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
Honestly, I didn't really have high expectations for this movie, but at the same time I was hopeful. Having it be directing by Albert Pyun - one of the more well known b-movie auteur's - didn't exactly raise my hopes. I mean how many Albert Pyun flicks rank that highly? Yeah, exactly ... but still the movie advertised a decent cast. Rob Lowe, Burt Reynolds (pre-reborn stardom), Ice-T and Mario Van Peebles.
It all amounts to squat however as the movie is so boring and moves so slowly that the energy just seemed to drain right out of me the longer it went on. It runs over 90 minutes, but it's telling a story that could have been told in 30 minutes flat. I don't know what Pyun was going for here. I mean the movie drips artsy-like style, but it's a blur at times and maybe I'm an idiot for expecting more from Pyun this time around. Here he seemed to actually have a budget and a potentially great cast for the material, but it's all wasted. Crazy Six isn't much of an action film, it's not much of anything really.
I guess what's the saddest here is the fact that I found the end credits the most entertaining part of the movie. The music score is actually half-decent with some smooth female vocals too, but the rest is a complete waste and the less said the better. Avoid.


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


user
Crazy director....Yeah, you need to be crazy to make a near movie. Rob Lowe was bad in his character, Ice-t is always bad and Burt Reynolds had nothing to do in the movie. Crazy six is an unknown movie, with some known actors...this is pretty weird. A bad movie with some good actors in it. It looks like the bad movie did an influence to their performance...It did! Crazy people.....I give it *and a half out of *****


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


user
Do not rent this movie. I ended up buying the "previously viewed" tape of this for $4.00. That was close to the price of a rental, so thought, I might as well buy it. I'm tossing it out after I finish this review. The movie which stars Lowe, is a music video with few lines of dialogue, slow moving shots and poorly done editing. I thought I'd be seeing a mindless action flick, which is what I wanted to see, I didn't even get that. This movie is an exercise in slow moving shots, no script, close-ups, terrible edited, and a poorly developed plot. I can't believe that is actually ends with a scene in which they think the audience cares about the characters. By the end of the movie, we still don't even really know who they are. Believe the hype, stay away.


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


user
Yeah, that's right. If I were to ask my friends this question: "What's the worst movie you have ever seen?" They might reply something like "Armageddon" (can you drill the hole?!?), "Shriek", "Plan Nine From Outer Space", "The Medallion", "Scooby Doo" etc... No - Don't get offended by this by thinking you have seen something that might be in the same department of naturally produced human fertilizer that this movie is in. If the worst movie you can think of is, let's say so bad it really pisses you off; then you know nothing my friend.
Crazy Six... I remember the day me and a buddy of mine went to the local video store to rent a movie. Both of us had already been through most of the movies in there, and on the "new movies"-shelf we see it staring at us. "Wow, there's some good actors here man. Says something about mafia, lets just get it and get out of here". This was without doubt the worst movie mistake in my movie loving life. It was also the worst mistake for everybody else: movie lover or not.
Watching this movie is as fun as watching a glass of ice cold water (or ice-tea....) until it reaches room temperature. Watching this movie will make you dream an eternal dream of death, if death is just blackout light and nothing, and then you realize you are just staring at your TV-monitor. Not staring. You are actually paying as much attention that is humanly possible. This is no joke.
This movie is the perfection of making a bad movie. It's not the kind of bad you can watch, point and laugh of, its the kind of movie that is so bad you actually have no chance of ever get out of your memory. Unless perhaps you use electric shock therapy to clear out the brain. .... ... (Hey! That might be something similar to how I remember me and my buddy felt after watching it....)
Best regards from me to you Albert Pyun.
-Joergen


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 actually too drained to write this review -- bad movies always do that to me -- but I feel obligated, as if it's my civic duty, to warn anyone who might be considering purchasing or viewing this god-awful mess-of-a-picture. Please, please, just take my word: this is one you'll want to stay away from. It's so boring and dull, so insipid and uninspired, such a poor excuse to assemble any familiar talent. Burt Reynolds? Wasted (despite his best efforts). Ice-T is barely in the film, and when he does appear on screen his performance is so restrained and muted that it becomes crystal clear that the director, perhaps intimidated by Ice's intense stare, didn't know what to do with him. Rob Lowe, as the title character, has never displayed so little on-screen charisma. Mario Van Peebles should be ashamed of himself; his performance is, in the saddest sense possible, a joke. Surely, Satan himself signed Mario's check for this film. The plot is as weak, half-baked and annoying as all the music involved (the utterly boring club song seems to continue on, literally, for the first third of the movie). The film's look will prompt one to seriously wonder if the Director of Photography was also forced, like one of the film's forgettable female characters, to smoke crack from a pipe duct-taped to his mouth. And if you're looking, at least, for stylized, shoot-'em-up-type violence you'll get none here. This film, I assure you, I promise you, has Absolutely no redeeming qualities! Please, I implore you, Avoid this Flick! Don't put it in and get suckered into believing that its pace will pick up, it'll get better, and evolve into a decent denouement. It won't. It don't. It can't! It sucks! Now, you have been warned, and I can now go to bed (It's 3am - please forgive any resulting errors this admonition might contain) -- knowing my conscience is clear, because I've done my civic duty for my fellow man!


