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
Let me start by saying I don't recall laughing once during this comedy. From the opening scene, our protagonist Solo (Giovanni Ribisi) shows himself to be a self-absorbed, feeble, and neurotic loser completely unable to cope with the smallest responsibilities such as balancing a checkbook, keeping his word, or forming a coherent thought. I guess we're supposed to be drawn to his fragile vulnerability and cheer him on through the process of clawing his way out of a deep depression. I guess we're supposed to sympathize as he stumbles through a series of misadventures seemingly triggered by his purchase of a dog, but in reality brought on by his own contemptible nature. I didn't get the slightest hint at any point that Solo ever possessed any redeeming character, which became disturbingly apparent when he failed to feed his dog for a few days. No spark of humanity or glimmer of conscience gave me hope that he would ever realize his life is so utterly miserable because he's a self- absorbed, self-pitying lowlife. I didn't develop any connection with this character. He didn't seem to care, and so neither did I. I actually wanted him to get his kneecaps busted at one point.
The dog was not a character in the film. It was simply a prop to be used, neglected, scorned, abused, coveted and disposed of on a whim. So be warned. Even though "dog" is in the title, this film is not a romantic comedy for dog lovers.
Scott Caan's role is amusing and believable as the oversexed best friend/cad. Don Cheadle is sincere and magnetic - I always want to see more of him on screen. Mena Suvari was delightfully repellent. Lynn Collins role of a "stripper with a heart" was well acted, but the character was simultaneously absurd and clichéd, not to mention there was zero chemistry between her and Ribisi.
Romantic? Hardly. Comedy? If you say so.


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


user
I realize the line on my summary is not too polite.
This film written & directed by Scott Caan & starring Giovanni Ribisi,Don Cheadle & himself runs a long 88 minutes.
There is a dog in this puppy of a movie., he is cute.
The movie opened in 2 U.S. theatres in late April 2007,for one week & grossed all of $ 914. It quickly went to DVD in early August 2007.
We were only able to take about 40 minutes before we turned the DVD off.
This was the type of movie that played on lower half of double bill. You saw the main film & figured lets see what this one is like, You might have walked out before we shut it off.
The 3 actors & the young ladies in the film all have done & deserve better than this..
Ratings: ** (out of 4) 54 points (out of 100) IMDb 4 (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 must rate with the worst films I have ever seen. It just wasn't funny. My wife fell asleep. I suppose if you are the sort of person who goes all gooey eyed at the sight of a dog then it may do something for you. If you expect a comedy film to have some humour in it then you will be disappointed unless you find an English radio announcer saying the f word a lot hilarious. The strippers in the club kept their underwear on so there wasn't even a bit of nudity to relieve the boredom. What did happen in the strip club made no sense at all. There was a great deal of mumbling by the lead character with whom I developed no sympathy at all. Mena Suvari was hardly in the film, presumably just there to make people think it was a serious attempt at producing a film. The bad guys were unconvincing and carried as much menace as a dead sheep.


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


user
Maybe we Aussies just have a totally different sense of humour and therein my lie the only problem here. I have a database of all the DVDs I own (including those received as gifts - which this was) and so, when entering a new one, I always refer to IMDb for such info as genre, runtime, director, leads etc. When entering this, I noted that it was a comedy and so I decided to watch it at a time when I wanted something light and a good laugh. Well, it was neither! There were absolutely NO laughs at all and an inordinate amount of gratuitous profanity (are there REALLY radio announcers allowed to broadcast the sort of filth that Steve Jones dishes out? What if a decent child happened to tune to his station?).
Rather than enjoy a good laugh (or even a little giggle) I found the whole thing thoroughly depressing. I have given it 3 out of 10 but, to be honest, I don't know what those 3 are for! I suppose the basics of lighting and sound weren't too bad!
We have an ostensibly stone-broke loser (Giovanni Ribisi) who still seems to be able to drive a reasonable car (who pays for the fuel?) and live in what could be a nice apartment (who pays his rent?) Given the opportunity of forming what might have been some sort of meaningful relationship with what turned out to be a nice girl, he even blew that! Perhaps it was she (Lynn Collins) who earned this movie the 3 points! The fact that she works as a stripper rather than a hairdresser is one of the few aspects of this movie that makes sense ("I make as much in one night doing this as I do in two weeks' hairdressing").
Unless you want to get depressed and bored to the teeth, forget it!


