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
Scott's collection of 80's icons cannot save this teen disaster. But then I suppose that's why it was only a TV movie and not a major motion picture. William A. Schwartz (writer) comes up with something closer to "Stewardess School", except this movie is more boring. This movie isn't really stupid, just boring and completely plotless. The only reason to see this might be to see Tina Yothers in an actual role after Family Ties. After this movie and equally dumb "Class Cruise", I guess Mr. Scott wised up and went back to directing sit-coms, which was his best move yet. 4 out of 10


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


user
After Loomis gives a quick recap of Micheal Myers we flashback to 1989 where Jamie is kidnapped by the Man in Black before the burning police station explodes. Micheal returns to Haddonfeild once again to find Jamie and his baby. In this version the Loomis character gets more scenes and seems much more pro-active than he is in the final cut. The Score is much better, more in line with parts 4 and 5, none of the electric guitar BS. And the ending makes a tad more sense. For these reasons coupled with the fact that this cut has more characterization and suspense, and cuts back on the gore factor (Halloween, unlike say the "Friday the 13th" Franschise, was never about blatant gore) is why I prefer this bootleg Producer's cut. Not to say that the cut magically turns a turd into gold, it just polishes the turd a little bit and makes it more comprehensible. The whole cult plot is still very stupid, as is Micheal fathering a kid
My Producer's Cut Grade: C-
My Theatrical Cut Grade: D-


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


user
Taste is a subjective thing. Two people can watch the same movie with one of them loving it and the other one hating it. As it concerns 'Halloween:the Curse of Michael Myers' I fall into the latter category.
I'm of the opinion that John Carpenter, in 1978, made one of that decade's finest fright films, which despite its flaws, still holds up well into the 21st century. It reused many of the old horror film devices but utilized them in original and effective ways. It had no pretensions that it was anything other than a movie about an escaped mental patient stalking babysitters on Halloween night. And yet there were 'ideas' in the film but they were subtly introduced and not hammered into your skull. It juxtaposed the myths of the macabre festival with the reality of what was taking place in the story and it did this with a wonderful ambiguity.
The 'filmmakers' of this 'film' probably wouldn't even understand that previous paragraph. That's why we're saddled us with this miserable and inept piece of disposable celluloid. Direction, script, acting are of the lowest strata imaginable. This is the type of film that is so mind numbingly dull and nausea inducing as to make you want to crawl back into the womb and die. It is also truly, truly sad to see veteran British actor Donald Pleasence wasting his acting abilities with this saliva puddle of a movie. He seems drained of all his energy and resigned to the fact that this may be his last film. Maybe that's what killed him.


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


user
All ambiguity about Michael Myers has withered away thanks to this series' chronic habit of arseholing about with its continuity and pulling relatives out of nowhere. This entry introduces the potty angle that he's not just a psycho killer but is actually controlled by runes, which appear as a star constellation every Halloween, and a cult is using him to... erm, well, this film is far from coherent and I lost track of the plot after a while. The movie hemorrhages credibility so profusely it doesn't have a drop left by the end. Why does Michael put one victim's clothes in a washing machine? Why does an otherwise empty corridor have a deadly spike sticking out of the wall? Does getting electrocuted really make your head explode? And so on. It's left to Donald Pleasence, in his penultimate film role, to produce some wonderful little moments from the pile of dreadful dialogue he's given.


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


user
Man, the '90's really were an horrible decade for movies. The movies are lacking in a good style and also the storytelling is often lacking.
This 6th entry into the long running Halloween-series is certainly a bad one. You just never really get into the story because it isn't a very well constructed and build-up movie.
It's simply a poorly done film, that also suffers from its imagine-less writing and non-compelling characters that are in it. Dr. Loomis seems to be in it just for the sake of being in it. It's a real shame that this had to be Donald Pleasence last film-role. It's nice and also sort of suiting that his last role is in an Halloween movie but he definitely deserved to be in a better one.
There is never a sense of real danger in the movie and the character of Michael Myers just never comes across as threatening or scary. Perhaps it's because he's featured too prominently throughout the movie, from pretty early on already. He does his usual stuff again but without too much class or originality. Also the attempts to uncover Myer's past don't really work out, for the main reason that it just doesn't get explained very well. It's obvious that the script went through various re-writes before- and also very possibly during filming. Several scenes even got re-shot or added after the first cut turned out to be far from pleasing.
The movie more often looks and feels like a made for TV one. This is also due to the lack of some real good gore. As an horror movie it really is lacking in basically everything to make this a good or even original one to watch.
So far the worst out of the series!
3/10