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


user
the worst movie i have ever seen i didn't even watch it all i just fast forwarded it to Burt's bits and then the end!!! he is the only reason to watch this!! i have to admit to owning a copy as i am a HUGE Burt fan (stop laughing) and needed it for my collection i wouldn't care when this movie came out i had a nightmare renting ti as my local store only had 2 copies and fans of all the various stars always beat me there, imagine my disappointment when i sat down and watched this movie!! THERE ARE JUST NO REDEEMING QUALITIES ABOUT THIS MOVIE!!! Absolutely NOTHING WHAT SO EVER TO LIKE ABOUT THIS MOVIE!!! this movie became a running joke between myself and a mate Burt's worst!! Rob Lowe's worst WORST HOUR AND A HALF OF MY LIFE


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


user
Crazy Six is torture, it must be Albert Pyun´s worst film. Even Blast and Ticker are better! I can´t believe how boring this film is! How this even got greenlighted? I saw this movie about 3 years ago and the only thing I remember is how bad it was. This isn´t good bad movie, it is simply bad, bad, bad, bad, bad movie.
1 out of 10 (½ out of *****)


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


user
I saw this movie a time ago, because some of my friends wanted to rent it, and I got voted down.. I tried as best I could to get the story, because some moviemag had said that this would be a movie that would be for Rob Lowe, that Pulp Fiction had been for John Travolta... Well.. we can all see that he not only failed, but he fell aaall the way down. This is actually the worst film I've ever seen, and I've seen a great deal of bad movies.. it's just not even worth seeing for free on tv.


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


user
Do not watch this movie, or.. If you are really mad at anyone, you can give this as a birthdaypresent. This is the worst movies I have ever seen. Do NOT watch this. If you do, remember: That would be a self-destructive action. It is a shame that this is not voted lower.


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 been said that some directors make small budget pictures look like blockbusters. Albert Pyun makes small budget pictures look like high school A/V project films. This film was pretty much lacking in all departments. Practically every scene drags on excessively, the "experimental" lighting and camera work is terrible, Rob Lowe apparently equated being scruffy with acting, and the poor drab Euro-pop numbers stop the movie to a dead halt. On the plus side, Burt Reynolds does a pretty good job with what he's given (which isn't much), Mario Van Peebles is surprisingly decent and Ice-T puts in another of a long recent string of B-movie gangsters. Not Pyun's worst work (Urban Menace), but certainly not his best (Mean Guns).


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


user
What is the story what is it on the screen. At first I must say, do not touch this movie, it is for your own best (it sucks). And really what is the story, in the beginning it seems okay but after ten minutes it all gets worse. And that is not all, you can hardly see what it is on the screen it is too dark all the time.
Do not touch.


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 a monument to inept filmmaking on a colossal scale. I'm a huge Burt Reynolds fan, but even he was horrible in this film. The only redeeming quality of this film was the chick that smoked all the time. She was kind of attractive to look at. Otherwise, what a waste of time and energy...


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


user
Do yourself a favor and stay away from this film. Minus 50 billion out of 10. If you want hard boiled action don`t rent it! If you want a good independent film look elsewhere!
I never thought i`d see Burt Reynolds in such a crappy movie. It has the thinnest plot-line ever. Van Damm flicks should win an Academy compared to this one.
Rob Lowe once again prove why he is not the hottest actor in the world. Even Hasselhoff would have made a better drug addict than him. I do not want to bore you with more facts about this crappy movie, except to say that you are better off renting anything by Hulk Hogan or Dolph Lundgreen. This should prove my point, if you get my drift.