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


user
This really is by far the worst movie I've ever seen in my whole life (I'm approaching 47)! The description on the back of the cover equaled the scrolling text right at the begin of the movie. The further plot was nil and even a bunch of corpses would have shown more life in their "acting". I viewed the full length of it and was really relieved when the final character's death signalled the end of my suffering! The location was either some kind of vaults or a grimy beach. I suppose, that home-video equipment served as camera and the lighting was sub-standard. The dialogues were uninspired and devoid of meaning. As were the actors faces. Which brings me to the topic "make-up": By the looks of it they got it as gimmicks in some teen-ager's magazines "my first own make-up" or similar. What made me buy the DVD was the name "Lovecraft" printed on the cover. The only connection with this brilliant mind's works was the use of the name "Necronomicon", which was wrongly translated as "Book of Light". The 4,70 EURO I paid for this DVD were a complete loss, for the DVD went into the recycling box without any further ado.


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


user
As I was watching it, I was getting ready to compose a blasting, lambasting critique of this "film," (it is actually video), but then I saw that someone already did. I pretty much agree with him. But then again, it looks like a lot of effort and millions of lira went into it, so I guess you gotta give them some credit for trying. However, that being said, anyone who doesn't already know the Lovecraftian world and that this is what they were trying to convey will probably think, ... well, I suppose, that not only is it really bad, but it makes absolutely no sense. Thank god I read part of the other review ('twas a little gushy, maybe?) which revealed that this guy also did "The Shunned House," (which looked pretty bad, judging by the DVD box), so now I can avoid it and save my mind from any further exposure to such desecration of the brilliance of H.P. Lovecraft.


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 a real big bummer that people easily are able too make movies because of cheap digital video cams nowadays. usually I would appreciate this possibility but if you see movies like this it's just a big shame. and it's also big shame if people like h.p. lovecraft get abused by the likes of this. I rented this "movie" cuz of the drop "h.p. lovecraft" on it. and I'm a big fan of many of his adaptions, mainly those done by brian yuzna & stuart gordon. this movie has nothing to deliver! a cheap scenery on a beach and in an old wine-cellar. digi-cam effect "red light" over the whole movie. no actors, just some stupid low-grade models who have for sure no idea what they are doing, stiff as wood. and so must be the director. It's obvious that he tried to create some atmosphere. but as the whole things is so laughable it just doesn't work. and no gore-effects, just some blood in a river (you drink = you become demon) and dropping here and there. oh yeah, the story: thousands of years ago some "big old" colonised the world and took humans as slaves. then mankind got independent, so the "old ones" tried to destroy them. and now there are some survivors in a post-apocalyptic world. the only possibility to save mankind is to find the NECRONOMICON, that's where it gets to LOVECRAFT. so those soldiers fight against some undead and demons on their beach and in their wine-cellar. unbelievable - the whole thing! but as it is dubbed (german title: "Armee des Jenseits) and you can find it in most commercial video-stores it seems as if you can make money with stuff like that. I find this fact impressive.


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 a big fan of H. P. Lovecraft's books, and the Mythos background spawned some rather good other stories and stuff like that. And in the last years there came along some boys who did movies about H. P.'s work,  for the bigger part low-budged flicks  and showed them to the public at places like the H. P. Lovecraft Film Festival. Now, like I said, most of them don't have a big budged, but they at least know the heart and "soul" of Lovecrafts work and films like "Cool Air" or "The Call of Cthulhu" - are what I would think - gifts for the fan base and other loonies that like H.P.'s creation.
And then there are people like Ivan Zuccon, who just rip off the name and create a movie which would have been fun to watch if I had directed it myself and filmed with some friends down at the beach. That is what Mr. Zuccon did as it seems...but, while blokes like Aaron Vanek's or Bryan Moore's earlier movies might not have had more budged, they somehow still had more to offer , like a story, real characters and some connection to Lovecraft! Just blabbering out names like "Nyarlathotep" or "Necronomicon" makes a movie not a Lovecraft-adaption.
Anyway, this flick will not only make fans of the Mythos shudder and hide, it will also not appeal to people who 1. like good movies, 2. laugh about bad movies, 3. like good C-grade splatter movies or 4. watch everything that has Horror written on the DVD-cover. I will not go into the "plott" of this waste of time, as it has already been discussed by others here on this page, but like I said, Unknown Beyond is like a movie I would have made up with some geeky friends.. Aside from that it lacks ideas for any storytelling and goes into ridiculous "moronic-nonsense-but-he-it's-art-stuff". Self-made flicks of this "quality" are fun to watch if you know all the blokes in it and ha-ha, see how XY is coughing out the fake blood we made from old tomato sauce and stuff  but hey, you don't put this in a DVD-casing, declare it an actual movie and want money for it
I give it 2/10 because of the I dunno  effort or something like that


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


user
I suppose that to say this is an all-out terrible movie would be unfair, but it's pretty bad. The sub-Disney storyline involves dogs playing soccer and falling in love (aw, how cute!) The acting isn't bad, but definitely could be better, especially that of young Canadian actor Kevin Zegers, who, during the whole movie, looks embarrassed, like he doesn't even want to be there. Anyway, kids will love it, but parents beware!


