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
I gave this movie a four-star rating for a few reasons. First, I felt that this movie was definitely preaching and I hate that. Still, it's my own fault for watching a Christian movie in the first place.
My friend and I rented this movie because it sounded interesting. The back of the case said something along the lines of a spiritual battle, someone opening some sort of boundary that let demons into our world and the like. Something I am very interested in, indeed. This movie almost hit the target. It was more like on the edge of the target, more on the tree than the target itself...
The basic plot of this movie is two couples are abducted by a group of terrorists to be victim to experiments. However, because their experimental serum is derived from the research of a scientist who claimed to be able to bridge the gap between the physical and the spiritual realms, the men of the couples are now able to feel, smell, hear, and see the demons of the spiritual world. In that order. Apparently the sense of taste is not present in that realm.
This movie is very clichéd. They took the title seriously as the men, while chained to the beds, demand their women look behind them because there is something there.
Although a good effort for what it was, I think the special effects could have been done so much better. The demon scratching at the woman was, in a word, hilarious. The wife was obnoxious as hell and everyone in the room practically cheered when she died. We were all hoping she'd be beaten by the other woman with the chair, though.
The message is one that I don't care to comment on, other than I think the Christian filmmakers should have found a better medium for it.
And so I give it four stars because it is not the movie's fault I am not a Christian and don't like this type of message, and I got a kick out of making comments throughout. My friend and I watching this movie seemed to resemble an episode of MST3K.


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


user
Evil Behind You, was created for a specific purpose in mind, to shove the writer/directors personal views on who either gets to walk on water or who gets to dance with the devil. Sadly it would seem that the creators were so focused on making their point that they took it's power away completely by force feeding their point to the viewer.The way its message is presented Almost reminds me of the stories I've heard of the Spanish inquisition! From one real Christian to another, Avoid this like the plague, fear tactics never work when trying to send this kind of message!!
The acting was horrible,the selection of Muslim terrorists was racist and unfair(they're terrorists so they must be Muslims). The premise of this was good, the story provided a great conduit for its message, however it was the execution of these ideas that fell short making it very difficult to even separate the message from the messenger so to speak.
You'd be better off dusting off your old "Ghost" DVD with Mr Swayze to better receive this message. at least that movie didn't try to shove itself down your throat. Or if you like Good Christian movies with a powerful message, try "End of the Spear"


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


user
Let's see, cardboard characters like Muslim terrorists have forced a cardboard scientist to perform some exotic drug tests on some cardboard people who have been drugged and kidnapped. You'll be sure to laugh when these pathetic excuses for humanoids get their just deserts! Turns out the drug experiments have given them the ability to sense another world....the world of religious fantasy!--complete with cardboard demons who look like they are made of Papier Mache. Everybody gets dragged off to Hell except for one poor chap who goes to Heaven where he can presumably spend Eternity with the blockheads that created this Masterpiece of the Absurd. I think I'd opt for Hellfire myself. Go see something else, unless you are stoned, in which case, you might actually like it! Couldn't hurt!


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


user
Do not waste your money or time. Terrible movie. Bad acting, plot all over the place. Really, really bad acting. Man, this movie is just plain bad. I shut it off at 7 minutes. The script is bad, the directing is bad, it seems to me that a high school group got together to do a project for their drama class. Yes, it's that bad. The acting is not convincing at all, mind you I saw only 7 minutes of it. How this movie made it to DVD, is beyond me.
It should have been left in the editing storage room. I saw the cover and thought it was pretty cool, I sure's heck won't do that next time :_)


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


user
I am completely into this type of story line but once the movie fired up, I honestly said out loud, " I just rented a two dollar budget Christian POS". The only thing I could find to like about this film was it has a descent story but it was awfully executed. Horrible actors, horrible direction and producing.
The director and producer need to go watch the cube before trying to pull off a movie in a single room. There was absolutely nothing that kept you intrigued to the point that you didn't notice you were in the same room the entire movie. Horrible! The two main actresses were very easy on the eyes and you could tell that was the director counting on to hold your attention. But these two and their bios can speak to this, are horrible in front of the camera.
Don't rent this. Unless you are blind, because it might go up a few stars if you only listen to it.


