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
When I was a younger(oh about 2)I watched Barney for the first time, and liked it. BUT, back then I didn't exactly have a brain, either. And now I look back and see what a horrible show "Barney" really is: First of all, EVERYTHING on that show is creepy. Barney, the main character, is a horrendous 9-foot tall talking, purple dinosaur that teaches 13-year-olds about "imagination...."(*shudders*) B.J.(I know what your thinking about his name.)Is a smaller yet creepier yellow dinosaur that is put in to be "supposudly" cool. But in fact, he is the exact opposite. After watching a few episodes with B.J. dumbly trudging in with his slightly turned back cap, and making a few no-so-funny jokes, I wanted to scream. Baby Bop-oh-oh-god!(*vomits*)oh-oh-OH-anyway Baby Bop is the worst idea of a character EVER. She is a green triceratops(it's a dinosaur) that carries a yellow blanket. Her remarks of "hee-hee-hee" and Barney's praises cries of 'super-deeee-doooper", make it hard to sit through each episode, as the Seventh graders learn about shapes and manners.
And that, my friend, is what makes this show truly horrible.


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


user
I was a little to old for this show I was 6 when it first came out. First off when I was a young child there were a few children's shows that were on sesame street which I did watch and learned from, but other than that there wasn't much else. My Cousins were all born a few years after me 7 years was the first one more came latter. Barney was a very big part of what they watched. When I first saw this show I told my grandmother how it doesn't teach anything just uses magic to fix everything. I was 9 at the time, how many 9 years old have any idea what is really going on with a TV show. More and more that I saw or heard what the teachings of Barney were the more and more I told people how bad the show was. The funny thing is my parents who had a young child in the mid to late 80's which was me by the way. They agreed and said the same thing as I did. The sad thing about this is my cousins who are older now 13 and such still agree with what they saw. Its not cheating its creative, its not right to think differently than what someone tells you to. Its o.k to steal if the person wont find out or mind that it is gone. Lets be honest with ourselves, Barney is out to make money not teach children anything. The more flashy the program the more inclined children will be to watching it. Children are stupid not because they are not educated they just do not know any better, second Barney put on a show and parents bought it. I never believed that TV could affect people the way Barney does. If you have a young child read to them watch a show that teaches them numbers, do not let them get involved in this show. Barney is like smoking once is to much, smoke a few and your hooked let your kid watch this show they are hooked and one day their kids will watch the same crap and buy the same crap you bought


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


user
Okay, I agree with all the Barney haters on this site. I think Barney and his friends are all ugly looking and obnoxious and the show is very lop sided and unrealistic.
But the thing that ticked me off the most is how Barney presented Gays, Lesbians and Bisexuals on his show when talking about same sex parents and relatives. That wouldn't be so much of a problem if the creators of this show didn't use so many derogatory stereotypes of homosexuals. I mean, not all gay men wear mascara and love the colors purple and pink, and not all lesbians are ugly and manly looking with a bosom that sags to their abdomen. As a bisexual female, I just think this is terrible for a children's show. If this were South Park, I wouldn't mind it, because South Park is for people who can distinguish fantasy from reality. A lot of people who watch Barney are little kids or handicapped people who can't usually distinguish fantasy from reality.
And now that I think about it, Barney sort of comes off as an ugly gay stereotype himself. Let's see, he doesn't have a girlfriend, he's pinkish colored and wears clothes with sequins (yes, it's true) on it. If you claim to be for the rights of gay and bisexual individuals, then stop making a mockery out of them in front of people who don't know any better. If Barney went black-face and ate fried chicken and watermelon at the same time, the show would be pulled off the air before you know it.
I give this show a negative one out of five. Don't show your kids such hateful crap. There are children's shows out there that are so less insulting.


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


user
What should have been a dramatic tale of life on the river Murray turns out to be a silly, soppy romance about an English refugee (Sigrid Thornton with Aussie accent) who falls for the larrikin first mate (John Waters) of a paddle-steamer.
The first half of this four and a half hour mini-series shows some promise, but it soon falls flat as it becomes predictable and thin. Some real verve and spark was needed in the plot to give the movie some life. Gus Mercurio's early exit didn't help as his character seemed to me to be the only interesting one.
Perhaps the longer T.V. version has more depth, because this video translation certainly lacked it.
Sunday, June 27, 1993 - Video


