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
Earnest effort which achieves some success to adapt the classic Odyssey story to a '30's nostalgia period piece. The adventurers this time are escaped convicts, wandering about the Depression afflicted South bungling their way into trouble.
The greatest strength of the film is the wonderful music soundtrack, effectively evoking not only the era that this is set in, but the spiritual references that run rampant in the film. Besides its value to the tone of the movie, the music is just plain fun to listen to.
What cripples the film is that the characters really aren't that likable. In a comedy, you need that element in order to have fun along with them in their misadventures. Instead, we have a bunch of selfish, arrogant, soulless, mean spirited nobodies who really have no positive points at all. They're not imposing enough to make you hate them either, so it's hard to relate to them at all. They're offered up as clowns, but like people who put clown makeup on and march in parades, they just aren't funny.
Like the story that inspired it, the movie takes these guys on an "odyssey," encountering a variety of symbolic (some even mystical) characters. Everybody is stamped with offensive stereotypes, the operative word being "stupid." People are mocked right and left, and consequently, no one is left being particularly interesting or appealing. The movie doesn't like its own characters, and it doesn't let you like them, either.
Riverside baptisms, beautiful sirens, stolen cars, fistfights, radio preachers, people being whipped with sticks; all are thrown at you in disjointed fashion. Some evoke a few laughs, others confuse or bore you. I did laugh when a nerdy guy beat the snot out of an especially obnoxious lead character. But there were a lot more pointlessly gratuitous scenes; an example: some '30's Dillinger-type guy strafes cows with a tommy-gun. Comedy? Symbolism? No; just mindless violence, which detracts from the intellectual nature of the original source material this story draws upon.
Other adaptations of the Odyssey are much better. Unless you're a George Clooney fan, rent something else. But buy the soundtrack CD; the music is great.


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 think of Sweden in a negative way: too neat, too clean, too serious, too organized and too Northern. A people tortured by their own religious fate and history, sometimes leading to depression and compulsive heavy-handedness. This need not be a problem for a filmmaker, as for example the late Bergman has shown us what can be cinematic possible under these conditions. Bergman used his identity as a starting point and did not explicitly comment on this identity as such.
Andersson however does the reverse: He comments only on this identity hereby dissecting his people to the bone: In his world Sweden is equivalent for hell on earth. But he does not take this any further and for me this is just not art but merely annotation. Despite the exceptional amount of time it took to make this filmmaker has serious limitations he clearly cannot step out of.
Compared to his previous movie Sånger från andra våningen / Songs from the Second Floor, there is also not much progress to be observed. The intention was that this was more accessible, but the difference is minimal and the few scenes that try to please a larger audience aren't the best in the movie. The same absurdism and minimalism also still apply, there is the one-shot camera position and the (lack of) action in front of this shot. Yes, the stills are well done, some of the scenes actually work and the coloring and positioning is amazing. But does that make an interesting movie? Thinking in a negative way, this is cinema taken a step backwards.
Andersson's background as a maker of commercials shines through in the elaborate setup, but I find his movies about as empty as those commercials. There is a message about mankind, but it is trivial and without much depth.


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


user
You the living? OK I think I am an intelligent, educated, liberal and really into films. I really like and have a great sense of humour. I was under the impression this was a bleakly painful comedy. They got paid for making this, petrol was used, electricity burnt, food was consumed, sets built........why? I blame the current state of the world on this film and all those people associated with it, I will even include us the viewing public. We are all to blame and deserve whatever coming. Its not funny, not much happens, everyone it seems is bored or boring. There are no conversations, communication is minimal. There is no plot as far as I am aware. I have in fact just lost 89 point something minutes of my life. I will never ever get that time back. The only message I have come away with is perhaps life is too short to sit around watching movies of people doing not much......and then you die!


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


user
i stopped this movie at 48 minutes and change... i don't know...maybe it's because i'm not Swedish...or french(the cannes commenter)...or any of those OTHER sleepy places from which the previous reviewers held forth... born and raised in NY. lived near san francisco for a quarter of a century. and now Holland. i love a good independent film as much as the next movie enthusiast... but this, in a word, isn't funny. see? now THAT's funny...that you're thinking that i made a mistake. i said, 'in a word' but then said, 'isn't funny'... nope. no mistake. if this is your type of humor, i'd say you haven't really had much of a life... consider your appreciation of this film a symptom... and PLEASE don't EVER write another review...i have a tendency to believe them when they're unanimous. even if there only were about 3 reviews before mine...i figured i might ACtually be able to save someone ELSE the boredom...the anticipation of laughter that never materializes... i DID smile once or twice, though... when i started the movie...and when i stopped it. that should be 10 lines.


