they ever do is kick in the air and stupidly leap across rooms. The cinematography is horrid, the soundtrack is vastly disappointing (whatever happened to soul music?), the few dialogs are poorly written and the acting performances are inferior. Speaking of which, Jeannie Bell is undeniably a beautiful woman, but still she can't hold a candle to Tamara Dobson or Pam Grier. There's only one really good and memorable scene in "TNT Jackson", namely the famous hotel room battle where Bell, entirely naked except for panties, repeatedly switches the light on and off whilst kicking the hell out of some goons. Amusing scene ... I just haven't figured out yet whether it's thanks to the light switch ingenuity or Bell's perfectly shaped breasts.


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


user
I cannot believe how this atrocity managed to capture the hearts and minds of a cross-section of the 'bright young things' of its era, but I'm certain I wish it hadn't. In my opinion it is an inaccurate, poorly acted, weakly scripted, pretentiously directed piece of gumpf. The brief outings to an imagined reality bludgeon any humour to death. The situations are unsubtle exaggerations which make the the already flimsy characters even more unbelievable and detestable. The romance is dull, the end is unsatisfying and ruins the only sensible drugs message in the film and the simple plot ('Withnail and I,' 'Fear and Loathing') is tested to extremes with the uninteresting motion of the film. In short this film as a blatant visual assault with no hint of skill or initiative. I condemn it to the ash heap of history and pray it stays there.


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


user
utterly useless... having been there, done that with the subject matter i have to say this captures the clubbing atmosphere in absolutely no respect. It may have done so had the characters not just been mouthpieces for incredibly dire, unrealistic drivel. So many cringe-worthy scenes that would put The Office to shame (not a compliment to this film). It also may have helped to have some semblance of a story, a point, a message, a commentary, anything. Seriously, Kevin & Perry Go Large had more to say on the subject than this film (term used very loosely in this case). There should be minus numbers reserved for films like this. -10 (extra turd)


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 Movie of the 90's" "The Welsh Trainspotting"....Aye, right! I went into this movie with pretty high expectations, and it was all downhill from there.
This movie was supposed to be this archetypal movie on the drug culture of the early 90's, and was going to allow us all to see inside this scene, and shatter the media's preconceptions following the moral panic which followed the death of Leah Betts in 1995. Unfortunately it has fallen a long way short.
Where Trainspotting was able to treat you like an adult on the subject, and potential problems that surround drugs, this just provided us with some schmaltzy tale of the wonder of drugs, and how it can like, you know, like totally open your mind. Cue some guff about Bill Hicks, and Howard Marks ad nausea. It is painfully bad at times. I mean, the scene at the end between Lulu and her Auntie actually made me laugh out loud.
Now maybe I am just a cynic, but the way Jip leads us through this tale is like listening to THAT Acid frazzled guy you once met at a house party, who talks to you about how "the man" is holding us back, and how Acid has released him from the strains of modern society. You just wanna shake some sense into him, and ask him to leave the premises.
The script was a real problem for me, because where Trainspotting had Irvine Welsh's excellent book to cite from, this is written and directed by Justin Kerrigan. The words "Jack of all trades, master of none" come to mind. You can see where his inspiration comes from, particularly in the style of narration from main character Jip (which sets the main character in a social situation where he speaks directly to the camera, and outlines what is going through his mind as the scenario plays out) The problem with this is that some of the speeches to camera are just painful to watch. Mainly this comes down to a lack of empathy for Jip, but they are so desperate to sound philosophical that they just end up sounding like your average A-Level drama project. The direction is fine, and the intentions are good, but it is so lacking in any integrity that you start to wonder what the hype is about.
Saying that though, it is not all bad. There are moments which are genuinely very amusing, and entertaining. Moff is the highlight of the movie for me. For an independent movie it also managed to attract a high numbers of quality British actors/actresses, which maybe outlines why there was such a buzz about the movie.
Best movie of the 90's? Not by a long shot, but if you're looking for a solid Sunday night movie, then this might just be your bag. Inevitably though, the movie is flawed by the hype that surrounds it.