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


user
I am not afraid of bad movies. I like bad movies. I enjoy mocking them in the company of my friends. We're all quite good at it, in fact. That being said, let me tell you how much I hated this movie.
To begin with, it was incomprehensible. Rob Lowe attacks some people, they capture him but he escapes in this big ol' shoot out. There's this singer whom we think died, only she didn't, unless maybe there are several of them who all act and look the same. Cue Burt Reynolds to come in and question the singer. He looks like he's just wandered into this movie off of the Walker, Texas Ranger set and is darn confused. Then Rob Lowe dies, only he doesn't... And the worst thing is, there's not enough dialogue or action that doesn't involve killing people or attempting to to even make fun of this movie!! And don't even get me started on the random chihuahua. Then there was the fact that it was supposed to be about the old power structure in Eastern-Europe falling apart. We didn't know where we were, all the accents were apparently "Eastern-European" and what were Burt Reynolds and Rob Lowe doing there in the first place?
I desperately wanted to tell the people at Blockbuster what I thought of this movie, and to get my money back, but since I'd gotten it as a special (only $.99) I decided against it. What I want to know, however, is HOW THE DIRECTOR GOT THE GREENLIGHT to make this darn movie, and what the 'stars' were thinking when they signed on???


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


user
Don't waste your time and money on it. It's not quite as bad as "Adrenalin", by the same director but that's not saying much.


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


user
directed by albert pyun in his inimitably awful but strangely hypnotic style, "crazy six" is yet another jewel in the crown for this decade's upscale hugo haas (jess franco?). "Stylish" overdirection, incoherent plotting, time-outs in the middle of action sequences for eurodisco torch -song performances, all these seem to be signifying traits for our man Pyun. Most interesting is how he always gets top-notch b-movie casts, compared to Wynorski or some of the other video directors. Ice-T, Rob Lowe, Mario Van Peebles, & the very strange Burt Reynolds ain't a bad cast, though they often look a bit confused. Check out "Postmortem", "Mean Guns", & "Omega Doom" for more top-notch Pyun mayhem!


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 suckered in by the big names. Rob Lowe, Mario Van Peebles, Burt Reynolds, and the fact that it was an independent film. Unbelievably slow beginning: 35 minutes, two dreary songs and a botched rip off. I didn't care about the characters, and the plot never tempted me to even pretend it could be realistic. I can't believe this is what makes it to the screen. I loved watching this film because it felt so good when it was over.


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 should have been much better than it was. Christopher Eccleston is an excellent actor but even he couldn't rescue this tale of a young woman searching for the truth over her sister's death. Spoiler warning : In effect the truth is that the older sister ( played by Diaz) is just a spoilt, selfish and shallow girl who took too many drugs. Not much of a twist and not that interesting either. The film is also overladen with far too many flashbacks and voice overs and lacks dramatic pacing. All in all this is definitely worth missing - not to be recommended.


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 shame. What a terrible shame. The table was set, the candles were lit, the guests had arrived... and then...
... well nothing really. Just pretentious drivel. It could have been great, OK maybe not great, but it could have been very good. All the elements were there but at the end of the day the bottle was empty: NO LIGHTNING! How that happened is a mystery with everything at the director's disposal...
... the story was quite brave although it certainly needed considerable work with possibly several finishing rewrites to fix the story and tighten up the characters a lot (the only thing that was consistently and constantly and unnecessarily tight was the cinematography, but i'll get to that). But the direction was lousy, the acting was just that: _a-C-T-i-n-G_ with a heavy side of cheese and lots of ham, and then the cinematography...
...well that was something to behold! But only if you are in film school's "Cinematography 101 how to never ever use a professional movie camera under any circumstances". Obviously the student had fallen asleep through part of the lecture's introduction and only heard "... use a professional movie camera..." then blissfully back to la la land as the sentence finished off.
What can i say; amateurish and pretentious to the last! I can only see this film meant to appeal as a Chick Flick because it's supposed to be sad, but then falls flat and just ends up being 'sad' (as an excuse for a movie)... so that even those 'Chicks' wouldn't be fooled by this schlockenspiel!
PS. I felt bad for Miss Diaz. She's a lot better at her craft than what this film allowed her to be, even though she was totally TOTALLY miscast. Actually i feel sorry for everyone in this movie except the director and (you guessed it) the cinematographer! I say '1st against the wall for them when the revolution comes!' OK, not really, after all "it was only a movie" but perhaps a good "tar and feather and running out of town" might be more satisfying or at the very least a lot more entertaining!!!
TTFN :-(


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 waste of time! i expected better from cameron diaz! i guess it wasn't really her fault for being in a terrible film. the film does not capture the beauty of europe.....and wasn't successful in leading the audience into suspense or wonder. weak attempt at storytelling and narrating -- dialogue is dull and wasn't able to convey what i sometimes think simplicity is beauty. no love, energy, electricity on screen. too bad!!!!!!!!1


