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
This film is an absolute disgrace! I thoroughly enjoyed the original Airport, and I can't believe how the same people could produce this twaddle nine years on. First of all, the acting is bad. The original had actors who had done quality (non-disaster) films before, but this one uses actors who have done the disaster movie circuit already (Blakely, Kennedy, Wagner). Also, George Kennedy's character Patroni seems to get promoted very quickly. He is now the lead in the film, but his character isn't strong enough to carry it off: he has lost the charm and humour of Airport (1970), and the character is now just boring. Have I mentioned the plot? Is it at all believable that someone would send a missile after the Concorde?? NO!!! There are also too many loose ends; scenes that have no relevance whatsoever to the plot. The scene where the hot air balloon lands on the runway, the chase of the thief in Charles De Gaulle airport are two such scenes. Both would be interesting - if only they had something to do with the actual story. There also many unanswered questions: Why does Patroni open the window and fire a flare at the other plane? Why does Robert Wagner's character kill himself? (He must have another stupid and costly way of Why is there no enquiry after the missile almost blows up the Concorde? Why are the back projections so bad? (It looks as though a cartoon missile is following the Concorde; although it does work well when the plane lands in Paris) Why does Patroni think that he is in a flight simulator? (when he turns the Concorde over) Why does he get a hero's welcome in the cabin of the plane after having terrified the passengers? And why is the ending so poor, if it can be called an ending at all? Given their one-dimensional-ness, no-one seems to notice this. The blessing given to the young couple on the plane by the girl's coach is shmaltzy, the man who plays the saxophone is annoying, and the woman with the bladder problem is just plain silly. The scenes where Susan Blakely is lying on the roof of her conservatory, and the when she tells Wagner that she still loves him are quite awful. In conclusion, this film should have been the climax of the previous three Airport films: instead it is a diabolical, sub-moronic, complete and utter waste of time, money, energy, celluloid and "talent"!!!!!!! Remember when Patroni asks the French pilot if he has "ever landed on his belly?" This film certainly does the belly flop, and lands flat on its pointy nose...


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


user
There is a special heaven reserved for people who make the world laugh. Alongside Chaplin,Stan and Ollie,The Marx Bros and.....(fill in your own special favourites)space must be made for everybody connected with "Airport 80 - Concorde,the movie". Robert Wagner in particular exceeds all expectations giving the comedy performance of a lifetime.I would never have thought he had it in him. The only way he could have been funnier would have been to have worn a red nose and a revolving bow tie. British moviegoers will recognise the fat one from Cannon and Ball pretending to be a Russian athlete,a nice trick if he could have pulled it off but,tragically,he couldn't.I have a 14 year old labrador more athletic and almost as funny. George Kennedy - bless him - has a part that requires him talk and move at the same time,and my goodness he triumphs!Brow wrinkled with effort he utters timeless dialogue,each word lovingly polished into Coward-like brilliance. Only once in twenty years does Hollywood turn out a film like "Airport 80".All the years of toil and struggle,the sweat,the tears,the lessons with Lee Strasberg,living out of suitcases,born in a trunk etc etc,all come to fruition.A work of art is created that will last as long as there are movies and machines to show them on. I think I'm ready for my medication now.


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


user
'Airport 4' is basically a slopped together mess for Universal Studios to try and work a new twist - the Concorde supersonic airliner - into their 'disaster-in-the-sky' formula.
Bogged down with unintentional humor, the best of which is when George Kennedy sticks his hand out of Concorde's window at supersonic speed to fire a flare gun at a heat-seeking missile following the aircraft's flight path, and the simple fact that these dumb passengers keep re-boarding the same plane to continue their flight despite all the problems in the air. Many stars in this one including Robert Wagner, Sylvia Kristel, Alain Delon, and Martha Raye as a nervous passenger.
Not really related to the other 'Airport' films.


