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
If I could have given this film 0/10 I would, and this is the first film I have wanted to rate so low. Its worse than awful. If I went to see it in the cinema I would want the cinema to pay ME for watching it (at least minimum wage). Some of the camera shots were quite effective, but a lot were rubbish eg. villains reflection in a mirror that separates his head and shoulders side-ways from his body (seeing is believing). Several totally pointless killings of innocent civilians. 2 murders that made me laugh out loud due to the victims actions/facial expressions when they were shot. I only watched it to the end (fast forwarding about 10 mins of the boring pointless dialogue) hoping to see Seagal in some decent hand to hand combat, but there was almost none of that (should have known that when at the beginning he threw someone while going down an elevator and it was shown in slow motion with music - end of 'action' scene). In one scene we see Seagal hand chop someones neck in slow motion which makes it obvious that his hand never even made contact). The chief villain keeps coming back to life. He gets shot in the chest on 2 separate occasions. The 1st time its with a shotgun which blows him out the 2nd/3rd floor onto the street. To sum up, this film is a total waste of time and a total joke. It looks very low budget (even for Seagal). The colour is dull and grey. I could go on and on....just like this film, but I wont. Watch this film if you've got insomnia. Its guaranteed to put you to sleep.


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


user
Since I'm from Norway (one of the top ten (or so) richest countries in the world), it was much fun to watch how we use trucks from the 50ies and live in cottages from the medieval times. And since we have very strict laws when it comes to handguns, it was fun to see how much guns there actually were in Norway during the five minutes of the shooting there. Mr. Direct-to-video even managed to bring his silencer on short notice, so he must have powerful friends in the customs.
Please do at least _some_ research before going to an "exotic" country, dudes -- you may hurt the feelings of old fans.
Sverre -- old fan with hurt feelings.


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


user
They actually make a big deal out of a scene in which Steven hurdles a 3 foot fence. The plot is...barely there, the acting (so to speak) is distressing and the action is catastrophically lame. This is the worst Seagal film ever, and that is saying something.


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


user
Can they possibly get any worse than this? Probably. But after all Steven Seagal gets to do what he does. Well kind of; this time instead of mortally wounding the bad guys he just wounds them. By reputation of being a bad ass agent Seagal is hired to deliver a special package from France to America. But it is not an easy task with so many people trying to intercept and foul up the mission. The fights just don't have enough bite and the big bangs are just big and that's all. Anna-Louis Plowman seems to be the only cast member not to appear wooden. Also in the cast are: Jeffery Pierce, Max Ryan and Harry Van Gorkum. Don't put all the blame on Seagal for this clunker.


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


user
I like Steven Seagal but I have not a CLUE what this movie was about. I am not easily lost with movies but I had no idea who was on who's side.
Hopefully some of his future movies will be a little better. My wife still thinks he looks good in black jeans, however. :P


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


user
I have to say that I really liked UNDER SIEGE and HARD TO KILL.
watching Seagal doing his funny martial arts on people. I have
been always looking forward to Seagal-Movies and, unfortunately, I was first disappointed by GLIMMER MAN, which I found really bad. THE FOREIGNER is probably one of the worst Seagal has ever
acted in. Horribly boring, badly edited, wrongest soundtrack and so on! Dear reader, do yourself a favor an stay away from this!
Honestly: 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
Steven Seagal's films of late have not exactly been good, but this is by far the worst since The Patriot. The plot makes no sense what so ever; it is never clear in what the relationships between the characters are, who works for who or who is double crossing who. The film is completely disjointed, each scene seems to confuse the story further rather than carry it forward. Even the action sequences are uninspired and hard to follow. Most of the blame must lie at the director's feet for not even understanding the basics of film making, but Seagal does not get off lightly, as one of the producers of this film, he must also share the blame. Oh, and I haven't even mentioned how awful the acting is, even by Seagal standards. Even as straight to video fodder, this is not worth a view even for Seagal fans. Give it a wide berth!


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


user
Imagine this...
Whenever two people meet in this movie, one of them is shot. The plot just does not exist - it appears that someone shot some action sequences and then tried to put them together to make a movie out of it. If you decide to watch it, you will regret it.


