empathielabs/imbd_dataset_v0 huggingface dataset:
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This is the ultimate Kung Fu movie! This is the only Kung Fu movie! This is the only Kung Fu movie I have ever seen! I am giving this movie way too much credit! My best guess for the reason for making this movie is that someone wanted to show off someone else's martial arts abilities, but realized that you can't just film a guy fighting another guy and have people watch it, so he put a story behind the fighting... and people still didn't watch it.
This movie's story line was onion skin thin. That acting was goofy and stereotypical of any Kung Fu movie. The dubbing was literally the worst I have ever heard. It seemed if you played a small role in this movie, like the fat guy or the two guys trying to catch the main character with a net, it didn't matter who over did your voice. It could have been a dyslexic with a slurred stutter and nobody would have said anything. But beside all of this, the movie makes up for itself with the somewhat awesome fight scenes.
The fight scenes were definitely what this movie was all about. But the instigations of the fights were totally absurd! On most all instances, a guy either pops out of the tall grass, or glances at the main character from a distance, and then attacks him. But once the fighting started, things sort of balanced out. There were only two things that really hampered the fighting, though. Those constant "wooshing" sound effects that were added to every swing of a fist or foot or sword, and the poor editing that made 25 percent of the fighting VERY jumpy and choppy. Someone would be in the middle of a back flip and then suddenly be on the ground being kicked, and then instantly be back on their feet blocking a punch. But while the cut and paste editing was more of a nuisance than anything else, it didn't really affect the overall movie.
In the end, this was not a great movie, but I wasn't expecting a great movie. A great movie is not something you should expect when you see a box cover like this movie's. All I saw this movie as was a way to pass an hour and a half of boredom. I rarely say that, but this was just one of those movies you have no practical use for, so you watch it whenever you have some free time. Enjoy the movie if you decide to watch it! Good day gentlemen.
-Scott-


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 had all the potential and makings of a great feel good, great love story...the cast is perfect, the visuals work, the original premise works, the characters work....but the story moves from one chess move to the next in a most predictable way...not one character in the movie has any depth or has any depth explained by the director. All we know about Catherine Zeta-Jones character is she is obsessed with her world....nobody is allowed in and nobody challenges her world...that much is obvious....but the remaining characters all have their own dimensions that are really never explored or exposed....Aaron Eckhart's character had so much more to offer to the story but wasn't allowed, Abigail Breslin's character is so easy to understand that her performance comes across somewhat predictable and phony....in the end everything reverts back to the forced turbulent world of Catherine Zeta-Jones which the audience never totally falls for....honestly, her turbulent world is not much more than a portrayal of a selfish, self obsessed, spoiled lady who most people would not have much time or sympathy for in the real world. The director needed to make her a hero and never does....in the end, it is Eckhart's character that ultimately wins because he wins.
Not a lousy movie, just a movie that could have been a lot better with more depth of personalities allowed in, explained and exposed.
Cheers


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


user
Well, i must admit, when i saw the trailer for this movie, i was looking forward to it. I am generally a fan of light hearted romantic comedies and from the trailer, thats the impression i got of this movie. However, i spent most of the movie waiting for the comedy to begin. Although there were a couple of amusing scenes, in general the outlook of the movie was quite depressing.
I also found it difficult to fall in love with any of the characters as they all seemed a little underdeveloped, the time which the director could have used exploring the characters taken up by a needless overuse of Opera, making the movie feel dragged out and slow.
All in all, although there are some touching scenes, the trailer is quite deceptive and i would only suggest you go watch this if there is really nothing else that tickles your fancy.
Not fantastic, and as i have said before; Bland.


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


user
Go to the video store and get the original. I do not understand why Hollywood has that need to take a perfect foreign movie and remake it. "Mostly Martha" or "Bella Martha" has a much better cast. Beginning with the heroine Martina Gedeck, who convinced me much more in the role of the work-obsessed perfectionist than the more famous Catherine Zeta Jones, to the Italian cook and the niece suddenly deprived of her mother and forced to live with an aunt, not fit for child-rearing.
In many ways, the American version of the movie is a copy of the German original. They just exchanged the actors. However, they also changed the story because it would have been difficult and not very believable to materialize a father for the little girl in an American context.
I was thinking about that. Maybe the father could have been Puerto Rican, or Cuban, or Mexican. Well, there are so many "guest workers" in the U.S. Take your pick. But I doubt that any of them would have shown up to shoulder the responsibility as the Italian father did in the original. Therefore, the American movie leaves that part out but keeps the Italian cook. And by doing this the whole story changes. In the original "Martha" is so removed from reality that she thinks it is okay to send her niece off with a complete stranger in a foreign country.
The American "Martha" is softer and therefore the movie is sweeter and does not have that edge the German movie has.
In the original the "Italian" cook is not so good looking but much more charming , the little girl is more of a brat but much more believable and "Martha" is more representative of a career woman in today's world than the watered down version we are presented in the American version. And the whole opera music in the American version was very annoying. I loved the Italian songs in the original and bought the CD.
Hollywood recognized that "Mostly Martha" was a great movie. Maybe the distribution companies should have put it in more theaters or it should have been shown in English without subtitles. In any case, the original is so much better. By the way this reminds me of another remake. "Shall we dance" is one of my favorites in the original Japanese version and totally forgettable in the American version.