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


user
If you're coming to this film to learn something about depression, forget it: you won't learn anything except how not to write a screenplay on the subject. I understand the intent was to show how severe depression can turn an average person into a complete wreck, but the result is the most one-dimensional character I've ever seen in a Hollywood feature... no small feat. Christina Ricci as Elizabeth spends the entirety of this film screaming at the top of her lungs, viciously insulting someone, bursting into tears or some combination of the three (the only exceptions being some quiet sulking at the beginning and end). There is not the slightest hint of what she might be like WITHOUT depression... not the faintest glimmer of any other aspects of her personality... she just screams. At one point, her roommate tells her, "Lizzie, you're such a fun person to be around when you're not being depressed," and my reaction was, "She IS?" It seemed odd that the writers would include this comment without giving us any examples, but this script is a lesson in incompetence. It has no discernible structure or flow at all; instead, it consists of a series of awkwardly strung-together scenes of Lizzie screaming, then ends. Character development? No... Scenes of her everyday existence, i.e. going to classes, that might possibly be important details? No... Screaming at maximum volume? CHECK. It's not quite enough, I'm afraid. 1/10.


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


user
Last night I got to see an early preview screener of Prozac Nation. Because I love everything that Christina Ricci does I was very excited at first, but as the movie continued I started to wonder where it was going. Based on a true story, it is simply about Christina Ricci's character and her struggle with depression, drugs, friends and family as you can probably tell from the title. In my opinion this movie moved too fast, and it was way too dramatic. I would say there was a dramatic moment every five minutes, and the movie moved through her life extremely fast, and this left no room for us to connect with Christina Ricci's character. Christina Ricci's performance was fantastic as always but Jessica Lange stood out throughout the whole movie, and I believe this movie's success will be all because of her and Christina Ricci. I would rate this 4 out of 10 and I would suggest you rent this one or read the books by Elizabeth Wurtzel they are good and definitely worth checking out.


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


user
I seldom see a film with such a cast, such a potentially strong story and based on a bestselling book that has been this weak and to some extent unwatchable...
The premise of a story reads like a Brent Easton Ellis novel - a lot of drugs, hopelessness and self-induced tragedy as a young Elisabeth Wurtzel (played by Christina Ricci) tries to cope with being a suicidal loser, that can't seem to accept that she is actually living a good life and that basically she is pathetic for being such a baby...
Christina Ricci is not only playing a tragic personae, but also a tragic actor, whose sobbing and screeching for the most part of the movie actually make you want to shout - kill yourself already and let us get to the credits rolling... The director is of no help as he supplies absolutely no pace and the story feels so disjointed you have no idea what this damn girl is actually on about. The director apparently was on Prozac when directing this imitation of a movie and hence let the movie go on autopilot making it an unbearable mess.
The only redeeming features are a sympathetic Jason Biggs, as Wurtzel's boyfriend (who thankfully decided to dump the self-indulgent egocentric egomaniac) and an unbelievably good Jessica Lange as the cry-babies mother. Lange apparently can not be brought down by terrible script, directing and dire co-actors. Pure class.
I don't know if this is really who Wurtzel is or was, but the film has successfully made me totally uninterested in her writings.
In the end I finished watching this movie and instantly started to think: OK. Time to watch something, that actually is about REAL problems...