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


user
First: I like S Segal! But in this movie, he has hit rock bottom and started to dig!
THE PLOT What plot? Very strange and unbeliveable plot.
THE ACTIONS WAY below Segals standards!
THE GOOD PARTS Mr Segal is a pro. And shows it. That's it.
SUMMARY I could write (and have done so) a better script for Mr Segal. In case you read this Stephen, mail me, I'll give you a better script to do a better movie! The only realistic part is the one where... (see spoiler part).
SPOILER PART (stop reading here if you plan to see the movie!) - - - Gas leak? Wow. Disecting a 'Black-box'-recorder in a hotel room? I work in the industry, laughable! The bad guy 'get's away', that much is true in life!


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 have ever seen. Seagal has been acting in several entertaining action movies, but this time this movie really sucks. Just stupid killing and really stupid storyline. In addition, Seagul looks fat and old.


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


user
Bad acting? Yes, but it was not a surprise. Stupid story? Yes, so what?
But why, tell me, Mr Director, why all that slow motion crap? Fight scenes were bad, really bad, because of slow motion and bad cutting. Not because of Seagal.
"What if I just speed this up for 2 seconds and then slow down those next 5 seconds and then... Maybe I need to flip the coin to decide?" What were you thinking, Mr Director???


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


user
I usually really enjoy Steven Seagal movies. They are usually highly entertaining and being somewhat of an adept of Aikido, I usually like the way Steven incorporates these martial art techniques in the fight sequences.
However this film is a really bad movie making effort and it seems obvious to me that the blame lies with the director and the producers who obviously have no idea how to make an action movie, let alone direct someone like Steven Seagal and to take advantage of his knowledge and competence.
I never saw the end of this movie. I walked out before the end simply because I couldn't stand watching anymore of this bad movie. I am sure that many people also share my feelings.


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


user
I am a fan of his ... This movie sucked really bad. Even worse than Ticker! & That movie was bad. It was kind of like they popped it out in a week. Looked to be very low budget. Only like 3 or 4 buildings used, a couple of locations MAYBE, & poor hummh! Everything! It just blew.


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


user
Seagal needs to get back to basics breaking bones and kicking butt. No more of this slow motion crap like foreigner and in the shadows fighting like half past dead. Exit wounds showed more of his fighting skills with some wires which was ok but then he went back to b movie directors.


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


user
There are films that are not released in theaters but on video. This one should be allowed to age and disintegrate the way old nitrate film stock does. No story, inept violence, over acted, badly written and the sorry thing is that the star was not the only bad part in the film. And I did like and enjoyed some of Siegel's other movies.


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


user
Three words: What a pile..... Two words: Don't bother! One word: Sucked! There are zero reasons to see this movie. Even those Seagal groupies should shy away from this movie. The martial arts, the typical Aikido, are horrible. The martial arts moves themselves are fine but the cinematography is pathetic. The movie actually goes into slow motion whenever Seagal give his "kill move" to his victims. Worse yet, is shows the same move three times in rapid succession from three slightly different angles. How stupid. Seagal's acting was plain stupid, but I still give this movie a "6" for acting because of the supporting cast whose "villain" roles were actually quite entertaining.
The plot is just dumb. Seagal plays a Federal Express agent with a license to kill. His character also has that dedicated work ethic which means all of his packages get delivered to the correct people on time - at no extra charge - and nothing stands in his way. Not assassins, political leaders, explosions, or even death.
I expect a certain level of violence in a martial arts film, but there are several scenes in this movie of random and horrible acts of violence that lend itself in no way to the advancement of the movie or its story. There is a reason this movie went directly to video and there are tons of reasons to avoid it. No one should bother with this tripe.



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 simply does not work. The action scenes were shot to look stylish but just come out looking sloppy. seagal barely fights and a lot of his scenes are shot from the back ( if you look in some of the scenes it is not even him, but a 100 lb lighter stunt double) the movie is just all around BAD!


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


user
Lord have mercy! Why was this film made? Why did Seagal and rising star Max Ryan agree to be in it? The Foreigner is so excruciatingly bad in every conceivable way that it boggles the mind.
The film has an ultra-cheap look to it. Like a budget of a couple of bucks was far out of their reach. What's worse is that the makers know this and try to make it look slick to compensate. The result is a film that just don't look right. The fight scenes are so dull and edited 'discretely' to hide the fact that Steven Seagal is not in good shape anymore. None of them are engaging or exciting. The plot is nonsense that doesn't interest in the slightest way or have any uniqueness to it. The Eastern-Europe locations (a sly move by the producers to keep the budget down, or non-existent) look unpleasant and should not be serving as the backdrop for an 'action' film (what action?).
And what is the deal with the title? As far as I could tell everyone in the movie was foreign. Which ONE does the title refer to?
The DVD is in 1.85:1 anamorphic widescreen and in Dolby 5.1 sound. Neither are remarkable enough to warrant even a single rent. The Foreigner is not worth one second of your time. Gotta love that tagline tho! 'If they think they can stop him, they're dead wrong.' Sheesh!