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


user
Much as I really like Catherine Zeta-Jones, I wondered once again, why remake a good movie? This version lacked the tension and passion of Mostly Martha. It was a clear rip off. Maxime Foerste was more convincing as a hurting child who healed with love. I couldn't believe Abigail Breslin. Martina Gedeck owned this role. Unfortunately Zeta-Jones should have found another one that she could own (she has other roles she does own.). Sergio Castellitto was good as a vulnerable but joyful Italian. Aaron Eckhart seemed passionless in comparison. This version was pleasant but bland.
The love between Mario and Martha was perhaps predictable but satisfying. The therapist added an interesting bit of color that didn't seem important. I liked it when at the end he said he'd be back but the movie was over before he returned. I have Mostly Martha at home. Every now and then I revisit it.


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


user
There is only one word to define the whole movie, that is: awful. How "Mostly Martha" was remade is awful. The title of the movie is awful. The actors are awful. And the idea of combining good cooking and USA is awful. If you have seen "Bella Martha", well that is the original title and it means "Beautiful Martha", this one is a punch in the stomach. The acting of Ms.Jones is so poor and unnatural that even Jessica Alba, considered one of the worst actresses (http://www.razzies.com/history/05nomActr.asp) would have done better. Not to mention the cook, who would better play a different role. And the little girl... not worth mentioning. Bella Martha was a very nice movie, an authentic one... why was it remade? There was a story.... here they took it out. There is no story... What shall it represent? In one way also this movie was perfect. You know when all ingredients fit together? Well this is the case here. A perfect Crap....


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


user
How bad idea was to remake an almost Oscar -worthy film?! MOSTHLY MARTHA is MUCH MORE BETTER, has deepness, finesse and so on and mainly: a wonderful and talented actress in the leading role (Martina Gedeck). It's a joke and ugliness with the handsome Aaron and the whole atmosphere... again a ridiculous effort from Hollywood. There are more and more remake and the films are full with schemes.. Isn't anybody there who can create a good and newly script? Or this is a safety solution to make remake or movies from the well-tried cartoon figures? The films are getting much less interesting nowadays. Oh yes: If you want to see a REALLY good movie watch the original one. It's definitely worth.


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


user
There really is only one reason to watch this barely adequate and utterly predictable movie about an uptight chef Kate Armstrong (Catherine Zeta Jones) whose life changes when she inherits her orphaned niece Zoe (Abigail Breslin) after her sister is killed in a car wreck. And that reason is to watch Aaron Eckhart (Nick) who, with his floppy haircut and appealingly laddish attitude, looks good enough to slap between two slices of organic Pannini and eat with an olive oil and balsamic vinaigrette dip and a few finely diced sun dried tomatoes. He reminds me of Sean Bean. The thought that he might take his shirt off really was the only thing that kept me awake until the end. He removed his apron petulantly several times, but to my disappointment, never went further.
I can't be too critical because I was watching it on pay per view at home, so it hadn't cost me the price of two movie tickets at least, and I was brought up to be grateful for small mercies. But really, this is Rom Com at its most formulaic. Zeta Jones gives a very flat, monotonous performance, she seemed utterly lacking in passion, (possibly due to the amount of time she apparently spent in the cold store at the restaurant? Thirty takes in there can't have been fun) and her face barely changed expression throughout the whole movie. Abigail Breslin was pretty good as the niece, she's such an appealing little girl that it's quite impossible to criticize her, and anyway I loved her in Little Miss Sunshine. Patricia Clarkson is always good value and I can't really fault her performance as the restaurant owner, because she seemed very underused, given what a good actor she is and how little she had to do here. But the whole thing is just so clichéd, much of the dialog banal, and the outcome so obvious. This is the cinematic equivalent of paint by numbers, and Zeta Jones and Eckhart generate little heat on screen.
Nick likes Italian food (doubtless indicating his burning inner passion) and cooks to the sound of Puccini. His appearance in Kate's kitchen at 22 Bleecker (the restaurant's name) predictably ruffles her feathers but his uncanny ability to bond with her niece by cooking pizza and building a Bedouin tent in the living room, brings Kate around and, despite a few stumbles along the way, she ends up giving him her prized possession. No, not her honour. But her recipe for saffron sauce.
I'm being very unfair here, aren't I? I mean Rom Com is Rom Com, and we all know what we are letting ourselves in for when we sign up. But does it always have to be so mind numbingly dull?