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


user
I rented this movie from a local library without having any prior knowledge of the book it is based on or the movie itself, purely based on the chance that it's one of those rare, overlooked gems that one can discover from time to time and really enjoy.
Unfortunately this is not one of those movies. I am not sure if this is a movie driven by sentimentality or worse, deliberate agenda, but certain elements of it made it impossible to immerse. It is supposed to portray a struggling immigrant worker community which tries to cope with the difficult realities of their life. That is a fine premise and it could have made for a gripping story, but the execution just made me alternate between getting annoyed and amused at the ridiculousness of it.
Here we have a community of simple farm workers who migrated to the US in search of employment and who get used and abused repeatedly by evil white men. And when I say evil - I mean EVIL. All white people in this movie are sinful, racist, sadistic, abusive devils whose sole purpose in life is sexual depravity intertwined with exploiting the poor immigrants. It would be a sad story if it wasn't so unintentionally grotesque and therefore hilarious.
The portrayal of the immigrants is also a poster-worthy example of exaggeration except that it goes in the opposite direction. The immigrants are saintly, clean and could serve as ointment for boo-boos and ouies the world over. I couldn't help but laugh when I saw these "field workers" presumably digging in the ditches all day with their notoriously clean clothes and chiseled hair cuts from a top notch hair salon. A little restraint and a more unbiased hand at the helm could have made this a much better movie evoking some intended emotion rather than sarcastic snickers.


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


user
Looking for something shocking? Okay fine... the imagery is that. That's about it. This film attempts to make deep connections with the audience through various symbolism and just ends up being annoying. I am not quite sure if the director's purpose was to truly portray some sort of deep message to his audience, or if he just sought to shock the hell out of them with gore, sex and violence. I am thinking that it was probably the first...but in the failed attempt..it simply ended up to be a piece of artsy garbage with lots of blood, some obnoxious characters, and an over reliance on religious symbolism. If you're looking for some independent film to critique for its attempted use of metaphor...have at it. If you are looking for a gore flick that will make you queasy and uncomfortable... here you go... If you are looking for a film that will irritate you to no end because you realize that in the end, the message was stupid...the movie was stupid... and you will never get those minutes of your life back..this is surely the film for you!


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


user
you know, i always fancy disturbing or strange movies, especially when they get shown at the fantasy film festival in hamburg, germany. but subconscious cruelty was probably the worst film i saw this year. will this comment contain any spoilers?
no, because i just did not understand this movie. but well, what can you expect from a flick that was introduced to a festival crowd "we (the guys from the festival) know that not all of you will watch this one until the very end"...
i like splatter movies and i also like movies with a strong graphical language. but this? there are a lot of bloody scenes in this one, but why? what is the director trying to tell us? is he saying that we lost all morality and all religious feelings? or is he saying that incest will always end in a disaster? who knows - i do not.
if you want to watch a movie that keeps you thinking for quite some time - watch it. but don´t expect to think "wow, i got the message" - i did not get 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 has to be one of the most boring films ever made. The only thing I liked is using Argento-esquire lighting in most of the scenes. The music is awful and the pace is so slow that you can watch it at 2x the speed and even then it would be slow. The story doesn't exist. It doesn't even have any shocking scenes.
It is classified (on this site at least) as a horror, but it's not. It's a sort of an art film exploring the dark side of the human nature. If you are into that kind of thing and can stand the slow pace, then watch it, but I'd rather recommend you something Japanese (e.g. Ichi the Killer) I think that the only reason this film was never in theaters is a fear of audience committing collective suicide caused by the huge amount of boredom generated by this movie. These 80 minutes of it's length would've been better spent watching the paint dry.
I gave it 1/10 simply because there is no 0 in the pull down menu


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


user
I´ve seen this at the Fantasy Filmfest in Cologne and left the cinema halfway through this "movie" (with a bunch of other people), so maybe I´m not the right one to comment on it, but I think the fact of leaving "S.C." is reason enough to do so. "S.C." is a different film. People who need a coherent narration, characters or a plotline won´t find anything in this one. It´s supposed to be an experimental film, relying on the power of images. But these images have no power. They are so forced in their intention of simply grossing people out, that they have nothing else to say. The gibberish of the off-narrator is simply boring, the visuals are cheap. OK, the effects are good, but if that´s the only thing, why care? Husseins film wants to be shocking and thought-provoking - instead it is boring and annoying in its non-creativity. Note: Not every movie without a story is art and there is absolutely no creativity in breaking taboos anymore - especially not if everything is executed as bad as in "S.C.". I´d suggest director Hussein should either visit a psychiatrist or a filmschool, before he mistakes crap for art again. Note: I never want to see a baby getting slashed during birth again.