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


user
I wanted to love this film so badly...I really did. But it was a horrible disappointment.
I read Jennifer Egan's novel in 1996 and was enthralled by the story. In fact it remains one of my favorite books of all time. Mind you, the book had much more depth than this movie, in plot and emotional resonance. It MADE you care about the characters. It painted a complete picture of Phoebe, unlike the utterly poor characterization of the young girl in the film.
Though beautiful and showing *some* promise in her burgeoning career, Jordana Brewster was as flat and hollow in this performance as was the script. And Christopher Eccleston (Wolf) was just an awful choice for the role of Wolf, both physically and logistically. What an awkward looking couple. Wolf should have been more of a dark brooding character, and more physically alluring, like he was in the book. What's more, the chemistry between the two actors was painfully forced.
Cameron Diaz, however, deserves utmost praise for her performance. She took an impossibly mediocre script and gave her character life, a real spirit. She is simply gorgeous and her careful mannerisms make her very believable as a hippie. It's too bad her talent was squandered on this forgettable film.
In the book-to-movie category, this is a dreadful translation, almost as bad as Message in a Bottle with Kevin Costner. But don't get me started on that one...
I am not usually so harsh in my critiques but I was so disappointed here, because I really cared about the story and wanted to see it told right. It did not deliver...



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 attempts many things but never really accomplishes anything, the plot time travels, meanders and weaves along without really satisfying. It left a hollow , "is that all" feeling at the end. Unless its free to air and there is nothing else on, forget about 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 films' producers are hoping that Cameron Diaz' name will help sell this picture. Unfortunately, nothing can save what has already been captured on the screen. Despite some beautifully shot European locations and some solid production design elements, the film fails mostly due to its awkward, unbelievable romance between Brewster and Eccleston. An unplesasant filmgoing experience.


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


user
One of the worst movies I've ever seen. Yes, I know I'm not the target audience. Target audience is females, either college age or middle aged or any aged I guess. I'm none of these so the makers don't mind if I don't like it. But that won't excuse the fact that the dialogue and the plot are horrible. The main character, Phoebe, goes on a journey to Europe to find out what happened to her sister, Faith, who committed suicide. Phoebe is an inane character that i hope no one identifies with. Faith is also a character with very little believability. Wolf is the only person who seems to be somewhat reasonable. As I said the dialogue is boring and uninteresting. The plot does completely stupid things at times. The absolute worst is that Phoebe and Faith's father is an artist but his paintings are completely dreadful. There is nothing new, interesting or refreshing in this movie. If your a guy, you will pray for the ending. If your a chick you might be able to sit through it but you will be unimpressed.


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


user
I saw this film right in the middle while going through a breakup. It was about 3 in the morning and I was battling insomnia with a quick snack. It wasn't too bad at the time, but every time I have tried to watch it since, I can't get into it like I did that night.
At the time I thought it was cute and I loved the variety of characters, though they totally could have done better than Goran V, in my opinion. But the one thing that kept me watching was Heather's character and her sad "commitment" to her husband who didn't want her anymore, which made me feel sorry for her and root for her at the same time. (Considering I was in a similar situation at the time, perhaps that's why I liked her so much.) Not a bad film, but you pretty much have to be somewhere near the character romantically in order to appreciate it, and let's hope you never are.


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


user
A ditzy girl (yes, ditzy is about as complex as her character gets) won't take no for an answer and does quirky things to get her husband back. It's too far-fetched to be believable with such flimsy characters going through the motions. But not far-fetched enough to be fascinating in the way that say, Being John Malkovich, was. So it ends up boring.
sv


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


user
I saw this film because Calexico did the score. A real disappointment. Annoying, trendy scenes, with urban hipsters and their cliche hip lifestyles. Cheesy stereotypical Mexican border culture (mystic grandfather with the rattlesnake and potions, granddaughter in her mariachi-style restaurant getup). A few laughs, but hipper-than-thou, and sorely lacking in vision and basic filmmaking talent.


