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
There is nothing wrong with showing an old man falling in love with a young girl. Lolita did it. American Beauty did it.
But. They did it subtly. They did not make it so apparent from the start that the director is gearing them up to make them fall in love with each other. Not as naturally as two people would (Age no bar) but forcing them to be around each other as if they were SUPPOSED to fall in love.
All in all, there should have been chemistry. It would have solved the biggest problem. People with reservations against the subject would also have been engrossed and perhaps convinced. It would have become the perfect love story, no matter the impracticality.
I found it difficult to believe Jia's character at times. What I found more difficult to understand, is why Vijay - a photographer and an artist, who seems serious - would have had an interest in a girl so frivolous. Unless he himself has some frivolousness hidden in himself, which did not come out at all.
There is a lot of use of Dutch angles or angles in which the frame is tilted. It is generally used to show something unnatural or something that might lead to something that is not right. So RGV is himself calling the relationship unnatural.
The camera angles, background score, editing, and even the juxtaposition of shots and symbology emphasises and overemphasises their relationship. Is the Indian audience so dumb that we need to be told something in 10 different ways for us to understand? Especially when the two of them were dancing together... it was apparent what was happening. What was the need of slowing the scene down with dramatic background music? I feel the subject was very well chosen. But Verma should not have made the film with the fact in mind constantly that this is a controversial subject. If it is, then handle it delicately, why don't you?


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 did not give Mr. Bachchan justice. He is a great actor and I was very disappointed in the movie and there was not much plot to it. Matter a fact this is the first movie I have ever been disappointed in with him in it. It starts out with her coming to his home with his daughter and he is a photographer. He takes pictures of her in the garden has she's hosing herself down. He is a sixty year old man that has nothing to do but to take pictures of this girl. The movie makes no sense. The whole movie is about her chasing him around and her telling him how much she cares about him. Then his daughter falls and he has to take this girl around places so she is not bored and is daughter finds out. I just didn't think this movie was up to Bachchan's standards. He is better than this movie. I always pictured him as an upstanding person and then I seen him in this movie and I couldn't picture him in this movie. The movie didn't hold my interest at all. I couldn't wait until the movie was over. And you won't either.


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


user
Good attempt at tackling the unconventional topic of May-December romances. However, the treatment is totally unrealistic. Sure, sixty-year old men can and do fall for younger women, but they're usually adult women with whom they share common interests and values and viewpoints ... not neurotic, immature near-underage girls. Of course there are exceptions, and they come close to being called pedophiles! Sorry RGV, but it's not credible that a sane and accomplished sexagenarian would throw away a comfortable family life and become a joke to his peers ... all for an 18-yr old that doesn't have a practical thought in her head and that behaves like an unstable escapee from a mental institution. You don't have to have a PhD in Psychology to see that Amitabh's character is seduced by sex, and that the young woman has unresolved abandonment and daddy issues.
As for the recurring scene of Vijay perched on the edge of a cliff, contemplating suicide, that's about as close as he comes to having anything in common with Jiah, by behaving like a smitten teenage boy.
On a positive note: the actors did a good job, and cinematography good.


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


user
Amitabh and Jiah Khan, raised great expectations, by their press conferences, though it was quite easy for the critics, and the fans too, that after all, this much hyped, Ram Gopal Verma Factory product, is going to fall flat on it's face, in all the probabilities ! Why, because Jiah was so immature and childish, and Bacchan, mixed up guilty, and unsure . they themselves didn't know, what the hell they were talking about, to the press, keeping up with the tag line, that some love stories are not to be understood, or some such rubbish ! Why the title is Nishabd ? Ramu needs to refresh his knowledge of Sanskrit, as Vidhu Vinod needs to study Mahabharata, tagging in line, another glorious flop of the year, Eklavya ! Comparison with the Sweet hearts, and Lolit's is inevitable, as the so-called plot line is supposed to have inspired by them. but sadly, Ramu has hardly made any serious effort, to delve deeply into the psyche of the aging, and the young ones. is lolly pop sucking the ultimate indicator of the innocence ? and contrary to that streak of childishness, the leg show at the dining table, with a Vijay, that is Bacchan in that role, bursting into squeals of shameless laughter incessantly after wards ? this girl, is in fact at her seductive game, luring poor Vijay to think, she is in love with him. the legs,too are skinny enough, and that act of putting the water hose through the legs, is down right obscene. it's beyond any one's understanding, how can a girl , coming as a guest to some body's house, can be so brazen, brash, and over powering ? and why the hell that stupid wife, played by Revathi, remarkably well, though scripted poorly, and characterized unrealistically, encourages her own husband, to dance with a sexily saying young girl ? that part of Vijay, trying to gain some refreshers to his humdrum life is absolute bullshit. because, apparently it seems that he is happy as he is, with a well settled life, and a hobby to recreate. This reminds of Blame it on Rio, the older daddy, and his young love, superbly played by Michael Caine. Bacchan looks terrible in close ups, and over all, where as kevin spacey and Jeremy Irons looked debonair and handsome, which is why the young chicks some times get attracted to older men, for their charming persona, compared to the vulnerability of young boys of their age. only good thing about this movie is those green , sprawling land scapes , winding roads, and pleasant cinematography. no substance, or even any sparkling show of emotions, drama , or even intriguing, stormy sex like in Lolita, this shallow movie has no wonder, fallen flat on it's face, and had to be wound up from the screens during first weeks ! next time round, before mindlessly copying any such theme from Hollywood, Ramu should do his home work, and Bacchan should think twice ! you can not fool all the people at all the times, Mr. Bacchan!