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


user
I think this movie was made backwards, first they shoot a whole lot of scenes and action, and explosions, and then the story-writers got to work trying to find a story to tie all scenes up together. this movie is without any doubt the worst movie I have ever seen, your average porn movie comes with a much better written and much more coherent script. The movie makes NO sense. Seriously, even IF you are a Segal fan there's no reason you should EVER want to see this movie, except if you're one of those folks that like to stare at accidents, because this is a horrible accident, and should never have been released upon this world.
Boran.


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


user
Mr Seagal has apparantly lowered his (already low) standards even more and has now outdone himself in making bad movies. The Foreigner has no substance what so ever in the script. It's director has made an even worse job and the music and score is so cheezy and malplaced that you just don't know whether to laugh or cry. Already 10 minutes into the movie, you just want to turn it off. However, considering Steven Seagal's past movies, you think 'Hey, there might be some cool action-sequences at least worth watching...' ...you are WRONG! It only gets worse as the movie progresses. Everyone (with a few exceptions) seem to kill every person that they talk to, good or bad, innocent or not. The only good thing with the movie is that it that it has an end and that it has a rather short running time. Summing the movie up in two words: 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
Sigh... what can I say?
Why does a horrible script such as this gets approved in the first place. Its not wrong to have a complicated plot but its not explained to the audience properly!
To have the wife explain the plot via flashbacks is bad bad bad. To have such a tight editing for the fight scenes is bad too! Such fanciful editing only appears in trailers. It cheapens the whole look!
And who are the Russian guys at the top of the movie? Who is the guy being tortured? Is he with the CIA?
This film deserved not to be released in theatre. But it doesn't deserve to be produced in the first place. Its a joke to Hollywood.


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


user
"The Foreigner" is a tale of foreign intrigue with Seagal at the center as a deep cover operative who has a package which everyone wants and are willing to kill to get. The flick is uninspired with less of the usual action stuff which put Seagal on the movie map (fire fights, hand-to-hand combat, pyrotechnics, stunts, etc.) and more of a story which is convoluted, uninteresting, and full of meaningless filler. What action there is seems token and gratuitous while Seagal, looking more and more like a pork chop, meanders through this insipid flick expressionless and bored while manifesting no improvement in acting ability. Somewhere around "The Glimmer Man" or "Fire Down Below" Seagal flicks took a nose dive and "The Foreigner" is just an continuation of that trend. Nothing here worth watching except for the most die-hard Seagal fans. (C-)


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


user
I believe Cockpuncher to be the best piece of work that has come out of the Steven Seagal factory in a long time. This movie was the first one I have seen since that fine film preview. My point? He is done. Every movie is the same. Maybe he will be good in Machete because he won't be the star. We can only hope.
P.S. Thanks for speaking to UCSB when I went to college. It was an amazing speech. You really influenced some people out there.
So I have to write ten lines about this movie? Umm....I like the smoker guy who killed a bunch of fools. Whenever anyone smells menthol's LOOK OUT. Because there could be a killer with a silenced glock (and another loud one) who wants to kill you.
Is that ten?


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


user
Why on earth does five US keep repeating this one? the title actually says it all: the plot is as clear as a book read in a language you never heard of and that resembles to nothing.
You'll see ninety minutes of changing locations, most of them will be blown up later on in the movie. Right in the beginning you see a nice little farm typical for the Berry, which is in the movie moved close to Paris but then it does not survive the "transport" to the Isle de France very well: it explodes 1 minute later. there are also two gangster who have no tongues, as if that would make sense in the world of SMS and internet, let alone pencil and paper.
It just goes on like that, nothing makes sense in this story. my only credit goes to the cameraman, the camera is excellent.


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


user
Two things are changed from then.First of all i am not a kid anymore,and second most of new Seagal movies are just terrible.This is on my opinion the worst movie ever made with Derailed starred by Jean Claude Van Damme.There is no plot in this movie,the plot is just an excuse to shoot some terrible action scenes which are painful to watch.I love action movies,but this is not an action movie....This isn't a movie...this is a group of irritating scenes which are connected in annoying way to kill the viewers love for the action movies.I am sorry but i don't have any respect for anyone who liked this movie.He has a serious intelligence problem then.I hope that Seagal will make some new good movies in the future.Good luck for him !