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


user
Its a truly awful movie with a laughable storyline.some awful acting.and a script that Ed Wood might be ashamed of.Wagner is laughable in this. He plays his role like number two in Austin Powers.Easily the worst of the Airport movies.1 out of 10


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


user
i just saw this movie on TNT and let me tell you, this movie was downright corny and cheezy. But after a certain point, I began to laugh my socks off and to tell you the truth, they should classify this movie as comedy rather than action/adventure. The absolutely most hilarious scene comes when the Delon and Kennedy are making loop the loop 360's to avoid the French missiles that Wagner ordered to destroy the Concorde. Our fearless leader, Kennedy, decides to shoot flares out the window to stop the heat seeking missiles????? Dumb yet funny---the kicker comes here though---after one shot, the flare gun malfunctions and Kennedy tries to fix it in the cockpit and well...if you want to know what happens get a hold of this movie. The dumb parts of this movie include the total lack of plot----yeah lets have some action for 25 minutes than land in Paris and go ONE HOUR with love scenes with prostitutes and flight attendants. Now lets switch to the saboteur for ten minutes then a wasted rest of the movie and a plane that is visually breaking apart and the PASSENGERS DON"T EVEN SEE IT???? ITS RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEIR EYES!!!!-----final rating for this move--- (1/10) out of 4 stars if it were action 2 out of 4 stars if it were a comedy


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


user
This final installment of the "Airport" franchise was so incredibly awful that it took me awhile to realize it actually wasn't a slapstick comedy, like "Airplane". George Kennedy shooting a flare gun out an open window to divert heat-seeking missiles was comical. What would happen to your hand if you held it out a window at mach two speed? You'd lose your grip on the gun and get a broken arm. The passengers were unintentionally hilarious, as was the interior of the plane. The sophisticated French woman coming on to slobby George Kennedy was like Jackie Kennedy coming on to Ernest Borgnine. Ain't gonna happen. Susan Blakely, a talented and unappreciated actress, did not get any points on her resume for this one. Neither did Robert Wagner. This movie was so lousy it seemed surreal.


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


user
Prior to Airport 79' these movies were rather good. They had decent special effects, all-star cast, and good acting. This movie destroyed the franchise, and there are many reasons for it. Lets talk about the special effects WOW!!!! they are horrific, what was the director thinking about. I know it's only 1979, but lets look at other very good special effects movies such as Star Wars(1977),and Moonraker(1979). I like the idea of the Concord and this could of been the best Airport movie, but they did too much with it. How about Joe Patroni(George Kennedey) shooting a flare out of the cockpit window, to prevent a heat seeking missile from hitting the concord. Also he is doing 90 degree dives and loops. This completely far fetched, and unrealistic WOW!!!!!! Believe me the special effects don't help this scene, and really are beyond poor.... They almost look like a cartoon, and this is how the whole movie is!!!Finally lets talk about the acting which in my opinion is extremely poor to fair at best.... Over acting is a major issue in this movie, especially George Kennedy.. Which I really like as an actor, but just doesn't cut in this movie. The full blame has to go on the director, who did a very poor editing job, and really whacked out the Airport Franchise. Too bad the Concord isn't still used today it was a marvel of Air travel...


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


user
The Concorde:Airport'79, Is for now, the last of the high drama high,camp Airport series, At first glance in the TV guide,or DVD cover you would simply think that the film your about to view is as thrilling as the previous Airport's Think Again! What your treated to is 2 hours And 3 Minutes worth of unintentional laughs courtesy of the worst script ever writing it was even penned by Eric Roth, Who brought the world 'Forrest Gump! well one things for sure the script is not Oscar worthy,It's Razzie worthy! The Executives at Universal in '79,done the right thing by marketing this as a 'comedy' Apart from Charo! the film does have an impressive cast list, It's certainly watchable to say the least,


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


user
With a cast of mostly lesser-tiered stars (Alain Delon, Robert Wagner, Eddie Albert), lousy special effects (sure, it was the 70's but "Alien" and "Star Wars" came from the same decade), and a storyline that is so laughable that one might want to cry, this is a "flight" that should have been GROUNDED.
Even Academy Award winners Cicely Tyson and George Kennedy can't keep this "bird" airborne.
The implausibility of the third film - airplane is submerged in The Bermuda Triangle - is much more believable than this turkey.
Avoid "The Concorde" at all costs!


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


user
Actually there was nothing funny about this monstrosity at all!! This movie was a complete abomination. The absurdities in this movie almost made me want to vomit!! I think that the people responsible for this movie took advantage of their viewing audience. They took a relatively decent series of movies (I did say decent, NOT GOOD!!) and totally trashed it by trying to put money in their pockets. The making of Airplane! was a way for Hollywood to make up for this crappy flick. The worst part about it is that either nobody in 1979 realized the asinine events of the movie (such as Concorde's door popping off at some ungodly high altitude or Patroni shooting a flair gun out the window at Mach 2 to avoid a NUCLEAR WARHEAD!?!?!?....what were they thinking???)were totally unrealistic or they just didn't care! I think that it is the latter of the two. The writers and director of this "film", if you want to call it that, really tried to suck the Airport dynasty dry with this crap!


