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
think of the most un-film-worthy subject you can and this is 10 times worse. A woman needs to complete as many crosswords as she can in a day. We don't even get to see the questions and think of the words on our own, we just watch her struggle. The woman seems so anxious and in a hurry to do the crosswords, but for some reason she spends the time distractedly walking all around the city when she could be focused at home. The acting is horrible, the actress huffs and puffs as she tried to think of the words, and we are left completely in the dark. The New York scenery is nice but the movie relies on it too much and it gets old fast. The movie plays like a rejected NYU student film. This film has no redeeming qualities and I do not recommend it to anyone, ever.


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


user
"Marathon" has a very interesting premise, excellent ambient sounds, and good scenery. Unfortunately, the movie, aside from these aspects, falls flat on its face. For a woman trying to complete so many crossword puzzles in a day, she spends an awful lot of time standing around, sulking, and not doing puzzles. I believe there is more walking shown in the movie than her work on these puzzles. Also, while I understand the point of showing so much scenery, there is simply FAR too much of it. The movie is incredibly boring and unfocused. It's not worth buying, renting, watching on television, or viewing in any conceivable way. I lost interest so quickly that I'm not sure why I sat through the entire film in the first place.


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


user
Do the writers that conjure up these type of "comedies" have such empty lives that they have to embody them in tragic shows like this?.
Why the talented and gorgeous Busy Phillips is amongst this trash is beyond me,I cannot stand the Hispanic girl whose accent sounds very fake and is so unfunny and annoying as is the other African-American girl with the shrill voice.
The jokes are often stupid, the Jewish guy yells a lot and the show never goes anywhere, one particular episode with the solider looking for love was just terrible.
I don't believe there would be that many working in a looking for love office and only one man? Of course all of the Woman are in tight fitting tops and tons of make up to make up for their lack of talent.
I actually found Holly funny in her older shows and I have always admired Busy but this show is dumb, empty and had nothing going for it.


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


user
This appears to be one of Noel Coward's lesser known films, and it is easy to understand why. Taken at face value it's not a bad film, but there's nothing terribly good about it either. Nothing much happens at all throughout the course of the film, it's simply the story of Chris and Leonora's ill-fated affair, and Barbara's reaction to it. The only thing that keeps the film interesting is the fact that we already know it's going to end badly for one reason or another, owing to the first scene. Oddly, there are many perfect opportunities in the story for conflict, and yet none of them are utilised. For example, it would've been much more interesting and believable if Barbara had've fallen out with Leonora, but instead the two remained on good terms throughout the film. The notion of Barbara having been betrayed by her friend was not explored at all - in fact she didn't even seem to feel betrayed by her husband; she even encourages him to go on a holiday with Leonora. Similarly, Chris' two secretaries at his practice, Susan Birch and Tim Verney, who also happen to be close friends of both Chris and Barbara, are never forced to take sides. In fact, Tim shies away from conflict by telling Chris that he's terribly fond of both him and Barbara. Despite the strange lack of conflict, the biggest flaw in the film is the fact that we don't care whether Chris ends up with Leonora or Barbara. The two womens' personalities are indistinguishable anyway so we don't know which of the two is better suited to be with Chris, and besides this, Barbara's permissiveness gives the impression that she hardly cares about the affair anyway. Furthermore, I found Chris and Leonora's relationship somewhat unconvincing. I can overlook the ridiculously short timeframe in which they fall for each other because that is so common in films of this era, but even then the relationship seemed shallow. Coward's character was too austere and cynical to be the object of Leonora's affections. He reminds me of the socially inept genius Sir Earnest Pease from the film "Very Important Person" - I'm sure the two would've gotten along well. Chris' coldness and austerity made his love for Leonora seem insincere. I think Coward should've sat this one out and given his part to a younger man - as it is, I was constantly wondering what this young beauty saw in such a sombre, mostly emotionless, balding middle aged man. Despite all my criticisms, the film still manages to be interesting - just not terribly compelling. The fact that none of the characters are particularly well developed gives them an enigmatic nature, which is somewhat intriguing. The Astonished Heart is certainly worth watching, but it is a flawed piece of cinema.