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 kid liking fairy tale "real life" adventures, see it. If you're a youth liking kids movies, why not see it? :) If you're a parent going to see a movie with your kids, you're WAY better of opting for the squirrel!
The start of this film was a bit funny, and set some good premises for the happenings to take place. But after the kind of funny introduction of characters, settings and potential conflicts, the story turned out kinda dull. When more or less the same things happen for the third and fourth time, the word "predictable" repeatedly comes to mind just like parts of a dented LP or those commercials you really hate. And the culmination of the plot... *oh sigh*... poor, poor, poor!


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


user
May be I don't get it right. I mean the movie. It does not make me happy or whatever has to do . Maybe because of my mood. Anyhow this one is a simple family movie with kids for actors. Just admit that - all movies of that kind cannot pass the barrier of 4 out of 10 never mind who is playing in the movie(example Antonio Banderas was playing in that kind of movies... two or three of them cant remember the exact count). I got bored. I almost fall asleep just because the topic is so cliché and the actor play was so predictable. But I am sure that my kid will love this movie when he grows up... Hey Im not a monster I found some hilarious or good moments in the movie. The owls in the movie were sooooo cute. The trick with the painted police car windows and the hits that the kid received in the head by a golf ball...


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


user
I will give it this: it tried. It did try to make it good and even got Luke Wilson involved. Luke Wilson is good, but he can only do so much. He can't make up for the fact that the story was very flawed and the characters were underdeveloped.
The running "gag" with the bully was asinine. He was never funny and I got tired of the gag really fast. And the barefooted kid bit was kind of weak too. He hitchhiked to Florida? Yeah OK.
The movie felt like an average kiddie film at times with this underlining mantra: adults stupid, kids smart. And that bit gets tiresome.
But the only moments that were funny was the police cart Wilson drove around when he lost his squad car. I loved that little cart, especially when Wilson turned on the sirens. But, other than that, nothing else was worth my time. "D-"


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 had the misfortune of watching this film when I was younger at a friends house as his mother was a teacher and she wanted to screen the movie and see if there were any inappropriate scenes that a parent might object to. Well other than the unfunny jokes I think this one was in the clear, well the unfunny jokes and the strange scene where the look a like Ernest hits on a girl. So yes, Ernest gets thrown in jail thanks to a look a like and proceeds to try to escape and there is other stuff to it like him becoming magnetized at one point, shooting electricity, and in a very painful to watch finale flying. There are a couple of jokes, but nothing to much to mention except for the gun carved from soap...I think that is the only scene me or my friend's mother laughed out loud at. This and camp are the only two Ernest movies I have ever seen and from what I have seen in them I am not going to track down the other films. Ernest was good in small doses, but a movie is just to much even when it is as short as this one. I figure though the films made money, mainly because all you need is Varney and a location and a theme and you have your movie.


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


user
And again, I find myself in the minority.
I didn't like this one. This is the ONLY Varney work I haven't embraced, including Knowhutimean. Slam Dunk Ernest rates the credit for being the worst of the line, but this is a clear competitor for that dubious title.
This work is too rough, and too base to be lovable. Lovability was one of Ernest's key components, and this element was completely lost herein. Unfortunately, most think this is the best of the line, but if you loved the essence of what made Ernest, Ernest, you will realize to what I refer about fifteen minutes into this work. It was too blatantly base to be fun.
It rates a 3.5/10 from...
the Fiend :.


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


user
Opulent sets and sumptuous costumes well photographed by Theodor Sparkuhl, and a good (not great) performance by Jannings as Henry cannot overcome poor writing and static camera-work. Henny Porten chews the scenery as Anne.
It's all very beautiful; but it's all surface and no depth. The melodramatic tale of a woman wronged made it a hit in America where the expressionistic "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" flopped in the same year (1920), proving that what is popular is not what endures. Lubitsch would be remembered for his lively comedies, not sterile spectacles like this.


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


user
Spiderman was one of the first comic books to initiate a change in the genre: in spite of being a very well made superhero comic book this is the first series ever that added a real psychological depth to the main character, had complex moral issue, round characters and also highlighted social and political issues. in other words: Spiderman was the comic book's coming of age. This TV series lacks all of those components. It's just a straightforward good buy / bad guy TV series suffering from obvious budgetary rerstraints that make the action scene moderately exciting. Spiderman nylon webbing is about as convincing as the cardboard rocks in Star trek. Nicholas Hammond is way too old for the role at that point in time. I think he was well into his thirties wheras Spider,man was really teenager at the time. For some unfathomable reason the writers also changed names and deleted important characters from the comic book which again just resulted in the tension between characters basically disappearing.