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


user
Congratulations to Christina Ricci for making this movie and putting her mojo behind this important subject and trying to make a great film. Ricci is my favorite actress: She is so gifted, so natural, her reactions are perfect and so is the energy she constantly radiates, which gives credence to the often misapplied term "star."
The film misses its mark for lots of various reasons, but perhaps most notably for the story's seeming unadaptability to the screen in making it a compelling narrative...more on that later. The cast at first glance is excellent, but come to think of it, Jessica Lang as the Jewish mother is too Protestant and not exactly right, Ann Hetch doesn't come close to showing the compassion and dedication of the psychiatrist from the book, and when your making a movie, how can you justify saying no to Anne Heche and Jessica Lange? But the real problems are in the film's construction: first in the failure to elicit any kind of lasting sympathy for the Elizabeth Wurtzle character, and second to say anything meaningful regarding the all too common and horrible situation that this poor girl finds herself in.
Unfortunately do to the flashback construction, Lizzy merely comes off as certainly more affected teenager than most, but not nearly as devastatingly ill as she comes off in the book. This is a major problem. This story had to be told from beginning to end and from the therapist's couch. She is only eight or nine when her depression starts due to devastating social factors, both society and the home, and this is a crucial point in not only eliciting the proper sympathy for her but also of the gravitas of her case. She is so talented, and such a vulnerable and disaffected spirit so early on, that one's heart can't help but reach out to her due to her victimization. This is missed on the film.
Ultimately one has to come to terms with what the film is trying to say: it is a biopic of one severely affected girl, but also it is a film about a nation who can't get its act together; that is very clear in the book but interestingly not in the film where the chosen at Harvard are even more messed up than the average college enrollee. The film finally isn't able to get either of these messages across compellingly, and that's too bad. Is Prozac a good thing or is it a bad thing, or a mixed blessing or a seeming necessity in a country in which so many people can't function without a chemical crutch? These are tough and challenging concepts to work with and the writing does not really attempt to address any of them in a more or less engaging way. The Challenger disaster is an interesting image to symbolize a dysfunctional America, but that doesn't have the effect it's suppose to have due to the crosscutting and insufficient earlier development of controlling themes.
Ricci's performance is tight and heartfelt, and one of the best of her acting career.
Michele Williams is also superb in her role.


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


user
It seems no matter what I see her in, Christina Ricci seems full of promise but fails to deliver. Sure she can cry and scream, but Prozac Nation sees Ricci totally out of her depth, perhaps I'm being too harsh.... okay, I'm shifting the blame to the director. Jessica Lange is outrageous and almost reaches Faye Dunaway heights of megadramatisation. Unfortunately I think Lange peaked with Frances and it was all downhill from there. There was every chance of this film being slick and witty while tackling depression head on. What we get instead is poorly acted hysteria dressed up with a stereotypical try hard eighties veneer. I really had no sense of the films eighties backdrop, since I was unsatisfied with the lame attempt at making believe it was the eighties just because ms Ricci wears a madonna inspired dress to her "lost my virginity" celebration. Cmon everyone, you are ALL better than this. The filmmakers should hang their heads in shame, and as a result of disappointment, Elizabeth Wurtzel could probably make a bundle if she sued for "irrepairable emotional damages" as a result of the finished product. go on lizzie, sue! I would


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


user
In the real world of art Elizabeth Wurtzel is the sexy drama queen every guy wants to do, but no guy wants to wake up next to. Her on-screen portrayer, Christina Ricci, is the ugly artsy wannabe girl that desperately wants every and any guy, but no guy will touch her. That's why, in Prozac Nation, the unreleased 2001 film of Wurtzel's 1990s bestseller book of the same name, there are immediate problems. OK, the problems start before the miscast of Ricci, who has the emotional range of a thimble- is it any wonder that, by far, her finest acting was in the two Addams Family films? First off, she is bizarre looking- with big eyes and a bulging forehead, making her look like the fetal Starchild from 2001: A Space Odyssey. Secondly, she always plays whiney brats. But, thirdly, is the way films try to make it appear any guy would be attracted to her. In one scene in the film her pal Ruby (Michelle Williams) and Liz walk through Harvard, and all the guys' tongues are wagging at Ricci, not the super-cute and sexy Williams. Hello.Reality check time. This material begged for the Andy Warhol treatment. Here is his version of the film. A five minute shot of a hypodermic needle. A five minute shot of Wurtzel's hairy pudenda. A five minute shot of her sleeping naked and stoned on the bed. She rises, gives the middle finger to the audience. Cue credits. See, less than twenty minutes to distill Wurtzel's whole life. And, oh yeah, Warhol's film would not have cast Ricci. Even Michelle Williams would have been better, and after seeing Ricci's pallid bosom, I'd take anything Williams or any other babe had to offer me cinematically. Ricci is almost the kiss of death for a film, and how she stays working is a mystery. Think of her performances in mediocre to bad films like Monster, Sleepy Hollow, and Woody Allen's Anything Else- also co-starring Jason Biggs, and now picture another actress in her role, and immediately the films could seem better, if not great. She is the female counterpart to banal, wooden, milquetoast actors like Tom Cruise and Leonardo Dicaprio.