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


user
The title is from a passage in the Bible (Deut. 28:28). Let's just say it is taken horribly out of context - but nonetheless, that is where the title of this agonizing movie originates. The other reviewers cover the plot details so I wont rehash. But the husband, who is a psychiatrist, delivers a lecture on "Inferior function" where he discusses how a person can meet another another person and they can experience a "cataclysmic crisis" in their lives where they cease to be masters of themselves and incapable of fair judgement. He is saying this at the podium at the exact moment as he lays eyes on Leonora Vail in the audience - the woman who will become his mistress. Not very subtle for showing that this is indeed what will happen to this poor man.
I think the whole premise of the movie is implausible and just didn't work. Here is an over-the-hill psychiatrist, and we are to believe this young, beautiful woman falls for him and comes between the happiness he and his wife shared. What's even more implausible is how the betrayed wife responds when she learns of the infidelity. Not only is she understanding, but she INSISTS her husband embark on a several month vacation with the tramp - "so we all can get a little relief from this unbearable stress". GIVE ME A BREAK!! I wanted to reach through the screen and throttle not just the adulterer but the dim-wit wife.
The fact that the whole movie takes place as a flashback after already revealing the end of the movie at the beginning (the fact that the husband had a terrible accident) - it leaves no doubt as to the outcome of the sordid affair. I think this was a poor decision as it leaves absolutely no plot twists to look forward to, as the whole movie is completely predictable. You already know the wife's resignation to the affair at the beginning of the film as she summons the mistress to the dying man's bedside and expresses no ill will towards her.
Not only is the script defective, but Noel Coward is horribly miscast (even though it is HIS screenplay). He and Leonora have absolutely no chemistry on screen whatsoever. Its interesting that Michael Redgrave was originally cast in that role, but was replaced during filming. I wonder what that was about? In the end, neither the husband or the wife cause you to feel any sympathy for either one of them. I do think Margaret Leighton played the part of strumpet quite well. But she couldn't possibly overcome all the negatives this film had. Also, as is the case of many British Productions of this era, the dialogue is hard to understand due to the clipped, fast speech pattern of the actors. I saw it on TV and couldn't even rely on closed captioning to fill in the blanks for me.
Don't waste your time on this one.


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


user
I like Noel Coward, the wit. I like Noel Coward, the play write. I like Noel Coward, the composer and singer, but I loathe Noel Coward the actor.
To me this is a man who should have stayed firmly behind the scenes, writing his plays and composing his music and making his profound and hilarious observations. He should never have been allowed in front of a camera.
Make no mistake, he is one of the top outstanding talents of the 20th century but the man just couldn't act, and his voice...with it's rolling R's and it's overly round tonal quality...well it could quite easily grate cheese in my opinion.
This is one of my least favourite offerings from Coward, as he unconvincingly portrays a psychiatrist embarking on an affair with a much younger woman, made worse by the fact that the much younger woman is an old school friend of his much younger wife.
Celia Johnson is as much a joy to watch as ever as Cowards wronged wife. It is her performance that saves this film from abject dullness. I suppose her own little fling in Coward's Brief Encounter four years previously qualified her for this role as she must have raised a few eyebrows playing a such a promiscuous woman and this gave her the chance to win back a few fans and gain some lost sympathy.
She was such a wonderful actress and you can see why Noel Coward used her so much in many of his productions.
However the rest of the film is drab, badly acted, predictable and on the whole boring to almost arse-clenching level.
If its Noel Coward you want then take the time to watch In Which We Serve, Blythe Spirit or This Happy Breed instead. Three Noel Coward treasures. With lovely films like these I suppose we can forgive him for this turkey.
I have given this four stars purely for the addition of Miss Johnson, but on the whole I'd avoid this one like the plague.


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


user
I once had a conversation with my parents who told me British cinema goers in the 1940s and 50s would check to see a film's country of origin before going to see it . It didn't matter what the plot was or who was in it , if it was an American movie people would want to see it and if it was British people wouldn't want to see it . This might sound like a ridiculous generalisation but after seeing THE ASTONISHED HEART I can understand why people in those days preferred American cinema to the home grown variety Back in the 1940s
British equity was devoid of working class members and it shows in this movie . Everyone speaks in an English lad dee daa upper class accent that makes the British Royal Family sound like working class scum and what this does is alienate a large amount of a potential British audience who would no doubt prefer to be watching Jimmy Cagney in WHITE HEAT because people would have , If not related to then certainly empathised with a violent gangster in cinematic terms more than some high class English shrink in 1949 . That's entertainment , the reason people go to cinemas . Even the characters names seem bizarre - Leonora ! How many British people were named Leonora in 1949 ? And the protagonists drink cocktails . And they use words like " Austere " . You do get the feeling that this wasn't marketed for a 1949 mainstream British audience . But why should it if the majority of British cinema goers were queuing up at cinemas to watch far more entertaining American imports ?
Watching THE ATSONISHED HEART in 2005 I was astonished how dated everything was , in fact it's so dated I thought maybe it might be a spoof from THE HARRY ENDFIELD SHOW . What didn't astonish me was the fact that these types of movie came close to sinking the British film industry , an industry that didn't pick up until American money invested in crowd pleasers like ZULU , ALFIE and the James Bond movies