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


user
I was excited at the concept of my favorite comic book hero being on television... and sorely disappointed at the end result.
The only "amazing" thing was the wall crawling (despite the visibility of the cable). I didn't think Nick Hammond was Peter Parker... and he was visibly of a different build than the guy who did the stunts in the spider suit. You could tell they were two different actors.
Granted, I can also spot in the modern Spider-Man movies when I am looking at Tobey Macguire and when I am looking at CGI. But that is from a trained eye and experience working with CGI. Still, the 70's version could have been better despite lack of Special FX.
The webs were hokey and looked like ropes that seemed to wrap around things rather than stick to them. And what was up with giving him a spider mobile to ride around in. Hello? He's the web slinger people.
Sorry... didn't mean to get so worked up, but our beloved wall crawler deserved better.


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


user
There are many so-called anti-war/anti-govt. policy films around now which start off as a mea culpa and end with 'our poor boys are getting hell out there so let the world sympathise with them, it's not their fault' - kind of stuff. I was half afraid that this would be another in that style even if it treated another subject/aspect of the same subject. I nearly didn't go and see it; for that matter, I almost did not write this review. What did we get here? An Egyptian gets taken off to a secret off-shore torture centre, on U.S. orders, but it is another Egyptian who has to do the torturing, not an American: 'see, we Americans have clean hands,' and the Egyptians are a bad lot anyway so let them harm their own. Oh, and the goody had to be an American with a conscience: indeed many Americans have them, but here the concept was misplaced. Yes, we all know it is called Extraordinary Rendition and it began in Clinton's time and it is now used for reasons well beyond control. Otherwise it was very hackneyed and nervous about really condemning the U.S. for being party to torture; as if the makers were afraid to go the whole way for fear of being slanged as unpatriotic or whatever (take a look at the message board! Anyone apologising gets a faceful of heavy verbal artillery). Torture is a terrible thing, whether one is guilty or not; in the 18th Century, FrederickII, King of Prussia, abolished it for convicted murderers - though I must say, a life sentence for a child molester is far less than what I want to see. All right, what about torture? This film did not really bring out its horror and hopelessness enough. When you are under torture,(now come the capitals for emphasis, I am not shouting) YOU WILL SAY ANYTHING, EVEN IF IT IS NOT TRUE, EVEN IF YOU HAVE NOT DONE THE THING YOU ARE ACCUSED OF, IN THE VAIN HOPE THAT IF YOU SAY AMEN TO WHATEVER THEY ARE PEDDLING, IT WILL STOP. IT DOES NOT, BUT YOU NEVER LEARN AND YOU KEEP ON SAYING THAT YOU DID WHATEVER IT IS THEY SAY YOU DID, THO' YOU DID'NT. Another thing the film did not bring out enough was that TORTURE IS EXCEEDINGLY, INDESCRIBABLY HUMILIATING, AND THAT FEELING STAYS WITH YOU YOUR WHOLE LIFE. It somehow changes people inside. How do I know all that? Don't ask.
Re-edit: two things: the Arabic that was used in the film was not the Egyptian dialect. It's sort of worse than setting a film in New Zealand with locals as the characters and everyone has American accents. Also, the dreadful little preacher who was inciting his ignorant audience to violence was telling them things unknown to that religion, which should have been brought out. Nor was it anywhere explained that any nincompoop can become a mullah/imam; he doesn't need any special qualifications, and that is a hiatus which needs to be put right: many are acceptable because of their fundamentalist views and tne U.S.A.'s great ally, Saudi Arabia, finances so many of them. Many thanks for this space.