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 has more goofs than any other movie I have seen in my life. The special effects are damned terrible. For instance, near the end, when the Concorde is falling after the cargo door tears off, the thing spins like a toy. The special effects of Airport (1970) are way better than this crap. Also, the force of a Concorde opening up at altitude and speed would essentially turn the thing inside-out. (That is if it would even open at all) But the movie has its good points. Mostly when it ends. That's also cheesy. E.g. The Thing lands on a bank of loosely-packed snow, if it did that, it would splinter into a million pieces. Overall, 2 out of 10. Instant flop. Great laugh flick.


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 isn't a little bad. It's not even kind of bad. It's horrid. You know you're in trouble when Charo shows up in a film. She must have had the week off from "Love Boat." George Kennedy, at least he's a gamer - he's in there trying. Actually, he's all right. And it's good to see Martha Raye. Jimmie Walker's okay. There's slightly better acting than in Airport '75 but what film doesn't have better acting than Airport '75? One thing I liked about this film is that it had more going on than a lot of other disaster films plot-wise. At least they made an attempt at subplots. What really hurts this film is the special effects - ugh! Not too special if you ask me. This is the kind of film that at 2am is truly, truly funny if you've been up having fun with your buddies and you're looking for something to laugh at.


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


user
The Second Woman is about the story of a mysterious man who lost his wife in an accident and now believes that someone wants to do him harm. A girl who likes him wants to help him but she is led to believe that his fears are caused by a mental illness...
Interesting plot, very good acting, but the result as a whole is poor in many ways. The story is too simplistic, or rather, presented in a simplistic way (even though there is a couple of interesting plot twists). For example, people say they love each other after only two meetings. I don't want to reveal anything else, but you 'll see what I mean if you watch the movie. "Come on, it was the fifties!", you may think. Yet I 've seen quite a few films from that era and I know that some don't seem so dated nowadays.
Something that disturbed me was that some scenes were shot pitch dark, making it almost impossible to watch what was going on. Ok, it's a film-noir but this one is too noir at some points... :o)
Overall, the Second Woman is not a masterpiece of that era, but no trash either. Watch it if you have nothing else to do...


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) This movie is the epitome of weirdness. I rented it hoping for a film so bad it would be funny. However, I still honestly can't decide if this film was intended to be scary or humorous. It combines the emotions in a rather disturbing way. Apparently this is trying to be clever but in actual fact it isn't. For instance, when the knife comes out and tries to kill the teacher, it starts playing happy music. When we go to Toxico, we have up-beat, quasi-Mr. Roger's Neighborhood music. However, when the little kid's dreaming of falling in "blood" and when he finds the leg, these are clearly intended to be tense. So, watch this film, and decide for yourself. It is too weird to be described in words and for that I say, kudos.
"Nose-dive... WOW!"


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


user
I watched this film with a bunch of friends at a Halloween party last night. I got to say that the sarcastic comments were never ending and I have to say that they were well deserved. Though I felt that the directing was done well, the craziness in their dialogue is just a little too much cheese. I think I got about an hour into this before I even started to realize what it was the point was that they were trying to drive home. You catch on pretty quick that this whole family is pretty quirky and something is off about them, it's just a little too slow. This movie could easily have been about 45 minutes and been a lot better. The only thing that made it bearable was the two bottles of wine that I downed during the course of the flick. Bring on the slasher films folks, because at least I know what to expect out of them. This was not my thing, too much dark humour, and the subject material of cannibalism was a bit explicit and gross. I have to say that Randy Quaid played the part as well as it could have been, and I will give him props for that as I normally see him as a drunken goofball or a washed out fighter pilot who likes to kill aliens.
In conclusion I give this horror/comedy film a very generous 3 out of 10.


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


user
Very disturbing, but expertly crafted & scripted and intelligently directed with a good eye for color and detail. Mary Beth Hurt, Sandy Dennis, and especially Randy Quaid are unusually good. The story centers around a young boy (Bryan Madorsky) wondering where all the leftovers they eat every night comes from. His parents (Hurt, Quaid) strange behavior causes the school psychiatrist (Dennis) to get involved. It is a gruesome cannibal movie. But it's not bad. If you like Hannibal, you'll love this. If you don't like Parents, stay away from the film. Just giving advice to Cannibal Lover and Haters.
Rated R for Strong Adult Themes and Graphic Violence.