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


user
Scanning through the comments, there doesn't appear to be a lot of love for this movie, and it's not very hard to see why, it's rubbish.
Now, I will start by saying that the finished product was hurt, in any number of ways, by the death of Donald Pleasance (Dr Loomis) in post production. This required a re-jigging of the film's conclusion with Loomis buying the farm and took away what was supposed to be a double twist at the end with Micheal swapping places with mysterious "Man in black" and I do not mean Johnny Cash.
Now to the story. The fifth movie ended rather unsatisfactorily with Micheal Myers escaping from jail with the mysterious man in black. It turns out (aggh) that this man knows the origin of Micheal's evil and is also a colleague of Dr Loomis named Dr Wynn. They also kidnapped Jamie Lloyd (played by Danielle Harris in parts 4 and 5 but here played by JC Brandy). Jamie, pregnant, escapes from Dr Wynn's lair and so Micheal follows her and kills her. But she'd had the kid so now he needs to track the baby down so he can kill his great nephew.
We hear some ludicrous explanation to Micheal's evil involving Gaelic curses down bloodlines and mysterious symbols. A radio show is broadcast from Micheal's home town for some reason, which gives Micheal some more hapless victims.
In the end the movie, just like this review is vague, confusing and directionless with a very anticlimactic ending.
Some sex scenes and nudity. Poor plot, passable effects, with some good run of the mill slasher kills, but severely lacking in motivation. For what was supposed to explain everything, this only stirred up some new questions, made parts 4 and 5 pointless and was a poor way for a great actor in Pleasance to end his life and career.


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


user
"Curse of Michael Myers" is a very frustrating piece to deal with for a fan of the Halloween series. After a very disappointing letdown in Halloween 5, the series reached a near ebb in plot lines, with a silly devolution into witchcraft and a teenage cult dedicated to the worship of Michael Myers. "Curse of Michael Myers" ups the ante in blood and gore, but really represents a decay in the series' integrity. It's too bad to, as this is the last movie for Donald Pleasance as the character of Dr. Loomis. Pleasance has some good screen moments (precious ones if your a fan of the series) as the now very aged and as he says "very retired doctor". Sadly he died before the movie was completed, and it is very apparent at the conclusion of the film that the stories original climatic scene was never realized. Right from the beginning credits, Halloween 6 has more of the feel of a made-for-TV movie then that of the block-buster horror flick that it started out as in 1978. Any loyal Halloween alumni should have demanded more from this film,... Dr. Loomis and Donald Pleasance deserved more.


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


user
If Halloween 5 was a cruel joke to the fans of the series, than Halloween 6 is a like a vicious insult. The storyline has gone to the dogs everyone. Michael is used as a helpless pawn in this film and he isn't at all scary. He reminds me of an over-weight alcoholic man than the boogeyman that struck fear in our hearts back in the original. There are almost no redeemable qualities about this feature and i'm so glad H20 came out because it would be an insult to fans to have this be fresh on our minds.
Halloween 6 had about 2 aspects that I liked. Having an adult Tommy Doyle in the film was a nice touch and it linked it to the original. Donald Pleasance is here(in his last performance...what a bad film to end an otherwise nice career on). When he's on screen he makes you remember the good old days when Halloween was actually scary.
That's about it my friends. The stalk sequences are unoriginal. One of them being a blatant rip-off of the Laurie/Michael chase in the original. The other characters are terribly under-written and just aren't likable. The music, on of Halloween's highlights even when the film is bad, is tortured in this film. we get a silly rock version of the stalk/chase theme. What were they thinking when they made this film.
*SPOILER*
Their biggest mistake was killin off the character of Jamie(Now played by another actress who isn't worth mentioning)We watched this character escape death in two films. We rooted for her and when she is killed in this film you cant help but feel sorry for her and realize that the filmmakers don't care when good characters are established in a film.
*END SPOILER*
The less said about thi embarrassment the better. I wish it didn't exist. I suggest skipping this film, and even 5, and just going straight to H20 because if you watch this you may not want to see another Halloween film again.