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


user
The authors know nothing about Russians prisons, the movie is absolutely cockamamie, has nothing common with the reality. They also don't that the foreign prisoners in Russia have a special prison so the foreigners NEVER live together with Russian criminals. The uniforms in this movie look if they were stolen somewhere in Latin America. Prisoners in Russia also don't work outside the prison. Each kill in Russian prison is a subject of investigation so the prisoners kill each other only if there some very important reasons. Playing soccer is also forbidden in the prisons, contacts between the prisoners are very restricted, no chance for bloody combats etc etc etc. So this movie has Nothing common with the reality.


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


user
To call a film boring is not something I would usually count as a valid criticism. However, when a film is crassly made of spare parts from other films that weren't that good to begin with, and it is slow as molasses with no real payoff, I think it's fair to call a spade a spade. And The Ghost is a very boring film.
A movie that is about as original as its' name, The Ghost tells the story of a young girl with amnesia being haunted by a ghost that holds the secret to her past. Only, it's a whole lot more complicated and less interesting than one would think.
The plot line is almost incomprehensible for most of the picture and the hook, the amnesia element, only makes things worse. It seems that no one, including the screenwriter and director have any clue what the hell is happening at any given moment. Instead they chose to do what roughly amounts to the filmic equivalent of a sitcom clip show. There are scenes taken directly from Ringu, Dark Water, Shutter, The Grudge series, and a smattering of Pulse for good measure. Making matters worse, the half dozen female leads all dress and read their lines alike, making them impossible to tell apart.
There is just nothing to grasp onto with this film. The story isn't all that well thought out. The amnesia gimmick is lazy. The mystery element is un-involving and handled with little grace. The characters never deduce anything, all the information is just handed out through the lead remembering her past whenever it is convenient for the plot.
The cinematography, full of reflections and shots of water at least attempts to add to the subtext, a thematic link with the amnesia and the final twist (which I won't reveal) is nice, but often overwrought. Even the score feels borrowed and cliché.
Worst of all, the inciting action for the curse isn't very interesting and the final twist is predictable and lame. "Wait, you mean that one character who has 15 minutes of screen time but appeared to have nothing to do with the plot comes back in the end? No!" Audiences are too savvy for this kind of tripe. Anyone who has seen any of the films that this rips off will find very little to even keep them awake with this feature. I used to think Shimizu was the bottom of the barrel for this kind of crap (remaking his grudge film no less than 5 times) but even his second rate work like Reincarnation, a film I couldn't even bring my self to finish, is miles ahead of this.
For more reviews please visit www.collider.com


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 starts out with this creepy song that gave me some chills like the song used in "Nightmare on Elmstreet"! It immediately sets the mood! The sequence that follows also shows what to expect! We are made aware that a ghost is present! The mystery concerning this ghost is what keeps this movie together! But the structure of the plot is so complex that it is difficult to make sense of it! The ideas behind the plot are quite interesting! Only the way it is told to us is far too abstract! I understand that the director believed that he had to maintain the mystery as long as possible! The problem is that when certain matters get revealed you never get a satisfying explanation! The motives of the important characters are left out and some questions raised in the movie don't get answered at all! Since we don't learn enough about the characters it becomes hard to care for them! And as a consequence you will loose interest! Only some scares and a twist save this movie from becoming a total failure! The twist is interesting but no real shocker! The experienced viewer will see it coming! Some reviewers complain that this movie is too much like "Ringu" and is not original at all! Well it is true that some of the effects and scares are borrowed from that movie! But there is a main difference! The suspense in "Ringu" mainly was based on this one twist where the viewer finds out how the characters get killed!! In "Ryeong" (the "Ringu" like) twist is used as a creepy effect to accompany another crazy twist! "Ryeong" heavily depends on a complex structured plot and twist that doesn't contain enough scares to hold your interest! Simply put: This isn't a scary movie!