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


user
All those who are into the PC culture are aghast at the dogmatic Christian view of this film, claiming it contains racist ideation and/or religious intolerance.
Those who don't care about this, but are oriented towards slick production values and competent acting are dismayed at the lack of such here.
Those who decry both of these are apoplectic that this production was let loose on the general public, as evidenced in comments here.
What is an interesting premise, which isn't original, but is a combination of GHOST and FROM BEYOND, is dealt with in a rather immature manner in this film, yet done with gusto. What the crew and actors lacked in sensibility, professional abilities and technical expertise is somewhat offset by the intensity they display.
It isn't nearly as bad as many here think, and would have been fine in the hands of someone with maturity and common sense, and it is enough below mediocrity to elicit laughs and groans. However, it unfolds with enough intensity to keep interest throughout, and is close to on par with a Corman-produced entry of his earliest period of work, or the material of Arkoff or Sam Katzman. If you get it for $2 (or less) as did I, you won't feel disappointed, but will wish you could have had a say in how it was made.


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


user
2001 is one of those movies where, if you don't like it, you are told that you don't 'get it' and need to look at the deeper meaning and symbolism. You're told that you clearly have a slow attention span, and just want to see sex, explosions, and have the plot handed to you on a platter.
Let's break down the movie shall we? Three minutes of blackness, with something that sounds like a dying hippo in the background. Then we get the opening credits. A minute of fascinating shots of the Savannah. Then a bunch of monkeys find a black rock and start killing things with bones. Cut to the first of many 20-minute shots of ships doing things while the 'Blue Danube' plays in the background. A bunch of pointless dialogue, and a group of moon scientists find another monolith.
Cut to a spaceship that's too long for the crew complement--three sleeping people, two people named Dave and Frank, who have only slightly more personality than the stiffs in hibernation. And then there's HAL, the 'perfect' supercomputer who runs the ship. Predictably, he snaps and starts breaking the First Law of Robotics. Now this is something that has potential. An evil, coldly ruthless super-mind who controls the surrounding environment and can predict your every move. And what does he do? He lets one guy float into space and turns off the hibernation machines so the three sleeping guys die, leaving Dave floating in a pod. He simply uses the airlock, puts on a spacesuit, and turns HAL off--agonizingly slowly. Then, apparently, there's some psychedelic 'evolution' at Jupiter.
Here's the movie with the pauses taken out: Apes see monolith, kill things. Scientists find moon monolith. HAL kills people. HAL dies; Dave gets a prerecorded message, and evolves at Jupiter.
This is not me 'not getting it.' This is me being bored to tears by long stretches of absolutely nothing. Sure, it's realistic, but I find I have no reason to care. No matter the message, no movie can be good without being entertaining. Frankly, every character could be replaced with Keanu Reeves, and nothing would change.


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


user
I will never get back the three hours of life this film has stolen from me.
The film is basically a psychedelic drug trip disguised as an important creative process. I'd love to know what they were on when this film was being made.
Its also the most historically-inaccurate film in existence; 2001 has come and gone without any of the events or predictions taking place.
Characters are unlikeable, design is simplistic and everything just rambles on without any sense or logic to it.
And the ending is probably the worst of it: its supposed to be thought-provoking but the only thought that entered my mind is "What the F$*K is going on?!"
I'd say for anyone looking for serious entertainment purposes, AVOID this film at all cost and choose a sci-fi movie that ISN'T stuck up its own @$$.


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


user
I didn't like this movie for many reasons - VERY BORING! It was interesting how they thought what the future would look like in this, but seriously I was very bored watching this. There was hardly any action. Although the Classical orchestra soundtrack was very nice. The visuals were very creative. Whenever this movie pops on TV, I feel like changing the station instantly. Not because it is a bad movie, just because I know what I am in for when watching this - complete and total boredom. It is a movie I saw when I was young, but I never got into the science fiction thing... because it simply wasn't real. Just like this movie - very unrealistic. I never understood half the movie anyway.


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


user
Wow, well, you know those shock things they use in hospitals to get your heart pumping again? I needed one for my brain after watching this movie. It literally took me almost 4 hrs in total to watch because I had to take a break and restart my brain to semi-normal functionality every so often. I mean this movie goes soooooo slooooow its ridiculous, to say that the script had about 10 pages of dialogue would be generous. They just don't talk!! And while talking isnt everything, and i admit there were some scenes where only the music was necessary, and the music is great, that was probably the best part, but then go listen to a symphony or something and forget about the movie. So many people give this awesome reviews, and for its time, i'd say the special effects and filmography is quite good, but as for the acting, or lack thereof, it just needed a little something more, no shootem ups or sex etc., profanity isnt even required, but a little more emotion, these guys were like stones, just sitting there with long faces. All in all, if you need something to calm yourself down, just play the movie, dont even start at the beginning if you've seen it before, just start anywhere, lay down, and relax, it'll put you right to sleep.