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


user
[possible spoilers]
The sixth "Halloween" film is an utterly depressing affair, but unfortunately not in the manner envisioned by the filmmakers. By now, everyone knows the story of how it was butchered and released in such a sloppy, incoherent form. The second half, in particular, makes little to no sense, as plot elements are introduced and dropped, seemingly at random. The very ending left me scratching my head. What the hell happened? Is Dr. Loomis dead or what? This is what you get when you put a shameless hack in charge of a motion picture. It's not a pretty sight.
On a related note, this is the most graphically violent entry in the series. I have no problem with gore if it's in the right place, but this movie takes it to absurd levels. The infamous exploding head must be a new low for the series. Michael himself even seems to be enjoying the act of murdering another human being, inconsistent with his efficient, methodical approach in the John Carpenter original.
I'm not quite sure who was responsible; director Joe Chappelle or the producers, probably a combination of both. I'd be perfectly happy to grant a pardon to all concerned if only they'd release the legendary "Producers' Cut," a more complete version of the film that is a vast improvement from every account. From what I understand, it's like a different movie altogether. I offer to pay full price to purchase the DVD if Miramax comes to its senses and releases it.
There are a handful of good elements, however. The idea of Michael being controlled by the Druids is intriguing. Paul Rudd is solid as Tommy Doyle, whose appearance is a neat tie-in with the original. The slick visuals help make the proceedings a bit more watchable. But these meager offerings are overshadowed by the overload of drivel we have to put up with.
Finally, "The Curse of Michael Myers" is noted for being Donald Pleasance's last film. Many of his scenes were excluded from the final cut, and when he does appear, he seems frail and unhappy. The movie is dedicated to his memory, a blatant (if unintentional insult) if there was ever one. The fact that a talented performer should end his career like this is too depressing to even think about.
*1/2 (out of ****)
Released by Dimension Films


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 very bad. In fact, the only reason why I've given it a 2 rather than a 1 is because it made me laugh. Without giving anything away, a man's head actually explodes in this film. It was so pathetic, I laughed. I don't believe the scene was meant to be funny but it's nonsense. Complete nonsense. The original Halloween is such a good film, it's a shame they had to go and make such a stinker.


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 not quite sure what to say/think about this movie. It is definitely not the worst in the series (there's still "Halloween 3"). The style is just very different and it focuses on other elements than its predecessor did. It tries to explain why Michael Myers freaks out on Halloween and starts butchering around. Well, all that stuff about Michael Myers being cursed and the evil cult was a rather nice effort, but I didn't buy it. None of the other installments in the series tried to come up with any fancy explanations.
The movie contains lots of gore. Actually it's plain carnage. If you haven't seen the other Halloween films you will probably like this one for its blood content. But for a real Halloween freak this sequel might be just too different to be seen as a good one. Suspense was turned into terror and carnage (exploding heads..., you get the point).
The ending (theatrical cut) is simply awful. Michael gets stabbed with a needle, then beaten up with a pipe, then stabbed again, this time with more needles, then beaten up a little more until there's slime running out of his head (where did this green stuff come from anyway?). Basically it's nothing more than trash worth 5 million $.
There was one good thing though: Michael's mask!
Dedicated to Donald Pleasance, quite a disgrace.
My rating: 4/10


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


user
Most of this film was okay, for a sequel of a sequel of a sequel...
I was impressed by the amount of suspense there was; I HAD actually expecting that to be chucked out the window in favor of gore, gore, gore. It wasn't, but there's some pretty ridiculous deaths.
The thing that I disliked, however, was all of the plot complications. Those could have been okay, if the scriptwriters had taken the time to explain all of them through. But what was the purpose of the secret society in the mental institution, specifically? Why were they protected from Michael's damage until a certain point? What exactly were they going to do with the baby? How did Jaime Lloyd get pregnant, for that matter? Why lock her up for 20 years for her to get pregnant, too? Why did Michael kill all his co-conspirators in the end? Why were there fetuses in the lab? The actors seemed to have "figured it all out" once they saw the fetuses.. But it was never explained to the audience.
If you're just going to watch this film to see people get snuffed, then this'll be okay for you.. However, if you can't stand a plot being thrown at you which remains unresolved by the time the credits roll, you should go watch something else.


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


user
Avoid this one! It is a terrible movie. So what if it is very exciting? All it is is just pointless murders. And the whole thing with Thorn and Michael's curse, that was the absolute worst thing they could possibly do to the series! Why couldn't they leave Michael's story a mystery? He's supposed to be the Boogeyman, not part of some stupid cult!! Ugh! Thank God for Halloween H20, which wiped out Halloween 3-6! They all sucked! But anyway, if you see this movie, please expect no more than pointless murders and gore.