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


user
If I wouldn't have had any expectations of this film, it might have received a 5 or 6. As it stands, I give it a 3. The acting is poor, the factual accuracy of the drugs it discusses is lacking, and I feel no empathy whatsoever for the characters.
I watched 'Adam & Paul' immediately before watching this film, and I both laughed and cried on several occasions. This film did not strike even a similar chord. The directors of 'Human Traffic' may have some off-hand experience of ecstasy, but there is no demonstration of actual drug-related semantic knowledge here. In fact, I find it rather offensive and contraproductive to the strife of making current drug laws less politically oriented.
Watch 'Requiem for a Dream' if what you're looking for is an amazing, touching film about drugs.


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


user
Human Traffic is purely a `been there, done that' experience  only this time it's quite limp.
Major themes explored are paranoia, male impotence and jealousy  but only mildly and poorly.
A lot of the movie seems to want to imitate Trainspotting (drug / `clubbing' culture)  but it fails to include the low times / come-downs that Trainspotting deals with (eg: issues with death / dependence, etc). It even tries to come up with a similar monologue to Ewan McGreggor's classic `Choose Life' speech  but `The Milky Bars are on me! Yeah!'  what the fudge is that all about?!
The characters try to analyse their lifestyle but when their lifestyle is so shallow  their analysis becomes boring and repetitious.
The soundtrack (for a movie that is trying to be cool) is pathetic. It includes the likes of Fat Boy Slim and CJ Bolland  come on people  good dance music IS be better than this!
The characters become grating and annoying (especially half way through the movie) and the lack of care-for-the-characters soon dawns.
There are a couple of funny scenes  but they are few and far between. The mother catching the son in the bedroom was quite amusing.
But PLEASE  I'm sick to death of the Star Wars analogy scenes. I thought it was much more sharper in a couple of Kevin Smith's movies (ie: Clerks and Chasing Amy). According to the characters  Yoda is a drug fiend hence that's why he is short and bald  huh?!
My score  4 out of 10  do yourself a favour and see Trainspotting or Go instead!


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


user
Saboteur was one of the few Hitchcocks I had yet to discover and I was less than half-overwhelmed. The French title "La Cinquième colonne" (i.e. The Fifth Column, a very evocative phrase for underground spying and sabotage organizations) set my expectations quite high as did the images of the finale on top of the Statue of Liberty.
Basically Saboteur is as much light-hearted as were The 39 steps (note this is another evocative phrase, even McGuffin as a title) but it lacks most of the humor (so the characters are rather down to earth) and it's definitely not as fast paced. As a chase movie across the USA from LA to NY Saboteur drags its feet from sequence to sequence. The sequence at the villain's lovely ranch? Lovely ranch, lovely villain but pretty tame on the whole, it doesn't really add up to nothing. The meeting with the blind man, the mixing with Circus people, the Soda City sequence, the NY ball sequence? They fall flat, bringing in more characters with very little added suspense value.
One big problem I can point out is the relationship between the leads Robert Cummings and Priscilla Lane which is not building up as with Robert Donat and Madeleine Caroll in The 39 steps. Hence the whole narrative structure is floating, depending on the addition of new scenes. And new scenes only bring us nearer the end since it's not clear if the hook is the hero's escape from the police, from the villains or his action to stop the plotted sabotages. In The 39 steps it was clearly scripted as 1/escaping from the police (so you know the hero can't just go to the police) then 2/running for his life and after the villains to prove his innocence.
If you want a better Hitchcock from the 40s wartime propaganda I would advise you to chose Foreign Correspondant over Saboteur. They are both chase movies with a catchy finale, well really a gripping one and not just sightseeing in Foreign Correspondant as well as beautifully efficient scenes (the umbrella crowd, the tulip fields, the strange mills...).