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


user
The movie is powerful as a political statement about extraordinary rendition, torture and the politics of the war on terror. Others have already commented on these and other aspects of the movie. My review may contain spoilers, so if you haven't seen the movie, you may not want to read beyond this point.
Several questions are raised by this movie. First of all, was the protagonist guilty or not? There is no satisfying explanation for why the NSA decided to have him picked up and rendered in the first place. Is there an innocent explanation for why he got phone calls from what the NSA thinks is a terrorist? If there is, the movie does not seem to give one and that made the whole movie quite unsatisfying to me. It is all well and good to make statements about whether torture is right or wrong, but first prove to me that they tortured the wrong person, then we will take it to the next step.
If the protagonist was guilty, then what was achieved by releasing him? Perhaps, we was well-trained to resist up to a certain point and then pretend to break down and give answers that can be proved wrong with a little research, thus tending to lead the torturers to believe that they had tortured an innocent man into confessing without actually being guilty. However, there is nothing in the movie that proves he is guilty either.
The various other loose ends out there are: 1. So, a rogue CIA agent has him released and flown back home. What prevents the NSA from picking him up again? A little publicity in the Washington Post? Please give me a break here... If a senator is not willing to put his neck on the line to intervene on his behalf, what does Corinne Whitman have to fear? 2. If the NSA has been tracking what phone numbers are being called by whom, why couldn't they listen in on some of the calls to figure out whether anything underhanded is being discussed? 3. The plot is even more stupid anyways. Any criminal with more than a dozen brain cells would transact his criminal business on an anonymous prepaid cell phone line, not on one that can be traced back to him and his house.
The whole movie revolves around tugging at the viewers' heart strings by showing graphic and gratuitous scenes of torture. But when you think about it with any more depth, there is nothing of substance in this movie, only plenty of unanswered questions and the feeling of "what, that is it?!!!" at the end of the movie.


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


user
I happened upon a rare copy of this early Almodovar film with high expectations - Almodovar is a prolific contemporary director, I enjoyed his 1988 film "Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown", and I had read one or two very positive reviews of the film. Well, I must have missed completely the humor that the reviewers saw in this film. I just found it incoherent, tasteless, and boring. Yes, there are plenty of innuendos, people in drag, and crude sexual situations, and yes, these elements may have shocked audiences in 1982 (which was almost certainly Almodovar's intention), but much of the shock value has probably eroded over the years, leaving a limp storyline. Beyond that, the whole movie seemed very chaotic, none of the characters were particularly sympathetic, and for a "comedy" - even a dark one - I just didn't find this film funny. I suppose it is possible there is a VERY select audience for a film like this, but I'm just not part of that audience, and not sure that I want to be.


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


user
Czech movie goers may have enjoyed and rated this film highly because it was Czech, but I found it to be trite, tedious, moronic, boring, and insipid. Again, I suspect "ramping" in order to increase sales of this dog of a film. Amazon describes this film as being about a couple of fellows that refuse to grow up, but I will go one further--I think it is about two fellows that have entered a state of dementia and perform actions that make no sense to anyone. I have been told that one of the actors in the film committed suicide after the film, and I would believe it. When he saw his performance he probably realized what a gosh awful job he had done and realized that the only way to avoid terminal embarrassment was to make the "big exit", which I am sure was much more dramatic and a much better performance that he had done in "Autumn Spring." Don't waste your time or money on this pathetic performance. It's nothing but a dog in a manger.


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


user
I wanted to like this movie, but there is very little to like about it. It starts out with Jean Stapleton and a Randy Newman song in Iowa (Northwest Iowa, I guess), reminiscent of Norman Lear's Cold Turkey, which was one of the best movies ever made, according to people on IMDb. So far, so good. And the idea of the archangel Michael living at Pansy Milbank's motel on earth? Well, give it a chance, it's supposed to be a comedy. Okay, so far, so good. But Michael does things that an angel not fallen would never do, and that completely blows any credibility the movie might have had. The other characters in the movie don't have much appeal, either. Michael brings a dog back to life, and we're supposed to be in awe of that. The people make up corny country songs. In the end, Stapleton dances with Travolta. Big deal. If she was smart, she wouldn't even be in this movie. When it was over, I thought, "Gee, what a stupid, tasteless, boring, corny, sacrilegious movie!" It's not fit to be seen by children or anyone else.


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


user
Do you ever wonder what is the worst movie ever made? Stop wondering. I'm telling you, Michael is it!
It is not "heartwarming," "entertaining," or "Travolta at his best." It just sucks. If I had kids, I would let them watch Deep Throat before Michael!
A sold-out John Travolta, a washed-up and balding William Hurt, and an about to die any time now Jean Stapleton highlight this turd of a film.
But wait...you'll get to hear Andie McDowell sing! Yeah. Hollywood really s**t all over us with this one!


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


user
This movie makes you wish imdb would let you vote a zero. One of the two movies I've ever walked out of. It's very hard to think of a worse movie with such big name actors. Well...Armageddon almost takes it, but not quite.