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


user
Critics are a strange kind of people. Some of them are common people like you and me. Some of them are not. When a critic say Subconscius Cruelty is beautiful I wonder where they did grow up? What's beautiful with filming a field, some clouds or a tree with an old camera if you can't do it with style and capture the mood of the environments. Karim Hussain for sure can't. I've seen kids do better footage than Karim manage to do in Subconscius Cruelty. But that's not the worst part. The worst part is the whole recording, I refuse to call this a film, is just a bad excuse to picture nudity and extreme torture, rapes of both sexes, masturbation, sperm, pissing, cannibalism, child-murder and much much more. I love gore/splatter and I love horror. This ain't neither of those. This is utter crap and if my comments make just one single person skip Subconscius Cruelty it's been worth it. Always remember that your life won't last forever, don't waste two hours of precious time on Subconscius Cruelty. You've been warned.


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


user
For the people who have compared this TRASH to the brilliance of David Lynch etc... please listen to your carer when they say... DONT USE OTHER PEOPLE'S PC WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION!
This is complete and UTTER POO! There is NO art here. This is some person trying to make a name for himself with a cluster of gross out ideas which he was not clever enough to enforce into ONE main idea so instead he went for the easy option.
Any one with half a brain could sit at home and conjure up some controversial images to shock viewers, but it takes a person with true imagination to be able to make it into a movie people WANT to watch.
I am a LOVER of shock cinema. I have seen OR OWN pretty much all you can get... And I can strongly advise to anyone who LOVES the world of movies to steer WELL CLEAR of this garbage.
This one is ONLY for people who like to over analyze what they are watching, OR for the 17 year old first time drinkers who dont know any better.
0/10!



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


user
First, I would like to admit that Chokher Bali was not my cup of tea. This movie was evidently not targeted toward the masses. It's the type that critics would enjoy watching. The hype and publicity were quite misleading.
I was expecting something very dramatic like Devdas. Understanding that the story and time-period demand it, I found the movie extremely slow-paced.
I'm a die-hard Aishwarya fan, and I regret to say that I thought she was miscast. The role of Chokher Bali required an actress who can portray herself as subversive, not innocent and naive. Everyone else gave a good performance. Tagore's depiction of the human condition does come across the celluloid to give the movie an interesting theme.


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


user
Bardem is great. Actresses are great. But Amenabar did not have to do it like this. It is OK that he defends his position on the euthanasia, an extremely delicate issue. But doing it like this makes him lose his point: the movie is a false, offensive to the intelligence, full of tricks and even sometimes extremely boring. Some scenes are advertising material, more than a movie. Women are incredibly attracted to this mind-sick man who wants to make someone to kill him, not understanding the implications of that. He seems not to care about no one and thank them for their caring, love and attention. I think that Amenabar might have make people think about this issue in a different way but the way he chose to do it I believe is not correct. He could have make his point more powerful exposing the other side of the coin without mocking it.


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


user
Great. Another foreign film that thinks it's Fellini. On top of that, we have to have more propaganda about murdering disabled people.
I see no reason why we have to be inundated with these thinly disguised euthanasia commercials.
I found nothing redeeming about this film. What can be redeeming about a man without the courage to carry on, in spite of some adversity. It does not take courage to commit suicide. That is the action of a coward. Sharing this "wish" with his woman simply inflicts her with the same illness he has. If this had been a film about a man's courage to go on, in spite of his problems, similar to the Jill Kinmont story, that would have made it a great film.
If you're interested in seeing true courage, check out the movies about Jill Kinmont, the former skier who was disabled after a bad ski accident.