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


user
There must have been a lot of background info that was left out of the movie. In fact, in the film, the girl, Lizzy, didn't even appear depressed. She just seemed like a girl that went out of control when she finally got to college, mainly from doing drugs and drinking alcohol. That seemed to be her problem, not mental illness. Sure, she had emotional problems because her dad left and she barely saw him as a child, and her mom seemed a little out there. But, the way she treated Noah and Ruby was just mean and I don't think caused by depression. She was very needed, which ran Rafe off, but she was like that because of her dad.
But, I think the main reason this movie never achieved a theater release is that not enough happens with the plot and the story is not written well.
FINAL VERDICT: Truthfully, I'd only recommend this if you are interested in seeing Ricci's first nude scene. Otherwise, it isn't very interesting.


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


user
I found it almost impossible to empathize with Ricci's character in this film. If she was supposed to be a depressive, I think the screenwriter and director neglected to research depressives before making this film because Ricci's character was more a depiction of a self-centered, worthless sh!tbag than a victim and survivor of depression.
The forced attempt at introspective narration was as ludicrous as the pained interactions between her and the people around her.
Sorry but I couldn't buy it. This is straight to video schlock. I'm glad I didn't pay to see this.


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 writing this review simply because I am a huge fan of the book, Prozac Nation, and was appalled by the film.
I think that if you hadn't read the book, you would have been lost watching the film, as it provided no real back story to Wurtzel's depression. There was no real mention of her childhood (her relationship with her father, her experiences at summer camp, her first therapists (in fact, the film gives the impression that she has never been in therapy until Dr. Sterling)...). That said, if you had read the book, you would have been confused by the amount of editing that had taken place.
I found the book to be a vivid portrayal of depression, highlighting Wurtzel's low points, and the experiences she had along the way. The film however, began at Harvard, and literally threw the audience straight in with no real explanation of what was going on.
Events that, in the book, were important (such as Wurtzel's miscarriage, her summer working in Dallas, her suicide attempt whilst on Prozac) were omitted from the film.
Also, this is pedantic, but Wurtzel did not lose her virginity to Noah. The suicide attempt that was shown in Sterling's office was completely different to the book. For a start, she actually overdosed on Mellaril, as opposed to the para-suicidal gesture shown in the film.
All in all, I would say that if you have read the book and enjoyed it/identified with it, then don't watch the film. Read 'More, Now, Again' (by the same author) instead. Or watch Girl, Interrupted.
The only redeeming feature was the performance by Anne Heche, who I believe portrayed Dr. Sterling very well. Christina Ricci was also good, though her performance seemed a little... stilted. Jessica Lange made for enjoyable viewing, but looked the opposite of how Wurtzel's mother is described in the book.
Conclusion? Don't bother.


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 a question for the writers and producers of "Prozac Nation": What is the root cause and what is the solution to the widespread problem of personal depression in America? In the moving performance of Christina Ricci as Liz Wurtzel, the film portrays a young woman with unlimited potential as a Harvard student and as a writer. But this is not a story of success, only one of self-destruction as we watch Liz bring misery into the lives everyone who comes in contact with her. The film examines divorce, family dysfunction, drugs, alcohol, and prescription medication as possible reasons for Liz's unhappiness. But none of those superficial explanations are satisfactory.
At some point in the film, it would have been helpful to suggest that Liz needs to take responsibility for her life and her problems. No light was shed on what the film alleged to be a runaway problem in "The United States of Depression." In the story, Liz had a caring therapist (Anne Heche), a caring roommate (Michele Williams), a caring boyfriend (Jason Biggs), and a troubled but caring parent (Jessica Lange). In a key scene in the film, Liz is lying in a hospital bed watching the break-up of the space shuttle Challenger. Instead of equating Challenger with Liz's life, the film should have used the image as a starting point for her healing and recovery.
This film reminded me of a generic made-for-cable "victim" film on the Lifetime network. An excellent cast was wasted, especially in the earnest performance of Christina Ricci. The real-life Elizabeth Wurtzel obviously found within herself the resources to cope with her depression and become a successful author. It is unfortunate that the film could not offer us even the slightest glimpse into her courageous spirit.


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


user
This film is just as bad as "The Birdman of Alcatraz". I do not refer to the acting but rather the premise of both films, which try to portray psychopathic criminals as heroic figures. Moreover it disturbs me when well respected, revered actors like Alan Alda (and Burt Lancaster) play such roles, because their status tends to lend credibility to the director's intent to elevate the film's subject, a societal outcast.
I was in junior high school during the last years of Caryl Chessman's life and his death penalty appeals and books were very much in the news. I remember the groundswell of opinion that the death penalty was wrong and Chessman was the victim.
Get a grip people. Read the history. Chessman was a criminal and sexual predator. He drove around the LA streets at night with a stolen police light in his vehicle. He stopped cars with attractive women inside under the ruse of making a traffic arrest; then abducted and raped the women. Rape is the worst trauma a woman can experience and many victims say they would prefer death to its horror and humiliation.
Chessman got exactly what he deserved, it just took a decade too long. No sympathy for the devil here.