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


user
And the worst part is that it could have been good. But something horribly wrong. First thing first, they should not have cast Amitabh Bachchan in this film at all. He is too much of an Icon to tackle such a delicate and controversial topic let alone the role itself.
Secondly, Ram Gopal Varma ought to be ashamed of himself for taking the classic story of Lolita and turning it into a pathetic predictable slut-fest. His Lolita is named Jia (played by newcomer Jiah Khan) and when we meet her, she is devoid of any inkling of stolen innocence or that delicate naivety that one would normally associate with the complicated tale of the original Lolita who in the original story, gradually becomes nymphet. Varma's Jia is already a whore with her eye on the prize even even before the camera meets her. And he exercises no chastity in the way his films his leading nymphet. From constant panning shots of her crotch to fixations on her vulgar gestures and mannerisms, Mr. Varma makes sure he has left not one person in the audience less than uncomfortable with his voyeuristic pedophile camera angles.
Oh and let's not talk about the non-existent chemistry between Jia and her so-called friend Ritu (Bachchan's character's daughter). These girls are supposed to be best friends yet look like worst enemies even before anything goes wrong between them. Nothing they do together is believable until they become enemies. Maybe Mr. Varma should have worked on that aspect of his script rather than focusing on destroying any credibility Amitabh Bachchan might have had left as an actor.
The worst part of the movie is perhaps the subservient portrayal of the character of Bachchan's character's wife. Her role was so underwritten and ridiculously wooden that it's impossible to actually feel any pity or concern for her. I actually felt like reaching into the screen slapping her for not reacting like any normal woman would. Instead she just stood there looking Irritated and Helpless, as I imagine much of the viewers of this film might feel after watching this train-wreck of a film. Watch at your own risk.


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


user
this is by far the most pathetic movie Indian cinema or any cinema has come up with.it is totally a piece of crap.the story line odes not hold any water. it is shameful that such a respectful actor has stooped to such a low on making such a disgraceful movie. the little respect he had is lost forever. he should have retired longtime ago instead of making a fool of himself and loosing all the self respect. i would not recommend this movie to any one. furthermore i would suggest that Amitabh should retire already. I wonder how IMDb has given some recommendations to this movie. there are no movies so horrible that any recommendations could be made. seeing such movies as Devdas in the same line as this movie does a grave injustice to a decent movie. its overall i could say shameless.


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 stupid and i hate it!!! i turned it off before it reached half i hate this movie. Amitabh sucks in this movie i wanna throw eggs at the person who directed this movie. This movie is stupid and i hate it!!! i turned it off before it reached half i hate this movie. Amitabh sucks in this movie i wanna throw eggs at the person who directed this movie. This movie is stupid and i hate it!!! i turned it off before it reached half i hate this movie. Amitabh sucks in this movie i wanna throw eggs at the person who directed this movie. This movie is stupid and i hate it!!! i turned it off before it reached half i hate this movie. Amitabh sucks in this movie i wanna throw eggs at the person who directed this movie. This movie is stupid and i hate it!!! i turned it off before it reached half i hate this movie. Amitabh sucks in this movie i wanna throw eggs at the person who directed this movie.