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


user
Normally I wouldn't go to the trouble of commenting on a horror movie sequel, because it's usually assumed that they're BAD, and if you watch them with a healthy disrespect, they can be very fun and enjoyable to taunt/laugh at. However, this chapter of the ongoing Halloween saga came close to gumbing up everything the original stood for. In the very first movie, Dr. Loomis said (very pointedly I might add), that Michael Myers was evil, and this tries to explain why (doing a bad job of it I might add). In my opinion, he was much scarier when he was just a blood hungry freak. The whole goth/cult thing was unnecessary and a desperate attempt to throw a new curve into the Halloween equation. The result was a boring, predictable movie that was not scary and not bad enough to be funny.


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


user
By far this is the worst Halloween movie ever made. The acting is bad, except for Paul Rudd, and Donald Pleasence. The girl who played Kara (forgot her name) was ok, but overall this movie was basically a big letdown. Nothing moved the story forward, it lacked substance, and the scares that made Halloween and H20 so good. All and all, skip this movie, it's not worth the price of rental.


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


user
OK, just what the HELL is all this supposed to mean??? Halloween 6 (let's just call it that, OK?) is, without a doubt, the most CONFUSING film in the series (and from what I've heard, seeing the original "producers cut" doesn't sound like it makes things any less bewildering than the "official" release). What a mess.
This isn't a really bad film, as some have said. It has its scary scenes and some rather intense moments - it just DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE! Don't tell me that Michael was "engineered" from the beginning to be evil and kill and destroy, and blah blah blah. It was bad enough when they turned Michael into Jamie Lee Curtis' brother (just so they had an excuse to keep her in the second film) - this is too much.
It would seem this is another case of the creators of the film trying to be "too smart" by coming up with a new premise that will shock and impress us all. Bad move, guys. We're not looking for an explanation of why Michael kills, so please don't try and feed us this crap. Show me Michael looking menacing and killing a bunch of people. Show me Dr. Loomis trying to track him down and, as always, coming up just short. Don't waste (what turned out to be) the last performance of Donald Pleasance by telling me (in the most confusing way possible) that Michael was "created" by some cult from hell and that his "seed" will be passed on to another and... oh, brother.
Halloween 6 has its moments, don't get me wrong, and we all know there have been FAR worse sequels than this (Hellraiser, anyone?) so get what you can out of it (the scene toward the end of the film with Michael charging down a deep red corridor is particularly effective) and try to ignore the screwball plot. Hopefully one day we can all see the "producer's cut" and maybe get the chance to make (a bit) more sense out of all of this. Till then, this will have to do...
-FTM


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


user
Michael Myers, the deranged, not-so-young-anymore psycho, who seems to get beefier with every appearance, is resurrected by his druid brothers to wreck more menace upon his family members, and any one else who gets in the way. Gaps in logic seem to be ignored in favor of a healthy body count. Michael, who originally preferred strangulations and kitchen knives, learns to swing an axe and use whatever means necessary to off his victims, and the result is an awful, patchwork, dollar store film virtually unhelped by a few genuinely creepy sequences. Donald Pleasance, who died shortly after production, seems to have been injected into this story simply so *somebody* could be billed as the star. You won't want to cover your eyes during this one, but you will shake your head at the downward slide of John Carpenter's classic creation.


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


user
The stranger Jack (Matthew Lillard) arrives in the studio of the crook collector of antiques Max (Vincent D'Onofrio) and tells his ambitious companion and specialist in poisons Jamie (Valeria Golino) that he is Jack's brother. Jamie does not buy his story, dominates Jack and ties him up to a chair. When Max arrives, Jack proposes US$ 100,000.00 for each one to protect him in a negotiation of the antiques "Spanish Judges" with a wealthy and dangerous collector. Max invites his stupid acquaintance Piece (Mark Boone Junior), who comes with his retarded girlfriend that believes she is from Mars, to compose the backup team. However, Jack double-crosses the collector and then he intrigues Jack, Jamie and Piece.
The low budget "Spanish Judges" is a movie with a reasonable screenplay with an awful conclusion that wastes a good cast. Valeria Golino is astonishingly beautiful but together with the good actor Vincent D'Onofrio, they are not able to save the stupid story. Further, the scenes that are supposed to be funny unfortunately do not work, and actually they are silly and not funny. My vote is three.
Title (Brazil): "Tudo Por Dinheiro" ("All For Money")