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


user
Wealthy businessman's daughter, who as a young girl caught rheumatic fever and now suffers from a shortness of breath, discovers her marriage to a charming ne'er-do-well was arranged by daddy (whom she affectionately refers to as "Darling"); worse than that, she may in fact have only a few weeks left to live, leaving her husband free to marry her conniving romantic-rival. Pure bunk. Paul Osborn's screenplay (via Jerome Weidman's thin story) trots out the redundant flashbacks in the second-half instead of proceeding ahead with the plot, which submerges the already-soapy scenario in grim talk. Why go backwards when we can figure out what's happening for ourselves? This is a "woman's weeper" with no faith in its target audience, so simplistic is the set-up. Dorothy McGuire, swathed in furs for most of the picture, isn't a canny, clever heroine at all; when she's upset, she turns inward and stony. Upon realizing her marriage is basically a sham, she shrinks away from her husband like the consummate virgin (well, that's a possibility, she and Van Johnson sleep in separate beds after all!). Ruth Roman has the film's best moments as a society shark with her trap set for Van, but what exactly do these women see in him? Johnson can be charming when it's required, but put him in a melodramatic setting and he goes stony, too. MGM production values only so-so, however director Gottfried Reinhardt tries adding some visual flavor to the flashback segues and he attempts a lively pacing for the movie's initial half-hour. ** from ****


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


user
If I had never seen an episode of the original Avengers, with Blackman, Rigg, or Thorson, I would have appreciated this series more. While the cast did its best to sustain the action and interest of the scripts, I was just caught up in comparing the episodes to the original series. There was an expectation of Steed participating more in fight scenes, and the continuity seemed as though the writers were struggling to keep up with the actors. To be honest, I can't blame them for trying to resurrect the fans from the original series, but it just didn't work, as evidenced by the fact that it lasted one season. Watching Steed labor through this series reminded me of Gen. Macarthur when he said, 'Old soldiers never die, they just fade away!'


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


user
Comparisons to the original series are inevitable. It's a shame Diana Rigg left the original show in the 1960's due to mistreatment on the part of the producers, and MacNee probably regretted this as much as any fan - there's no telling how long the show might have lasted otherwise. Linda Thorson was OK as a replacement and her episodes still retained almost all of the quality and aspects of the Rigg episodes - only the Rigg/Macnee chemistry was lacking. The New Avengers should have been left on the shelf - a declining Macnee, an annoying Purdey, and a who the hell is this guy Gambit. Also, the humor was forced and poor - granted I only watched a few of the episodes, because that was all I COULD watch, but I think I got the idea. Try as many might and do, it's nearly impossible to resurrect an old show as a new format or movie.


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


user
Although this movie (and I use the term loosely) was made in 1997, we just watched it tonight for the first time. My husband commented that a Tommy Lee Jones movie that we'd never heard of made him a little apprehensive. I blithely watched anyway, certain that if Jones was in the movie, it must at least be worth two hours of my time. After all, he has been one of our go-to actors for years. Although Heche isn't one of my favorite actresses, I was additionally reassured by seeing another well-known face. The list of accomplished actors/actresses continued to grow, so I endured more and more of this film, certain that if I pushed through enough clichés and trite social statements, I would arrive victorious on the other side of the plot. Alas, there was no plot. It appeared to be burned by the ever-oozing lava of doom.
The characters were paper-thin. The plot was so chock full of holes that it literally distracted me from most of the special effects and acting in the movie. Was the fee for a brief consultation with an elementary science teacher too much for this film's budget? No acid rain...no toxic gasses (like sulfur or hydrochloride)...no deadly ash...no skin-searing heat just a few feet from the lava. Wow...it's the world's friendliest lava ever!
The events were no better than the characters. Each incident was so contrived and far-fetched...it's like the writers said "Okay, we need to get rid of the little girl NOW"...and poof, she's splashed by a lava bomb which burns her enough that she has to be carried to safety (not from the lava, but from her own helpless stupor)...but just moments later in the car she is in no apparent pain and soon after is running effortlessly through the (groan!) building that (oh no!) is about to be blown up. After enduring all of this, your reward is the line from the little boy at the end (about all the people looking the same)...which has got to be one of the worst movie lines I have ever heard. Even if it wasn't so painfully scripted, it was ridiculous timing for all the characters involved. Kid and cop aside, as if the mother would still be in the area and just needs to be pointed out because she just isn't speaking up...what...she's hoping to slink off into the shadows and get away from the little brat once and for all? I don't think so. Obviously the child's mother would be missing or dead - or yelling her head off to find her toddler.
The token black gangsta tough hoodlum with a secret soft spot versus the chip on his shoulder narrow minded cracker cop with a secret soft spot scene made my eyes bleed. Even if such pat characters existed, they wouldn't behave as the movie portrays them given the circumstances. Something about imminent fiery death and massive destruction tends to catch people off-guard, ya know?
There are too many canned movie moments like these to mention...really, it's just an embarrassing movie to watch. Those poor writers...where are they now?