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


user
Nishabd means wordless. This must be the condition of the script before the shooting of this film started and therefore throughout this film cries for content. What you go for is an unusual love story between a 60-yr old man and an 18-yr old girl and what you get are very usual, very common events that neither excite nor surprise. So what we are left finally is with picturesque locations of Kerala shot brilliantly by cinematographer Amit Roy and camera friendly histrionics of newfound Jiah Khan. This does not cover up for lack of a concrete script. Producer-Director Ram Gopal Varma who has such a good track record of films needs to pull up his socks. As far as Mr. Bachchan goes, I don't want to discuss him in context of this film.
While reviewing, I am feeling loss of words. I am left speechless rather wordless !
Personal Opinion : This film can be compared with an equally bad film released some time back called BLACK. I don't see the difference between the histrionics of lead characters in both the films. What did you say just now- That was a world-class cinema blah blah, and I don't have any taste. Well, take a walk. No I don't mean literally but actual one to the theaters showing this film. Because in that case you might find this film an Oscar-level material.


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


user
Good cinematography, good acting good direction...cannot justify a story that is not and cannot be acceptable to any society. Amitabh has often used the media to make this junk sell able by saying that -- if such an incident happens...then what? I would like to ask him if such a thing happens for your own child or your grandchild (say girl child) then what will you do? I think every parents will have to take special care before interacting with any 60 year old neighbor if you have one -jia- with you. Such films should be banned and discouraged otherwise you inspire more more Nithari cases. Such acts are villainous and villains in films are punished..that should be the moral of the story and not glorify their act or them.


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


user
The production year says it all. The movie is a marauding mess of politically correct leftwing feministic selfappreciating drivel, of a so heavyhanded symbolic variety that comes across as ridiculous today. Every scene has the purpose of shedding light on one of the burning issues of society, mainly the role of females in the working community, the role of women vs men, women as sex objects, consumerism, politics, war, etc. Every scene is commented upon by the inner dialogue of one of the main actresses, or by turning the scene into a surrealistic joke. I have no reminiscence of any plot, or who the main characters actually were. It is the sort of movie, where consumerism is mocked by having a couple make love in a furniture store sales window while the sales agent delivers his speech, or where a revealing interview of a stage actress turns into a fullblown striptease act, for "of course" the offensive gentlemen of the press is the equal to a raunchy club audience. Then we move swiftly on, as we need to see war erupt in a peaceful forest, we need to see multiple inflammatory feministic public speeches being drowned in the (male) blowing of cars horns or rioting crowds, and of course we need to see cinema newsreels of Stalin and all the other usual suspects. You get the idea. But all this does not matter at all. The movie is an unsurpassed piece of eyecandy for any (male) Ingmar Bergman aficionado. A movie boasting leads Bibi Andersson, Harriet Andersson and Gunnel Lindblom at the height of their beauty makes this reviewer surrender completely and just drivel  and also delight in watching them so generously use their acting skills in a movie I had never heard about before today. It is hard to believe how especially the face of Bibi Andersson owns the screen every single time she appears. The cinematography is gorgeously orchestrated bw, often revelling in an overexposed (?) dimensionless whitishness, and you just never grow tired of watching the performers. How absurd, that a movie made with so much consideration for the feministic agenda, tirelessly advocating that women should not be viewed as merely an object of desire, has nothing better to offer the 21st century viewer than a parade of stunningly beautiful babes. As mentioned, I am not complaining. I could rewatch it tomorrow.


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


user
That was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Why would someone make a movie about getting away with murder!?! Mr. Allen again plays the only type of character that he's able, the sexually stunted man who can't get the girl. Get a clue, Allen, there's a reason that's the only character that you can successfully portray. Stir clear of this movie! It's a waste of time, unless you want to know how to successfully murder someone. I feel sorry for the actors who say 'yes' to Woody Allen. Look at his cast, and tell me how many of those people are still working. My respect for all of the actors, who work for him, immediately goes down, because they chose to participate in the film.


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


user
I don't see why everyone loves this film so much. True, it does have good intentions and meaning, but you cannot compensate for such a poor script. Woody Allen is a brilliant filmaker, but I'm afraid this is just a piece of garbage. It's extremely predictable and the subject matter is all too visible. I happen to be a huge Woody Allan fan and love most of his work, but this I cannot recomend.


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


user
A few words for the people here in germen's cine club: The worst crap ever seen on this honorable cinema. A very poor script, a very bad actors, and a very bad movie. Don't waste your time looking this movie, see the very good "mutantes verdes fritos anarquia radioactiva", or any movie have been good commented by me. Say no more.