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 only the second version of the classic story by Charles Dickens I had seen, and sadly it turned out to be one of the worst. The film opens with a quick live action piece where Simon Callow as Charles Dickens begins the story of A Christmas Carol, and then obviously it goes to animated story itself. You probably already know it, Ebenezer Scrooge is the grouchy cold-blooded businessman who refuses charity and hates Christmas. He is visited by Jacob Marley (Nicolas Cage) who warns him of the visits of the other three ghosts of Christmas Past (Jane Horrocks), Present (Sir Michael Gambon) and the silent Future/Yet To Come. After all this he obviously realises the true magic of Christmas, and promises to be nicer in future. The only changes I noticed to the story were Scrooge having mice as friends (a stupid idea), Scrooge's ex-love Belle (Kate Winslet) needing to see him to help at the orphanage, the Ghost of Christmas Present showing the two kids, "want" and "ignorance", Scrooge still gets haunted after being turned nice, and he's worried he can't keep his promise to stay nice. Also starring Rhys Ifans as Bob Cratchit, Juliet Stevenson as Mrs. Cratchit, Iain Jones as Scrooge's nephew Fred and Colin McFarlane as Fezziwig. The animation is not great quality, the actors have wasted their voices for a worthless piece of garbage. The only good thing that comes from this film is the good voice of Kate Winslet, singing the closing song "What If", as for the rest, it is just excruciatingly awful. Very poor!


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


user
It's difficult to make it through this movie without choking on your own vomit, to be honest. The shoddy animation doesn't help, as it makes this look like a decades-old video you'd find in Morrisons's 99p bin. Still, it's better than the abysmal screenplay, which spends about a third of its length on superfluous extras like Belle's present day problems, stuff about Scrooge's dad, and plenty of charmless fannying around with - choke - TWO ANTHROPOMORPHIC MICE. These bizarre additions eat up screen time at the expense of elements you'd think would be quite important, like Dickens's dialogue and key chunks of his plot - the movie buggers up the game of twenty questions, for example, and at times fails to put scenes in the right order. Absolutely hopeless.


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


user
This film is a perfect example of how to take a fascinating subject, come up with 25 minutes of substantive material and stretch it into a six hour borefest resembling the shape a documentary might take if Fox news decided to make one. Even the participants in this obnoxiously obstreperous film can't conceal their laughter at the stupidity of their attempt to show one of the few great times in world history where people take a stand and work to make a better world. If only the creators had spoken with Ken Burns for 5 minutes, they might have come out with something mildly intelligent instead of this cure for insomnia.


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


user
When a BBC murder thriller is this rife with heterosexual dysfunction, you know who the killer must be: The Homosexual.
Who murdered the sexy blonde teenager (who's also a pathological liar) on her way home from school? Let's see, could it be the mother who (against all common sense) is letting her teenaged son make unchaperoned visits to his serial-killer father behind bars? Could it be the moody son, who's impressed by his dad's no-nonsense attitude about women? Could it be the serial killer himself, who seems able to manipulate events from behind bars, a la Hannibal Lecter? Could it be mom's boyfriend, a teacher at the school whose affair with an ex-student led to his wife's suicide? Or could it be boyfriend's daughter, who goes blabbing everyone's secrets at school, causing untold misery? No, it's none of these likely suspects. It's...The Homosexual!
The only mystery for the viewer is guessing who The Homosexual is. Of course, it could be anybody, since the only characteristics of The Homosexual are shameful secrecy and a propensity to murder and otherwise make life complicated for the "normal" folks. The Homosexual is the invisible root cause of society's ills; only when this person is exposed and eliminated can the fractured family come back together, and things can return to normal...whatever that is.
As for the cast, both Jemma Redgrave and Robson Green are now officially past their sell-by dates. The world could get by marvelously without ever seeing either on screen again, but as long as the BBC has roles for The Aggrieved Woman and The Misunderstood Man, I suppose they'll keep coming back in movies like this one.