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


user
Simply put, I was amazingly disappointed. I'm a huge fan of Asian Horror, and I can watch unoriginality (I myself enjoyed "The Red Shoes" and "Phone"), but this was just poor.
The movie has a lot of elements that are very high-quality: the photography is eye-catching, the visuals are cool, the directing is inspired, the acting is pretty good, the music is easy on the ears, and the CGI is incredible. But, since this is a horror film, we are expected to be scared, which just won't happen with this film. As with most South Korean horrors, this is unoriginal almost from beginning to end: there's the trademark long-haired vengeful female ghost, ominous clumps of thick, black hair and puddles of water, and near the end, a twist that *almost*, but not quite makes sense out of the whole thing (the twist is easily one of the best qualities). And to the viewer's irritation, when the film isn't recycling (at times, so exact that it could easily be dubbed plagiarized) imagery from other movies, it's making you jump. A lot. And by jumps, I don't mean things jumping out or anything, just VERY loud noises and screeches in the soundtrack used to make the audience jump six feet in the air (there's even a few "made-you-jump" moments that are simply infuriating). And when it is not ripping-off other movies, it's boring, and hard to sit through.
And it's a shame, because "Ryeong" could have easily been really good, and it has everything to make it good, but its the annoying overuse of completely predictable loud noises and jump scares that eventually ruin the movie. A perfect example of how good it could have been: there's a moment when one of out characters is looking at a corpse, and without a sound, the corpse looks back. It's wholly predictable, but the use of silence in that scene is brilliant. And unfortunately, that's as scary as the movie got for me.
Admittedly, "Ryeong" has a few good features, and even a couple jumps that aren't as predictable, and do work. There's a very good and sad back-story used to explain the events, and the twist is pretty unpredictable. Those are the only things that separate the film from any other Asian ghost/horror film. But the problem with these is, even though they do work, they have been used before (J-Horror fans will easily realize the big reveal was inspired by "A Tale of Two Sisters"), and it takes the back-story a good fifty minutes to get going.
So in the end, "Ryong" really seems like a truly wasted opportunity. Tae-kyeong Kim hoped that the plot twist and other good features act as diversions, so the audience won't notice the huge flaws. But he failed, and well... We noticed everything.
My rating: 4/10.


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


user
CORRIDORS OF BLOOD
Aspect ratio: 1.66:1
Sound format: Mono
(Black and white)
London, 1840: Whilst attempting to formulate an anaesthetic solution, a dedicated surgeon (Boris Karloff) becomes addicted to narcotics and is blackmailed by local bodysnatchers.
Riding the coat-tails of a Gothic revival occasioned by the recent success of Hammer's THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1957), Robert Day's CORRIDORS OF BLOOD is an odd mixture of historical drama and Grand Guignol theatrics. Producer Richard Gordon lured Karloff away from Hollywood - where his movie career had become stalled in a B-movie rut (VOODOO ISLAND, FRANKENSTEIN 1970, etc.) - for a couple of lurid shockers in which good men are thwarted by circumstances beyond their control. In GRIP OF THE STRANGLER (1958), he played a novelist who stumbles onto a horrific secret whilst researching a series of murders from recent history, while in CORRIDORS OF BLOOD, he's a drug-addicted surgeon who falls prey to a gang of criminals masterminded by East End pub landlord Francis de Wolff. Less a horror film than a melodrama with ghoulish trimmings, the movie hedges its commercial bets by including a number of gory thrills (a leg sliced open, a face destroyed by acid, etc.), but the narrative is motivated chiefly by Karloff's altruistic pursuit of an anaesthetic formula that will alleviate the terrible suffering of patients during surgery.
Produced under the title 'The Doctor from Seven Dials', the finished movie went unreleased until 1962 due to indifference by distributors MGM, by which time co-star Christopher Lee had earned a prominent screen credit, despite playing a small - but significant - role as 'Resurrection Joe', a sinister Cockney thug who murders carefully selected patrons of de Wolff's squalid pub and sells the remains to local doctors. Lee filmed this glorified cameo before THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN catapulted him to international stardom, which accounts for his limited screen time, though his intense performance is one of the film's highlights. Adrienne Corri (VAMPIRE CIRCUS) distinguishes herself as de Wolff's partner in crime, and there's a feast of familiar faces in supporting roles, including Francis Matthews (DRACULA: PRINCE OF DARKNESS), Betta St. John (THE CITY OF THE DEAD), Finlay Currie and Nigel Green. Superb art direction (by Anthony Masters) and cinematography (Geoffrey Faithful).