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


user
Rarely will anyone deny that Hitchcock remains one of the most creative, inventive and prolific directors of all time, because he is arguably all of these things. It takes true genius to scare generations of film goers out of taking showers and wearing neck ties. Saboteur, however, is not creative or prolific at all. Rather, Hitchcock set out with the soul intention of creating a film to muster "American Pride," a certain call-to-arms, support-our-troops title which was a popular theme of the time. With that in mind, Hitchcock severely underplayed other important aspects of the film, including but not limited to a logical plot, characterization, believable dialog, and a fluent, running storyline.
Typically Hitchcock does great with espionage films, only a few years earlier achieving cinematic greatness with The Foreign Corespondant and The 39 Steps, but seemingly lost his stride in creating Saboteur and merely recycled the same once-thrilling story lines both his previous excursions readily provided. Without going into any great depth here is a list of a few of this films major problems:
1. Despite having his face plastered on every newspaper across America, the only person who recognizes Kane is blind.
2. At the dinner party, Kane and Patricia don't want to run for the door because the bad guys might grab them and tell the party they were "gate crashers." Logically, what prevents the spies from grabbing them and saying this at any point during the evening? Besides, does anyone need to be reminded Kane is a wanted terrorist?
3. Since when can a fan belt cut through handcuffs?
4. Nobody recognizes him...his face is on EVERY NEWSPAPER!!!
5. The spies catch up with Kane in the ghost town and assume he's the man Freeman sent to work with them...shouldn't't he have some sort of credentials? I know spies don't run around with name tags and photo IDs but a secret handshake maybe?
6. Cop picks up Kane escaping from Freeman's house, still seems no one recognizes this guy.
7. How exactly does the FBI come to believe Kane with no evidence? They don't even show Kane talking to the FBI, the scene simply fades in and we are forced to assume everything is now kosher.
8. When the cops search the Carnival Caravan how do they know Kane is now with a woman? The blind man believed Kane's story thus logically would not have reported his daughter missing, kidnapped, or even more importantly running with Kane. Why does this movie not employ logic?
This is a running list. The movie is not exciting, the plot makes no sense, and the world is full of people who willingly take wanted terrorists into their homes and cars everyday because its no big thing. Hitchcock fails miserably 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
As I post this comment, IMDb currently rates Alfred Hitchcock's subpar Saboteur a 7.3/10. Personally, I rated it less than half that. Honestly, I can't tell how a movie this bad could've come from what is probably the most consistently good director I know of. I've seen about 10 other Hitch movies from the 30's-60's. Vertigo is thus far my hands down favorite while Saboteur is easily the worst. It's hard to believe that 7 years earlier Hitch used the very same formula in The 39 Steps far more competently. My recommendation would be to see that instead and avoid this like the plague. It's the only Hitchcock movie that I turned off before before the end and have no desire to go back and see the rest. If you must watch it, then rent or borrow. Don't make the mistake I did and buy the DVD on good faith earned through Notorious, Rebecca, Vertigo, Rear Window, etc. Even a master screws up sometimes, I guess.
EDIT: Maybe I was a bit harder on this film than I should've been. It's certainly nowhere near Ed Wood or Manos or anything like that, but there's three reasons I feel I must rate it so low:
1) The name "Hitchcock" brings with it certain expectations of quality. This film delivers on a few of them, but they're way overshadowed by the darn near non-sensical plotting.
2) I want to compensate a bit for all the 8+ ratings this film is getting. Hitchcock is like the John Coltrane of directors. True fans will find reasons to consider anything by him a work of art, but the high rating on IMDb gives more casual movie enthusiasts like myself the impression that this movie is far better than it actually is.
3) I spent $18 on this. Maybe if it'd cost me $5 or even $10 I'd probably be a bit less bitter. ;)