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


user
When my parents rented this movie, I was expecting a very funny movie as Randy Quaid is very funny in comedy movies. However, this movie is not all that funny and it is somewhat boring too. You can see the surprise coming a mile away and it runs long for a movie that is supposedly only eighty one minutes long. So I can honestly say it is not a movie that is on my favorites list. It may work for some people, but it just did not work with me at all proving to be rather slow in the build-up with virtually nothing that amused me within the entire movie. Randy Quaid is wasted and the rest of the cast is a list of very bland actors and actresses. The premise of the movie had potential, as did the casting of Quaid, but all of it just sputters and the inclusion of the horror element just seems very unnecessary. Granted, the one dream sequence the kid had when he jumped on the bed and it suddenly became a whirlpool of blood was very nicely done and would have worked very well in a movie that was supposed to be pure horror, instead of one that lists comedy as its first genre.


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


user
John Sayles, what have you done?
"Silver City" had moments in which I could see the glimmering hope of a good story, well-drawn characters, thought provoking dialog. And then those moments would quickly be covered over by layers of poor writing, clumsy direction, and abysmal acting. I truly love almost all of John Sayles' work, but "Silver City" is ghastly.
I got the feeling that Sayles may have been working on the beginnings of a good story involving the illegal labor and industrial corruption plot lines, but then he got rushed and stuck the secondary plot line satirizing the Bush administration onto it. The two stories don't really connect with each other, and the weaker elements of the political theme dominate the first 3/4 of the movie, causing me to lose patience with the whole affair.
The other major flaw is Danny Huston's acting. His dialog in every scene is delivered with a gawping grin, regardless of its appropriateness to the mood. I hated this guy by the end of the film, having been reminded of every bad actor in every high school play I've ever seen. Not having seen Huston in anything else, I don't know whether to blame him or to blame Sayles' direction of him more. Regardless, he's the unfortunate focal point of a very unfortunate movie.
Right down to the last sledgehammer-subtle final scene I was disappointed by "Silver City." Sayles at his best, or heck, even Sayles at mediocre, can be so very much better than this film. See ANY of his other works instead. This isn't even worth a rental.


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


user
I don't really consider myself a conservative, so I wasn't personally offended by this film, but it was pretty clear that the plot and the characterization in this film were secondary to the message. And the message is that all conservatives are either evil or stupid (or both). The characters are one-dimensional -- either good, freedom-loving Americans, or brainless, greedy, evil conservatives. There's nothing clever or creative, just anti-conservative. I don't really mind the political bias itself, but it shouldn't be the only purpose behind the movie. And clearly it is.
On the positive side, the cast is wonderful and Chris Cooper's impression of W is funny the first two or three times, but after that it's just the same old joke being told over and over again.
So if you really hate the conservatives, you'll probably enjoy this film, but if you're looking for something with realistic characters and a story that's less black-and-white, then you'd be better off watching something else.


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


user
Generally political messages are done on television, so if you are a big fan of environmental correctness, watch to your hearts content. Most people go to the movies to be entertained, not sold some poppycock political nonsense. The hook here is the big name cast. Unfortunately the sum of the performances equals a whole movie that went absolutely nowhere. The two best performances, Chris Cooper, and Richard Dreyfus, have minimal screen time. In short, "Silver City" is to be avoided as entertainment. It is nothing more than a non documentary, rambling political expose on illegal immigration, pollution, and any number of other causes that do not belong anywhere except on the small screen. - MERK


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


user
Honestly, one of the worst written, directed and acted movies I have ever seen. Seemed like a made-for-TV movie. And a bad one at that. I cannot believe that people are still hiring Danny Huston after seeing him in this movie, or that they are still allowing John Sayles to make films. My husband and I came across this movie on TV one night and got so bored with it, we ended up cleaning the house while it was on . . . and it still bored us! It made me think that critics have been so gullible with Sayles' previous films, such as Lone Star, which was raved about at he time but didn't really add up to much in the end. Spend your time on something better. Anything.