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


user
"Committed", as in Heather Graham being COMMITTED to saving her husband/marriage, and then being COMMITTED to a psychiatric ward in failure to do so: what a clever, clever use of words.
One of those meaningless wanna-be philosophical films in which narration is a series of oh-so wise observations that verge on poetry (90s chique club-poetry, better known as "chit-chique poetry"). Oh, it's so je-ne-sais-quoi... Written/directed (or "auteured") by a woman (Lisa Krueger, whoever the hell you are), this is a pointless, lethargically directed road-movie full of New Age spiritualistic nonsense and characters that are meant to be interesting but are merely seen-before or just plain dull. The Latinos in this movie, as part of the poor urban minority, are typically glorified in all their mysticism-obsessed primitivism as a "spiritually superior" people, which is the "highlight" of this film's political correctness.
The whole affair is lifeless, and ceases to be so only when occasional good cast members appear (Kay Place, Baker, Wilson). On the other hand we have Casey Affleck, who is one of the very best examples of why nepotism is on par with first-degree murder as a crime. I have rarely seen a more apathetic "actor"; a skinny, ugly moron who goes through his lines in a sleepy manner, almost as if he were uttering them in a half-awake quasi-dream, plus that weak voice, one of the weakest male voices I've heard in my life. (He must have gone to the Tobey Maguire Lethargy School Of Acting.) To cast this idiot in ANYTHING speaks volumes about ANY movie, i.e. about ANY director or producer. Hence, Lisa Krueger is a talentless waste of space. We've also got that moron who had the lead role in the MST3K-spoofed "Werewolf"; I think his name is Goran Vishnjic, but I'm not sure. Check out his ridiculous accent and the dumb speech.


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


user
From what I remember seeing of this film, it was not good. I always say that if a film is good and can keep you attention throughout the hardest of moments (example: a Tylenol Cold & Sinus war) than it is a film that has done its job. The fact that I was asleep for most of this film only proves the fact that it could not keep my attention, and ergo, it did not complete its job. Why did I fall victim to the Tylenol Cold & Sinus, when I had a film in my arsenal?
To begin, Committed did not make any sense. The acting was poor and the overall story left more doors opened that just couldn't be closed. I am thinking of the moment when I swear I saw Affleck and Graham (brother and sister in this film) kissing. That didn't make any sense. Then there was a scene with Affleck and his roommates indicating that he was sleeping with one of them, almost breaking up a perfect lesbian couple. I suppose this was to show that most are not as committed to a relationship as Graham is, but for me it just was nothing more than filler. I have this suspicious feeling that the director of this film was sleeping with Affleck. His acting in this film was atrocious. I mean, I have never seen him do any "good" acting, but this was by far the worst. Oh, I just had another moment during the battle come through my mind and I confirmed it with IMDb.com ... what was John Stewart doing in this film? That was yet again another moment when my eyes were opened just for a moment in one of those battles that seemed to last forever.
And frankly, it's Heather Graham - we could care less about her after a while. She's just not interesting - she's just bland, boring and basically stops acting after a while. While they desperately start throwing wacky characters into the mix to revive the movie, it just doesn't work and instead of just calling it a day - they start throwing more characters into the mix so now it's just weird, tedious, boring and really, really long. Luke Wilson's slow drawl acting style slows an already crawling movie to dead halt - why exactly were these two married? Committed is a truly terrible film--the kind of "hip comedy" that leaves you staggering out depressed and bored.
Grade: * out of *****


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


user
Committed stars (Heather Graham) along with (Casey Affleck) and (Luke Wilson). Its the story of Joline who is determined to find her ex-husband who is in the process of a mid-life crisis.
Committed was not at all what I expected it was lacking in comedy which was ultimately the genre. It was beyond stupid and un-realistic, Casey Affleck delivered a reasonable performance, Graham's recent roles have been lack-luster and this is not an improvement.
Graham's most recent role was Blessed which I also found misleading and didn't appeal to me at all.
Pros Affleck
Cons Predictable, Unrealistic, Poor Acting and not a comedy movie!


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


user
Horrible waste of talent. Not even worth watching when there is absolutely nothing else to do. My hope against hope is that the actors at least got paid well. Anyway, if you're a fan of Heather's or Luke's, you'll be really disappointed by this big budget student film.


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


user
More of a character study then a movie, COMMITTED is yet just another relationship romp with the trimmings specifically made for a young, target audience. The direction seems very basic, with obvious dramatic irony and a classic case of the lost loser versus the clueless committed. COMMITTED is watchable at times and there is a small feeling of originality from Lisa Krueger.
COMMITTED is completely aimless for the first twenty minutes. We get to know Joline but the movie picks up when her husband disappears. Joline sets off to find him.
Some parts are strange. Other times the movie drags. The second half is more humorous as we see Joline's spiritual antics take a turn for the more intense. The annoying guitar music is awful, but perhaps a necessary evil as COMMITTED offers very little anyway. An average movie hampered by some completely pointless moments, COMMITTED 's only asset is Heather Graham and Patricia Velazquez.