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


user
I am a longtime fan of the original of this movie (Bella Martha/Mostly Martha), and everything that makes that movie great and enjoyable to watch is missing from this one. I miss the slow pace, the build-up of characters and their style in small gestures, the dominance of lights and moods and moves over dialog. I don't think that the story itself is enough. Martha/Kate is more secluded, and Mario/Nick is not a clown. In most of the cases the things that makes one scene great in the original, its is not working in its copy here. The small alterations take away the tension. My opinion is that you should go and see the original. It'll worth the inconvenience of subtitles.


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


user
I hesitated seeing this movie, having really enjoyed the original, 'Mostly Martha'. What a disappointment. Catherine Zeta Jones is a good actress but this wasn't her film. The original had poignant moments, perfectly punctuated with an incredible soundtrack. No reservations felt like it never connected. The food, the characters - nothing felt passionate. In Mostly Martha, the food came alive- every scene was filmed in such a way you could taste it with your eyes - the smells, the textures. The food in 'No Reservations' was in the background - rarely did we get a closeup of the preparation; the characters were not real enough to carry the movie without it. It was hard finishing the movie - many of the scenes felt awkward. See the original - it's a truly enjoyable movie; the soundtrack incredible.


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


user
Yes, I spelled that right. This movie is so predictable, the actual word needs additional letters to exemplify the predictability. From the moment the principal characters and situation are introduced, it is paint-by-numbers as to where this plot will take us. The foreshadowing was as subtle as a two ton sledgehammer. You could take numerous pieces of dialogue and anticipate the role it would play in the ending.
Catherine Zeta-Jones and Aaron Eckhardt did decent jobs in undemanding roles and Abigail Breslin played the cute role admirably. It's just that the movie brought absolutely nothing new to the romantic comedy genre. The romance was tepid and the laughs were weak and few. Sure, it's an OK movie if you have nothing to watch, but you won't miss anything by missing this one.


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


user
I recall years back, Michael Douglas wanted his wife, Catherine Zeta-Jones, to be in a romantic film because he felt his wife had all the goods. No doubt she does, but NOT in this film. A colossal waste of time, no story, no character development, no chemistry, nada. This was not the vehicle that we all hoped this film would be, boring and a HUGE disappointment. Didn't even watch the whole film, torture. Catherine Zeta-Jones was obviously trained in how to work a kitchen, move around, present a dish but this wasn't the food network, nothing learned here and once her counterpart appeared, supposedly a romantic interest brewing, where was the chemistry. The poor slob on the second floor of her building trying all the ploys to connect and no character development there. The loss of her sister was poorly played out as who knew there was a closeness. The sister's daughter just was plopped here and there with something that was supposed to draw you in, NOT. Just a waste of movie time. The promoters certainly did their job to put this lack-luster film on all the networks tempting you with all kinds of teasers. Sorry to say, don't spend a dime.


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


user
Catherine Zeta-Jones and Aaron Eckhart star in a "romantic" drama about an uptight chef played by Zeta-Jones, who ends up carrying for her niece when her sister is killed in a car crash. While she's out taking care of family matters she's replaced by Eckhart.
Unfunny maudlin tale with no chemistry between the leads (she's a dead fish and he's okay, but not much of anything). Watching this I was wondering why anyone would want to see this since Zeta-Jones' character is so unlikable. Come on she's so obsessed with cooking and being the best all she does is cook for her therapist or talk about food. Ugh. I won't use any of the numerous puns that come to mind. I couldn't finish it.


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 the trailers for this movie, it looked like a good romantic comedy. I expected some light fluffy fun. Instead, I was bored and a little depressed.
Honestly, there was no chemistry between the leads at all, and the movie had little, if anything, that was funny about it. The little girl was adorable - when she cried, I cried - but I thought they might have used someone a little bit younger in the role.
Either way, the movie was filled with long, dull silences or swelling opera music. I'm not anti-opera, but I would have preferred them to spend that time letting us get to know the characters, who were all stiff and underdeveloped.
I was really disappointed in this movie. The whole time I watched it I kept thinking of how much better it could have been.