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


user
Apparently the film has a harsh anti-Bush message... If it does (I didn't get it), that's all it is. It's boring and useless, period.
It's too serious at times to be a comedy, too slow to be a thriller, not funny, not gripping, not exciting, not film. It's too everything to be the opposite, and vise versa. I was amazed at how bad a film could suck. Don't even think of watching it.
I have watched literally hundreds of films, and never have I been so obliged to write a warning on IMDb. Avoid at all costs. You have been warned.
Even "The Making of..." is painfully boring. It's just people talking gibberish with loads of inside jokes infront of a camera, sort of like a home movie. There even is a part where a guy takes you on a tour of the food that was consumed on the set by the film crew. Still, beats the movie I guess...


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


user
This movie was horrible and the only reason it was even made was because the story appealed to the far-left. I consider my self a moderate, so I was able to see this film as the pile of garbage it was. While I'm not a Bush fan, your dislike for GW is not enough of a reason to see this movie.
To start, the movie was shot on such low-grade film that it comes off as cheap, rather then artsy. Additionally, the characters are seriously lacking in depth. Chris Cooper's character was a poor parody of George Bush; better suited for Saturday Night Live then a Dramatic film. The rest of the characters are walking clichés and are poor facsimiles of other characters from much better movies.
Avoid this movie at all costs!


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


user
SILVER CITY (2+ outta 5 stars) As a huge fan of John Sayles' work for many years now I feel safe in saying that this is the worst movie he has ever done. That said, the movie isn't exactly *terrible*... just very uninspired. Sayles throws in familiar elements from his previous movies (corrupt politics, illegal immigration, the selling out of youthful ideals) but fails to bring them together in any new or meaningful way. Even the dialogue (usually Sayles' strong point) is disappointing this time around.. sounding clichéd and forced in almost every scene. The movie looks and sounds like episodes from a TV series that didn't make it past its third episode. There are tons of big stars on hand... and they try their best to make their bit parts come alive... but the material just isn't there this time around. While filming a campaign spot a governor-hopeful (a poor and obvious George W Bush stand-in) fishes a dead body out of a lake. An investigator is hired to try and warn away people who may have deliberately set this up to discredit the candidate... but he soon finds out that there are deeper and darker (and more clichéd) secrets to be discovered. Sayles has made similarly-themed movies so much better in the past ("Lone Star", "Matewan", "Return of the Secaucus Seven", "Men With Guns"). It's a shame that he went to the well one time too many and came up with tainted water. One good line, delivered by Richard Dreyfuss: "Danny, you're a loser. That's already been established beyond doubt. So just try and be a good one, okay?"


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 surprised over the number of folks that have rated this entry as their favorite "Chan" (didn't they ever see "...at the Opera" or "...at Treasure Island?"--- the latter ironically written by John Larkin, who dropped the ball here). This plot is a train wreck and overloaded with pointless characters. First, viewers are required to recall the sordid details of Steve McBirney's (played by venerable thug and HUAC squealer Marc Lawrence) 1929's murder spree. Let's not forget he escaped a capital murder rap at the courthouse with a lone policeman on his tail. There's also a victim that was fished out of a river 11 years earlier that no one ever seems concerned about. Then there's the suspension of disbelief required when all the characters are seemingly trapped in the wax museum (although Inspector O'Matthews manages to wield his fat wet rear end inside through a window). Why is Joan Valerie (as Cream's assistant) in this movie? She can't even handle pliers properly--- I realize Chan suffers the same boo-boo but yeesh, he's 66 years old here-- (and has less than 10 lines--- and her character's motivation is too weak to ever be adequately 'splained (excuse me, when I'm on a rant I write like Ricky Ricardo). The Mary Bolton (Marguerite Chapman) character is written to as a eager wide-eyed moron, apparently existing only for the vapid romantic interest of horndog lawyer Tom Agnew (played by the ferret-faced Ted Osborne). Why is Willie Fern a character? Why couldn't McBirney's henchman pulled the switch at 8:20? (not a spoiler, okay?!). One wonders how, with the IQ of lint he manages to dress himself or why he hadn't stepped in front of a bus years ago. Toler himself is given a little more acting rope than usual (a plus) and the real kudos go to set designer Thomas Little and cinematographer Virgil Miller who created some genuinely spooky atmosphere... but this entry has less logic than a Ritz Brothers film. I'm still boggled by how a toothpick can be used as a blow gun.