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


user
This was more of a love story than one about an angel who comes down here to earth, although both angles of that story are given a good share of the movie.
If I took this movie to heart, as someone who knows and believes the Bible, I would have canned it pretty quick, but I don't think the general atmosphere was either mean-spirited or blasphemous. It was just ludicrous or just plain stupid.
I mean, John Travolta as a grubby angel? Smoking? Scratching his groin? Quoting the Beatles? A "warring angel" who knows nothing about Heaven? An angel who flirts with all the women? Yes, it's all absurd and certainly Biblically- incorrect.
I could tolerate all that but I don't know how many people, whatever beliefs they hold, who could stand a boring film which this turned out to be during the second half of it. It begins to drag when the romance begins between William Hurt and Andie MacDowell. Some of the dialog during that romance is so stupid it's insulting to any discriminating viewer.
This is another Nora Ephron-directed film. Man, I can't believe how many incredibly stupid movies this woman has either written or directed. At least she's consistent.


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


user
My website (theflickguy.org) lists "Michael" as one of the worst films of the modern era. The following is an excerpt:
"Everyone slums some time in their lives, this was Travolta's turn. I still don't know what the point of this terrible film was. Nora Efron has proved to be a competent writer and director, so what the hell happened here? The Archangel Michael takes a new spin here and is portrayed as a ham-fisted, chain-smoking sugar addicted fornicating slob whose biggest contribution to humanity (after sending Lucifer to hell) was that he invented "standing in line". Yes, how funny and charming. I don't find this offensive, I find it stupid. In its defense, I can say that the ending was ever bit unsatisfying as the rest of this painful attempt at story telling."


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


user
For the most part, "Michael" is a disaster  ten minutes of charm and ninety's worth of missteps.
Travolta and MacDowell do their best, frequently rising above Nora Ephron's numbingly banal script. But the film moves like a snail. And even within its fantasy context, the characters behave implausibly on a regular basis. (Reporters who routinely let the story of a lifetime  an apparent angel living on Earth  out of their sight?)
Someone forgot to tell romantic comedy maestro Ephron that William Hurt, brilliant in so many other films, is no Tom Hanks. The movie's "climax" redefines the word contrived. Ephron may be shooting for Heaven here, but unfortunately "Michael" is a long, long ride through cinema heck.


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


user
An insult to both poker and cinema, this movie manages to make the most dynamic, brilliant, and fascinating figure in poker history into an utter bore. Still a fun film to make jokes about, from the lame gangster movie clichés of the first half to the incomprehensible nonsense of that second hour. Hilariously, Stu Ungar wins all three of his World Series titles without playing a single hand on screen. His infamous dealer abuse? 1 scene. His coke habit? 1 scene. His incredible memory? 0 scenes. They couldn't even get any real poker players. What did they cover? A lot of high angle shots from inside a house in the suburbs. Oh, and a montage of Stu waking up every day and shopping for meat which doesn't come anywhere close to making sense. Why do I care so much about this little Sopranos summer camp trying to cash in on the poker craze? Because I think there's still a great film to be made about Stu Ungar waiting for someone willing to do it right.


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


user
Well, the movie was no terrible, but whomever created the screen play did not do a good job of even creating the essence of unger. This movie was slightly below average and did not tell the story correctly on one of the most interesting persons ever born. I suggest reading the book "one of a Kind" the real unger story. They left out huge parts of his life. They also at times did not understand the real caractor that he was. The actual facts of his life were at times out of order. And in the end they really did not portray the actual personality that he did have. So please don't watch the movie; read the book. By the way I'm not just some prick who feels you have to stay 100% to the real story, but they did not even come close!!!


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


user
Wow, i just witnessed one of the greatest poker tragedies and I'm not talking about the premature death of the great stu ungar. This film I'm sorry to say was terrible. Absolutely terrible. A true tragedy in filmaking history. Well maybe I'm being a little harsh but unless you have some interest in the life of stu ungar then don't even consider coming near this one. And those that do have an interest in his life will find that most parts were trivialised and made out to be great novelty scenes. I watched it because of Stu UNgar but nearly wanted to end myself like he did while watching this movie 4 stars for effort but unpleasantly painful