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 really not going to waste my time with in depth analysis, i'm just going to say that i'm extremely disappointed that Catherine Zeta-Jones made the mistake of being in the main role in this absurd, nonsense, in this full of clichés boring to death thoughtless pathetic try in film-making! There is no point in trying to find the positive sides of this movie, because as a whole it is poor in every single way, and the saddest thing is that Zeta-Jones is dragged so uncompromisingly into the clichés, that she has absolutely no chance of showing even 1% of her talent!
Avoid this movie even at the opportunity of spending the night at home starring at the wall!!!


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


user
I really wanted to love this movie, and not only cause it had Aaron Eckhart in it but I thought the premise would be cool cause I enjoy movies and shows that revolves around chefs. The cinematography was good but besides it being revolved around chefs everything else is just very cliché. Oh and Little Miss Sunshine was very irritating in this movie although Abigail Breslin seems to be a bit irritating in every movie she is in cause she plays a lot of roles where she is whinny. It has some decent flashes of cooking, but food really didn't play a big part in the movie than I expected which was a big disappointment for me. This film had some good potential, the cast was great but they just had very little to work with. I like a good light hearted romantic comedy but this was just bland. And longer than it should be cause it felt way longer than it is. It's not a terrible movie, you just won't miss anything by not watching this movie.
4.5/10


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


user
I had high hopes for this film when I saw the listing and decided to watch it on TV, uninterrupted by commercial breaks. I've liked Lee Van Cleef in many movies but I'm afraid that having the other characters call him Chris repeatedly doesn't turn him into even a reasonable facsimile of Yul Brenner's Chris.
I found this movie to be a complete disappointment - the music sound track tried to impart the magnificence portrayed in the original but it too failed to bring the film up the the standard of the original. The rich textures of the characters in the original were mostly missing from this film. I guess if you haven't seen the original it would be okay. Too many clichés and too little depth to the characters. I missed the humanity and compassion and the three dimensional characters of the original.


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 was probably still in his early learning stages when he tried his hand at westerns. Have a look at the outfits. Everybody looks well-scrubbed, well-brushed, well-dressed and well-ironed as though ready for church. Even the horses look well-groomed and shiny. This is a WESTERN, for crying out loud! It's supposed to look dusty, nasty and sweaty. And then there's the amateurish acting of the females in this bird. The whole lot, a dozen or so, all pretty and well-endowed, were just freshly raped and widowed, but hardly a tear flows. Instead they all look with great interest (if not downright lust) at the newly arrived magnificent seven who they subsequently feed, bandage and comfort with love during their battles with the bandits. The same directing criticism goes for Lee van Cleef, who does a reasonable good acting job. Our Lee, playing the law, just lost his dear wife. But Lee, hard as organic rock, shows no emotion whatsoever and finds himself within days of his spouse's demise in the arms of a juicy widow with whom he, together with her brood, walks off into the future. The cad. And then there's another thing that always kind of bothers me with this type of films: it doesn't matter how many dynamite-induced explosions take place in the middle of a pack of some 50 horses, never mind how many shots are being fired at the rabble on top of them, only the crooks get killed and the nags always go their way rejoicing in one piece. (I know...silly moi...it's just a movie...). It's not the worst western ever made, but prepare for some serious yawning.


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


user
I guess I should now comment upon a 4th flick in the MAGNIFICENT SEVEN franchise; the sequels still surprise or amaze meby their sleaze and deliberate _absurdism. They constitute or forge a 4th waynot classic, not revisionist, not Europeanbut a sleaze Americana, kindred to the violent vigilante '70s movies, absurd trash. This installment too is bombastic sleazeinexplicably awkward and even somewhat strange.
Now what I find disturbing that these sequels not only have their opportunist fans; but that the fans simply do not sense any difference between the original's style and the sequels'.
These sequels are not boring or insipidbut bizarre. They are of course very badly writtenmessy scripts, rubbish lines. It's straight crazy; in this installment each gunman gets several women Van Cleef's young wife begs him to release a young prisoner; he finally does. The young man resumes his life, shoots Van Cleef, kidnaps the wife, rapes and kills herthen joins a wrongdoer. Van Cleef, who has previously refused to help defending a village, now assembles a small bunch and charges the wrongdoer's hacienda; then the wrongdoers charge the village where Van Cleef has set.
I liked the cast.
Van Cleef is Chris; Stefanie Powers, pretty active in the '70s screwy westerns, is Van Cleef's darling. Callan, very antipathetic, is Noah, a writer and Chris' sidekick. The rest of the aggressive bunch are Askew (one of the only three survivors), Armendariz, Lucking, Lauter; Rita Rogers is truly hot, fleshy beauty.