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


user
A family of dirt-farmers moves out west.
The head of Walnut Grove's newest motley brood is named 'Charles'. He works at the mill sawing lots of lumber, though who in hell he thinks he's cutting all that wood for is a mystery, because none of the folks in all of township have enough money to buy a splinter, much less a two-by-four.
Running the town is the 'Olsons', a rich but stupid clan that relocated to these parts in order to rake in all that dough they make selling eggs for eleven cents a dozen. They have two children, a boy, 'Willie', and a girl, 'Nellie', whom between them, have only one saving asset... Nellie is hot and it's fun to spy on her when she takes a bath in the crick.
The town preacher is also the village idiot because he thinks he's really something special to this backwoods covey of country dillweeds, when in reality, they can't stand his boring sermons and the only thing they pray for on Sunday is for him to fall off the nearest cliff as soon as possible.
The town doctor is a dinosaur who saw his better days about 20 years ago, but he hangs around anyway so he can give free breast examinations to the old hags that live in town. Unfortunately, the only time these ancient hot mamas get down on their knees is to pull a loaf of bread out of the oven to give to the Doc for his services. But that's OK with Doc because he knows these old wenches give good bread.
Bringing up the rear of this colorful collection of country cow-chips is Charles' wimpy wife 'Carolyn' and their three girls, 'Mary', 'Carrie', and 'Half-Pint'. Mary is another hot chick who all the guys sneak a peek at whenever she takes a shower or a crap. Carrie is an annoying little kid, but stick a cookie in her mouth and you won't even know she's there, in fact, where is she?... oh, there she is... she's in the yard playing with a pack of cigarettes... how cute! Half-Pint is the town's youngest screw-up. She may not have a brain or any kind of a body to speak of, but she can spit farther then any boy in the whole freaking school.
It's a great town, Walnut Grove, where someone is always falling off a roof or getting run over by a wagon wheel, and it's beautiful, too, made up of one building... the church/school-house/town hall/pool room. Ah, it gets a little hairy on the prairie, but that's OK, especially when Mary is taking a bath in the crick... that's when you can see how hairy it really is.


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


user
Some people like to tell you that Deep Space 9 is the best of all the Star Trek shows, because it stresses character development and continuity, and features a more complex background and ongoing plots. In some ways this makes it more satisfying, but in many ways the show fails entirely.
The series starts out as a soap opera on a space station, with two entire seasons of generic science fiction stories balanced with banal subplots about the characters. The characters are a good bunch, and most of the actors are decent, but I think the writers tried too hard to make them "normal". By "normal" they actually mean "ordinary and tedious".
At the end of Season Two we are introduced to the Dominion, who hang around menacingly for a while before finally going to war with the good guys in Season Five. This is the main "story arc" of the show, but it only takes up a fraction of the entire series. We still get lame stand-alone episodes, heroes still get stranded on weird planets for forty-five minutes, and there's an awful lot of low-brow comedy featuring the greedy, goofy Ferengi. A lot of episodes are merely dull, and some are unwatchable.
The Dominion, DS9's main villains, are bent on galactic domination for the convenient reason that, well, they just don't like anyone. The entire war is presented with a naive lack of moral complexity and imagination. Impressively pyrotechnic space battles appear with great frequency from Season Three onwards, but these are carried out in ludicrously simplistic ways, such as two huge fleets of super-advanced starships flying right at each other and blasting away. The writers of DS9 (including the talented Ronald D. Moore, later of "Battlestar Galactica" fame) spiced up their monotonous show by starting a war, but at heart it is still a pedantic soap.
DS9 remains a very frustrating experience. The continuous story is too flat and obvious to be really gripping, and the characters never truly develop in interesting ways. "Babylon 5" and "Battlestar Galactica" both fulfilled the promise made by DS9, and did everything much better. For Star Trek, stick with the original and the Next Generation.


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


user
I didn't like watching DS9 compared to other Star Treks even Enterprise, but I didn't like Babylon 5, and now I know why. They are the same show. I just read the old news that Paramount stole the idea from the creator of Babylon 5, but they chose not to sue for a reason I don't know or care, but seeing as a Star Trek series is based off another even nerdier show is just to much to bare, now I will condemn anyone who even mentions the DS9 when talking about the series. Original, TNG, and Voyager are my favorites in that order. Before I didn't understand why everyone thinks DS9 is great and I didn't, but know I know. It's also because the captain has a real anger problem, and I hate people that act cool, but freak out, out of no where; and he seems to on every episode.