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


user
Having just finished reading the book "One of a Kind" a week ago, I was thinking "This would make a great movie, especially now, when people know a little about poker and poker players". I was totally shocked to find it while browsing at the video store last night. I had no idea someone had actually turned this into a film. I grabbed it immediately and watched with much anticipation. What a major letdown!
All of the intriguing things about Stu Ungar were skimmed over quickly, and instead I was left with a biopic that could have been about anybody. Ungar may have been a burnt-out jerk, but he was also a brilliant thinker that could read people instinctively. That is what made him so fascinating. Why not focus on that?
And talk about watering down the real truth. This guy was excessive about absolutely everything: drugs, women, gambling, starvation, sleep-deprivation. He gambled on sporting events from dusk to dawn, he would go missing for days while hanging out in crack dens, his body was perpetually emaciated, and yet, if he ever needed money, he could always beat just about anyone at will playing cards. Now that's a story!
Too much time spent on his childhood and personal relationships (although his ties with "Vincent" and his daughter were hardly touched on) and hardly anything about his drugs use (which was exorbitant), his insane gambling and his incredible card-playing abilities.
Probably too late now, but I hope someone remakes this film properly. I had no problem with Imperioli. He is excellent. The script just left him with nothing interesting to say.


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


user
This movie is a shameful result of what happens when:
A) It is written, directed and produced by an idiot. and/or B) It was rushed in production to satiate the poker/Stu Ungar craze.
The story from beginning is uneven. Vidmer spends too much time on Ungar's childhood and not enough on some of the legendary tales -- such as counting cards, his blackjack escapades, the roll of money as id. He also leaves out mentions of other poker greats such as chip reese, brunson etc. The movie is a complete mess from beginning to end.
If you want a more complete and accurate account, read the book One of a Kind. If you thought the movie was good, read the book and change your mind.


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 attempted to make Stu Ungar's life interesting by being creative. What they forgot is that his life was plenty entertaining enough on it's own without having to make things up.
A short list of the inaccuracies:
1) Stuey was not sent straight to Las Vegas for a Gin Tournament to pay off old debts, he spent a good deal of time in Florida first, and only went to Las Vegas when he ran out of Gin games on the east coast.
2) Stuey never associated (or played Gin) with a casino executive (like the one played by Pat Morita in the movie.)
3) There was no magical turnaround in the buildup to the 1997 WSOP. In fact Stuey barely made it into the tournament as it was. He snorted Cocaine the week before even.
Either tell the story right, or don't tell it at all. 4 out of 10 stars for Michael Imperolli's credible performance (the only redeeming quality of 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
Stu Ungar is considered by many to be the greatest poker / gin player of all time - an extraordinary self-destructive force of nature - tiny in stature, but a huge heart for the game.
What we have here is a kind of Hallmark film about the dangers of gambling. Sure, he wins, he loses, he blows it all on sex, drugs, and more gambling we get it, but where is the real play - where is what made him the greatest card player of all time.
Much too flat, and frankly boring in places, this gets a four because we get to learn something about Stu the man, but Stu the card player, nada.
Nicely shot and presented up to a point this is the perfect example of how not to make a film about cards: honestly, ESPN's coverage of the World Series is more watchable than this.
A waste of a great chance.


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


user
How does this movie suck? As a fan of Michael Imperioli's work on The Sopranos I picked this up at Blockbuster based on his name and a story that sounded like it had promise. It still does, but this movie doesn't fulfill it.
Every turn of the story is entirely predictable; I kept looking for the Lifetime bug on the bottom right corner of the screen. It's all there: the noble woman coming out of hard times, the guy failing to live up to his potential despite her best efforts, the kid who gets stuck in the middle, etc., etc., etc. The mysterious stranger's identity is what really made me want to throw stuff at the TV -- I would have been more satisfied with little Stuey waking up and realizing it was all a dream.
The filmmakers may as well have had a "The moral of the story is..." bit before the credits, since as another reviewer pointed out this thing really does roll like an afterschool special. Don't gamble, don't drink, don't do drugs, stay with your wife, spend time with your kids...come on, how about a little nuance? How about some interesting bad guys? Writer/director A.W. Vidmer should be singled out for special notice: not only is the dialogue leaden, the pacing (within dialogue and at either end of many scenes) makes this movie at least 45 minutes longer than it needs to be (and believe me, it feels like longer). The talents of Imperioli, Renee Faia and some of the supporting cast (Steve Schirripa, natch) are the only things that keep this from a "1" rating. All of their good work is nearly offset, though, by the atrocious job of portraying the boy Stuey. Not sure if it was a casting mistake (hey -- it's a mob movie, so let's cast someone from Blue's Clues who can't do anything but over-overact with a big fake grin...next let's cast the sullen, brooding kid in the Disney flick) or just awful directing but those scenes are really painful to watch.
I'd be interested in another filmmaker's take on this character and his story; it's a shame Imperioli has already been used up by this flick. Awful, awful, awful.