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


user
Usually, I start my reviews with an explanation of how and why I watched the film I'm reviewing. With this, I simply cannot explain. I needed to be awake early for work the next day so the last thing I wanted to do was watch a film that I didn't know anything about. But something kept me glued to my comfy futon as I watched this Heather Graham vehicle. Oh, that's right. Boredom.
Graham plays Joline, a bohemian nut-case who seems more obsessed with her marriage vows than the guy she married (played by Luke Wilson). When her hubby decides to set off in search of better things (work, women and scripts, presumably), Joline begins a fanatical quest to find her husband and free him from his "spiritual wheelchair". It sounds like I'm making this up but sadly, I'm not. In reality, this is little more than an acting exercise for Graham as she gamely gives this Phoebe-from-Friends role a work-out. Oh and Goran "ER" Visnjic is in there as well, for some reason.
The TV schedules had this down as a comedy but I failed to find a single laugh anywhere. It struck me that this was a personal journey for Lisa Krueger (the director and writer), in the same mould as "Girl, Interrupted" but even that had more laughs than this. Graham's character is simply too self-centred for the audience to care about and I felt sorry for the hen-pecked husband as he bravely fought for his freedom from his clearly mental wife. Very little of this film made sense as characters simply appeared in the story as though they were standing around, waiting for Graham to turn up like the extras in "The Truman Show". In fact, the only positive note I can produce from my scribblings was "Heather Graham - nice baps". And that wasn't because I was too tired to enjoy the film.
In truth, it's very difficult to think of anybody to recommend this film to. Graham purists (a VERY small number of overall movie-goers, I think you'll agree) will have to be committed to watch this dross and possibly hippy students who collect American Indian dream-catchers will take something from this. I was amazed that the average rating (at time of writing) was 5.0 - that would make this film as good as "Die Another Day" and "Gothika" in my book and that simply ain't right. "Committed" is a quirky oddball mess of a movie that neither entertains or enlightens. It's complicated, pointless and simply too boring for my tastes and probably yours too. Don't even think about watching this.


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


user
What an uninteresting hodge-podge. It could have been something more but no imagination seems to have gone into the script or the direction. A man is framed for murder by his wife and her lover. The conspirators do a pretty thorough job of making him look guilty. But the man (Richard Thomas), whose psychiatric records reveal him as "stable" and "unimaginative", manages to escape from jail, beat it to the conspirator's beach house, and secretly record a conversation between them in which they reveal their guilt. Then he accidentally drops the tape recorder with all the evidence on it into the sea water but manages to retrieve it. He shows a heck of a lot of creativity and improvisational skill for an unimaginative guy, if you ask me.
The tape is now damaged goods but it's enough to break down the wife's lover and he sobs out his confession. Bad people are punished. Good people are saved.
The location shooting is impressive. The beach house is nothing more than a wooden exterior thrown up on the grounds of Fort Fisher Battlefield on the Cape Fear peninsula. The house was torn down immediately after the production wrapped.
It's a pretty place. Unfortunately it's a little hard to see because someone seems to have shot every scene through a pair of pantyhose stretched over the camera lens. It's all very fuzzy. And for all the natural splendor of the location the viewer never gets a real sense of place, of what the sand feels like, of the texture of the gray bark on the stunted evergreens.
The acting is okay but the performers have nothing much to work with. The best performance, as is often the case, is given by Dick Olsen as a sleazy but not unsympathetic defense lawyer. Virginia Madsen radiates infidelity with every beat of her eyelashes. Ted McGinley is within his range as an immoral weakling.
The musical score neatly blends the ominous with the mysterious and is effective. If you want to hear the original, from which this was ripped off, rent Hitchcock's "Vertigo" and listen to Bernard Hermann's suspenseful theme.
I can't think of any particular reason to catch this one except utter boredom.