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


user
Very strange screenplay by Cameron Crowe (following on the heels of his "Fast Times at Ridgemont High") has little inspiration and flails away at dumb gags. At least "Fast Times" had a fair share of satire and sensitivity behind its slapstick (courtesy of a good director, Amy Heckerling, and Crowe's undeniable penchant for capturing letter-perfect teen-speak); here, Chris Penn (Sean's brother, natch) is the goof-off who makes life hell for straight arrow Eric Stoltz, and the filmmakers seem to think he's hilarious. Jenny Wright has some good moments as a mall-worker, but Illan Mitchell-Smith is lost in a head-scratching subplot about a teen who seems to be infatuated with a shell-shocked ex-soldier. Queasy, confused nonsense given a shiny sheen and a soundtrack full of pop-rock tunes, but characters one would hope to avoid. Supporting players Lea Thompson, Rick Moranis, Lee Ving, and Sherilyn Fenn are wasted in stupid roles. * from ****


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


user
Terrible. The only way I could even begin to consider it funny is if it made fun of itself. "Amazing. It's about an ass that fights crime. And he drinks/smokes! How very funny! It's funny because where most people put things in their mouth, he puts them in himself! And now he's getting sexual service from some lady! This show is so great!" That is what I would have to say if I liked the show, though I'm sure you can see the obvious sarcasm. I've noticed some people have been comparing this show to 12 oz. Mouse and Squid Billies. Why would you even try? There's nothing to compare. The other two shows actually have some decent character development. In conclusion, I hate Assy Mcgee. I twinge at the name of it.


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


user
Though the Our Gang comedies still have their followers, I've got to say that their attempt to graduate to feature films, courtesy of Hal Roach came up way short. Why did Roach have to pick the Civil War as is subject with all the attendant racism that would follow.
Dashing southern cavalier Phillips Holmes takes in young orphan Spanky McFarland and his young black friend Buckwheat Thomas after Spanky inadvertently exposes a card cheat on a riverboat. All is placid and serene in the Old South and then the Civil War comes to ruin it for everybody.
But even children can charm the worst in the world and there's none worse than those damn Yankees. They just come south and ruin it for everybody.
Criticized though it was for its southern viewpoint, Gone With The Wind did make a good case for the southern cause and the blacks portrayed even though servile which they would be out of necessity are still three dimensional characters. Hattie McDaniel would not have won her Oscar if it were not so. Butterfly McQueen's character of Prissy as silly and vacuous as she was has some dimension.
Here though is maybe some of the worst racial stereotyping ever brought forth in Hollywood. The companionship of Spanky and Buckwheat does show that kids get along, racial feelings are acquired not inbred. It's not the servility of the blacks that's objectionable, but there total acceptance of it. Right from that horrible watermelon song, sung over the title credits, the message of General Spanky is a bad one.
Yet it did get an Oscar nomination for Sound recording, probably one of the very few Hal Roach ever got out of the short subject field.
General Spanky is far from Gone With The Wind though.


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


user
OUR GANG got one chance at a feature film in its 22 year history, and this was the best that could be done? It's boring, forced and pointless, and I must respectfully disagree with the other poster on this film; the 1994 LITTLE RASCALS remake was better than this. Almost anything is. The kids are subordinate to the Civil War proceedings; it doesn't feel like an OUR GANG film at all, but like a humorless second-rate Shirley Temple clone.


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


user
Lou Costello (sans Abbott) plays a small town self-employed "rubbish collector" (and the inventor of a time-controlling machine!) who is secretly courting the niece of the town big-shot. After a spat, Lou's girl (Dorothy Provine) runs into a misty cave--why it's misty we never learn--and emerges as a 30 foot giant. Provine is certainly a good sport, and she doesn't bother trying not to look ridiculous (it would've been impossible anyway), yet the screenwriter is really cruel to this character, turning her not only into a giant but a nagging harpy as well. Provine bosses Costello around while creating havoc with the Army troops who get called in, but nothing funny is done with the transformation. Trumped by "Attack of the 50 Ft. Woman" the previous year, the film does feature Lou Costello in his final bow, but provides little else. The special effects are marginal, while the script needed funnier lines and the direction snappier pacing. *1/2 from ****


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


user
"May contain spoilers" Sadly Lou Costellos' last film has the distinction of being slightly better than Abbott & Costello's last movie together "Dance With Me Henry". This movie isn't all in all outright terrible it is an amusing career misfire. Dorothy Provine is nice to look at and makes the movie somewhat bearable. You can't blame Lou Costello for this because a major studio released it which meant somebody had to give it the "green" light. In my opinion Lou Costello was getting over problems of his own losing his son a few years earlier and the unwarranted attacks from the IRS. If you look at the last 3-4 Abbott & Costello movies you can notice the magic was gone. Check out "Dance With Me Henry" now that's a painful movie to watch.