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 possibly the worst film I have ever seen. What a weak waste of Michael Imperioli's obvious talent. Disgusting film from start to finish. All I can say is, this director is no 'auteur'. You never once get inside the game, the character's head, the amazing talent with numbers the real Stuey had. The coke scene is bad enough to throw your shoe at the set, it might have been a great scene had it been shot for movies and not the stage, with the camera half way across the house hovering over a mirror with drugs on it while the drama is going on far in the background. The scene where he wins the big championship is just laugh out loud ridiculous. This should be screened in Film-making 101 - What Not To Do In Making Pictures.


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


user
20 people rated this a 10! That ballot box was stuffed better than a Christmas turkey! Speaking of turkey's, here's a traditional story hoping to piggy-back on the current poker craze - without success. Told entirely in linear flashback, and when I say "told" I mean TALKED TO DEATH, this film never let's a picture suffice when words can be used to exposit.
Stu Unger's childhood fascination with cards and his associations with hoodlums might sound like interesting movie material, but the director manages to suck the life out of them. At no point did I feel the least bit of sympathy for Unger, a genius at cards who threw it all away on other forms of gambling at which he was not so proficient. Of course, this leads, as we wade through THREE musical montages, to the inevitable downward spiral of drugs, loss of family, and finally his redemption (sort of). Big yawn!


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


user
I rented this movie hoping that it would provide some good entertainment and some cool poker knowledge or stories. What I got was a documentary type look at an average guys life who happened to be really good at cards. Do I want to see the romance with his wife? NO Do I want to see about everything that went on in this guy's life except poker? NO. Well thats what you get with this film. The acting is good for such a low budget piece of crap. The film never tries to break the mold or do anything original. It simply sleep walks its way through the script. The ending is disappointing and never really looks deep into Ungar's mind. Instead it focuses on what was already obvious. He was a drugged out card player with an average life not unlike any other average joe in vegas. The movie focuses on the aspects of his life that were UN extraordinary rather than the Extraordinary. The poker scenes in the entire film add up to about 4 minutes of footage. Ungar's achievements of winning the WSOP 3 times seem life after thoughts. A 10 year old could do a better job directing this movie.. or maybe it was the script being a piece of crap from the beginning that doomed this joke of a movie.
If you want to see a film about gambling watch Rounders. It at least has style.


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 probably the worst movie I've seen in a long time. Independent or not, solid writing is a must. Ditto for directing and acting. I know these actors can act (I've seen them in Sporanos and more...) but this movie is very bad, very bad. Maybe it's the script, maybe it's the director. Probably a little of both.....Probably a LOT of both! Technically OK, Just bad, bad, bad... I have a theory that the backers for this movie also own the Poker magazines, because I saw a very favorable review in one of the magazines. " Hey' we made it, so it's gotta be good, right?" Not so fast Bucky. I know it takes a lot of hard work and money to even get a movie made, much less sold and distributed, and for that I commend these folks. But the final product, leave a bad taste in my mouth.
P.S. I won a free rental and chose this movie from Blockbuster. Tomorrow I'm going to get my money back.


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


user
What could've been a great film about the late poker pro (pre-poker craze) Stu "The Kid" Unger turned into a disappointment.
You can tell the filmmakers were working on a short-string budget. Everything look filmed on the cheap. Timelines seemed a bit off to me.
Casting Michael Imperoli from the Sopranos was also a bad casting choice. He looked too old to play the baby-faced Stu, he looked way too healthy for a coke addict (if you look at footage from the 1997 WSOP main event, the real Stu was so skinny and he practically had no nose from too much cocaine so he wore those sunglasses to hide them), and I kept expecting Adriana to pop up and yell "Chris-tu-phur!!!"
Also they skipped over the fact that he had a son from Angie's previous relationship that committed suicide in the late '80s.
Every time I saw Vincent Van Patten appear, I kept thinking he was going to announce "Show tunes going off in Stu's head." like he does on the WPT.
If you're looking for real Stuey footage, check ESPN Classic because they rerun the 1997 WSOP Main Event every so often. Or try YouTube. Avoid this move like a bad beat.