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


user
As a geology student this movie depicts the ignorance of Hollywood. In the scene where the dog grabs the bone from inside of the burning house, it is less then a foot from lava which has an average temperature of 1,750 degrees Fahrenheit. This stupidity is witnessed again when "Stan" goes to save subway 4. His shoes are melting to the floor of the subway while the rest of the team is standing just feet away from the flowing lava. And to finish off this monstrosity of a film, they come up with the most illogical solution, stopping a lava flow with cement K rails. Earlier in the film a reporters voice can be heard saying that nothing can stop the flow fire fighters have tried cars and CEMENT. Common sense dictates this film is a preposterous and gross understatement of human knowledge.


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


user
This movie is a disaster within a disaster film. It is full of great action scenes, which are only meaningful if you throw away all sense of reality. Let's see, word to the wise, lava burns you; steam burns you. You can't stand next to lava. Diverting a minor lava flow is difficult, let alone a significant one. Scares me to think that some might actually believe what they saw in this movie.
Even worse is the significant amount of talent that went into making this film. I mean the acting is actually very good. The effects are above average. Hard to believe somebody read the scripts for this and allowed all this talent to be wasted. I guess my suggestion would be that if this movie is about to start on TV ... look away! It is like a train wreck: it is so awful that once you know what is coming, you just have to watch. Look away and spend your time on more meaningful content.


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


user
The story of a Volcano erupting downtown L.A. sounds like a nice plot for a disaster movie. This one though, is missed bigtime. The movie looks chaotic, has a storyline which is hard to follow or believe and the acting was very bad.
Im in agreement with a lot of comments that Lee Jones is only good at bossing people around as a chief in some particular field. In this one, he is heading the emergency office. Being chief of such an office it naturally is a good idea to bring along your daughter to dangerous scenes. Clever thinking. Ann Heche touching walls and walking in tunnels that suppose to be 678 degrees fahrenheit. Yea right. Aside from the bad acting those factual errors make the film look almost as silly as Armageddon. The only good point of this movie is that there is no Ben Affleck to make matters even worse. Avoid this movie at all costs.


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


user
Hahahahah Probably one of the funniest movies i've even seen. Obviously this isn't intentional though. It takes about half the movie for the main characters to realize what the big hilly thing is in the middle of the city is spewing hot red stuff, and the other half spent diverting the lave flow through the city using fire trucks (yer right). It certainly made me laugh. The acting makes Arnie look like a RSC thespian. It is amazing that films like this get commissioned. A more interesting version would be someone going near an active volcano and filming it, and would probably cost about £20 to make. ($40) I can see some guy pitching the film to a film company "well there's this big VOLCANO and it erupts in a CITY....pretty radical hey" If you can find it in the dollar bins, maybe worth buying as after watching this most other films would look good.


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 and I thought this is a stupid movie. What is even more stupid is that who had thought an idea that there should be a volcano in Los Angeles? The fact is that there are no volcanoes in Los Angeles. This movie should not be filmed in Los Angeles, it should be filmed in Honolulu Hawaii. Hawaii has volcanoes which is a real fact that this movie should be made in Hawaii's state capital. This movie should be filmed in Hawaii because this is the real idea and not in Los Angeles. There are earthquakes in Los Angeles, but there are no volcanoes. To be honest with you, this is unbelievable nonsense and very foolish. In conclusion, I will not bother with this movie because a volcano in Los Angeles is nothing but nonsense.


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


user
This film is all right, fairly silly and to be taken lightly. But what I can't stand are the numerous heroes and that boy's ILLEGALY SENTIMENTAL comment near the end: "look, they all look the same". Isn't that by far passing the good taste standards? I thought it was revolting, as were the heroic, unselfish acts by some of the people in this film. I'm not saying it won't happen like that, but zooming in on all the bravery like that makes my stomach churn.