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


user
There's something rotten about this film, and basically the way it turns a sinister and twisted character into a hero by exploiting our sympathy with his admittedly horrible situation. Sampedro, like many who have lost hope, chooses suicide. The fact that he has been contemplating it for more than 26 years probably makes his condition worse, but the belief that we should do whatever anyone asks, even if it means ending a life is in my opinion profoundly wrong. What a contrast to the uplifting example of the scientist Stephen Hawkings, who suffered a far worse condition for far longer! Yet with the morals upside down, the film revels in hero worship, and the people who disagree with are painted in simplistic idiotic terms. There's little room for subtly especially in the encounter with the priest(deliberately manipulating the real life encounter which was with a much younger priest). In that way I suppose the film is on a par with Riefenstahls Triumph of the Will. The insidious idea is that everyone should have to right to take their life, when they feel they cannot live it anymore. It makes no difference whether you are physically or psychologically damaged, there are people evidently who believe you have the right to choose. The same people are likely to make a case for abortion. Its all part of the current trend to get the suffering or sufferers out of sight, brush it under the carpet, mammy will say its. OK, and we all feel very happy with ourselves. So we go down the slippery path of believing that some lives, just ain't worth living, and then we'll decide that as some people can't really decide for themselves then we'll bring in the state to decide for them. Enter Adolf Hitler straight from that other Oscar contender "der Untergang". Hitler of course believes that he carrying out exactly what Nature does in disposing of the weak. Under his regime, there were forced abortions among the "weaker" strains", the mentally handicapped were quietly put away and the Jews were "humanely" liquidated by using gas. He would have applauded this film, and why not for it is in line with his philosophy..."some lives are just not worth living". I differ from Ramon Sampedro, Hitler and all the people involved with making this film. Human life is sacred, it is not a right, it is a gift and an obligation. Nobody chooses to be born. Then who can choose death. Its not about religion, its about protecting the weak and helpless, something this film does a lot to undermine!


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


user
This might have been an excellent flick. However, as many other people think so do I. It is poorly done due to the languages transfer. If the entire movie must be read then it kind of takes away from the movie and becomes something else. It does have an excellent rating as far as I am concerned and I couldn't wait to rent it. But, once I did it was a real let down. Out here in Boardman, Ohio I could not find an English version to anything similar. This movie was also compared to Dark Hours and this we will not get to watch in Boardman, Ohio. It is not available. So I guess we will never know how good the movie actually was.


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


user
Dakota Incident has to be one of the strangest westerns I've ever seen. Not good, but definitely strange.
A driver-less stagecoach rides into the town of Christian Flats with all passengers killed. It's scheduled to go on, but very few for obvious reasons want to risk the Cheyennes on the warpath out there. But Linda Darnell, Regis Toomey, John Lund, Whit Bissell, and Ward Bond each have their reasons for going on. And Dale Robertson who killed John Doucette in a gunfight after Doucette and Skip Homeier shot and left him for dead in the desert, is so anxious to go he's willing to drive the team.
Of course the Cheyennes attack the intrepid group of passengers if forced into a dry wash for cover. Who will live and who will die is the remainder of the film.
Dakota Incident came at the very end of Republic Pictures before Herbert J. Yates pulled the plug on his little studio. Westerns were their specialty, but normally of the kind Roy Rogers made. This would not have been a Rogers product.
In fact it's beyond belief. The characters aren't ground in any kind of reality. Whit Bissell is taking back ore samples from his claim, but Robertson discovers it's iron pyrites, fool's gold. Toomey is a guitar playing cynic who goes mad from thirst. Darnell is after a cheating manager of her's, but really doesn't know what to do when she finds him. Lund is looking to bring in Robertson who committed a crime he took the rap for, but has to bring him in alive. For that he'd require help, but doesn't have any.
But the worst is Ward Bond who's a United States Senator on his own peace mission to the Cheyennes. In real life Bond was a most right wing individual and I'm not sure this wasn't some kind of a caricature of what he would perceive as a liberal. He's really quite the fatuous fool, but I think that might have attracted him to the role.
I tried to get into Dakota Incident, but couldn't. And the ending was a bizarre fantasy to say the least.
Give it three stars for the cast involved.