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


user
James Cagney plays Richard Gargan (nicknamed "Patsy"!), a former gangster now overseeing the surly lads as the new superintendent of a state-run reform school. Tepid genre entry wherein Cagney's the whole show; he dominates the picture, but only because there's not much else of interest going on. Jimmy gives just what's expected from his hard-boiled persona, which can be satisfying if you're in for a quick fix. The direction (by Archie Mayo, though Michael Curtiz was said to have helped) is straightforward without being particularly gripping, although the narrative slips in the second-half, grinding the film down to a messy conclusion (with even Cagney's Patsy getting lost in the shuffle). Remade in 1938 as "Crime School" and again in 1939 as "Hell's Kitchen". ** from ****


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


user
A friend gave me this movie because she liked it. I decided I would finally watch it. It was sooooooo long. I kept waiting for the suspense to happen but it never did. I kept waiting for something to happen after the opening scenes, and it never did. I stopped the movie and came back later. I actually forced myself to watch the rest of it hoping it would get better. It got worse. I kept asking myself, who are these people? Do they have feelings? are they just robots? I'm glad I didn't pay to see it or pay to rent it. The end would have been better if Dutch died from the gunshot wound. At least we would have gotten some emotion from the audience. Or maybe not.


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


user
Did you ever see the film "Marathon Man"? The part with the dentist? I would rather have that happen to me than to sit through "Random Hearts" again. It wasn't simply uninteresting, or uneventful-- It was horribly, painfully, and agonizingly BORING. At one point, I momentarily lost conciousness. To the average layman, I may have appeared to be sleeping, but the other movie patrons knowingly realized I actually BLACKED OUT from the bordom. I thought I was going to die. When the film finally ended (I think it was twelve hours long, but I'm not sure), I let out an exhasperated "Thank You Jesus, It's Over!!", to which all other movie goers cheered. If I had to listen to Harrison Ford drone on one more second in that monotoned whine, I would have been forced to search for something sharp to jam in my eye to divert my attention. This is 136 minutes of my life I will never get back.


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


user
Unusually cold and silly drama from director Sydney Pollack. Soapy plot revolves around adulterous couple perishing in a plane wreck, leaving their spouses to find eachother and connect on their own intimate level. Romance-novel writing gets sluggish treatment, although I thought the performances by leads Harrison Ford and Kristen Scott-Thomas were fine. Slick production holds interest, even though the plot keeps covering the same ground, and never builds any emotional momentum. As a result, the climax in the airport is a big 'So What?'


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


user
Nothing could be more appealing than the idea of a good love story featuring Kristin Scott Thomas and Harrison Ford. The cool, refined English beauty and the warm-blooded American male -- what could possibly be more lovely? Well, this is not that movie. Right away they ruin it by casting Kristin Scott Thomas as an American Congresswoman. That's like casting Hugh Grant as Babe Ruth. Or Colin Firth as Al Capone. Kristin Scott Thomas is exactly the sort of woman you don't picture shaking hands with greasy ex-junkies in filthy slums, or squeezing into smelly crowds and kissing babies. She would have been far better cast as the English born widow of an aristocratic Senator, the kind who belongs to the hunt club and goes to flower shows but has no idea how the other half lives.
Then there's Harrison Ford as a regular guy cop. Certainly he's tough enough for the role. But the idea that he's going to romance this stunning high society beauty is a bit hard to swallow. Why couldn't he have been, say, a tough but wealthy reform politician with blue-collar roots who inherits Kristin's late husband's Senate seat? The two of them are initially quite cool to each other, but for duty's sake Kristin is cordial to him, and he in return starts showing her some of the rawer side of life -- things her husband sheltered her from. Her political awakening coincides with the jolting passion of a newer, more blue collar, lover -- one who appreciates her polish and refinement far more than her aristocratic husband. Now that's a love story! Instead of that, though, you get a blank, meaningless "thriller" where the action drags and nothing happens. Well, there is one ghetto style "drive by" scene where Harrison almost gets killed, but it's so abrupt and unexplained it's really more like welcome comic relief.
The sky is always gray in this movie, and our refined, lovely Kristin always looks a little chilled. When she's supposed to be dreaming of passion, she looks more like she's dreaming of a wool blanket and a cup of tea! She also looks a bit sleepy most of the time, like she'd really rather be napping in the bed than screwing Harrison Ford.
All things considered, I'd say you can't blame her.


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


user
It wasn't until I saw Sidney Pollack in the picture that I ever connected him to this film. This is his worst possible movie. Absolute dreck. The dialog is wooden and unbelievable, the plot is unbelievable.
Kristen Scott Thomas is wasted in this movie. There is nothing about her character that makes you even want to believe in this story.
Harrison Ford is like on Valium. There is no life in his eyes.
I blame Sidney Pollack for the failure of this movie. The script is awful, and he is too smart to not see that. So it smacks of some kind of payoff, whether of a studio obligation or something else, but this is just BLOODY ROTTEN!