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


user
Although normally my preference is not for romantic dramas, seeing this film left me a little short.
It had promise, the characters and relationships could have been explored much deeper than they did, yet the story seemed not to understand the direction it wanted to take.
The comparisions and parallels within the story, especially the three generations of women in the family, had a lot of potential, but somehow didn't fully extend itself. It could have made the film much easier to relate to and attach to which is the aim of any film about lost-love and life regained.
IMHO, I think the film suffered from a lack of direction in the writing, although Harry Connick Jnr and Sandra Bullock did try desperatly to breath a little life into otherwise flat character outlines.
It's not that this is a bad film, some parts leave you understanding the reasons for various plot developments, its just that this film is underdone, and a little flat overall.


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


user
Everyone I know loves this movie, but I am afraid that I don't. I hated this film so much that I had to turn it off mid-film because of the repulsion. Way too much time is spent on weepiness and emotional bedlam, the point of the Bullock character being devastated by her divorce is jackhammered into the viewer's head excessively. Enough already!! And why didn't we hear more about her ex-husband? He is portrayed as nothing but a suit who comes by once in a while. Something must of made her want to marry him, what was it? What is it about him that makes her so devastated upon their divorce? More time could of been spent on that rather than yet one more shot of Bullock lying crumpled on the bedroom floor. The dialogue is stilted, cliched and terrible, much like one of those corny "ABC Afterschool Specials" or something. There is no imagination or creativity about anything in this film, it is all very predictable and therefore boring. This movie also goes into overdrive on the cutsiness factor, very stupid and not funny like it was supposed to be! This is just another one of those horribly done "I am woman, hear me roar" films, much like "Waiting To Exhale". If you want to see "I am woman, hear me roar" films that are truly entertaining, original and well-done, then see "Gas Food Lodging" or "Ruby in Paradise". Skip this crap!! I give "Hope Floats" 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
Hope Floats with Sandra Bullock is a real disappointment. The story starts off ok. Her husband cheats on her and she finds out on national television. So she has to rebuild her life. Here it could have gotten interesting or built up in a story line, but you become so bored with it. She moves back with her parents and Harry Connick Jr. who plays Justin begins hitting on her. The two have no real chemistry at all, yet your supposed to get the impression that Justin is in love with her. The movie ends the way you figure it will but you wish it hadn't ended like every other kind like it. They had a good start with this movie and could have turned it into something watchable but instead its a movie that you definitely want to miss.


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


user
This movie was a dismal attempt at recreating a crucial time in English history. The film version of Cromwell's growing involvement in the War is marginally accurate but the overall historical accuracy of this movie was way off. This film implies that the war was started over religious differences but the Civil War was in no way Catholic versus Protestant: both sides were Protestant. Cromwell was never present at the battle of Edgehill, nor did he ever "save the day". The royalists did not win, the battle ended in a draw.
As another reviewer has noted, Cromwell was certainly not one of the "Five Members" who were to be removed from the House and arrested.
Overall, this movie was decent. The producers tried WAY to hard and it didn't turn out so great.
definitely could have been better.


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


user
It really amazed me to see that someone would take so much time to assess such a bad movie. The beginning (of the film) had some truth in it. The Partisan "AF" was started in 1943 when two communist pilots from the Croat Ustashi AF deserted, together with their observers, in Breguet 19 and Potez 33, respectively. The aircraft saw some action in strafing and hand-bombing, but didn't last very long. One crew was killed and the other survived, the pilot being killed later while flying a Spitfire Vc. The real Partisan squadrons were established when RAF detached two of its (Yugoslav) squadrons of Spitfire Vc and, Hurricane IIc , respectively, manned by Ex Yugoslav Royal Airforce pilots, and allotted them to Tito's forces on the Island of Vis. Even those were never engaged in air-to-air activities, but strictly for ground support. So the film was one giant cow manure, to put it mildly, and the lowest point for its, otherwise not at all bad, director. By some quirk of fate I was present on the filming of the last sequence of the movie, when dozens of German aircraft were destroyed (Yugoslav 522 trainers, used also in the flying sequences) on the Mostar military airport. The pyrotechnics were impressive, and the Scotch served lavishly by the film crew was even better. Otherwise, the film was a shameless lie was and frequently joked about by the contemporary audience.