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


user
Scenarist Frederick Fox's sometimes memorable dialogue and a study cast of old-pros cannot save this lukewarm western about whites pinned down in the desert by a band of bloodthirsty Cheyenne Indians. Other than his occasionally catchy dialogue, you won't find any surprises in Fox's screenplay about this run-in between whites and Indians. The characters in "Dakota Incident" generate only minor interest, certainly not enough to make them stand-out as much as some of Fox's choice dialogue. Unfortunately, good dialogue is Fox's only contribution because this conventional little sagebrusher withers with a lackluster ending that contradicts its previous 80 minutes. The ending is as contrived as they come and lacks credibility. Most of the characters are sympathetic, but some just plain lack common sense.
Dale Robertson is appropriately tough and leathery as outlaw John Banner, one of three bank robbers who has to shoot it out with his low-down, no-account partners. Veteran western character actor John Doucette (Rick Largo) fares the best of the badmen, while Skip Homeier, wasted in an inconsequential role as Banner's brother Frank Banner, later dies from an Indian arrow. Doucette tries to gun down Banner at the outset of in the action, but our left-handed gun-toting hero fakes his own death, tracks down Largo down later and slaps leather with him in a town called Christian Flats. Naturally, Largo bites the dust this time, but Banner makes an interesting discovery. One of the passengers on a stagecoach from Christian Flats to Laramie turns out to be none other than the bank teller from whom he stole the money. Not only is John Carter (John Lund) on a quest himself to find Banner, but also he wants to clear his own good name with the bank that has issued wanted posters for his arrest. Evidently, the authorities have mistaken and enlarged Carter's role in the robbery. Carter is prepared to take Banner to Laramie and turn him over to the law, but Banner has other ideas about Laramie. Banner's ideas change when he crosses paths with Amy Clarke (former Twentieth Century Fox beauty Linda Darnell) who wears a bright red dress and still packs quite a bosom. As everybody else here has mentioned in their reviews, Republic Studio's Truecolor brings out the RED in everything, from Darnell's fetching outfit to the blood spilled on the ground. The problem with director Lewis Foster's handling of this run-of-the-mill oater is that everything bogs down after the stagecoach loses a wheel and our heroes hole up in a dry wash to defend themselves against the Cheyenne. The good guys and the Cheyenne eventually run out of ammunition, but "Dakota Incident" never runs out of clichés. Ward Bond has several interesting moments as a politically correct politician who defends the way of the redskin. By the time that this 88 minute dust-raiser concludes, you'll feel like you've been trapped in a gulch and menaced by marauding Cheyenne yourself.


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


user
This has to be one of the worst films I have ever seen.
We are supposed to like and be rooting for an arrogant, know-it-all, trashy bank robber, played by Dale Robertson, and a coy tease played by the extra-ordinarily beautiful Linda Darnell in a fire engine red dress. She must have been sewed into that bodice!
A Senator in the film thinks Native Americans and whites should try to come to an understanding, the bigots, however, win the day. I could barely sit through the endless dialog of bigotry that issued from the other characters mouths.
Except for Wounded Knee and Dances with Wolves there are few films that give a positive portrayal of American Indians, and very few old westerns do. This one is exceptionally bad in that regard.
The romance between Robertson and Darnell set my teeth on edge, as he came swaggering in, forcing a kiss on her, while she plays the old hard to get game.
There are scenes that are unintentionally humorous, such as the characters obviously not really riding in or on a stagecoach in several shots.
A puzzlingly humorous incident in the storyline is Linda Darnell's character going to great lengths to purchase tickets for the stagecoach, only to then demand a horse to ride, minutes later, for no apparent reason.
Another humorous scene is when the stagecoach comes to a screeching halt at the sight of a cowboy hat lying beside the road, and not only that, but then ALL the passengers pile out for a look-see.
1 star.


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


user
I want very much to believe that the above quote (specifically, the English subtitle translation), which was actually written, not spoken, in a rejection letter a publisher sends to the protagonist, was meant to be self-referential in a tongue-in-cheek manner. But if so, director Leos Carax apparently neglected to inform the actors of the true nature of the film. They are all so dreadfully earnest in their portrayals that I have to conclude Carax actually takes himself seriously here, or else has so much disdain for everyone, especially the viewing audience, that he can't be bothered letting anyone in on the joke.
Some auteurs are able to get away with making oblique, bizarre films because they do so with élan and unique personal style (e.g., David Lynch and Alejandro Jodorowsky). Others use a subtler approach while still weaving surreal elements into the fabric of the story (e.g., Krzysztof Kieslowski, and David Cronenberg's later, less bizarre works). In Pola X, Carax throws a disjointed mess at the viewer and then dares him to find fault with it. Well, here it is: the pacing is erratic and choppy, in particular continuity is often dispensed with; superfluous characters abound (e.g., the Gypsy mother and child); most of the performances are overwrought; the lighting is often poor, particularly in the oft-discussed sex scene; unconnected scenes are thrust into the film for no discernible reason; and the list goes on.
Not to be completely negative, it should be noted that there were some uplifting exceptions. I liked the musical score, even the cacophonous industrial-techno music being played in the sprawling, abandoned complex to which the main characters retreat in the second half of the film (perhaps a reference to Andy Warhol's 'Factory' of the '60s?). Much of the photography of the countryside was beautiful, an obvious attempt at contrast with the grimy city settings. And, even well into middle-age, Cathering Deneuve shows that she still has 'it'. Her performance was also the only one among the major characters that didn't sink into bathos.
There was an earlier time when I would regard such films as "Pola X" more charitably. Experimentation is admirable, even when the experiment doesn't work. But Carax tries nothing new here; the film is a pastiche of elements borrowed from countless earlier films, and after several decades of movie-viewing and literally thousands of films later, I simply no longer have the patience for this kind of unoriginal, poorly crafted tripe. At this early moment in the 21st century, one is left asking: With the exception of Jean-Pierre Jeunet, are there *any* directors in France who know how to make a watchable movie anymore? Rating: 3/10.