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


user
The synopsis of this movie led me to believe that it would be a story of an unconventional woman challenging the conventions of the society in with she lives. I like strong female characters and expected a movie much along the lines of "Chocolat" with a less fairy tale and more bite. What I got was a cast of despicable characters.
For a character-driven movie to be effective, I need to feel a connection or compassion for the people. There was no one with whom I could relate in the movie. Grazia (Golino, whose work I admired in "Rain Man") portrays a mentally ill, probably bipolar, female that is often rude, aggressive and violent. Her husband bickers and yells, when he is not hitting or slapping someone. The children are rude brats. They yell at each other and the females in the movie. They attack other children with no provocation. Violence begets violence. This seems to be an island of unfeeling, aggressive, violent and rude people all the way around.
The direction is not compelling. There are intermixed scenes that attempt to be art, but instead bore the viewer. The location is exceptionally gorgeous, but even that fails to be captured to the degree that it could be on film.
I would have to recommend that you stay away from this failure of a 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 lack of character development proves fatal for this movie. Valeria Golino's character Grazia starts out looking like a bipolar personality but quickly degenerates into a caricature and seems unreal. The other characters are thin, probably the writer's fault not the actors'. The only exception is Filippo Pucillo as the younger son Filippo: his energy and bravado are funny and convincing.
I suppose the children's petty cruelty is supposed to contribute to an atmosphere of bleakness and emphasize the pervasive primal spirits in the town, but for me, the gratuitous cruelty is redundant and contributes to the overall boredom of the film. Some scenes were amusing but not necessarily intended that way, for example, when the mistreated dogs turn out to be fat and healthy and look like they are ready to show. The pretty cast and setting make for an appealing trailer but cannot carry the whole movie.


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


user
I'm sorry folks, but these enthusiastic reviews on this prestigious site about this movie "Respiro" are very strange, to say the least. Is craziness picturesque, I ask and didn't find an answer. Of course, the movie is beautifully filmed, at part it's almost a documentary. But then, the fact is that when it comes to the women Grazia, she shows every sign of a deep illness and I was wondering throughout the movie what the heck she has. Her behavior is absolutely worrisome and the (shocked) citizens of the village are very right indeed in wanting to send her off to a proper institution to see what can be done about her condition. She needs treatment, urgently! Behaviour like hers is inferno to everybody around her, her husband, the poor children (especially) and the fellow citizens. Let's not be falsely romantic about this! I hated this condoning portrait of a mentally ill. WHY, for God's sake, should the husband not want to have her cured or at least try to do this? Why the horror of going to Milan (a big city, sure, but lots of possibilities of capable persons to cure her)? Narrowmindedness? Irresponsibility? Anyway, I inspired myself on this site for renting the movie on DVD and after seeing it I HAD to post this for others to make themselves an opinion on it. Frankly, I understand why the movie did not get any further as an INDICATION to the Cannes selection...


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


user
This could have been a breakout role for Valeria Golino but the film instead decided to shift its attention to another area. The film is about a woman named Grazia (Golino) who is married to a fisherman and the mother of three. She is a free spirit and prone to outbursts so the rest of the village and her family decide she should be sent to Milan and see a doctor. The story takes place on the island of Lampedusa off of Sicily and it shows the everyday life there with the teenage boys in rivaling gangs and just trying to find something to do on the sun baked rock. Grazia's oldest son Pasquale (Francesco Casisa) adores her and is always trying to protect her during her bouts of depression. The daughter Marinella (Veronica D'Agostino) is a blossoming young girl who becomes infatuated with a local policeman and the youngest son Filippo (Filippo Pucillo) is very sassy and mocks the policeman's accent. Upon learning that she is to be sent to Milan, Grazia runs away and Pasquale helps her by hiding her in a cave while everyone searches for her. This film could have really made more of an impact if it could have concentrated its focus to Grazia. We do see some outbursts and irrational behavior on her part but their is no follow up to these scenes. Nothing comes of it. The film looks great and is beautifully photographed so give director Emanuele Crialese credit for that but the story needed to focus on something more substantial. The film does a good job of showing us what life is like on this island and what is going on in the lives of the three children as they grow up. Their is some speculation that Golino's character gives a hint of being a mermaid like creature and that is why she is having difficulty existing on land. I also sense that the island itself expects its inhabitants to behave in a certain manner and if you don't then you can be subjected to the harsh realities of its rules. All speculations but I do think the films attention could have stayed with the character of Grazia. After she hides in the cave she really has nothing to do. In a sense, the character becomes stagnant. I wish Golino had more to do because I've always liked her and whenever she is onscreen you just can't take your eyes off her. She's a bundle of fury, passion and raw energy! What a shame Crialese didn't write a more complete role for her to act in. When the film ends your left feeling empty from an incomplete story.