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


user
Playmania is extremely boring. This is the basis of the show. Mel or Shandi ask extremely easy questions that a 2 year old could answer at an extremely slow pace. This show lasts for 2 hours and they probably only play about 10 games in that period. People may like this show because the hosts are eye candy, but they're hotness completely is destroyed by the fact that they are so friggin annoying.
During the show they mention that we need more players a million times. The top 5 surveys that they do probably takes about 20 minutes out of the show. This show is probably one of the worst game shows ever made. One of the reasons they probably don't have callers is because the show is so cheap with the money. The most money I've ever seen them hand out was $210. I wouldn't be surprised if this "game show" is canceled by the end of 2006.


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


user
The female hot numbers on this show are breathtaking. They can also talk like there's no tomorrow. Otherwise, this show would go into the toilet quickly. How much money do they make on all the people who text in, with that hope to be called back to win, $100.oo, or whatever. Boy, now that's a scam!!! Can I buy stocks in this money maker??? Let's face it, with the technology of now, thousands of people could be calling every minute. And, with ten thousand channels and nothing worth a crap on, thousands of people watch this show. "Oh, I know this answer!", is probably a super common line among the listeners. With these super hotties constantly saying the 'lounge' needs callers, I think it's a bunch of B.S. Frequently, someone who does get through, sounds amazed that they're actually talking to the host. Many of them sound depressed and worn out by probably waiting so long and trying so many times to get on and score some pocket change. Wow, the producers must be just raking it in. No wonder there are so few commercials. Commercials are only on to give time for more (primarily losers) to text in and wait, and hope, and dream, and fantasize about--- what? --- winning enough money for a tank of gas and a dinner at Mc..something? I only watch it now & then on my brothers TV, because he likes to watch it when he's on the computer. I'll sit there for 15 to 20 minutes and look at Mel (one of the tastiest looking women on TV) and laugh at the scam that's in front of me. Then, I have to leave; even if I don't! People who have an active life, can only take this show in extreme moderation. Mel, get yourself into the movies, or TV sitcoms, or something. Many of us are infatuated with you! Even with the super cu-ties, I'm amazed this show is still on!


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 can most accurately be described as TV Bubble-Gum: It's chewing, it has a good taste to it, and it lasts a long time. But, like Bubble-Gum, it can leave a bad taste in your mouth after a few too many chews.
This show features very simple questions that take the form of simply games, like Hangman, guessing a simple phrase or guessing items on a short list. Callers are the contestants, and anybody can play.
The questions, though, are terribly easy. There's some techno music pumped into the background that's fashioned into a continuous loop. It never seems to get old, but it never adds much to the show anyway. The hostess, however, regardless of which one that it, is extremely personable, pleasant enough to watch and can make some very amusing facial expressions. I rather enjoy that British woman.
But there's nothing to this show. It's simplistic and uncompelling, although it can be entertaining if absolutely nothing else is on.


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


user
Maybe in its day this movie was special. But five decades later it seems quaint, just another cinematic relic of the dreadful 1950s. Stereotypes abound in this fluffy story about three female gold diggers who set up shop in a Manhattan penthouse, in an effort to attract wealthy husbands.
I don't mind the shallow theme. But the film's premise is lame. And the execution is worse. It's a romantic comedy, but I found little to laugh at. The plot point about an extremely nearsighted bimbo is about the only clever element of the story. Overall dialogue is flat, and so too is the delivery. And the script structure is disconcerting. The plot keeps jumping back and forth among the three ladies. It's as if the writer couldn't quite blend the ensemble roles. The result is a plot that seems choppy.
Marilyn Monroe was a good choice for her role. But Lauren Bacall was too old for the role she played. And Betty Grable, with her squeaky voice and awful hairdo, was just plain annoying.
Color cinematography is conventional. But there were lots of shots using rear screen projection, contributing to a dated look. The visuals are made even worse by costumes that reek of cheesy 1950's "glamour"; they are just awful. Viewers must endure a fashion show, a plot point that amplifies how the film's director was smitten by those trashy glad rags.
And then there is that orchestra. In what is arguably the worst film opening in cinema history, the first part of the film has an orchestra playing some dreary-sounding tune. At first, I thought I was watching the introduction to coming attractions. But no, it's actually part of the film. And the orchestra plays on, and on, and on. It has nothing, absolutely nothing, whatever to do with the story. What were they thinking?
I enjoyed Marilyn Monroe, with her breathy voice, as she bimbos her way through the plot. But the film would have been far better if they had dumped the other two ensemble roles, dumped that orchestra, enhanced the comedy dialogue, and downplayed those gaudy, cheesy costumes.