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


user
Notwithstanding that "The House of Adam" is meant to be a mainstream gay movie; that Anthony (John Shaw), who is gay curious and a major cutie-hunk and Adam (Jared Cadwell) who is openly gay, and a close second in looks; that there is a whole minute of wonderful, convincing, and naked lovemaking (sorry, no frontal) between Anthony and Adam 41 minutes into the movie (that alone may be sufficient for many of us) --- notwithstanding all that (to which I give a thumbs up), "The House of Adam" is a horrible movie by most any other movie making standard. A big thumbs down.
Shaw's and Cadwell's acting abilities are either sophomoric or else truly suffer from the bad script, direction, and editing, or rather the lack thereof. Their lovemaking scene is nevertheless convincing, and may have more to do with their really being into each other, considering the rest of their scripting and acting.
Writer-director Jorge Amer's (Bonus Feature) self-congratulation as to his movie making skills is off the wall.
So, the script and lack thereof is a thumbs down. Overall, the acting is thumbs down with just the slightest exception for Shaw and Cadwell. Alexis Karriker as Nina might have been the best except for the limitations expressed above. Far and away the absolute worst, and insufferable, acting was by Thomas Michael Kappier as Albert Ross, Anthony's father having not even of elementary school acting quality. He truly represents a colossal casting failure.
The actors playing the new cabin owners are worthy of truly bad acting nominations as well.
If only the production, editing and post production were as good as the trailer, this movie would have been quite something else. The trailer presents well put together clips of scenes that drew me into renting the movie in the first place. That, and the hope that this gay-centered movie, was supposedly prominently played and touted at gay film festivals.
Overall, the movie is a big thumbs down.
Is it worth buying/renting and watching it? Only if you have an irresistible yen to see the naked love making scene, and a few minutes of semi-convincing dialogue between Anthony and Adam. Or if you truly just enjoy watching bad movies.


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


user
First and foremost I am a gay man, although do not live my life within the so called "Community", and it's because of films like this that Gay themed movies are not my favorite genre because 90% of them are crap. Like this one. f I could give this a zero I would. (I do not understand all the positive comments, unless they were all made by people who made this film) I actually stopped this at the 24 minute mark when the so called straight "Anthony" kissed Adam outside the restaurant for NO reason at all. And how is the son stealing from the diner if he doesn't even live in the town? Wire transfers? The acting was HORRENDOUS! The sound editing? (Listen to "Anthony" and Adam when they are sitting on the fence eating their lunch. Every time the camera switched between the two so called actors the sound changes, like there was not a filter on the microphone)Seriously do not rent, or god forbid, buy this movie.Horrible Horrible Horrible acting and just a stupid storyline.


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


user
Hi guys, this is my first review and I would had to have picked the worst movie to review. As I only watched 5 minutes of it but trust me you could see this movie was going nowhere. The acting was deplorable, the camera work and lighting looked as though it was shot and run by a pack of 10 year old's. No offence to 10 year olds.I just couldn't take anymore I got off my couch, took the The House of Adam DVD out of the DVD player and threw it in the garbage. Maybe if you are a Colin Farrell fan this movie may interest you, because the character in the movie, Anthony, is a Colin Farrell look a like. But that is as far as it goes, he certainly will never have col's acting abilities. I gave this movie a rating of 1 (awful) only because there were no minuses in the drop down list cheers.


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 assuming the filmmakers heart was in the right place but, frankly, this movie is truly unconscionable. I was offended by the tone and the total cop out ending. You cannot take issues like this so lightly! Without knowing the final caveat of the movie... we watch as a guy guns down his 9 month pregnant wife and two sons and are supposed to follow him for the next 2+ hours as he tries to establish a new life?? You cannot have sympathy for a character who does this. Cannot! Not to mention, we're given nothing until the last say 1/2 hour of this unnecessarily long movie, as to why this guy is suffering so much. No flashbacks, no sudden reactions to noise or movement - stuff that real vets are suffering from. All we know is he has a pain in the ass wife and can't financially take care of her and his 3 kids. There really didn't seem to be any research whatsoever into what current Iraq vets are going through.
Additionally, the movie suffers tremendously from a heavy handed and totally inappropriate score. Its a catastrophe. It is truly harmful to some actually good acting on the part of the male lead and at times Joe Morton. It foreshadows EVERYTHING you're supposed to feel, and sometimes gives you the wrong clues entirely! Again, this was a brutal thing this guy did, and so seeing him get a new job, meet a new blonde, struggle behind the counter making toast is NOT appropriate! And really, the ending? What a freakin cop out! How dare you.
There are far richer films dealing with the affects of war on returning soldiers, please don't bother with this one.