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


user
I wish Depardieu had been able to finish his book and see it become a dazzling success. At least he'd have wound up with something.
The film struck me as pointless, rambling, and very stylish, like some other recent French films. Not to knock it. Most recent American films are pointless and rambling and have no style whatever. We should be grateful, I suppose, for photography that evokes a European city in the midst of a wind-blown Continental winter, and for elliptical conversations that challenge our ability to understand what's up.
But there can be too much of a good thing. Golubeva is found stumbling around near the sea in the middle of the freezing night, carrying on in a bad accent about dreams and such. (There are a few sequences of dreams that include things like swimming in a river of blood. You'll love it if you're Vlad the Impaler.) Lots of people die. Catherine Deneuve dies in a suicide by motorcycle. I don't know why. Golubeva's young girl dies too, and I don't know why she dies either. She gets slapped in the face, falls to the pavement, and dies.
There is supposedly an explicit sex scene too. I'll have to take their word for it because, although it is stylishly photographed, it is stylishly photographed in almost complete darkness. Don't worry about the kiddies being shocked. They'll probably be asleep by this time anyway.
Depardieu isn't a bad actor. As we see him deteriorate from a carefully groomed handsome young man -- well, handsome except that his nose can't seem to get out of his way -- to a limping, murderous, hairy physical wreck, we feel sorry for the guy. Golubeva has a wan pretty face, with enormous half-lidded eyes and wide cheeks, like a doll. Her next movie should be a remake of Lewton's "I Walked With a Zombie." Then there is this mysterious guy who leads a band. I guess it's a band. As far as I could make out, the band is made up of about a dozen drummers and a dozen musicians playing electric guitars. Every viewer will find the resultant sound interesting but uncultivated listeners fond of "easy listening" might not enjoy it. If you don't like the music, there's a payoff involved because the sinister composer and leader gets whacked over the head with Depardieu's walking stick.
I must say, I found it barely worth sitting through. (And it's a longie, too.) At times it was like waiting in your car at a railroad crossing while a long long freight train rumbles slowly by, sometimes stopping entirely. I wish it had had a few jokes.


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


user
This movie is so unreal. French movies like these are just waste of time. Why watch this movie? Even, I did not know..why. What? The well known sex scene of half-siblings? Although the sex scene is so real and explicit, but the story it is based upon is so unreal. What is the use of it, then? Can you find easily in life, half sibling doing such things?
Did I learn something from this movie? Yeah: some people are just so fond of wasting time making such movies, such stories, such non-sense. But for those who like nihilism, nothingness in life, or simply a life without hope, then there you are.. you've got to see this movie.
Only one worth adoring, though: CATHERINE DENEUVE. She's such a strikingly beautiful woman.


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


user
(Spoilers)
Oh sure it's based on Moby Dick. Totally obsessed and it destroy's him. It's a total folly. The movie starts off rather well, but by the end of the film, everyone else is destroyed and the main star's mind is a blank.
The supposed half sister is never convincing. Some very poor lighting effects. Music is interesting. But little else. It took me over a month to finally finish the darn thing. I suppose if you like Being John Malkovich, you might like this. But where as BJM was a great movie that I just didn't want to watch again, Pola X is a movie I just hate to high hell. The only possible excitement in the film is the gratuatious incest sexual scene towards the end of the film. (Hopefully yer not thinking of Catherine either.)
This movie is severely boring, depressing, and poorly directed. Not highly recommended. If if you like french movies. (go watch Crimson Rivers instead)
4/10
Quality: 5/10 Entertainment: 1/10 Replayable: 0/10


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


user
I won't lie, I rented this film because it was an "arty" film with some possible explicit sex. I got that scene and Catherine Deneuve's (briefly shown) breasts, but the rest of the film is just the usual long pretentious European art films with lines like "Did I have a mother or father, I don't know" (paraphrased). Usually delivered in long soliloquies.
If you are curious about the transition of "art" to porn, might be an interesting look, with use of the fast forward button (I was still too slow!)