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


user
I hate a movie that doesn't have an ending. I don't care how good or bad the rest might be, I don't like to be left without a conclusion. Such shows should insist upon a disclaimer ... something like: The movie you are about to watch has either no ending or is so ambiguous as to not be conclusive.
In the movie the last scene we are left with is Dee and Dominic having a bit of a row and he says, almost regretfully I thought, that it couldn't be him because the fingers were either that of a girl or a child. THEN IT ENDS! Well sure, the smoking gun, so to say, is in the hands of the Dee's son, but what about Dominic's daughter? I actually thought we might discover it was her! Anyway, unless you like inconclusive movies, then I'd avoid this one. Otherwise, I thought the movie generally good.


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 of mine once rented this, thinking since Peter Fonda starred in it, it couldn't be bad. WRONG! It's bad as anything can be. There is so much to laugh at and it's not the jokes. For instance, in one scene Hawken walks into the forest and when he comes out he is suddenly wearing a completely different outfit! Where was "the director's" brain when he shot that scene?!? Probably the same place Fonda's was when he agreed to do this flick. It's truly a shame one has to see such a fine actor go dumb in this poor excuse for a film.
Nobody's performance in this movie can be called acting. Jack Elam is brought in just to bring up the star count here, but all he does is looking startled in a very dark and awfully shot scene in some kind of bar. Not to mention the "Indians", the girl was so godawful I wanted to shoot her just to end her misery and mine as well. If I could give this a 0, I would. Shame that mark doesn't exist here. This truly reminds of a bad joke or an amateur footage made just for fun. This should serve as a proof of how bad B-movies can get.


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


user
I couldn't wait for the end. This is absolutely the worst film I have ever seen. If you thought that just about anyone could make a watchable movie, these folks prove that there is a minimum skill set required. This is a film with no redeeming features whatsoever. It scores a zero in every department. This is more than just 'amateur' as the audience is given no consideration or regard at all. There is no serious attempt to act or entertain. The storyline is aimless, pointless and senseless. The cast look very uncomfortable and completely lack direction. The technical aspects of the film are poor.
As a DVD it makes a good drinks coaster.


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


user
Look no further, this is it, the worst movie ever made. There may be others that are tied, but there are none worse. There can't be.
I found this movie on a clearance-sale laserdisc for $3.25, and thought no movie with those actors could possibly not be worth that price. Turns out it's worth triple that - as the minimum they should have paid me to watch it.
I'm virtually certain that the girl in the picture on the cover of the package is not the girl in the movie, they substituted someone else, someone younger and cuter, to make it look more appealing. Whatever "plot" there was amounted to about three minutes of actual movie, the rest is filler. And I don't mean the kind of filler that you only realize is filler when it's over, or that is some kind of eye candy you don't mind having there, I mean filler that has you thinking about your shopping list. I think the "music" must have been made up by somebody with a friend who had a radio he listened to once. It's terrible.
If there were a shot of a nice mountain, a river valley, a forest, anything, there would be something positive about this movie. There isn't. Even with the speeder button on the remote, even at top laserdisc speed, you can't get it over with fast enough.
After years of thinking about commenting on movies, being tempted but not registering with IMDb, I finally cracked, because I had to do my part to push the user rating on this stinker down as far as possible.
The guidelines ask that you "focus on the content and context". I can't. There isn't enough content to focus on, and that's exactly my point. Sometimes bad is just bad, and this movie would have to be much better than it is to aspire to being only that.


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 want a complete waste of time, because pulling lint out of your belly button or cleaning the wax out of your ears or grouting your tile is your idea of a carnival thrill ride, then you'll not want to miss this one.
For one thing, forget the VHS cover. NO body in this movie looks that attractive (ie, the Indian girl). Someone else commented that whoever posed for the cover is not the same girl and I agree. The cover is THE most exciting thing about this movie.
To put this in perspective, I bought this VHS for 99 cents at K-Mart and three minutes, no, 40 seconds into the movie, I knew I had been ripped off.
I finished watching it because 1) I did pay 99 cents after all and, 2)there might possibly, conceivably been a hair of chance some scene in this turkey was worth more than a pinched loaf.
There wasn't.
Good grief, Fonda. I know you were hard up for roles when you did this, but this is beneath you.