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


user
Hitchcock is a great director. Ironically I mostly find his films a total waste of time to watch. I admire Hitchcok on a purely visual and technical level.
First the positives. Hitchcock invented the notion of the probing camera. The curious eye that is able to withhold or search for information. It isn't exactly a new visual grammar but it was revolutionary then.
Secondly, Hitchcock pretty much perfected the thriller and chase movie. He has an economical style and is always thinking of the audience. He gives them regular thrills, regular jolts of humour and regular shocks. In short, he anticipates the audience's base needs and plays them like a fiddle.
Unfortunately, the base needs of a human being are mostly stupid. Food, sex, the thrill of danger and a little comedy. Hithcock caters for all these needs on screen, with the exception of food, which, judging from his size, he catered to off screen.
It's this pandering to the audience that sabotages most of his films. A second downside is that most of Hitchcock's camera work and visual grammar are now common place. What keeps his films watchable are the simple economy of his tales, the intelligence of his camera work, and his skill at crafting tense action set pieces.
So on to "Saboteur". This is a light-hearted romp in the vein of "The 39 Steps". It jumps from sequence to sequence, until it concludes at the typical Hitchcock final act set piece.
On an emotional level, the relationship between the leads is not up to par with Robert Donat and Madeleine Caroll in "The 39 steps". Hence the whole story lacks a certain energy. The plot simply rumbles on like a machine, desperately depending on the addition of new scenes. And new scenes only bring us nearer the end, since it's not clear if the hook is the hero's escape from the police, from the villains or his action to stop the plotted sabotages.
There are the usual Hitchcock logic flaws. For example, a guy with handcuffs frees himself using a car fan belt etc. (Why doesn't he just drive away in the car? Surely handcuffs aren't that restrictive? He's able to swim in them, after all!)
If you want a better Hitchcock wartime propaganda flick from the 40's, I would advise you watch "Foreign Correspondant". They are both silly chase movies with a catchy finale, but "Foreign Correspondant" makes great use of umbrellas and tulips, something Spielberg rips off nicely in "Minority Report".
7.5/10 - Some good set pieces. Beyond that, however, there's nothing much to sink your teeth into.


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 was one of a handful that actually caused me pain. It might be enjoyed by anybody who thinks that it would be funny to see his/her mother in a crowded discotheque full of people half her age "inventing" some totally ridiculous dance in a completely misguided effort to be "hip" (in the parlance of that age). To see Ingrid Bergman stoop to such a pitiful performance on the disco dance floor was hard to watch. I was embarrassed.
To make matters worse, the music in the disco was not realistic at all - it is the bogus idea of some Hollywood director about what pop music was like at the time. That is always a total embarrassment in most films of that era - the ersatz music is canned and bears only a painful, passing resemblance to the music that was actually popular in the 60's.
Mathau is hopelessly miscast as some kind of ladies' man; he just looks lecherously grotesque. Hawn's wide-eyed innocence is just too silly. The handsome neighbor in her apartment is portrayed way too earnestly and seriously. He seems like a Brady kid who got lost in this farce. Painful, pitiful mess.


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, let me make it clear. This movie is a real piece of garbage, but although it is a real piece of garbage, it is an better piece of garbage than it could have been. It could have sucked big-time, but it doesn't...
What this movie didn't have, was for example scary moments, good acting and a good script. It wasn't very entertaining either. But the movie had cool music, fancy locations and hot girls. It also works great as a Dracula spoof. (hope it was meant that way, although I really don't think so)
The story focuses on three girls in Transylvania, awaking an ancient vampire, which then terrorizes and kills the girls, one by one. Sounds familiar? Yes, so it does!
After reading through this, you may think that I should have given it a better vote. The reason I don't, is because I almost felt asleep at some points...


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


user
regardless of what anyone says, its a b-movie, and the effects are poorly done.. if you're a vampire fanatic, I suppose it would be OK, not 10 out of 10, you others here cant sincerely mean that?. we are to view this as a movie, not read it as a book, so the effects and characters are important, as well as the story. The story are good, but it doesn't carry the film, no wonder it has a low rating over all. I write this because I chose to see this movie when I saw some good reviews here on IMDb, but got severely disappointed. don't get me wrong, I thought the blade movies was awesome, and loved the underworld movies, but this characters aren't close. the make up on the vampires is poorly done, and the effects are worse. this sucks. I might not have gotten so disappointed if I had not read reviews here that told me how great it was. the reviewers must have had something to do with the production company or something, seriously, if you think this is awesome, you don't care about acting or make up. this is better as a book. 3 out of 10 for an OK story..