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


user
I enjoyed Carax's "Les Amants du Pont Neuf" and was therefore expecting this film to be of a similar standard. Well, the first 10 minutes were OK, but then it disintegrates into a rather pretentious journey of a young man looking for the essence of life. A sad disappointment.


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 difficult to express how bad this movie is. Even in the 1950s when intellectual searching for the meaning of life was fashionable and beatnik rejection of physical comforts, clean clothes, haircuts, etc. was a common reaction to the smug middle-class mores of both the USA and western Europe, this movie would have been a stinker. The plot is a mishmash of several dei ex machina (if that's the correct Latin grammar); the acting consists of deadpan stares broken by occasional hysterics (by the male lead as well as the females); the gratuitous view of Catherine Deneuve's (or somebody's) breasts are worthy of a Budweiser commercial; the repeated cacaphonous orchestra rehearsal in the abandoned building is I'm sure heavy with meaning in the director's mind but to me is just one more stupid symbol thrown into this meaningless movie -- I'm ranting because my time has been wasted watching this scam excuse for an art flic. The scenery is beautiful and the sex scene is hot -- but underneath his clothes, this king has no substance.


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


user
Pretentious claptrap, updating Herman Melville (!), about a young man's vaguely incestuous relationship with his aristocratic mother getting transferred to his long-lost sister who has been raised by gypsies. Or something like that  not that anyone really cares to unravel its multi-layered plot decked out with pornographic sex scenes, pseudo-symbolic imagery (the siblings swimming in a river of blood) and other bizarre touches (a gypsy child repeatedly insults passers-by in the street until she is anonymously beaten to death, the deafening music of a rock group utilized in the demolition of old buildings). Considering the source material and the presence of Catherine Deneuve (who at least gets to bathe in the nude), I was expecting a lot more from this one; apparently, there's an even longer TV version of POLA X out there


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


user
I'm accustomed to being patient with films because I've generally found it usually pays off. But a few works take tedium to new levels and enter the realm of provocation...."Last Year at Marienbad" comes to mind. Well, "Pola X" ain't no "Last Year at Marienbad". I can count on one hand the number of films I've walked out on over the years. "Pola X" achieved membership in that august group. In my defense, I believe I made a valiant effort to stand my ground - hoping things would turn around. However, I finally threw in the towel just shy of the 90 minute mark - quite respectable under the circumstances. "Pola X" does not come anywhere near living up to the promise of Carax's earlier work. After a 10 year hiatus, that must have been bitter for him indeed. Melville is still spinning in his grave!


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


user
The movie contains a very short scene of Deneuve in a bathtub. She looks absolutely stunning for a lady age 56, but this is the only saving grace of the movie. Otherwise, it has a mindless, unmotivated script and the lead actress has none of Deneuve's appeal. The director apparently watched too many Peter Greenaway films and Pola X comes across as a student's imitation of the Greenaway style, without any of his inspiration.


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


user
French Cinema sucks! Down with all these psychiotric visions with their my-God-am-I-cultivated distinguished attitudes! Pestilence to conceited symbolic film-language and impervious chiffres! I'll no longer have a mind for that! Léos Carax, did you ever think about, that a dialogue in a film could be natural and vivid??? Maybe I'm too common to understand you? Or had it been your task to confirm all the clichés of a Frenchman the world can have? Guillaume the to-be-guilliotined comes to his home-palace, Mme. Deneuve, not in the picture, plays the flute: "Here am I, darling!" In this moment, I knew, that she's in the bathtub, and we`ll see her lying in there soon. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not prudish, and the incestous sex scene was the climax of the film. But this is, in Berlin, we say "etepetete", what means something like "être-peut-être", a snobistic, self-satisfied, and, the worst, seen that often in French movies I can tell! Other example: She, beautiful and willing, is looking at herself in a mirror, combing her hair, and her wild-bearded, dirty young guru rushs into the room, breathless shouting: "There's no escape, there's no escape!" Forty years after existencialistic Sartres and consorts- what's new, what's exciting about? My God, there's that woman and she loves and admires you, what would be more natural to be happy with your life? And when you're not, please explain much better, why!! Born French means you have to live a life in extravaganza, no escape, is that the point?