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


user
Badland is one of the worst movies I ever seen. Most of the time this is fine and I can go on with my life, but I feel the need to warn others in this case. As a veteran of the Iraq war I feel it necessary to say that the story, plot, acting and depiction of what soldiers go through upon returning home was pure garbage. It was as if the director/writer/whoever latched on to whatever cliché about returning soldiers and ran with it and ran with it and ran with it..Not to mention I would imagine there was absolutely no research put into this film. The "Marine" uniform looked like it was fresh off a surplus store shelf and was a pattern not used since the first Iraq war. I won't go on forever, this is a horrible movie. If you are interested in the stories of returning soldiers there are much better alternatives. I recommend going to your local library.


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


user
Being an American service member please believe me when I say that this movie in no way accurately portrays the emotional state of our Soldiers/Sailors/Airmen/Marines returning from deployments.
That being said....
This movie is one large steaming pile of cliché. The acting as awful (with the exception of the little girl) the character's backgrounds are weak and laughable, and plot is ludicrous.
This movie is so bad I made an account with IMDb just to warn anyone with half a brain away from it.
Canadian writer/director Francesco Lucente should be really, really, really ashamed of this movie. If he disagrees with US foreign policy, he should write a letter to the US government, not punish the entire English speaking world with a monumentally crap film.


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


user
If anyone thinks this is a great sports movie it is probably the only sports movie they have ever seen. There are different aspects a sports movie can take. Whether it be professional or college or high school. Examples of sports movies I liked (and I haven't seen many) are Jim Thorpe: All American, All the Right Moves, Any Given Sunday, Eight Men Out, and Rocky, among others. All of those movies had a little more than just plain sports. Whether it was a mans ascent and then descent from greatness, or a man losing out on a dream by the actions of a vindictive coach, or the effect of money on professional sports. In Hoosiers, there is not much content. It didn't even seem as though the movie had a beginning or an end. There was no character development, all of them were forced on us. I could sum up this movie, by quoting a very bad coach: "Go out and try to score more points than the other guy."


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


user
A coach who used to be good, but has had to move to a new area to get away from what he once did; a team of no hopers; the star player who has a row with the coach; the assistant coach with an alcohol problem, the little guy who gets kicked around scoring the winning basket; the whole town against the coach (all except for the leading lady). It's the old story - right out of the British comic books, where a team of speccy geeks and fatties take on the Brazilians at soccer and win.
This film, admittedly well put together, is full of these clichés. The only part I didn't predict was when at the town meeting, the star player suddenly decided to side with the coach. No reason was ever given. It seemed like a very strange thing to do seeing that everything was going his way hitherto. Maybe he just felt sorry for the poor guy.
Gene Hackman plays a locker room Popey Doyle. I am sure that an actor of Dennis Hopper's calibre found nothing particularly challenging about his role. The same can be said about Barbara Hershey.
All in all, a film full of clichés that might have been done a lot better than it was.


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


user
A poor basketball movie. A gruff coach with a dubious background comes to a small Indiana high school basketball team in the 1950's and coaches the boys to victory by "breaking them down first, and then building them up."
Not a bad subject. Photography OK. But the plot is totally predictable. No real sub-plots. Nothing added to make the movie exciting. You know what is going to happen from the very beginning. Suitable for 4th Graders.


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


user
I tuned into this movie not because I am a fan of U.S. High School basketball (in fact I only rarely watch NBA games) but rather because I am a fan of Gene Hackman, who usually manages to bring an impressive depth to his performances. In this case, however, I was sorely disappointed. This was not one of the bright shining stars of Hackman's career.
In fairness to him, he didn't have a lot to work with. As Norman Dale, the new coach of a small town high school basketball team in Indiana, he wasn't called on to do much acting. Basically his performance consisted of pacing up and down basketball sidelines ranting at the referees. I didn't find him particularly believable in the role to be honest. I also was unimpressed with the requisite romance between Dale and Myra Fleener (Barbara Hershey). Quite honestly there was absolutely no chemistry between Hackman and Hershey. The romance never captured my attention, and neither did the basketball "action," which was altogether too predictable.
There were far too many problems with this movie to make it worthwhile. I never did understand the depth of the sheer hatred that so many of the townsfolk had for Dale, almost from before the time he arrived. The character development was poor and the story itself was poorly developed. Too much basketball and not enough human interaction, in my opinion. How many shots of kids shooting baskets do we need to see to get the point that this is a basketball movie? There was no suspense: is it even possible to doubt that Hickory is going to win the big one? I realize that this is based on a true story, but I guess it proves that not every true story should be a movie. Quite frankly, it just wasn't a very interesting movie. Definitely a movie Gene Hackman would like to forget.
No better than a 2/10 in my opinion.