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


user
So much great chemistry between Kristen Scott-Thomas and Harrison Ford, but every time the story about their relationship began to gather momentum the script cut away and dealt with some irrelevant sub-plot that did nothing to advance the story. Indeed, the subplots had nothing to do with the story at all. They were like commercial breaks in which you watched a trailer for another movie.
The writers (or someone who controlled the writers) obviously didn't trust themselves to write compellingly about relationships and the interior lives of their characters. They seemed to be uncomfortable unless they threw in some gun battles and bar fights. Or perhaps they didn't trust the audience to pay attention to a story about a man and a woman trying to understand their relationship under difficult circumstances. After all, we all know how boring "Casablanca" was.
Perhaps if the relationship between Kay and Dutch had been developed more and had been allowed to play out, the writers would have know how to end the story. This film is a disappointment for not doing more with its wonderful actors, who gave good performances but could have done more with a better script.


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


user
Why is it that such "romantic" movies that never actually go anywhere, always start (and probably end) with crappy jazz? It's not clever and it makes it look like a bloody tv-movie. This film was sappy, slow paced, boring, unoriginal, wooden and did I say boring?
Harrison Ford was probably trying to be mysterious and crude, but he was just a crawling, mumbling cop that seemed to walk into the congress-woman's home like everything was fine, when he behaved like a pervert - staring at Thomas with a pervy glare, hardly ever bothering to speak.
And why the hell do they always get British actors to put on crappy accents - they're casted because they're famous, and everybody knows they're british precisely because they're famous!


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


user
Motivations of the characters was completely unbelievable. Many times throughout the movie you find yourself thinking that the characters' actions were totally illogical, making it impossible to identify with the characters. Possibly, the writing / direction were completely out of sync making the movie painful to sit through. I wanted my money back from the video store...


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


user
Being a Harrison Ford fan I am probably being kind. It was predictable, sappy...my husband made a lot of gagging sounds while we were watching it. What a disappointing movie. Our local newspaper (San Jose Mercury News) actually gave this 4 stars out of 4 stars!!! Hard to believe that the reviewer saw the same movie we did.


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


user
I clerk in a video store, so I try to see the movies we're about to put out each week. I don't have a problem with this; in fact, I sort of feel it's a privilege. Not so with this film . . . After an hour and a half of our hero whining and growling his way through scene after scene, I was truly wondering if they planned to get to the point. I felt like I should be getting paid for watching this at home, in my free time. And if I'd known there was another hour to be endured, I might have given up right then. I didn't care about the characters, the filming was unremarkable, and Ford made kissing look like a chore. Even the score was incongruous and jarring. What a waste.


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 like Harrison Ford so I eagerly rented this movie only to be disappointed minute after minute. Mr. Ford seemed to be walking through very warm water looking for a place to urinate. His co-star was very good and had the better lines. The story intrigued me but the mistake - BIG MISTAKE - as everyone is identified via driver's license or passport before they board any american commercial aircraft left numerous plot questions in my mind.
I could have cared less about these people. In fact, the sub-plot of the Internal Affairs investigation was more interesting than the two lovers killed while flying first class to Miami.
I am disappointed in the director, Sydney Pollack who gave us the classic Tootsie and other films. This one is a waste of time and energy.


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


user
Two things -- too long and totally lacked credibility. This movie didn't make any sense and was excrutiating to sit through. I am usually pretty patient, but man... It just doesn't keep your attention at all! I think I am being nice here even! You keep thinking it's almost over only to find out it's still got another half hour! Good actors.


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


user
Harrison Ford plays Sergeant Dutch Van Den Broeck of the District of Columbia Police Department. He tries to get the bad guys, but doesn't do a very good job. When we meet up with him he's trying to catch a corrupt undercover officer. Kristin Scott Thomas plays a New Hampshire Senator, Kay Chandler, trying to get reelected. She's running against a candidate who has plenty of money. The last thing she needs is the death of her husband. She's a politician- she can't be bogged down by feelings.
This story moves slowly and painfully. I was looking at my watch every five minutes wondering when it would be over! The story gets lost in details the director, Sydney Pollack, didn't need to put in. We don't want to know about Dutch's police investigations. They throw in some insight to politicians and the spin control' they do for campaigns. After seeing the movie I'm still wondering why they got involved romantically. Doesn't anybody mourn anymore? Don't you need more than two weeks to even consider going horizontal' with someone else?
It was good to see actress, comedian, Chicago native and Second City Alumni Bonnie Hunt. Her role isn't necessarily comic relief, but she was the only one I wanted to see more of. Do yourself a favor, wait for it on video if you want to see it at all.