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


user
Dorothy Provine does the opposite here: She keeps growing and growing. I didn't detect any subtext, though. "The Incredible Shrinking Man" and other movies of its ilk during the period were parables about radiation, nuclear war, and other horrors. Provine's growth is the result of an inept computer/robot.
And who operates this computer but Lou Costello! I like some of his movies with Bud Abbott. But, though this is a pretty bad movie, he does fine without him. And Gale Green is an excellent foil.
Green plays the pompous town big shot. He is Provine's father. He is intent on being elected Mayor. So when his beloved daughter starts having issues, he dumps her. He doesn't exactly dump her but gives up his battle against her longtime admirer Costello.
This is pretty implausible: Costello is the local garbage collector.
The special effects are minimal. And the subplot involving the military is lame in the extreme.


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


user
I am a huge Robert Taylor fan and I have been trying to find all of his films. This is one I did not have, but I watched it recently on Fox Movie Channel, and was very disappointed. I know he was a contract player with little control over his scripts, but the acting was as bad as the script. Victor McLaglen was even bad, and Brian DonLevy was almost unrecognizable. Considering the relations off screen between Taylor and Stanwyck, it was surprising how little chemistry there was on screen between the two of them. But the premise of the film was so ridiculous: that the President of the U.S. would order a Navy Lt to leave the service secretly to hunt down bank robbers, and report only to the President, that it made it hard to appreciate anything else about the film. The death row scenes were entirely unmoving. The only thing worse than Taylor's acting was Stanwyck's singing. She got better later in Ball of Fire-thank heavens.


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


user
Divorced single mom in picturesque seaside town finds an anonymous love letter and allows it to spur into action her dormant love life. Pet project for actress/co-producer Kate Capshaw, who gives a warm, nicely-modulated lead performance, yet this story is so slim and the direction and editing so erratic that a faint dissatisfaction creeps in. Initially, Capshaw's Helen envisions several of her friends reading the love letter to her (an interesting visual joke) but the first person they do this ploy with is Ellen DeGeneres, who doesn't play a lesbian but who comes off as one because of this gimmick. Different ideas are flayed about in the hopes that one would stick, and the continuity is extremely choppy. Supporting cast (including Tom Selleck and Tom Everett Scott, who mostly acts with his shirt off) is very good, but they can't save the final act, which is disappointing. Low-keyed, in a quirky, pleasant way, but it is blandly good-natured, nothing more. **1/2 from ****


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 be honest, I like romantic comedies, but this was not what I had hoped for. I thought Ellen Degeneres was having the biggest part, which should have been, because I didn't like the two struggling bed partners. It was awful. Poor Tom Selleck!! He had to act with someone who was that much in the picture while it should have been him and Ellen to be in most of the film. They were the only believable ones. And the only really funny parts starred them, not Kate Capshaw and that Everett guy.. Cool that mummy is coming out of the closet, I thought that was a nice surprise.
I'm just glad I saw it on the cable and I didn't pay any money renting 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 is about a mysterious love letter that turned 4 people's love life upside down.
The idea of the film is interesting, and the film could have been funny. However, this film is simply what a romantic comedy should not be. The characters are inadequately introduced at first, so it gets so confusing. The supporting characters come and go without adequate reasons, as if they exist just for one particular scene and then vanish into thin air. The pacing is awfully slow, that it makes 90 minutes seem more like 180 minutes.
It could have been romantic and funny, but this film spectacularly failed to do either.


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, Blythe Danner doesn't look anywhere NEAR old enough to play Capshaw's daughter (and in fact she isn't -- only ten years apart).
I understand this is supposed to be one of those magical, Moonstruck type supernatural romances but this is beyond the pale. Very, very weak in terms of acting, script and direction.
The only one who really shines here is Ellen DeGeneres, who makes this film watchable -- if not really believable herself as she's cast as a bit of a heterosexual sex hound. But endearing nonetheless. Actually, DeGeneres and the skin shots of the young guy Capshaw dallies with together make this watchable. But no one can really tell if Capshaw is really in love with the young guy or not; neither the script nor her acting pull it together for us and we're left to wonder how she really feels.