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


user
Years ago, I caught a fairly well made TV movie entitled "Linda". It was made in 1973, and starred Stella Stevens in the femme fatale title roll. Imagine my surprise when, over ten years later, I once again saw the same story unfold on late night TV. However, it was this 1993 version, starring Virginia Madsen. Don't get me wrong, I can handle remakes, even obscure ones. But this badly written and poorly filmed retread made me feel sorry for both Madsen and co-star Richard Thomas. Unlike the original, the dialogue here is cliched, making me wonder, "Why did they bother to re-write it?" Second, the camera work is very heavy-handed, and the the film stock is poor. At times I felt reminded of the student film competition at the beginning of Christopher Guest's "The Big Picture". Finally, the cast looks either bored (Madsen) or suffering (Thomas). In fact, the only one who seems like he's really enjoying the work is Ted McGinley. Of course, with his perfectly coifed hair and capped teeth, he's really stretching himself from his previous work on "The Love Boat". Bottom line, to borrow a critique from Opus the Penguin in Bloom County:
"This movie does for film what Jonestown did for Kool-Aid."
Thomkat


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


user
This TVM seems to have polarised opinions amongst the commentators on this page so perhaps I can settle everything by saying this is a very stupid not very well made television movie . How bad is it ? It's a teleplay that can't even decide what its name is because while everyone in America calls it LINDA it's known in Britain as LUST FOR MURDER and it's usually a bad sign when a movie has to change its name . And can I also point out that it's not a tongue in cheek spoof as somebody else claimed
I will be honest and say the plot is rather sound . Linda and Paul Cowley meet another couple called the Jeffries who they get on very well with . They get on so well that they go on holiday together ( Make up your own mind if there's some wife swapping going on ) and Paul sees his wife kill the Jeffries . After that the plot takes a shock twist
Writing the above paragraph I have suddenly realised the large amount of potential the story had and I won't say anything to put you off the premise . It's just that when the story continues after the events I've described things become more and more unlikely and bizarre . Not only that but the production values are fairly unimpressive with the actor playing Paul Cowley doing a very wooden voice over that irritates while most of the scenes - Exterior and interior - look like they've been filmed on a foggy day


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


user
Some films are so badly made they are watchable purely for the cringe factor. Disciples made me cringe so much it was uncomfortable. I watched it all disbelieving what I was watching, wasn't anyone aware how bad this was whilst they were filming? Mix the most hammed performances from the most wooden actors, an abysmal script were every comment from all of the 'actors' sounded like it came from the same character and the most hurried editing that tried (and failed bigtime) to give the film a forced pace. All these combined into a film that will rob you of a few hours of your life and give nothing in return. Avoid at EVERY cost.


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


user
Terrible. There's no way to get around it. A script at the level of one from some Mexican soap opera, a choice and use of the places of shooting that make the movie labyrinthine and at the same time, repetitive and monotonous, with disastrous performances of almost the entire cast. The references to Tarantino's work, so poorly made, are more an insult than anything else. I suspect that was not for the shameless and plot-unrelated exploitation of Matadinho's generous curves , nobody would take the effort to go watch this film to any theater.
These are the kind of films that make me have no desire to watch Portuguese cinema.


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


user
My daughter liked it but I was aghast, that a character in this movie smokes. As if it isn't awful enough to see "product placement" actors like Bruce Willis who smoke in their movies - at least children movies should be more considerate! I wonder: was that intentional? Did big tobacco "sponsor" the film? What does it take to ban smoking from films? At least films intended for children and adolescents. My daughter liked it but I was aghast, that a character in this movie smokes. As if it isn't awful enough to see "product placement" actors like Bruce Willis who smoke in their movies - at least children movies should be more considerate! I wonder: was that intentional? Did big tobacco "sponsor" the film? What does it take to ban smoking from films? At least films intended for children and adolescents.


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


user
I thought this movie was too absurd for me to finish watching it. The premise was too silly and predictable. I didn't make it far into the movie.
Let me see. She is obviously older than the cabbie (unless she is a lot younger than she looks). He is black and she is white. She makes more money than him (he is only a cabbie). That's 3 of society's most statistically failed unions all rolled up in one and we are supposed to pretend they have a chance in hell. She would be better off marrying the guy she doesn't love.
I only watched it partially because I love MJW as an actor. His acting was superb. Hers, meh! It was OK but the premise is too silly. Didn't see the end. Couldn't make it there so I don't know if it ended differently from the way I predicted the ending would be. I can't imagine any black woman liking this movie. There is something sickening about watching a black man catering to a white woman like that. And an old one at that. PLEASE! Not in the real world!