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


user
I would bet a month's salary "The Magnificent Seven Returns" (MSR) was made-for-TV. Other reviewers attest that MSR was a theatrical movie, and I'll take their word for it. The logical answer must assume it was originally shot for TV, and after a change-of-studio-heart, it was released theatrically instead. Every actor is primarily a TV actor: Mariette Hartley, Michael Callen, Ralfe Waite, Stephanie Powers... TV performers all. Lee Van Cleef split his time between TV and theater screens. Stephanie Powers has only made 3 or 4 "real" movie appearances in the last thirty years of a very prolific television career - proof positive this was shot for TV. Minor players are veteran small-screen actors who can be seen on old reruns of "Gunsmoke", "Wild Wild West," "Streets of San Francisco," and so on.
The ho-hum sets are identical to the Universal Studios Tour sets, often seen in old episodic TV. And the editing betrays the one-or-two-takes-hurriedness of TV, with limited camera movements, positioning, cutting, and lighting. The sound track, exclusive of the original Berstein themes, are straight from seventies television. Yep, I'd bet money it was shot for TV.
That's an important point in evaluating MSR. Initially I watched MSR on cable assuming it was an old theatrical release. In comparison to the original "Magnificent Seven", it's a joke, a cartoon, an amateurish attempt at movie making. Acting, lighting, writing, settings, action, cinematography, music (exempting the Berstein themes), editing, pacing,...on and on....all pale in comparison to the classic "Magnificent Seven" which is close to the perfect 60's western, and one of the great action movies of all time.
However, viewed as an early 70's made-for-TV movie, as I suspect, the film is actually better than average. Those unfortunate enough to live through the 70's as an adult, know what I'm talking about. MSR would have competed against "Alias Smith and Jones" and similarly bland network shows. During the seventies, "Gunsmoke" was a quality show, concentrating on character development rather than action, deemphasizing gun play to two shootouts a week. The first shooting, usually a murder, sets the hour's plot into motion - the second shootout climaxes the episode by killing the guest star, his nemesis, or otherwise resolving the conflict with Marshal Matt Dillon. MSR has more action than a whole season of "Gunsmoke." In this light - in this frame of reference - MSR is passable entertainment, a cut above the TV fare from that decade.


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


user
The series finally hits rock-bottom with this lousy fourth installment, which was (thank God) the last one. None of the three sequels did justice to the highly entertaining original, but this particular film is nothing more than a shameless attempt to exploit the name of the "Magnificent Seven" and Bernstein's rousing music theme. The production values resemble those of a made-for-TV movie and the characters are forgettable and indistinguishable: in parts "II" and "III" you couldn't remember their names, here you can't even remember their faces. Lee Van Cleef was an inappropriate choice for the role of Chris, but nobody could have replaced Yul Brynner in our minds anyway. 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
This film is a cash in. A cash in reliant on a rousing theme tune created for an earlier classic. Yul Brynner has long since jumped ship and so have most of the production values. Lee Van Cleef takes over the lead role of Chris. I can't think of any actor who looks less like Brynner than Van Cleef. Hey, he could have at least shaved off his hair and lost the moustache, just for the sake of continuity. Some correctional centres show this movie in order to punish offenders. One step out of line and The Magnificent Seven Ride! is brought to the fore and wielded. They didn't even bother trying to make this movie not look like a TV movie! Abysmal.


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


user
Joan Crawford is convincingly disfigured as our story starts, and of course she get fixed up. But she's a bad egg, exploiting one guy, while living out another guy's anti-social philosophy. All of this takes place in Sweden, which is truly bizarre. It causes anything and everything memorable in the visuals, which are freed from having to depict Anytown USA, but it makes a viewer wonder why every remake since is burdened and rendered unspecific by the need to Americanize everything. There is plot, plot, plot so chatty that you could drown in it, and making matters worse is a framing device that adds zilch to the movie. The photography is occasionally nice, with odd angles and miniatures incorporated quite well. But it's overwrought without ever once drawing you in.