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


user
"The Love Letter" is one of those movies that could have been really clever, but they wasted it. Focusing on a letter wreaking havoc in a small town, the movie has an all-star cast with nothing to do. Tom Selleck and Alice Drummond had so recently co-starred in the super-hilarious "In & Out" (also about an upset in a small town), in which they were both great, but here they look as though they're getting drug all over the place. I can't tell what the people behind the camera are trying to do here (if anything), but they sure didn't accomplish anything. How tragic, that a potential laugh riot got so sorrowfully wasted.


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 movie about people receiving a love letter. Nobody knows who sent in and nobody knows who it is for. A good cast, headed up by Kate Capshaw, Tom Selleck and Ellen DeGeneres. This, however, is a completely dopey plot. As an example, the Capshaw character, one of the leading citizens of a small town in New England, takes up with an immature college student who works in her bookstore during the summer. She chooses him instead of Tom Selleck, the town firefighter who is crazy about her. If that isn't the epitome of stupidity, I don't know what is. Just an example of how dopey this movie is. Watching Kate Capshaw jog is a pleasure, but you immediately realize that she has never jogged a day in her life. Another obviously dopey part of a dopey movie.


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


user
A movie about a mysterious love letter that puts a small town on its ear should be fun, romantic and easy-going entertainment. Instead this movie is more about things not said and not expressed, so it gets to the point where you are grateful anything is said at all, even if the dialogue is not exactly quotable.
SPOILER --
When the relationship that says the most is the one least seen on the screen (Danner and McEwan), you know you're in trouble. But those two actresses are a very welcome sight in a movie screaming for some genuine people.
END OF SPOILER
Capshaw is given the task of creating a character from not much and she is not entirely successful. Like I said above, the theme seems to be repression and I understand that is an element of life and love but I don't want to see a movie about it either, at least not this one.
I can't recommend this at all, despite the very talented cast who are left to fend for themselves.


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


user
**Possible Spoilers**	From Dreamworks and director Peter Chan, `The Love Letter' is a romantic comedy that takes place in a picturesque, New England coastal village where single mom Helen (Kate Capshaw) owns a quaint, little bookstore. One day at work, Helen happens across an anonymous letter (the `love letter' of the title) that has somehow become lodged beneath the cushions of a reading couch. Upon reading the amorous prose therein, she believes it has been written to her, purposely placed in the couch for her to find, and, for reasons of her own, thinks she knows the identity of her secret admirer. Inadvertently, however, Helen leaves the letter out where her employee, Janet (Ellen DeGeneres) finds it, believes it to be for her, and, of course, thinks she knows who wrote it. Circumstances then bring it into the possession of a young man named Johnny (Tom Everett Scott), who thinks Helen has written the letter to him. And before it all gets sorted out, you can only imagine the hilarious situations into which all of those involved have been cast; and I do mean imagine, because the way this movie plays out, the audience gets little more from it than what it brings along itself. There are two specific areas in which this romantic comedy fails miserably: It simply isn't very romantic, and it's not funny; and that is a potent combination that causes this film to misfire practically from the opening credits. Once the setting and main character (Helen) have been established, it basically goes nowhere for the next ninety minutes or so. By the time you finally find out who actually wrote the letter, and to whom, you could care less. Rounding out the cast is Tom Selleck, Blythe Danner, Julianne Nicholson, Gloria Stuart and Geraldine McEwan. It's a shame to see such talent wasted on such claptrap as this, and looking bad in the balance. Kate Capshaw, who usually brightens up the screen just by showing up, looks tired here, while Selleck appears to have just come in off a three day bender that's lasted a week. Ellen DeGeneres actually comes away looking the best of the bunch. It is said that the journey is often a more heady experience than the destination. In the case of `The Love Letter,' however, it would have been best for all concerned if everybody had just stayed home in the first place. I rate this one 1/10.


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


user
Don't waste your time. The plot drags, the characters are wooden and uninteresting, the motivations of their actions are completely indecipherable. Kept waiting for the "romantic" or "comedy" to occur, and nothing happened. Worse yet, the love letter isn't even romantic, but sounds like it was written by someone desperate to make a deadline. Did I mention that the "plot twist" which we saw coming from 15 mins into the movie was "Hollywood clever", meaning it is intended to shock, but given the Hollywood mentality- does nothing of the sort, and instead is vaguely offensive.
It's not even worth the $2 to rent. Don't bother seeing it.