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


user
First, I don't see how the movie is on any "best" list or how it won any awards. Compared to La Pianiste, which is also on a "best" list, La Pianiste is gold. This movie lacked so many things, on so many different levels, but I can't quite explain why I disliked it so much. The lead actor was annoying, I felt as though I never knew what was going on, and I was BORED!! Even though this was supposed to be some worthwhile life change that Pierre was starting, I wanted it to end.... as soon as possible. Why did it have to be his sister and cousin? Ugh. And why did Thibault get mean? He just bipolarly turned mean. And also, was it me or did I miss the whole purpose of what that guy in black was all about? Who were all those people playing music in the big basement of the big warehouse? Why did they have all that weird equipment and the guns and all those extra rooms for people to live in? I mean this in all seriousness, but does incest happen a lot in French culture? European culture? I took 5 years of learning about the culture and I never heard anything about that!


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


user
You would probably get something like this. I'm translating movies for a living and this is the first movie in my 5-year working experience that I found offensive to my intelligence. Of course, there are stupid Hollywood movies about drunken teenagers on a spring break, but those movies don't even claim to be serious works of art. But when someone strives for greatness and poetry, but delivers a muddled (and often ridiculous) story, a bunch of disparate scenes, pretentious dialogue... Then you get the worst kind of a movie that some other reviewer very accurately defined as "pretentious crap". To those who find this movie intelligent or even masterful, I can only say - it's your intelligence and your imagination you obviously used to try and make some sense of this pitiful attempt (it's in our human nature to try and make sense of things) .
One more thing: I can tolerate political incorrectness very well, I'm all for artistic freedom and suspension of disbelief, but the Slavic female character was just too much. I wish someone told the director that it's kind of ridiculous (even in an unrealistic art movie) to portray a Slavic woman as a half-articulate dishevelled creature connected to the forces of nature, probably due to the fact that she had spent her entire childhood looking at the stars and milking cows on a three-legged stool.


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


user
A ridiculous movie, a terrible editing job, worst screenplay, ridiculous acting, a story that is completely ununderstandable...
If God was going to decide if movies should continue to be done, judging by this one, the entire world movie industry would now be dead...
A wonderful movie to show that cinema should not be done by people who "think" they can make movies.
I am still wondering who are those two gipsy girls who show up in the movie for over half an hour, and are never introduced to us...



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


user
I had to read I Know Why The Caged Birds Sing in my English class and we watched the movie after finishing it. After watching the movie, I regret seeing. It completely took away any of the impact the book had. The scenes made no sense in their sequences, the acting was horrible, and it seemed as though the screen writer never actually picked up the book but opted for the cliff notes instead. I was outraged at how the movie ended. Almost half of the book was cut out and certain aspects were extremely important to Maya's growth as a person. If you have read ...Caged Birds, this movie will ruin the experience of the book so I warn you not to see it.


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


user
The story overall, though quite graphic, is actually decent and reasonably interesting to readers. However, the movie was absolutely dreadful. The story was good, but the acting was terrible. I was crying the whole time because i knew i could never get my spent time back. Don't see this movie. If you do, bring a pistol with a bullet in it, and a few bullets if you're going with friends. I feel sorry for everybody who had anything to do with this film. I also feel sorry for everybody who had to watch the film. Avoid this film at all costs, and if your mother forces you to watch, kill her. Hahahahaha! See! I'm a psycho now!!!! IKWTCBS turned me into a psycho!!!!


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


user
I bought this movie for about 2,5 dollars at a local flea market. I thought that with the cast present in this movie (Ice-T, Rob Lowe & Mario Van Peebles are all OK), it would be pretty good. Boy, was I wrong. This movie annoyed the hell out of me. Almost every scene drags on too long. The scene where Rob Lowe is watching this girl singing and dancing in a bar lasts forever! It was one of the worst scenes I have ever witnessed in a movie. The rest is no picknick either. My guess is when they finished the movie, they only had 30 minutes of film, so they made everything last 3x longer.
Conclusion: The current 1,9 rating here on imdb is right on the money. This was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Go watch some paint dry for 1,5 hour instead of watching this!
If you want to see some better movies made by this director, watch 'Mean Guns'(with Christopher Lambert & Ice-T) or 'Postmortem' (with Charlie Sheen) instead.


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


user
this is the worst movie ive ever seen. And i have seen lots of movies. Me and my friends rented this one a wendsday evening. Man we had lots of fun. This movie is the worst most boring crap ive ever seen. But it makes you laugh! U will lay on the floor rolling around tryin to get some air. You wonder why? Just rent it and check for the keyboard playing girl at that sleazy russian bar. My mother would make a 1000 times better movie about her feedin the cats.


assistant
0