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 was basically set up for failure by the studio. One, Anne Rice (author of the book) offered to write the screen play but was refused by the studio. Two, they tried to stuff 2 in depth novels in to a 2hour movie.
I maintain the only way for these two books -Vampire Lestat and Queen of the Damned- to work in a live action form would be through a mini-series. First off the the Vampire Lestat alone takes place from the 1700's to the 1980's and has a plethora of character vital to the plot understanding of the main character, Lestat. The entire book Vampire Lestat sets up the events of the second part Queen of the Damned. Without that full understanding the premise of a movie is destroyed.
Lestat was not cruel and vicious to all, he was not wanting to go along with Akasha's plans, Marius did not make Lestat, Lestat did not love Jesse or make her, Lestat could not go remain unscathed by the light, Marius was not after David nor the other way around, every character was completely represented wrong, BASICALLY same names different story.
If they wanted to make a vampire movie, fine. Even if you wanted to be inspired by these novels, fine. But don't piggie back into the theaters off the success of Rice's great novels and characters just to destroy what her loyal readers have come to love.
If you haven't read the books you won't understand the film really, if you have read the books you will be insulted. That being said, I am such a huge fan I had to see the movie knowing full well this was going to be the case and still went for it. Catch 22, must see it, will hate it.


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


user
I should have known when I heard Anne Rice left the project that the movie would disappoint me. I couldn't have predicted that years after it's release just thinking about the movie still makes me angry. The novels are amazing, and while I understand much gets lost in the translation to screen, this movie was a great big middle finger to her original work. I hope one day someone tries again, the right way, starting with The Vampire Lestat. They change the roles and looks of major and minor characters alike for no good reason. They destroy Lestat's history. The acting of the Queen is exaggerated to the point of comedy, but I just can't bring myself to laugh. The charm and allure of the novels just isn't there. The movie is a bad excuse to cram as many musicians and "dark" imagery as possible into one movie, hoping the teeny Goths of America would lap it up. Part of the appeal of the first movie, of Louis' story, is that he is caught between his humanity and his curse. Lestat is supposed to take over and display the magic and excitement of the vampire world. Thank goodness I read the books first, or I'd have never touched them after this movie.


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


user
Why did they unleash this movie upon us? It seems as though they set out to make this movie a total slap in theface to Anne Rice and every self respecting Vampire Chronicles fan. It ignores the ground work laid down by Interview with the Vampire,mutilates the plot of the novel and has Stuart Townsend stumbling around drunk.
Stuart is NOT our Lestat! Our brat prince, our adventurous rebel with the damndest sense of humor. Stuart IS a second rate, boring rip off of Dracula in black leather. He DID NOT read the books or know the character...is he illiterate? Tom Cruise is dyslexic and still he made a point to read the books and know and love Lestat.
Don't kid yourselves, it is not a "Stand Alone" vampire flick it's trash plain and simple.


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


user
''Queen of the Damned '' is one of the worst adaptations of a book to a movie that I already saw. The only thing that I like in this movie is the soundtrack, anything else besides that.( Since I am a fan of Korn, Marilyn Manson, Chester Bennington of Linkin Park and Wayne Static of Static-X)
There are so many mistakes and so many bad choices that I don't even know how to start. So many stories were cut, like the twin's legend (one of my favorite)Armand and Daniel's relationship and even Louis is not present, to mention a few.(The plot was dead) First, they should have made a movie of ''The Vampire Lestat'', because it is the second book after ''The interview with the vampire'',and not ''Queen of Damned''. They tried to squeeze in a single movie so many informations, that you finish not getting almost anything unless you read the vampire chronicles.
So many meaningful characters doesn't seem to have a real importance in this movie. It is Pandora's case, for example.
The actors that they choose to play all the characters doesn't match with many of Anne Rice's descriptions, specially Marius, that is suppose to be a beautiful,tall,imposing blond guy with blue eyes, like Lestat. (Stuart Towsend is also far from being like Lestat) I didn't understand why they changed Lestat's maker to be Marius instead of Magnus as well.
''Interview with the vampire'' was an awesome movie, I loved the actors and Tom Cruise as Lestat was PERFECT and far superior then Stuart Townsend.(I am sad that Tom Cruise declined the chance of playing Lestat again) Only Antonio Bandeiras as Armand didn't match with Armand's looks, but anyway, far superior from this crap movie called '' The Queen of Damned''.
Anne Rice was so picky about Interview that I didn't get how she just sold the rights for this terrible production.


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 definitely the worst vampire flicks of all times. I started to watch this right after Interview With the vampire and I was thoroughly disappointed. Not only did this movie's script have craters as big as the grand canyon, the movie seemed to jump from one scene to another leaving the viewers thoroughly puzzled. The vampire Lestat played by Stuart Townsend was terrible-having a good body does not make you an actor! The end of the queen was too easy and sudden, insulting the viewers intelligence. I'll give this one star because Aaliyah actually tried her best in this movie and the soundtrack is pretty good. Other than that I would advice Anne Rice to take an ax and start hacking those who destroyed her brilliant story.


assistant
0