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


user
What in the world! This piece of gambling cinema would have been suitable for the Lifetime Network. Michael Imperoli is a good actor but I think his portrayal as "Stu" fell short. The montages were unbearable and too many. The supporting cast, where are you? Whoever did the casting should be partially at fault. The cinematography was useless. A gambling story with an after school feel to it. Stories of this sort should be left for the Oliver Stone's of the world. It would still suck ass but at least it would be fun to watch. It was an attempt that lost it's wheels before the race ever begun. Mario Andretti in the 1982 Indy 500 came to mind.


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


user
First of all..I've seen better acting and more realistic makeup in porno flicks. How bad was "Chris Moltisante" as Stewie Ungar? On The Sopranos, Chris is not taken too seriously and can be considered comic relief. And then throw in "Bobby Baccala" as one of his Vegas cronies. It's just too much to take in a dramatic movie. Neither actor can handle a serious role and is better suited as a second banana for Tony,Paulie, or Uncle Junior. And I want to know who did the makeup for this disaster? I want that person to be MY make-up person over the next 25 years so I'll never age a day either. So that's all I'll write on this movie since it's not worth wasting too much more of my time.
Yes I DO know that Michael Imperioli and Steve Schirippa are their REAL names.


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


user
Maybe I'm alone here, but this is a crap show. I'm sorry but I was lured in when I found out about Lil' Bill O'Reilly (which I had no idea came from this show until months later, and has honestly since lost its appeal) but I gave the show a fair shot. Spike tries to hard to make himself into something he's not, which is to say, he tries to be human. Fox didn't even bother to hide the strings when they took him out of the box he came in. His sketches try to hard, he himself isn't funny, and the writers are struggling to write material for a no-talent host. There is too much good TV out there to waste your time with this show, and Fox.....Fox we had some good times, but you need to get your f$%*ing act together and come up with something original instead of trying to be just another "Me-too" network.


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


user
This show is like watching someone who is in training to someday host a show. There are some good comedy ideas and tons of mediocre ones. It doesn't look like the writers know the difference between what's funny and what's just weird or gross.
It has its moments. When Spike hosed down a neighbor who had been letting her dog soil his lawn repeatedly, it hit it's peak. But the hilarious moments are too few, and there's too many experimental comedy bits that miss the mark.
The show's better than, say, watching a test pattern or the QVC network, but it needs some better writers.
Reading the glowingly positive IMDb comments on this show, I am convinced that most of them were written by show staffers and by relatives and personal friends of Spike.
It just isn't very good most of the time.


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


user
Did the writers pay people to come up here and write positive reviews? I mean, really, it's a bit hackneyed, and Spike isn't that funny. He seems more like the serious guy trying too hard to be funny. There are so many mediocre gigs in this show; like once, the opening sketch was "Talk show, apply directly to the forehead," over and over. And another that featured Spike and another dude getting high, and it wasn't even funny. They didn't even do anything but sit around and laugh, over and over. Ha Ha! And another that featured Spike talking to a Korean guy who ate duck and told him that he had a pet duck. Ha ha! I mean, really, Spike just gets funny guests on his show, that's why people like this show


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


user
I viewed the first two nights before coming to IMDb looking for some actor info. I saw the 9+ rating which surprised me since I was not that impressed by what I'd seen. (As reference, I happen to believe Lonesome Dove was the best TV western ever. I grew up next to the MGM back lots in Culver City in the 50s and have a certain sense of reverence about the Western genre.)
So I saw the glowing first review and decided to read "more". There I found several reviews with 1 or 2 stars that summed up my feelings well about the lack of character development, poor editing, feeling that it was shot on the Universal back lot (MGM's is long gone), and overall impression that it was not going to come close to changing my feelings about LD. My impression is that the overwhelming vote of those who chose to write was "less than a 4.0".
This got me to wondering about the process that yields a 9+ rating. If the people giving the 10s and 9s do not take the time to justify their vote, is the ballot box being stuffed by people with a monetary motivation? I have long used IMDb as one tool to screen movies and thought it the best available. Now I am not so sure.


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


user
I must have missed a part of this movie... I found myself asking who is this? And, when did that happen? It seemed to jump around but I kept watching for fear I was missing something and it would all be explained to me. I loved Lonesome Dove but this movie made no sense to me at all. I did love all the actors but what happened to the rest of the movie? It made me go "what"? at the beginning of each part..As far as the scenery - I thought it was fine..It made me feel though like I was leafing through a book and leaving pages out.. The ending had me a little confused too although I imagine the boy was waiting for his father and was meant to leave you wondering if his father would finally come home to his son and be a father since his mother was now gone..I would like to read the book just to see what I missed in the movie..I don't expect this one to win any awards.


assistant
0