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 animated series:
Aeon Flux was an amoral rebel that was completely detached from everything and everyone. She was cruel, selfish, loving, unpredictable, witty, caustic, confident, sarcastic, lethal, untamable, ambiguous all at once. The original Aeon had layers upon layers of depth. She almost never allowed her personal emotions to show through. The original plot was deliciously ambiguous and thought provoking. You could never tell what Aeon's motives were. Aeon was a militant anarchist whereas Trevor was a radical idealist, because of this they could never have any semblance of a stable relationship.
In the movie:
Aeon Flux works for the Monicans and her political motives and personal motives are very clear. She was pretty, loving, vulnerable, easily tamable, emotional and very predictable. The Aeon in the movie had one layer of depth at most. The plot was obvious and contrived. Everything is completely laid out for you from the beginning. There was virtually no conflict between Aeon and Trevor, at least in terms of personal philosophies. The only conflict between them was that they were on different sides.
The movie was a horrible disappointment to me. I felt betrayed. They took the idea of one of my favorite animated characters of all time, squeezed all the depth and personality out of her, and pumped her full of Hollywood clichés. The essence of the animated series was completely lost in this movie.
The only reason I'm not giving this movie a "1" is because the visuals were incredible. It was neat to see some of the familiar animated scenes like the fly in the eye done with CGI.


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 bit unnerving when a studio declines to screen a film for the press before it goes into wide release. That many movies suck is no surprise, but when a studio itself admits as much ahead of time, the process of movie-going becomes a passion play of sorts. Consider it an early Christmas gift from Hollywood, then, that "Aeon Flux" isn't nearly the affront to taste and decency one might expect, given the above. Though ultimately overwhelmed by its flaws, it at least has (sort of) an idea with which to toy around. Too bad director Karyn Kusama seems to have little clue how to execute it all.
It's the future. There's been a plague. There is a dictatorship, and there are rebels. The latter are known as the Monicans, and far from being a cult of beret or tennis racket worshipers, they're into attempts to overthrow the former, called the Goodchild regime. The regime is occasionally mean to the citizenry, which is more than Aeon Flux (Charlize Theron) and her pals can stand. Through some sort of biochemical virtual reality technology, the Monicans receive orders from their dear leader (Frances McDormand), a mystical priestess-type who appears to have been cross-bred with a carrot. It falls to Aeon to strap on some form-fitting, futuristic spandex get-ups to carry out the High Carrot's orders, which are of course some version of "destroy the regime." Having years earlier watched her sister get liquidated by the Goodchilds, she needs little convincing.
Not surprisingly, things get complicated. The Goodchilds might not be quite what they seem, and Aeon herself might have an unexpected history with them. Though occasionally muddled, the film's central conceit (of which I won't reveal more) contains some neat notions about the nature of human existence and survival. There's room for much more examination of which the film doesn't take advantage, but the ideas are there, at least. The big problems of "Aeon Flux" are technical. Kusama has made the baffling decision to film nearly all the action so close that we can rarely follow what's going on. To make matters worse, it's edited in a flurry of jump cuts that leave us completely lost. The result is some serious spacial disorientation that takes over the film. "Aeon Flux"'s aesthetic is one of sleek costume, oddly-angled architecture, and nimble characters. Much of the action occurs in minimalist, open spaces that beg for some unbroken long shots that might convey the grace and athleticism implied by the above. Instead, we get split seconds of flying limbs, breaking glass, and accompanying sound effects.
There is a pretty good movie trying to get out of the morass of "Aeon Flux." Put this stuff in the hands of the Wachowski brothers, say, and the results could be quite different. As it is, though, I felt like "Aeon Flux" was willfully pushing me away from a movie I wanted to enjoy. This film is unattuned to its own strengths. Like a novice poker player dealt a royal flush, it somehow finds a way to lose in spite of its potential.


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 a fan of the original series, do NOT see this movie.
I should have been skeptical from the previews when Aeon expresses her motives for murder. In the series Aeon had no family and no motive for her adventures save selfish interests. Obviously the chimp-writer in charge felt the movie needed to cater to the "bad grrl" demographic by making the character deadly, but have a good reason to kill people.
You wouldn't have thought it possible, but the movie is more two dimensional than the cartoon. The characters are all portrayed as inherently good with some conflict of interest that eventually gets resolved. All dogs go to heaven, and same for every character that dies in this movie.
The selfish,twisted,perverted, dominating personas of Aeon and Trevor are nowhere to be seen. In the end they literally develop into a cutesy couple ala Annie Hall. The only character who remained true to the show was the Relicle, the floating machine in the sky. I suppose if you ever thought "gee, I like Aeon Flux, but I wish it were more like every other faceless good-v-evil sci-fi Hollywood slop out there", then you are in for a treat.
They didn't even get the look right. I suppose a black metal bikini was too much to ask for, but the whole setting is wrong. 400 years into the future sure looks like 30 years into the past. Instead of a distinctly urban post-apocalyptic world, the viewer's eyes are offended with a 70's mod-squad frutopia of egg-shaped furniture, wood paneled walls, earth tones, and lots of plants. Bregna was a dystopia, not a utopia.
Speaking of Bregna, that's the only city on earth according to the movie. The show is clear that there are two cities, Bregna and Monica, which used to be one. In the movie, the "Monicans" are just Hollywood storybook freedom-fighters. They also have as much technology as the Bregnans, which is not the case from the show.
The only possible conclusion is that the real writer for this movie was a high school kid, and that he wrote it the day before it was due to the studio execs, and he's never seen an entire Aeon Flux all the way through. The overwhelming amount of inconsistency with the cartoon is baffling. Beyond using certain names like Aeon Flux, Trevor Goodchild, and Bregna, the movie is nothing like the show.
The actual bulk of the movie seems to try to blend the colorful plots of soy-lent green, blade runner, Logan's run, and tomb raider, which came out a dull brown mess.