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


user
A few years ago I bought a movie called The Cellar. I had heard that it was supposed to be a great movie, but it turned out that it was a flop and a B-Movie.
The story is good, but there are no good effects in the movie. (Maybe they didn't have enough money for that on the budget???).
If you choose to watch this movie be sure to watch it three times. The first, only and last 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 Cellar" is an intolerably dull and overly child-friendly 80's cheese parade, directed by Kevin Tenney (creator of the much better films "Witchboard" and "Night of the Demons") and starring the incredibly untalented Patrick Kilpatrick, supposedly depicting a guy with feelings. The pacing is really slow, the plot feels far too familiar, the monster-effects are all but petrifying and the film opens and ends with tedious narrative ranting that somehow feels unrelated to the actual subject matter of the film. The voice-over keeps on nagging about wind and creatures riding on wind, but what the hell, there's no wind in the plot? Like so many 80's horror movies, "The Cellar" handles about cursed Indian landscapes and all-too-real mythical monsters hidden in basements and quagmires. Mance Cashen and his family move into a house build on what once was the home of Native Americans, but then white people came and turned the land into oil fields. Half of the script is wasted on explaining the origin of the monster, but I can easily summarize it for you: an ancient Indian witchdoctor summoned the creature (which looks like an over-sized paper-mâché rat) to annihilate the white people overflowing his land but he buried it again because, and I quote, the SOB kills Indians as well. Mance's hugely irritating son accidentally awakens the beast and naturally can't convince his parents about the big hungry rat in the cellar. The allegedly emotional family situation (daddy constantly wants his son to love him) is very pathetic and redundant and the film badly needed more bloodshed; kids' movie or not. The youthful hero (Chris Miller) is quite annoying, but we've definitely seen worse kid actors in the 80's. "The Cellar" is very much not recommended, unless of course you're a fan of cheesy and typically 80's monster designs. The big dodgy rat-thing is a real hoot to see.


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


user
If you can get past the slow start and bad acting it's worth watching. The story line was pretty decent. The father had a wicked temper because he was unemployed and he hardly got to see his kid except in the summer because his ex-wife had custody of him. The father was very angry and frustrated the majority of the time. The monster in the story wasn't too scary. The movie breaks consistency of the monster being so incredibly strong. The one scene that the moviemakers do this in is one of the times when the kid is down in the cellar and the monster goes to attack him. When the monster goes to attack the kid his arm gets caught in a steel trap attached to a chain. The monster is about a foot away from the kid's face. Every other time throughout the movie the monster is strong enough to break through or tear down anything. Yet the steel trap and chain holds him back from getting the kid! More than likely the moviemakers did this for shock factor because no one wants to see one of the main characters die. Moviemakers just wanted to scare us into thinking it may be a possibility that the kid could die. Instead of breaking consistency, the moviemakers should have replaced the kid with someone who they could dispose of!


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


user
Mediocre at best. Slow, but probably more entertaining to the younger viewers. A young boy(Chris Miller) is haunted by an Indian spirit and horrid monster in the cellar of his father's new home. Also in the cast are Patrick Kilpatrick, Suzanne Savoy and Ford Rainey.