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


user
I liked most of the dialogue, I liked the cast, I thought it was well acted. I particularly enjoyed Ellen DeGeneres' perfect deadpan performance.
What didn't work for me was: (1) the drawn-out affair with the younger man (too long, too seemingly out of character for Helen), (2) the seemingly endless cinematic cliches, mostly visual but including interminable voiced over re-readings of the love letter itself (its contents should have a mystery); (3) a young woman feminist-scholar and, ironically, a fireworks scene (no wonder this reminded me of that horrid How to Make an American Quilt movie); (4) the bumbling "gotcha" cop who smells "dope" everywhere (no cliche there either!); and (5) a nauseatingly romanticized small town setting.
I would have preferred the film to more persuasively explore the source of (or even glorify) Helen's bitterness, to have included much more of DeGeneres' character, to have eliminated or reduced the various intergenerational artifices, and to be a little less uncritical of small town life.
Had it been developed as a play first, those criticisms might have been addressed before committing the material to this film, which unfortunately is decidedly mediocre.


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


user
A really funny story idea with good actors but it misses somehow. The actors are older but none of them looked particularly good. They needed better make up,photography or something.It is supposed to be a love story and yet the film had more of the rough look of a street film. I liked the cast but I think the performances were rather bland. This is where the weakness of the director shows. Perhaps if Mrs. Spielberg had Mr. Spielberg directing it would have been a much better film.


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


user
The person making taffy in this movie was so realistic. That person must have been trained so well! If I were buying taffy from the store featured in this fine romantic comedy, I would demand to be served by the guy who trained the person who played the guy selling taffy.


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


user
I loved the first 15 minutes, and I loved some of the dialogue in the tribunal--which proved to be the best showcase for the director's ahead-of-its-time method acting technique--but this movie ultimately disappoints. Even when viewed purely as a metaphor of the oppressor/oppressed dynamics that were and are prevalent in the relationship between the US government and its more "disobedient" citizens, it still lacks punch and believability, and ultimately left me looking at my watch hoping the obvious ending would happen already.
And for the record: despite rampant rumors to the contrary, this movie has never been banned in the US (I can't comment on the rumors of UK censorship, but I'm suspicious). Hollywood refused to distribute it after its initial film festival showing, and I am more than willing to believe the Nixon government had some influence on this decision; however, the fact that it never appeared on American television is merely a reflection of this medium's rather careful and advertising-driven fashion of doing business. As for the present, you can have your very own copy of the DVD delivered to your door via Amazon in a few days.


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


user
Committed doom and gloomer Peter Watkins goes slummin' across the pond to take on the American justice system circa 1971 with this priceless piece of zeitgeist paranoia that leans so far left it falls over constantly. Watkins is pure tourist as he assembles this our gang tragedy with cliché freaks, hippies and black revolutionaries pitted against trigger happy cops and military and a kangaroo court tribunal made up of disapproving calcified adults making poor fashion statements. Talk about a revolution.
In Punishment Park we have radical youth versus corrupt system as dissenters convicted of crimes are given the choice of imprisonment or a three day trek across Punishment Park (Death Valley) and freedom. Of course the law enforcement officials monitoring their journey aren't about to play fair and combined with the stifling heat the fate of our protagonists looks sealed.
Punishment Park has elements of Kafka in setting as well as theme. Trials are held under a large canvas tent where shackled prisoners shout defiance at a hardcore love it or leave it group of inquisitors (such as members of Silent Majority for a Peaceful America) who snarl back. Neither group spends much time listening to the other and the proceedings sometime takes on a teen parent battle over the keys to the car look. Mostly its just one side saying what's wrong with America the other saying what's right with no one offering solutions for change. Meanwhile the Punishment Park martyrs stumble endlessly about the dessert while cops with guns act like twelve year olds. It kind of has the look and feel of some of my 70's college film making class when we were younger and knew more then than we do now.
Peter Watkins has always been on the side of the underdog and the common man against what he perceives as a corrupt powerful few. Culledon was a strong indictment of military atrocity in 18th century Scotland that still resonates. War Game is a raw sobering look at nuclear aftermath that should be required viewing for all. Punishment Park has its value as well but for other than intended reason. Watkins vision today is a textbook example of the left in full tilt counter culture 70s paranoia and given the times ( Vietnam, Kent State, The Chicago 7) such strident hysteria seemed not that great a distance from the truth. But 35 years later the fever has subsided and Punishment Park with it's unrestrained narrow viewpoint is a pretty silly ride.