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


user
The MTV sci-fi animated series "Æon Flux" is brought to life with Charlize Theron playing the title character, a freedom fighter who fights oppression in the walled city of Bregna, 400 hundred years into the future. For her latest mission, she has been sent to kill the city's leader Trevor Goodchild (Marton Csokas), but she uncovers secrets along the way.
Aeon Flux falls under the category of good premise, mediocre execution. Interesting story yet the film was a little dull. A lot of people are saying that this is one of the worst movies of the year and that's not true at all. It may be a disappointing film but it's an average film at best. I have never seen the cartoon version of the movie so I can't compare the two. It's probably better because they have a chance to explain the story more. The film is not that confusing but it's easy to get lost if you're not familiar with the material. The acting was alright, nothing special. Charlize Theron gives a good performance and seems dedicated to the film. The rest of the cast also give decent performances including Jonny Lee Miller, Frances McDormand and Marton Csokas. There are also more than a few interesting characters in the film including Sithandra, Aeon's friend.
The problem with Aeon Flux is that it takes itself too seriously. It carries the same serious tone throughout the entire film and that gets a little tiring. There's no humor and the film becomes a little boring at times. This is the same problem that Elektra had. Because the film is so serious, the dialog sounds cheesy and the serious scenes seem forced. The action scenes are pretty good but that's not what the film is really about so don't go in expecting just an action movie. The twist at the end isn't mind blowing but it's still a nice ending and better than other thrillers that have come out this past year (Hide and Seek). The costumes are little weird but still look nice and interesting. The visuals were are also done well so the film at least looks nice. So, the movie may be a case of style over substance. Interesting to look at but may not hold your attention for a very long time. In the end, it's not the best film out there but it might for a decent rental. Rating 4/10


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


user
Right up (or down) there with Toys and Jurassic Park 2 and The Phantom Menace.
The premise sounded cool, some of the commercials looked semi-promising, but alas, the entire movie had about 30 seconds of neat shot-ness, and that was shown on the small screen's 30 second slot.
If you want amateur writing, second-rate effects, ridiculous costumes, and an all-around snoozefest by all means watch it. The plot is recycled sci-fi fodder. Too bad too, because coming in I thought it would be bad but held out hope. It may be the worst movie I have ever seen, and I have seen a lot.
Bottom line - Don't watch it.
Unless of course you -liked- any of the above 3 movies.