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 on Telly the other night and little did I know what a cringe-fest it would be...I knew it would be stupid but not this bad! This film exemplifies everything that is awful in Australian comedy. Apart from the most tedious, uninspired scenarios and characters I have ever come across (aside from those dubious French produced American tax break comedies!), most of the situations were boring, unbelievable, stereotypical and SO not funny just...terrible!
One such scenario that really annoyed me was the nerds on the bus scene. From a screen writing perspective the writers used the most uninteresting - not to mention unbelievable - scenario to get these three stranded without their luggage...They are on the holiday of their lives and they're going to risk it all (including a $300 deposit, luggage and room) to exert their rights to dance on a bus? I mean, they're about half an hour away from their destination! At least they could have had the bus driver kick them off but, no they leave willingly cos 'they can't take it anymore!'and wreck their holiday...Anyway, I can't believe the writers didn't workshop this appalling scenario out. I think a ten year old could come up with 5 set-ups more clever, funny and believable.
I can go on with many others - the really unimaginative stereotypical psychopath, the whole relationship with the angry jilted girlfriend and tag along virgin, the 'Wow Man! Out there goth girl' inhaling stuff on the train - EVERYTHING was just woeful! I cannot think of one redeeming feature of the this film except that maybe the third wheel nerd was kind of cute. Spoilt his career by appearing in this trash though!


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


user
Schoolies is a pointless exercise... Go to Gold Coast, get drunk and have sex. Worthwhile ambitions maybe but not highly intellectual. The plot is a simple as a few sentences assigned to each character and nobody is helped by the cliches doled out here.
Something that would help is the casting. Everybody looks too old. These characters are supposedly innocents embarking out on their own in faltering steps to adulthood yet they all look way too old to be believable in the role.



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


user
To me this film is just a very very lame teen party movie with all the normal clichés and boring stereotyped characters (Nerds, Jocks, Popular girls, Sleezy guys, etc) but with an underlying anti drug/drinking theme.
If you ever have the unfortunate chance of seeing this film, keep an eye out for all the references to responsibility and keeping it real (dunno how else to word it) I guess the only thing that'd make this film cool, would be if they TV playing it was on fire. That, or DVD it was on exploded...
1 out of 10000 - Watch Animal House instead.


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


user
Like most, I rented this after I heard the universal praise. And despite COUNTLESS bizarre, unexplainable moments along the way, I was very interested and entertained through 100 minutes of the film. Then the two women went to the "performance" late at night. The rest of movie (which is another 40 minutes by the way) is even WEIRDER than the first part AND completely contradict and dump on what I had already seen. Then the movie abruptly ends.
Baffled, I wandered over to my computer to see if I could buy a clue as to what just happened. Nothing made sense, and I'm a pretty clever guy. None of these other user comments made sense, even when they say "SPOILERS." I still have no idea what they're saying. Someone's dream? Not real? Then what's the point of a 2 hour 30 minute movie if it's "not real?" Or is it real? I'm forced to make a choice. Either:
[a] The movie is a work of genius on a MENSA level and I'm simply too stupid to understand it.
[b] The movie is weird for weird's sake and just doesn't make sense. Everyone who loves it is trying to save face and pretend like they "get" it.
I choose [b]. Screw you guys, I'm going home...


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


user
If you are a pretentious person, it would sound like a good idea to brag about your intellectuality saying that you really like this movie.
Otherwise, don't bother and better watch something good.
This is the stereotypical movie for snobs. The plot line would be very silly if you could see it from beginning to end. It is just presented in a messed up way as an attempt to make it hard to understand and make the movie look intellectual.
Mullholland Drive is not enjoyable to watch. You would very rarely understand anything the first time you see it. And if you do, you would most likely be disappointed because it is not a big deal.


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


user
It´s a joke, right?! Lynch could not get produced this as a TV show. He was out of money, so what to do? Well, he received somehow some Dollars and "completed" the pilot and created this mess by just mixing everything together... How can anybody see a failed pilot for TV as an cinematic masterpiece?!
And now everybody is guessing about the deeper meaning!? Well, wake up, there is none! Like in that other TV series by Lynch, what was the name again? Same procedure there. Build up a mystery and then come up with nothing. I guess Lynch will repeat this concept until people will realise, the emperor has no clothes.
In Germany there is a comedian called Harpe Kerkerling. He dressed up as an opera singer and "performed" some new "art songs". Singing complete nonsense like this:
"The wolf. The lamb. On the meadow. Hurrz!"
It´s a classic now.
Anyway, afterwards he discussed it with the audience. And they were talking seriously about the deeper meaning of the wolf / lamb relationship.
You people giving this movie a rating of 8.0 in imdb.com, you people could be one of them.
So let´s say it all together: "Hurrz!"
0/10 Macaulay J. Connor