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


user
Done in a mock-documentary style, late 60's subversives and supposed detractors of the mainstream government are arrested and given a choice. Upon sentencing for their wrong doings,there is a choice of going to prison for 7 years to life or spending three days and two nights in a southern California desert at Punishment Park. In the 100 degree heat, the prisoners are to trek fifty some odd miles to an American flag for their freedom. US and state law enforcers will follow two hours latter. If the dissidents are captured it means prison.
Appearing in this pseudo-documentary: Carmen Argenziano, Katherine Quittner, Mary Ellen Kleinhall, Stan Armsted, Scott Turner, Patrick Boland and Kent Foreman.


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 should have been called "The Eyes of Alexander", and they should have done away with the Bogart concept altogether. The film started out with a lighthearted approach to Bogart's legacy and some comical moments with his surgery oriented face, but after the first 15-30 minutes it morphs into a more serious thriller, where two palm size sapphires, purportedly laid as eyes into a marble headpiece of Alexander the Great, for him, and seen by him, right before his death. So the gems are of great value not only because of their quality and size, but also because of the tie to the Greatest conquerer the world has ever known. Being an expert on Alexander qualifies me to say that this is wholly and completely a fiction, but it makes for a good movie anyway. So the film winds around some early silliness and stumbles along with all sorts of Alexander allusions in both the foreground and background (which I really liked), ending with a dated shark attack (you couldn't go to a movie in '79-'80 without some shark showing up to menace the audience). There is a yacht named Euridice (Alexander's father's young wife), a man named Alexander, Philip, Cleitus?, (it's been about 5 years since I've seen the film, so can't remember all the details), Olympias, some street names, and many others. It was fun to watch the film just to try to catch all the background details that the director (obviously an Alexanderphile himself) put in. When all is said and done, the eyes are retrieved and the camera pans in on them on a bed as the credits roll by. Kind of a neat ending. What would have been more fun would be if they went the Indiana Jones way and had an action adventure. There were many, many real artifacts that could have been used to make this more interesting, or instance, the hand-annotated (by Aristotle) version of the Iliad that Alexander kept with him all his life, even on his many journeys across Asia (would be of incalculable value if found today). Olivia Hussey (my all time favorite b-movie actress)is killed off way too early, and should have been the main actress throughout, not the girl from the Momma's and the Poppa's...though she was herself easy on the eyes. If you can find this flick, it might be worth checking out for the historical stuff and to see Olivia Hussey in an extremely funny deadpan humor bit early on, but beyond that, I'd pass on it for something more entertaining.
Yours, Nick


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


user
The Man with Bogart's Face sets it self up to mine the viewers nostalgia for the late 30's-late 40's film era. It fails miserably for several reasons. First, Sacchi, while looking reasonably like Bogart and even speaking like him on occassion and using his mannerisms, completely lacks any of Bogart's charisma or acting ability. This is really apparent whenever Sacchi is not clearly imitating a scene from one of Bogart's films. Second, the film does not have the first rate character actors Bogart was able to work with. There are no Peter Lorre's or Sydney Greenstreet's in this one, folks. Sure we are treated to performances by Victor Buaeno, Olivia Hussey and George Raft amongst others, but they just aren't of the same caliber (or aren't given enough screen time or are miscast). Third, the attempts at "modern" humor all fall through. All of the underwear jokes, having Marlowe almost *never* remove that damn hat and trench coat (even though Bogart would have), etc. just aren't funny and really pull down this film. Fourth, I've never heard a goofier theme song this side of Mitchell. Finally, the film's false reverence for Bogart (and other classic actors work) is truly irritating. Bogart almost *never* played a straight hero, on those occasions he was a hero. He played complicated characters. This movie makes Bogart out to be a trigger-happy, moralistic do-gooder. While this may have been true about some film characters, Bogart's characters rarely fit that bill. It's movies like this that make people unexposed to the cinema of the past think that all of it is hokey, "good guy beats the bad guys and gets the girl" crap with low production values.