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


user
The premise of the movie had much going for it, however, despite the novelty of models selling off someone else's furniture to live the high life, this movie has nothing going for it. The characters are cardboard. The dialog is so painfully scripted, it's hard to sit through, and if there were any jokes in the movie, I missed them. Marilyn Monroe's walking into walls because she doesn't want to wear glasses is completely unbelievable & not funny. Grable's stupidity is also too ham-fisted to be believed. Bacall's gold-digging is so forced, it's annoying to listen to. Why anyone would want to sit through this is beyond me.


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


user
This two and a half hour long film was shown recently at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) at a 10 PM show. There was a scheduled 1 AM show after that, but wondered if anyone was going to stay awake to see that until 3:30 am. The opening scene is of a man walking in a field, and it lasts four minutes of movie time. It is an ominous sign of what's to come: a good 144 minutes more of pretty much the same. There is a scene of a man and a woman against a wall, standing in the sun. It is repeated 15 times, with very sparse dialogue. Occasionally, these very long slow sequences are interrupted by shocking stills, such as a close up of female genitalia, shown for one full minute of film time (audience crowd laughing in the last 20 seconds, as to say, "what's the message?"). The story resembles Dostoyevsky's novel "The Karamazov brothers", in which a cretin falls in love with a woman of easy morals. In one of the rare instants in which the crowd was laughing (more in desperation to try to justify having been there already a full two hours to see nothing happening) was when the statement by a british tourist that he couldn't see things clearly since the Eurostar train was traveling at 180 miles an hour, was translated by the translator with automatic switch of units of measure from English System to Metric system to "they couldn't see things clearly since the train was traveling at 300 kilometers per hour". What was amazing about this movie is that the quality of cinematography reveals that alot of money has been spent on it. This was no film kitchen 8-mm experiment. It was carefully planned, structured, acted, montaged. Yet, I got so little out of it. Some comments indictated on the excruciating detail, such as the minutae of a dandling key chain on a door just opened. Okay, it was noted, but what was the purpose? Some corageous people in the audience walked away after the first hour. The rest remained out of curiosity: there must be something happening at the end. There never was. And maybe that's what the film is about. All the movies at the theater are action-packed. This one wants to be different. There is nothing happening.


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


user
The director infuses this film with false depth by repeating a gimmick throughout the film. EVERY single shot in this movie is 3 times longer than it needs to be. You could easily cut out 1.5 hours of this agonizingly long 2.5 hour film without eliminating: one word of dialogue, one image, one event, or bit of movement.
This was one of the most gratuitous wastes of film I have ever seen. Other reviewers have called it pretentious, which is an understatement. L'Humanite is pseudo-intellectual trash designed to be anti-Hollywood so that the Cannes judges could assert their independence from the Oscars.
The IMDb reviewer states: "Unlike Hollywood movies - which usually force the audience into overdrive - this forces the audience to slow down and look at some of life's tiniest and most mundane features in great detail." You would have to be catatonic to stare at some of these images this long and move as slowly at these characters. This isn't real life unless you are heavily medicated.
Finally, I felt that Schotté's portrayal was a sad rip-off of Peter Sellers' masterful "Chauncy Gardner." He uses the same facial expressions and postures. He even gardens! In many respects there are parallels between these two movies. The main difference being that "Being There" moves along and doesn't rely on shock and gimmicks to create a meaningful experience while questioning various things we take for granted 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
European films may be slower-paced and less plot driven than American films, but this takes it way too far. It also show a whole bunch of incompletely drawn characters doing inexplicable things. It's not fantasy, it's not even surreal, it's just awkward and bad.
What's the message here? That people in France are pensive and gaze morosely a lot? That they like to watch other people having sex? They they spontaneously scream or touch a stranger on his neck? Do not wear a watch when seeing this film, as you will be astonished at how little is explained or learned over huge stretches of time.
This is the story of a "police superintendent" who is deeply troubled by the brutal murder of a little girl, though actually he seems troubled before then. He is not merely upset at his own personal tragedies, but apparently mentally quite slow, behaving very much like a learning-disabled six-year old child. He stares blankly a lot, walks with arms rigid like a little kid, speaks in meek, simpering, tones, behaves quite oddly in all of his interactions (though no one seems to notice or care, even when it is supposed to be police business). He's not a troubled cop, more of an outpatient. Picture Andy Kaufman's Latka character on Taxi, but without the humor. He is not only not believable as a policeman he is not believable as an adult. That he won an award for this interpretation of his character is truly amazing -- unless he was playing the part exactly as written and the fault lies with the weirdos who scripted this thing. The plot is clearly secondary. Do not expect to see anything remotely like what police would do if a little girl was found murdered. This not that important, though the implausibility of their behavior is sort of insulting. The problem is that the rest of the film makes no sense either. That leaves the long lingering close-ups of fields, vegetable gardens, people's faces etc. The ending struck me as especially ridiculous -- totally unsupported by the events leading up to it -- unless you think, "What's the worst way this film could end?"
There is lots of sex and nudity, which is supposed to mean something. You want vaginas? You'll see vaginas. Not to worry, it's art. It has deep meaning, what I am not sure. And the protagonist, despite his innocent weirdness, seems to have some sort of homoerotic neck or jowl fetish.
Finally, the subtitles are in white and frequently appear on a white background -- very hard to read many of them. On the other hand, there isn't much dialogue, so this isn't a big problem. There is also very little sound -- not even ambient sounds you would expect to hear -- in the film, contributing to the emptiness of the whole experience. The old Woody Allen would have had a field day parodying this work.
That this is an award-winning film is sad. I would hate to see the losing films.
Enjoy.