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


user
I get the feeling a lot of people liked this movie (not all people, but a lot of them) because they don't want to admit they don't understand it. People of middling intelligence, if you will, who pretend to be ever so avant garde and trendy who think Lynch is a genius.
Lynch, to me, is like Tarantino. They're both great, but neither one is the messiah as so many fanboys want to believe. No director can change the world, so chill out. And both make sucky flicks sometimes, it just happens. Everyone has a bad day. And clearly, since this movie was actually designed as a pilot first and then hack-jobbed into a feature film, it wasn't made with all the passion and forethought one should put into a movie. Face it, much of the movie is gibbering unintelligibility which cannot be understood. We can all make up meanings, Lynch may have his own view, but none of that matters. It was strewn about the screen incoherently. Admittedly, the first portion had the semblance of an intentionally convoluted passingly interesting story, but then it falters.
The cowboy, the mysterious organization of men with their phonecalls, the lawyers... come on. I can almost picture David Lynch yelling cut, forcing the crew to gather around him and explaining to them all "Look how crazy and weird I am! Isn't it great?? It's so weird and crazy!" Weird and crazy works if it's a by-product of your style. However, it's pretentious and tired when you go out of your way to do nothing but that. It's like all those half assed Pulp Fiction throw backs that came out after Pulp Fiction. It's just not cool.


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


user
Some directors take 2 and a half hours to tell a story, David Lynch takes 2 and a half hours to piece together scenes with "clues" and his trademark oddity, but there's never a story. No plot. No progression of the characters (unless you find revealed delusion a "progression"). It amazes me how anyone can call Lynch's garbage "art", but if beauty rests in the eye of the beholder, so be it. Lynch's movie and TV work in the 1980's came off as "avant garde" and "alternative", fine. 20 years later, work like "Mulholland Drive" comes off as a 2.5 hour David Lynch masturbation piece. It's embarrasing. I've finally seen the movie that takes my top spot as the worst ever. At least the people churning out "Godzilla" and "Rodan" weren't passing them off as "art".


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


user
How does David Lynch do it? Unlike the legions of thick-black-framed-glasses-wearing types and pretentious movie critics who praise his name, I just don't see how this guy keeps getting paid to make such tripe. How can Lynch sloppily cobble together leftover footage from a failed TV pilot into a nonsensical, poorly-acted mess & have critics rave about it & actually include it on Year's Best lists?
I'm baffled. If you're looking for a good film noir, rent "Bound" instead. If you're looking for a good "puzzle" movie try "Memento." But beware of this over-hyped stinker unless your idea of a fun night is throwing away 2 1/2 hours of your life & $3.50 of your hard-earned cash.


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


user
seriously, if i wanted to make a movie that makes zero sense, never will, and features lesbian scenes as its only high-point, i could have.
david lynch is the worst, as is this movie. anyone could have made a better movie in which at least some answers were given and the story wasn't so slow and long-winded. the story means nothing without something at the end besides the credits. what a waste of time. i will never get those 147 minutes of my life back and hope that others can learn from my mistake.