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


user
To judge a movie just for the landscapes,decor,costumes....it is just not right , you are missing the core : THE STORY
A movie has to narrate something , to tell a story something that impress you . Yes , I was pleased by the sea , cliffs , clear water and all that but ... There is the plot ?
They are more interesting movies with mad people , such as : FLIGHT OVER THE CUCKOO"S NEST...etc...etc. This one is about a crazy woman who is more attached to dogs than his children or his husband. Just a clear psychiatric case !!!! Nothing extraordinary.Unfortunately a waste of time . And there is all that rage coming from ? Fish smell ? Sea ?


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 one of the worst movie I have ever seen. It's a thriller with a rather ridiculous ending. I watched this movie hoping for the best and instead found something truly bad. the movie starred two actors that I like very much, Rebecca DeMornay and Antonio Banderas. Sure they had decent chemistry together but for what? The movie's premise was bad to begin with and the execution just made it even worst.
Miss DeMornay plays Sarah Taylor, a psychologist trying to analyze a convicted serial killer whose defense hinge on multiple personality disorder. That pretty much will give you a hint to where the movie is going and the identity of the killer. Early in the movie she gets an unexpected visit from her father. This being made in the 1990's when the bad daddy was the in thing in Hollywood is another clue to the ultimate conclusion.
Mr. Banderas plays a mystery man named Tony Ramirez, who comes into Sarah's life. The whole first meeting and first encounter between Tony and Sarah is so badly done and so unconvincing it makes you wonder how it even got shot. And there's a sequence where the two of them are supposed to be knowing each other that is so sappy it doesn't seem to belong here. One thing that I would admit was that there was a sex scene that's very hot. Anyway creepy things start to happen after he arrives, weird packages arriving, things falling off the wall that could kill Sarah, incident that say things aren't normal anymore.
Overall the movie was badly conceived, the editing at times seem jumpy, and the conclusion was laughable. Another thing that bugged me about this movie was the whole Orchestral music playing in the background. A more subtle musical score would have been better. I have to say this, no matter how bad the ending was, Miss DeMornay was very good in that sequence. It's sad that she never got first rate materials in her career. She's that rare combination of talent and beauty.


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


user
Rebecca De Mornay can be a fascinating beautiful actress but as for the parts she's given to play,if you cannot say something nice...
De Mornay portrays a woman who had terrible traumas as a child with a father she can hardly stand now that she's a grown up and has become a -of course brilliant- shrink.She has an affair with Banderas ,whom we suspect of being (ouch!how original!) a serial killer.Sometimes she recalls Banderas's mother-in-law Tippi Hedren's character in "Marnie" .But I wouldn't count on it:Hitchcock died twenty-four years ago ,and a lot of regents desperately try to replace him .Here the director pulls out all the stops to make a thriller with an unexpected end,but that ending is so far-fetched it is absolutely impossible to buy it.The movie includes the obligatory "conversations with a serial killer" in the "silence of the lamb" tradition,murders (human beings and cats),split personality,and open ending in case the crowds should call for more.Apparently they did not,and they were right.


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


user
Sorry I couldn't be more expressive in my summary, but those two words seemed to describe the movie perfectly. This is not only a bad film, but a bad film with bad acting and a plot that will be inconsequential to most watchers.
See it only for a naked Rebecca De Mornay tied to a chain-link fence and moaning with 'ecstasy; supposedly 'erotic', but actually hilarious.



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


user
With so many good movies coming out in 1995 (particularly "Mortal Kombat" and "Seven"), unfortunately, there had to be some bombs as well, and this film indeed falls into the latter category with a boring, predictable plot and a lousy ending. It seems that Antonio Banderas hasn't been able to find a decent script since "Desperado," the only remarkable film he's done. Anyone with an eighth of a brain could tell who DeMornay's stalker was from the beginning. Her flashbacks of the death of her mother did nothing but muddle an already paper-thin story. Pity that Dennis Miller was wasted in this film; this part resembles his eerily similar role in "The Net."
The convoluted ending had me shaking my head, as I pretty much did throughout the entire movie. Plus, any film that depicts animal cruelty in any shape or form, no matter how fake it looks, automatically gets the thumbs-down from me.
To make a long story short, if you want to enjoy a good thriller, then avoid this at all costs. Never talk to strangers...especially those who recommend this movie. 2/10


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


user
I thought Sliver offered the most boring and trivial "trick" ending in movie history, but of course I was wrong. I had no disillusions that this movie was going to be good. Unfortunately, it was worse than I expected. The worst part is that the obvious ending is so ridiculous and horrible that you can't believe it until it actually happens.