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


user
I saw this film at the Edinburgh Film Festival, and would not recommend it. It is two and a half hours long, during which nothing much happens at a wading-through-porridge pace.
The main characters are gormless and totally lacking in charisma or personality. No-one smiles at all during the film (neither would I if I had their lives), and although Domino seems to have a healthy sexual appetite she doesn't seem to enjoy sex at all.
The whole experience is depressing and ponderous, the director lingering over each scene in a way that drove me crazy rather than striking me with the beauty of his technique.
Too many questions were left in my mind: why does he sniff the Algerian man's head? Why does he levitate? What is he looking at over the allotment fence? Why does he kiss Joseph? Why did we go and see this rubbish rather than ordering another bottle of wine in Bouzy Rouge?


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


user
A trio sit at a restaurant table and stare wordlessly into space. Later, they lean on a rail and stare across the Channel at England. A man works a hoe repetitively in his garden, only his head and upper torso visible on the screen. A man and a woman watch another man peeing against a stone wall. Each of these silent shots lasts for roughly one full minute. Absolutely no information is imparted that could not be given to us in about one quarter of the time. The editor must have been half asleep. I know I was.
The movie open with a startling shot of the raw vagina of an obviously dead body. One's gorge rises. But then the policeman (Schotte) exchanges a few words with a neighboring couple and begins to tag along after them and the case is forgotten for the next half hour while Schotte and his friends trade unfunny insults with each other and with strangers. Eventually the thread of the case is picked up again but proceeds slowly, almost aimlessly, following the stylistic pattern already established.
Sometimes in movies like this, the location shooting provides a kind of atmosphere that compensates for the dullness of the story, but not here. The houses of the French village are attached to one another in long rows. The house fronts abut the pavement directly, with no steps. The fronts show virtually no decoration and are pretty much indistinguishable. The flat farmlands are featureless. What might have been one of the more interesting episodes -- a visit to a stone fort on the coast -- bores the trio until they begin behaving like snots and are asked to leave.
The acting is minimal. Nobody seems particularly anxious to say anything. No jokes are made. Nothing amusing happens. The policeman has a face almost as interesting as Randy Quaid's. The babe, a tall hefty blonde, looks like the kind of shot putter on steroids that the East Germans used to field at the Olympic Games.
I sat through more than an hour of it before giving it up. Maybe I'll take a crack at it some other time. Unless I've missed something or unless it turns into some deranged Monty Python routine towards the end, I don't think you'll get much out of renting it.


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


user
The main character, Pharaon, has suffered a loss of his wife and child in the pre-film past. He deals with with by just shutting down emotionally. Too long a movie, too much time spent on Pharaon's inexpressive face, too much "road time" (one of the banes of TV: filling time with moving cars, trains, etc.) Long scenes of him doing trivial - sometimes totally inexplicable, nonsensically trivial - actions with neither reason or emotion. His best friends Joseph and Domino are not much more, their relationship based on sex (this film perhaps gives new meaning to the phrase "gratuitous sex"); Domino and Pharaon's mother are the two characters who display some emotion, but not much. It is hard to tell with all the characters in this movie: is it indifferent acting, indifferent writing, or simply indifferent characters portrayed by good writing and good acting. Characters in this film talk very little to anyone; it's little wonder their emotionally isolated, which is all the more bizarre because it's clear they live in a neighborhood where the people are friendly and know each other.


assistant
0