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


user
This show is perhaps one of the most boring, most unfunny shows I've ever seen. While the humour was subtle, and I'm all for the subtle humour; the jokes just weren't funny.
The show is about two Kiwis in their mid-thirties living in New York trying to start their music careers.
I saw the one episode where Brett leaves the other Kiwi behind during a mugging. Okay, the plot idea has potential; but I got the feeling that half the episode was just filler, and the other half was actually important to the story.
What I mean is, they kept on explaining how the one who was left behind felt betrayed and had a lot of mistrust for the other guy. I've got one piece of advice for the writers: mention it once for the idiots who can't figure it out by the way he's acting, and move on.
And I found the characters were annoying. The character who left the other behind, Brett, came across as being overly innocent and naive, the one left behind walked around talking in this monotone and robotic voice.
A third character, who was the band manager, was obviously incompetent, but he was the one character that I liked. He's also the one that earned the show a one-star rating.
All in all, a show I have no intention of ever watching again.


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


user
From all the rave reviews, we couldn't wait to see this show. We love wacky humor and creative material, especially from Australia and New Zealand.
I admit this may not be a fair review since we only saw the first 15 minutes. But we just couldn't bear any more misery - it was definitely the most boring and painful 15 minutes we've ever experienced watching a TV show - it felt like 15 hours. The songs may be (mildly) interesting by themselves, but inserted for an interminable 3 minutes each in the middle of a story scene just doesn't work.
We're trying hard now to erase the memory. If you want some wonderful down-under humor in a delightful and engaging film, see "The Dish" instead.


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


user
The strawberry blond has a great script, But I just wish Errol Flynn was in it instead of James Cagney, he's not the person for the part. I do think Olivia did a great job. This movie is also a day dream wrap around, so it's hard to follow. I don't like the male character attitude; the way Cagney presented it was just off. I give it a 3 for poor acting by main male character. ( If you like tough ruff men that like to fight all the time and argue then this is your movie). The Strawberry blond would have been better if the main character had more of a positve attitude, and change the script so he is happy he's with Oliva.
THis movie points out Money does not bring happiness, women right jokes. Plain and simple not the best movie, but every one must decide for themselves.


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


user
Stars: Hayden Pantierre.
There have been so many movies that have this exact same plot, and this one is just a poor rehashing of it. Populer white girl moves to ethnic school, doesn't fit in, soon becomes accepted. Originality is nonexistent in this, and neither are the laughs. It uses so many old poorly executed jokes it's annoying. I don't know why they think it's a good idea to make made for video sequels to mediocre films, but it isn't. With that said, the positives in this are that all the people in it are fairly competent actors and actresses.
My rating: * out of ****. PG-13 for Language and Sexual Humor.


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


user
The first two Bring It On movies were both quite good in their own ways. The first was fairly serious, the second was successfully satirical - and the third opted for the usual idiotic low-brow comedy that we always see in the utterly brainless teen movies that Hollywood has coming out of the woodwork. The entire point in this movie was that cheerleaders are total airheads who hardly know enough to carry on a common conversation, and that's the extent of this movie's comedy. Ha ha. Not.
There is no shred of cleverness in this movie, no theme, no subtext, nothing for anybody with half a brain to be entertained by (and sure enough, I could not sit through all of it). If you're the sort of person who're entertained by fart jokes, this movie is for you. Congratulations.
2 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
This was terrible, mean-spirited, and full of the worst clichés and racial stereotypes I've seen in a looong time. Seeing Hayden P trying to act "ghetto" was painful (hi, one pant leg up on yer sweats and some braids Downs't make you "down with the homies"). Solange Knowles pretty much grimaces through the entire movie. Most of the set sequences look like they were filmed in cardboard boxes...what was up with the finale??? And poor Rihanna was just plain exploited to get people to watch her "act", which she can't.
Put simply, this film Downs't even deserve one star. Please put this tired franchise to rest. Or at least make the next one Bring It On IV: Cheerleaders vs. Freddy & Jason.


assistant
0