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


user
This derivative erotic thriller remains watchable most of the way, mainly because a viewer is casually curious about how it will turn out, and because the director, Peter Hall, manages to stage a pretty hot (and quite bold) sex scene. But the finale, though unexpected, is preposterous, and the whole plotting (complete with childhood traumas and multiple-personality disorders) reveals itself to be unbearably cliched, especially as far as motivation is concerned. (*1/2)


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


user
What a stinker!!! I swear this movie was written by a computer that took a whole pile of other movies and merged them all together into this platypus of film. Ouch!


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


user
Forgive me, but this work of director Peter Hall is horrendous. If you can't get to us with the plot, why not kill someone's cat or dog. That surely reaches the audiences. This viewer is tired of seeing animals sacrificed for the plot of a movie. And, believe me, I saw it coming before she opened the package. How predictable can you get. Take a cute animal then kill it in a gruesome way. I have never been a fan of De Mornay and this performance tells me why. Overacted and somewhat stagnant in interpretation, I found her rather silly and definitely boring. I did like Banderas, but felt bad that he had to play opposite De Mornay. He has done much better in other films namely "Philadelphia" where he had some honesty in his dialogue. In this chestnut he did his best to keep his character real. But the writers, Green & Rush, did a good job in preventing this with their trite storyline and insipid dialogue. Please, let us not be subjected to this kind of entertainment. Some of us aren't fooled by corny plots, bludgeoning animals and generally long winded dialogue. Seeing her get away with it, made me furious.


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


user
A few minutes in: "NOT credible. What idiot wrote this?"
But, "What's going on...who's the bad guy...then there's that Rebecca De Mornay." Time passes....
THE END.
"NOT CREDIBLE. What IDIOT actually watched the whole *@#! thing!"


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


user
weird.this is a TV movie,yet the rating on the box says it's rated R.there's nothing in the movie that would remotely qualify for an R rating.aside from that,though,the movie is very slow and pointless.i mean the idea was good,but nothing was done with the storyline.it just wasn't developed.it's mildly creepy,and the acting is actually quite good,better than the movie deserves.i don't see myself watching it again anytime soon,if ever.there have been other movies dealing with the same concept which are better made than this one.i haven't seen too many Wes Craven Films,so i can't really compare it to any of his others.as for this movie itself though,i think it is poorly conceived and poorly executed.for me,i can't give Chiller a higher rating than 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
After his success with A Nightmare on Elm Street in 1984, director Wes Craven for some reason decided that his next project would be this TV movie. I'm not a big fan of this director on the whole; early exploitation flick The Last House on the Left as well as his modern slasher Scream sit well with me, but the rest of his work is very hit and miss and I'd hesitate to call him the master that others have labelled him as. The main theme here is cryogenic freezing, although it's more a springboard for the plot rather than an important part of the movie. The main influence here is obviously the excellent 1974 zombie film Deathdream and we focus on Miles Creighton; a businessman cryogenically frozen for ten years before an accident that means he has to be thawed out immediately. Miles is a part of a project for people that are ill; they pay to be frozen in the hope that they will be revived in the future when their illnesses can cured. Miles is successfully revived and it's seen as a miracle...but the person that wakes up is not the person who was frozen, as Miles returns without a soul.
This film could actually have been quite decent judging by the idea behind it, but instead we're given a plot that doesn't really have a lot to it and it has to be said that Craven doesn't make the best out of the potential of the film. The 'soul' is the main focal point, but it would seem that not having a soul and simply having a murderous intent/no compassion are the same thing, which feels a bit unimaginative. The film was made for television so it's not particularly nasty and it's obvious that not a lot of money was spent on it as the whole production feels very cheap. Michael Beck never became a very popular actor and that isn't surprising judging by his performance here; while he is passable, he largely lacks charisma and is not formidable in the central role. The plot doesn't flow too badly but there's a real lack of suspense and/or tension and things slow down too much too often, which results in the film being rather boring on occasion. It all boils down to a predictable ending also. Overall, I have to admit that I was not impressed at all by this film and as far as Craven's filmography goes, Chiller would have to go down with Shocker, the Scream sequels and The Hills Have Eyes II as a miss.


assistant
0