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


user
The screenplay is the worst part of this film, as it lurches from one premise to the next, missing all the important bits that would have made a number of different stories possible. (This film is confusing, because the audience doesn't know what the story is.) I had no problem with the low-production values and the acting wasn't great, but this is telly, so it was fine. I don't mind if some scenes looked like they were done in one take. But having such a non-sensical screenplay is completely unnecessary. Did any executive actually read it before forking out the cash? Avoid this at all costs.
The prologue in particular was so poorly written, it needed a voice-over to fill in all the details that had been left out. The prologue was rushed, it wasn't clear what was happening, ie. The Russian Revolution was reduced to "Some riots are happening in Petersburg", with the next scene being soldiers arresting them. I know the basic history of the Revolution, so I could fill in the details, "those pesky Communists". The prologue is best ignored.
This could have been a thoughtful study of a person who is confused about who she is. It sets up this premise in the asylum. It could then have her struggling to identify herself for the rest of the film. No. Gone. The film assumes she is who she says she is (even though there is still no empirical evidence.) It sets up a melodramatic romance, a love so strong, it'll believe anything she says. Okay, a soppy romance. No, because it makes no sense. The love interest seems like a crazed (and incidentally, sleazy) lunatic, bursting out in wild gestures. This also doesn't work, because the film stupidly decides to tell the truth in the monologue at the end. They never got married and she returned to America. The love story collapses. Despite there being plenty of love scenes, I was never convinced of the reason that they were in love. I find rom-com romances more convincing, despite there only being one or two scenes which establish that they've even spent any time with each other.
It could have been a thriller-type thing where the film assumes she is who she says she is, and she struggles to prove her identity. No, the court case is summed up rather than dealt with. The bizarre voice over comes back, again to fill in the details of a better film.
The funniest thing to consider is what really happened. Anna Anderson was a loony who went to America and married another loony and they did crazy things together. Throughout her life, she had bouts of lunatic behaviour. None of this in the film either. There's a really annoying character in the asylum who crops up from nowhere and announces herself as a 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Next/'Twelve Monkeys'-type informant. Thankfully, she vanishes, having brought nothing to the story.


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


user
Young spinster, who doesn't associate with women her own age and is eyed by gentleman from the retirement set, invites an apparently mute young man into her apartment on a rainy day. Nervous and overly-polite to hide her own sexual insecurities, she is most pleased when the boy makes himself to home in her guest bedroom...but not so happy when he begins sneaking out the window at night. Sandy Dennis is not a hapless actress, but why she was attracted to these sad-sack roles I guess we'll never know. Based on a book by Richard Miles, and about as far removed from a commercial drama as one could get, this lurid material not only attracted Dennis but also director Robert Altman (whose work is static, at best). The narrative seems almost a sex-reversal of "The Collector", a tag which may have sold the film-rights but which doesn't turn out to be a good idea cinematically. Even the film's best sequence (Dennis shopping for a prostitute to satisfy her prisoner) doesn't quite come off, with Sandy acting both ill and indignant (whose idea was this plan?). Michael Burns is quite good as the kid who uses this frumpy, pasty-sick woman just for her comfy digs, but he's handled too bashfully by Altman, with lots of strategically-placed towels and flesh-colored undies (Altman clearly wasn't ready for a mature picture with adult themes at this point). Sandy Dennis has a handful of very good scenes; she doesn't chatter away mindlessly here, she thinks before she speaks and she's alarmingly careful in her actions. Unfortunately, the role itself is a bummer, with an apparent slide into mental deterioration which seems to happen off-screen. As such, the abrupt finale is maddening, and the overall results tepid. *1/2 from ****


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


user
I thought this movie was going to be a disgrace to the series. After all, part 3 didn't measure up to part 2, and this one doesn't have Daniel Sawn. Miyagi's humour wasn't quite as witty in this one as in part 3, but it was funny enough to make the movie worth watching.
The girl's part was pretty good. She's a lost teenager who needs direction. I find the plot a little hard to believe. That the aunt would simply agree to leave her home and her niece under the care of Mr. Miyagi, a man she just met. Of course, he was a friend of her brother.
I did appreciate the monastery. One might think from some of my other reviews that I wouldn't have liked the dancing monks, but I thought it was amusing. It showed that they know how to have some fun. Now if these were monks in ancient China dancing to pop-music, that would have been another matter.
Probably the most intelligent part of the movie was when the girl thought it was stupid that the monks wouldn't kill a bug. Miyagi told her that street gangs killing each other is stupid, nations trying to destroy each other is stupid, but having respect for all life is not stupid. Miyagi has expressed such wisdom in the other films as well.
I give this movie a 4 out of 10. Sure, there were some things I liked about it. It wasn't as funny as part three, and no character could ever live up to Sato in part 2. This movie has no re-watch value. I can't imagine watching it again, but it is worth seeing once.


assistant
0