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


user
Critics have started calling it the Oscar Winner club, understandably. What after Halle Berry won it for Monsters Ball then going straight to the diabolical Catwoman. Hilary Swank triumphs in Boys Don't Cry and follows it with The Core. Jamie Foxx takes a nosedive as a pilot in the dull Stealth after scooping a gong for Ray. Now it's seems Hollywood Starlet Charlize Theron craps all over her "Monster" Oscar with this one of the worst Sci-fi spectacles ever made.
The film loses its audience interest after a mere 20 minutes meaning the only thing really worth staying for is the fact that despite the film being rubbish Charlize Theron is still an exceptional actress who is clearly making the best of a crude and laughable premise. Not only is Æon Flux ultimately shallow but for an action flick it's also really very dull. It will only really appeal to comic book fans and Horney teenagers who like the idea of Theron running around half naked for 90 minutes. Flux only really succeed in failing.
Set against the 2011 virus that kills 99% of the world's populace, and in the last city on Earth, Bregna, the survivors, some four hundred years later, in the year 2415, are continuing to live in the Goodchild dynasty, the name of the scientist who developed its cure.
All is not well in this utopia and it is not what lies beyond its high walls that protects its citizens from the never ending jungle but what unspoken, unwritten taboo that holds and binds these unwritten taboo that holds and binds these unfortunates' together that lies within these walls of paranoia, conformity and unquestionable obedience. Filmed in and around Berlin, ironically, this is a story set against a totalitarian state, a walled city, where its peoples are no longer capable of reproducing, and its sinister and most secret plot of how it sustains life.
Æon Flux is the assassin that has been assigned by the underground rebels to change the course of Mankind, forever. This is the story of her fight for justice, freedom and revenge.
Æon Flux combined lousy narratives, ropy pacing and truly dire effects. Looking more like an unrealistic video game rather than a film. The only thing that is fortunate about the failure is that no sequels are in the works, Flux might just be the beginning and the end of what could have been one of the worst franchises in history, thank god for the lousy box office takings then.
My final verdict on this truly lousy feature? There really isn't a story here just Charlize Theron jumping around in a black suit like a grass hopper. The acting is very wooden moronic and emotionless compared to the other cinemas that are out there today. It try's too much to be like an adaption and doesn't really take much from the cartoon which is what I was expecting, the only thing that was done half right that pays tribute to the cartoon was the fly in the eye scene. Avoid 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
While Aeon Flux was mildly entertaining and a slightly better way to spend a Wednesday evening than the pub, i did leave pleased that i had got buy one get one free tickets. knowing nothing about the film as i went in, in fact i didn't even know there was an animated series before i read this site, i was ready for anything, and as some other viewers noted, the trailers showing a well filmed, good looking, and interesting piece of cinema had pulled me in. half way through the film though i was kind of disappointed, it did remind me of the fifth element but i too feel it just lacked the extra bit of depth and left me with the empty feeling. and enough of the pointless and slightly boring gun fights, if you're going to do them, do it with some style, not just loads of explosions and inept guards falling down. personally i'd rather have seen a bit more about the story and the people in the city or got to know more about how the chairman was being undermined, than yet another long and loud gun fight.


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


user
I got to know ÆON back in the early 90s via television and I loved it...
What did you like about it ? The cranky drawing style ? The flawless artistic action involved ? The absurd and deadpan communication between the characters ? The whole layout of the surrounding future world ? No matter what you loved about it...
The Aeon Flux film of late 2005 has nothing of that.
Karyn Kusama, the so called "director" of the film, was hopelessly over-strained with transporting the original content to a new film. If you 're not familiar with the original series, you won't understand anything during for the first 60minutes of the film.The story is inscrutable and the vapid characters do not develop during the film.
Kusama's attempt to improve the storyline by implementing some rather weak explanatory conversations between the main characters is not only a lame attempt to cover up her flaws as a storyteller , it's simply unworthy of the original ÆON concept.
Charlize Theron might be an attractive woman, but she can't impersonate the ÆON character. Although she was attached to strings doing action scenes, her lack of talent for physical motion simply ruins the action sequences in the film. The result is a tremendous amount of hectic picture cuts to cover up the sheer lameness of her physique.
Forget about all the rest, it's not worth talking about...
I give 1point for Ms.Theron showing her boobs and 1point for the nice architectural photography in the film. That's it.


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


user
Laughable.
Clichéd.
Overdoses on style to compensate for poor writing.
Remember when MTV actually used to air music videos and other shows besides Reality Shows? Aeon Flux (2005) is based upon one such show  a cartoon from the mid-90s  featuring a superhuman female protagonist in black latex clothing. Aeon, played by the lovely Charlize Theron in this adaptation, is a cold detached rebel who is as dexterous as a line-dancer and as deadly as a viper-snake. She needs to be, if she expects to kick the asses of the totalitarian government.
I love science fiction, but hate the sudden influx of half-assed futuristic dystopian technology-overdosed films like The Island (2005) and Equilibrium (2002) (bottom of the pile). Aeon Flux has all the problems that are present in these films, but amplified. That is, there is nothing original left to show so they compensate for it with the sleek style that Matrix (1999) catalyzed. The special effects are therefore sensational in Aeon Flux which earns it a few points, but scratch the surface and there is literally nothing there.
To make matters worse, all performances in this film are atrocious and some actually wound me to watch. Charlize Theron's character Aeon Flux is interwoven with the most cheesy tough-chick schtick and it seems as though the director Karyn Kusama cannot quite decide where to go with her next  should she make her more detached or more emotional? She doesn't know! Let's go both ways! Imagine you take a shotgun, load it chock-full of character developments of different sorts and there fire into a random mess. This is the character of Aeon Flux.
The film Aeon Flux puts forward all the 'mandatory' ideas in a dystopian society - individual vs. society, nature vs. science, emotion vs. cold reason, etc. You've seen all of this before, and better done at that. Go read Orwell, Bradbury or Huxley, or even watch Logan's Run (1976) or Blade Runner (1982)... anything! Avoid this viciously uninvolving cheese-fest for as long as you can.
3/10


assistant
0