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


user
To quote one critic's review of the movie, "it started off slow and stopped." The plot was believeable enough (although some of the characters' actions seemed very, very RANDOM), the script was fairly well written (in that the dialogue did not seem forced), but everything went way too slowly. There were too many pauses between lines, and the way the lines were delivered was not all that great. This movie had potential, but blew it like a teenager turning to drugs. My advice? Wait for it to come on TV before you see it.


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


user
It was tough watching Harrison Ford obsessing over nothing. Kristin Scott-Thomas should have slapped this guy and told him to take a hike.
Save your money. Don't even bother with a rental fee, unless you need a good nap.


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


user
I went to see Random Hearts with 3 friends, and at first, I thought maybe it was just me who wasn't enjoying the movie. After all, I didn't like As Good As it Gets and that movie won all sorts of awards. Well, it wasn't just me...none of my friends liked it either. It was unbelievable slow, much like getting teeth pulled. The only action that is in the movie is what is in previews. We didn't walk out of the theatre because we all assumed something more would happen. We weren't as smart as the 7 or 8 people who did walk out. I have never walked out on a movie in my life, but I definitely should have. This is all tough for me to write, considering I am relatively easy to please when it comes to movies. It takes a lot for me to think a movie is awesome, but not much for me to just like it. This movie didn't even come close in the like category. Not only was the movie about 2 hours too long, but it was like two separate trite stories in one, but they weren't smoothly sewn together. Plus, the "soundtrack" if you could even call it that was so annoying. Like Seinfeld has the same riff that is played over and over again (difference being that i like Seinfeld)..this movie had this jazz riff that it kept playing, which sounded highly inappropriate at times, especially when people were dealing with the deaths of the plane crash. Hard to explain what I mean, but trust me it was awful. I cannot say enough to make people not waste their money. After I left the theatre, I honestly wanted to write to the movie company and demand my $7 back..sheeesh, I could have gone bowling or something for that money.


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


user
Back in the dark days of 1990, the hoped-for Heir to the Spielberg Throne (after the failure of supposed whiz-kid Phil Joanou) was mistakenly believed to be pretentious Spielberg wannabe David Mickey Evans. Evans managed to fleece the studios for over a million dollars, suckering baby-boomer executives into believing his screenplay -- a combination of nostalgic, 1960s references and a disturbing drama about child abuse -- somehow equaled good storytelling, and a decent film.
As Rod Stewart once sang, "look how wrong you can be."
But the novice's artsy-fartsy, "E.T."-inspired script convinced enough people he was the next Chosen One -- the New Spielberg -- and so a deal was struck to not only buy the script for more money than 99 percent of the world's population will ever see in their lifetime, but for Evans to direct the film as well -- even though he'd had never directed anything in his life.
Hey, how hard can it be to be another film-making genius, after all?
Two weeks into the shoot, Columbia found out. His dailies were called "totally unusable" by the studio -- or at least those level-headed enough to not to have fallen under the E.N.C. (Emperor's New Clothes) spell. All his footage was scrapped and recycled into guitar pics.
So what's a studio to do after sinking 10 or 20 million dollars into something they still believed represented the Resurrection of Steven Spielberg? Hire Spielberg himself to save the day? Columbia probably tried that.
Enter old pro Richard Donner. Hey, he may not be a cinematic genius, but he gets the job done. "Superman" wasn't too bad, after all -- and the first "Lethal Weapon" was pretty good.
So Donner steps in and grabs the directorial reins. Fortunately he manages to convince Columbia that the worst of the film's insipid fantasy sequences -- which would have played out like a ten year-old's acid trip -- have to go. Unfortunately, he leaves in the Crying Buffalo (ooh, how poetic) and the ridiculous, pseudo-Spielberg fantasy ending, complete with Clueless Mom perfectly content for the rest of her life to get postcards from her missing son as he circles the globe in his red wagon. Right.
But Donner did manage to get a decent performance out of Elijah Wood. And Lorraine Bracco as the Idiot Mom wasn't bad either. Maybe Donner should be reevaluated. Maybe he's not such a phony Hollywood hack as everyone has always believed.
The only reason I'm giving this over-baked misfire a 2 rating is that someone was smart enough to cast the great John Heard (but in the wrong part, of course). The kids do okay... though Tom Hanks' horrible, overly-explanatory narration nearly destroys every scene it intrudes upon.
One might think that after the David Mickey Evanses and Phil Joanous and Troy Duffys of the world, the studios might finally wise up. One might hope that these hype-driven film-making debacles might prevent the Emperor's New Clothes syndrome from ever rearing its ugly head again.
Doubtful!