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


user
Considering the subject matter, I thought that this film would at least be enjoyable, if stopping somewhat short of a masterpiece. I was wrong. I was still waiting for something to happen and it finished - I thought that the finale was the bit that happened before it got exciting. The only reason I gave it 2 instead of 1 is because the effects guys deserve some recognition.


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 the trailer for this film before watching Titanic, and I must admit that it whetted my appetite. Volcano seemed to be quite spectacular and full of promise. But what a damp squib. Corny is not the word for the script, and the characterizations are often ludicrous. The stupid daughter is just beyond belief - she is supposed to be 13 not 4. But then the scientists,firemen and peripheral characters don't offer any more. This movie ranks just in front of Cruise II and Twister, but only because those 2 films are completely appalling. This does have some reasonable effects, but overall its a 1 out of 10. Don't waste your time


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


user
The scriptwriters, directors, and actors have lost sight of the cornerstone of a good story - the concept of suspension of disbelief. In Volcano, the concept goes up in smoke almost as quickly as the city. Contrary to earlier commentators, I much preferred Dantes Peak amongst the 97 vintage of volcano movies.


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


user
When I saw this movie, all I could think was: What a disaster! No I'm not talking about the volcano, but about the movie itself. I have seen a lot of movies, but this is certainly one of the worst ever. I don't care about the fact if a volcano erupting underneath downtown L.A. is possible or not. Perhaps it isn't, but even than this could have been a good movie... but it sure isn't and I'll explain you why.
I don't know how much lava flows out of an average volcano, but what I do know is that the volcano in this movie makes the Vesuvius, Etna and Mount Pinatubo together look like a little barbecue. I don't think there has ever been so much lava flowing out of a volcano as what we see in this film. I'm sure the director had a lot of money to spend on his movie, but I really wonder why he all spent it on the special effects and not on the script and the actors. I'm not saying that he should have hired a top cast, but this really is the opposite of what I would call good acting. Their performances are so unbelievably poor that it makes the entire movie even worse.
And what's wrong about the script you probably ask yourself. Well, can you tell me who comes up with the idea of people standing a few yards or even a few feet from the lava without getting burned or having to hide for the heath? Or people sinking in the earth when the flow of lava isn't even two foot high?
I'm sure I wouldn't be proud if I wrote such a script, but apparently there are script writers in Hollywood who don't mind about believability as long as it pays good money! VERY good money!!!
When you see the movie, you'll probably agree with me that this is one of Hollywood's worst disaster movies, not worth more than a 3/10.


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


user
This movie is a real waste of time and effort. The film lacks plot and depth. The visuals are decent but nothing to write home about. There are far better films out there.


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


user
Riotously cheesy lunacy about lava spewing from the La Brea tar pits in Los Angeles. Even if you attempt to suspend disbelief by ignoring this ludicrous premise, you'll still be howling with laughter at the inane dialog, nonsensical plot contrivances, and wildly reckless scientific plot holes that parade across the screen.
I have a theory: every successful actor is doomed to appear in at least one bad movie at some point in his/her career. This was Tommy Lee Jones's turn. Although he makes a decent effort, the script is just so pathetic even he goes down in flames (oops, sorry about that). Most of the supporting cast is also choked by the hackneyed writing; a few of the actors simply phone in their roles. Anne Heche deserves special Hall of Shame recognition for her awkward portrayal of a scientist. She is about as convincing in this role as Pee Wee Herman, and even he would have at least done a better acting job.
Since the scientific plot holes are too numerous to list here, I would instead suggest that you screen the film with friends, and have a game of "Find the scientific absurdities." The loser could be forced to listen to tapes of corny lines from the movie like "Everybody looks the same" over and over. Here's a sample of the kind of nonsense you can expect: a scheme to blow up a building is devised, engineered, and the dynamite set and detonated all within a space of about 20 minutes.
Let us not forget the obligatory disaster movie clichés: divorced dads, scientists who get ignored by everybody, obnoxious cops, tough street kids, bratty teenagers, greedy investors etc.; all are present and in abundance. The film also bashes you over the head with a relentless barrage of political correctness.
For fans of cheese and silliness only. All other viewers: beware.


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


user
A horrible mish mash of predictable story lines and toe-bendingly poor delivered PC clichés ad nauseam (races working together, the heroine being smart as well pretty, a guy sacrificing himself to save another life, a father/daughter relationship etc etc etc). The movie looks like something created for network television and should have probably stayed there. Even the gifted Tommy Lee Jones does not manage to salvage this BOMB. I urge you not to waste money or time on this cinematic ruin from the time when disaster-movies roamed Hollywood.
The two stars are given solely to the CGI-people and the PR-peoples' ability to get even one movie-goer to sit through it.


assistant
0