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


user
How much longer are we to persist with this flawed belief that once a director produces great, ground-breaking work, all future work "can't be all that bad, after all, he made such-and-such".
Mulholland Drive is a case in point, and is in fact unmitigated rubbish. The performances are excellent, particularly from Watts and Theroux, but a good film they do not necessarily make. What Lynch has clearly forgotten is that just making a film unnecessarily wierd only works when it takes the audience by surprise. When the audience is expecting the film to not make sense, then the film has to have some substance to keep the audience interested. Lynch succeeds in the first half of the film, with the murder-mystery set up with lots of twists and red herrings, and then ... plop! The story decends into a quagmire of bizarre halucinations and pointless segues. Methinks Lynch realised how muddled the film was becoming, and threw in the lesbian and mastobatory scenes to the audience awake, and to stop the male viewers from standing up and leaving.
Watching the film at the preview, I was surrounded by Lynchophiles who had no more idea of what was going on than I did, but left the theatre commenting on the "layers and layers" of Lynch's film-making. Excuse me but these people are the same nitwits who stand in art galleries staring at canvasses that have been painted white commenting on the "courage of the artist at painting such a brave work".
Films like these are made because (a) Lynch is trading on his previous work; and (b) because people convince themselves that unintelligeable film is art, and therefore, must be good. I queried a number of the Lynchophiles about what they ACTUALLY liked in the film and only response I recieved that wasn't a broad "layers" type of answer was that they liked it when the "chicks got their kit off".
Nuff said.


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


user
ok we have a film that some are calling one of the best movies ever..but i'm sitting here thinking hell the f!, the storys sux{ which there is no story], the diolouge is quite plain, artisticly nothing great!, and the acting is nothing real out standing, so if you want to pretend to be arty say you like it, but if you have a real view say you don't like it or if you did explain why!


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 an inherent problem with commenting or reviewing a film such as this. I remember feeling the same way after disliking Dogma. If you do not like a film that is odd and controversial like Mulholland Dr., you are seen as "not getting it." Of course for those who have already seen this film you know that the entire point is not getting it anyway.
I have heard from several different sources that the unique and likable aspect of this film is a dream-like quality it has. In other words, the plot isn't structured like other films. With the case of Mulholland Dr., it seems more like an unfocused collage made by a third grade boy who procrastinated until the last second to do his art project. It doesn't make sense, it isn't supposed to, but I know it was to be a TV series at first. It appears Lynch had a stack of unused film and decided to mash it in with a bunch of new stuff. You will notice that toward the end the nudity, sex and foul language increase. All things he would not have filmed for television.
For a better film not told in a traditional, linear fashion, rent The Thin Red Line from 1998. That was a great film, this is not.
Rating: 2 out of ten


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


user
I thrive on cinema....but there is a limit. A NAME isn't enough to make A MOVIE!. The beginning of the movie puts us in a mood to expect the unseen yet. But we remain hungry ( or angry..) till the end . Things are getting so confused that I admit that I DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE END or was there an end to this nonesense. The opportunity to make an outstanding movie was there but the target was totally missed. Next...


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


user
Oh boy ! It was just a dream ! What a great idea ! Mr Lynch is very lucky most people try to tell classical stories. This way he can play with his little plantings and his even more little payoffs. Check out Polanski's "The lodger" for far more intelligent mix of fantasy and reality.


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


user
A colleague from work told me to watch this movie, since he considered this movie to be one of the best movies ever. So I did watch it. First I have to admit that I dislike mainstream movies and prefer to watch movies with a real meaning.
And this is the point, why I dislike this movie. It doesn't have any meaning. It's just a combination of funny, stupid, boring, entertaining, absurd and thrilling pieces.
At first I thought that this movie could be a real mystery thriller (as the German packaging read), but the movie was too mysterious for me.
David Lynch may be able to make a combination of the most different images, but the composition tastes to me as awfull as a combination of milk with beer. Both for themselves are pretty good, but together?


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 stifled high hopes for this David Lynch, whom I really like, film, but the very poor acting by everybody but Naomi Watts was the first clue that this was a wasted effort. Some Twin Peaks characters are recycled into this film, but it wasn't eerie, it wasn't interesting (except for the topless Watts scenes) and the quirks were poorly executed.
I will probably give Lynch one more chance, but the hype around this film just doesn't pan out, especially for those of us fans who saw Eraserhead when it first came out.


assistant
0