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


user
Even though this was a well-told story, I found it too unpleasant. The main subject is child abuse, which is never fun to see - a sordid topic. Add to that a lot of profanity by the drunker-abuser husband and a GD by a little kid, no less - and this movie turned me off as far as ever seeing it again.
Also portrayed in here were punks picking on the two little boys, another unpleasant viewing experience. The realism of the story takes a swan dive when one of the boys flies away on a home-made airplane! Give me a break!
The only positive, enjoyable part of this movie is seeing the nice, loving and touching relationship between the two young brothers, played by Elijah Wood and Joseph Mazello. The latter became a familiar face in the next couple of years with big roles in Jurassic Park, Shadlowlands and The River Wild. Wood, of course, didn't hit it big until a decade later but, he made it very big In The Lord Of The Rings trilogy. Those two kids, and narration by an unbilled Tom Hanks, are the only facets of this film I liked.


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 one of the most mixed up films I have ever seen. Everything in the movie seemed to be attached to justify some other element that had been glued on. There is even a talking buffalo that wants his wet nose rubbed to make the magic happen. Even the brutal father seems to be stuck in just to give the kids an excuse to fly away in a wagon. It was laughable, but in an uncomfortable way because of the serious subjects that seemed to be used just to set up the plot.


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


user
This movie was horrible. If it had never been made the world would be a better place. Come on, a flying wagon? What were they thinking? This was a sub-par movie with a horrible hook, and I would like a written apology from the studio that produced this, along with some cookies to help repay me for the time I wasted on this crap fest that I can never get back. If you payed to see this movie, I am truly sorry because I watched it on TV on a Sunday afternoon when I had nothing better to do and it pretty much ruined my whole week. A flying freaking WAGON?!?! And that's supposed to make up for having a horrible mother who cares more about her own screwed up needs than her children? No wonder they don't have enough sense to tell someone he is beating them, their mother teaches them nothing but that what she wants comes before everything else. Absolutely horrible.


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


user
If it wasn't for the very attractive Jennifer Jostyn in the lead role, I would have turned "Milo" off after the first 30 minutes. However, as easy on the eyes as she is, she's not enough to save this film, not by a long shot.
Milo starts off with a group of young girls accompanying an "assumed young boy" in a yellow slicker to a house in the woods where he shows them embryos in jars. Apparently, the deal was that if he showed them the jars, ol' Milo gets to conduct a gynecologist exam on each in return. One of the group volunteers to be Milo's "first patient" and he leads her behind closed doors. Moments later blood flows from under the door and we are whisked into present day. Enter the lovely Jostyn who plays one of the girls all grown up in present day. A substitute teacher with shallow confidence whose closest friend appears to be a goldfish, she receives an invitation to return home for a friend's wedding. Yep! You guessed it. Return to Miloville. Milo, who allegedly drowned years ago, seems to be having a dilemma staying dead and begins terrorizing and murdering the girls he failed to "examine" all those years ago.
Milo, the character, reminded me of one of the mutants from Cronenberg's "The Brood." He could have been scary, but just how scary can a villain be who wears a yellow raincoat? The plot confuses even itself and the conclusion left me wanting my 90 minutes back. I'm sending Milo, an inept slasher film, to stand in the corner!


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


user
"Milo" is yet another answer to a question nobody ever asked.Do we really need more slashers?I for one think we already have more than enough.I guess the professional tall guys overcharged so in this one we deal with a murderous kid that's also a zombie or a ghost when he feels like it.A long time ago,he drowned but that didn't bother him and he still kills people("Friday the 13th",what's that?).One day,his survivors have a big reunion and as a surprise twist,Milo comes to pay them a visit.Through some really bad shots that show everything except the murders the cast is thinned out till only the final girl is left to find out Milo's dull,I mean dark secret.She and her friends have been dying to know.Once discovered,Milo goes on yet another murderous rampage(isn't it his bedtime yet?) and the girl,well she screams a lot.The acting is not even bottom of the barrel,the barrel refuses to be associated with it.Milo can be one creepy bastard from time to time I give him that,but some movies just can't be saved without a great script or gratuitous nudity.


assistant
0