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


user
The problem with this movie is that it isn't funny, it isn't scary, it isn't dramatic, it isn't intriguing, it isn't stimulating, it isn't, it isn't exciting, it isn't even the slightest bit interesting. I saw this film recently on tape and I was glad I didn't spent any money to rent it. It's basically a poor attempt at film-making. I won't even bother to tell you the story. Story? What story?


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


user
MASSIVE SPOILERS AHEAD! OK the movie in a nutshell. so this girl goes out buys drugs gets pulled over by a cop, the cops name is Wolf. the cop feels her butt, then he eats her...okay? he beats her up and eats her. then this woman is at home and this guy come with bulging genitals and he does her up. then the woman goes into the other room and this black guy is there and she undresses.....then the movie turns into a porno. he starts sucking on her breasts, then she gives him head. then wolf walks in with blood all over him and says "honey I'm home" then he realizes his wife is blowing some black guy and he kills her, the black guy kills him cuts the girl out of wolfs stomach and the go home. the end and they lived happily ever after. THAT IS THE MOVIE.
now after reading this do u really think there is anything to like about this movie. the only thing i liked in the woman had a nice body. but the performances sucked, the story sucked, the dialogue sucked, THE WHOLE MOVIE JUST SUCKED!!!!!


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


user
As usual, another masterpiece in the Vice Academy series(HaHaHa). I don't know why they even bothered to make this trash. Just another series of cops acting slutty. A defining part was when Ginger Lynn Allen's character(Holly Wells) and Elizabeth Kaitan's character(Candy) tried to seduce the scientist by wearing nothing but their bra and underwear under their labcoats. Just a wonderful scene(Ha). A character that I didn't like was the Commissioner. He was very annoying and ignorant. They should have arrested him. Mrs. Devonshire was pretty annoying, as well. They should have stopped this series after 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
There is no way to put into words just how bad, how shapeless, paceless and laughless these "Vice Academy" films really are. You have to experience one for yourself. For the third time in a row, writer-director Rick Sloane does not show even an ounce of writing or directing talent. There is nothing here that a person above the age of 5 will believe or laugh at, yet the (very brief) nudity and other "plot" elements make the films unsuitable for kids. Which leads me to believe that they are really aimed at adults with the mental capabilities of 5-year-olds. Elizabeth Kaitan makes a more than welcome replacement for Linnea Quigley - she is winningly bubbly and cute, and her wonderful big smile is about the only thing that can make a viewer smile as well. But watching her and the other girls in this film is like watching a bunch of flowers in a desert covered with horse manure. (*)


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


user
Terrible terrible movie for Television. Once again Lifetime brings us the predictable triangle; scheming bitchy woman out to get stupid unknowing wife of yet another stupid husband who doesn't have a clue.
I get antsy when I see these films. You may ask, why do I watch them then? I haven't a clue. Usually by mistake. And the movie is so bad I can't get away from it. I wait for the bitch to get her come up-pence. And usually I'm not satisfied in how she gets her just desserts.
Now if you can believe our vixen, she steals embryos from the clinic, and how does one do that? Without blood tests, DNA, inquiries and recommendations. She proceeds to kill the Realtor, Gabrielle Rose, who is on to her, in broad daylight in the front yard of a house for sale and no one sees her? She kills the mother, Susan Hogan, and you could predict that surmise when the mother off handedly mentions she's allergic to peanuts and that the pills to combat this allergy are in her pocket book. Guess what? I won't continue on this.
Finally you are left in the house alone with the wife and the bitch. Well good triumphs evil, but much too slowly. Victoria Pratt as the evil girlfriend is adequate in the role, looking a bit too disheveled and obvious. Tori Spelling just stands around looking blank most of the time. She's got those big big Bette Davis eyes that look like they're popping out of her head. I liked her better in TRICK. And Tahmoh Penikett plays the husband going around assuring his wife there's nothing too he and his ex-girlfriend, even though he's spotted all over town being very chummy with her, standing half naked with her in his house when he sent the wife off to the city to stay overnight. Yet he continues to deny the romance.
Lifetime never disappoints the viewers with their inane plots and stories about women and their stupid husbands. Wish I could give this chestnut a "0" rating.


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 one of those films you can have on for a couple of hours on a Sunday morning -- able to do other things with no real complications in losing any understanding of the proceedings, and gaining some fascination in wondering why such mediocrities acquired the manpower and financial resources to be produced in the first place.
Of course, with all the cable channels, as well as Lifetime's need to fill its time slots with 100 or so hours worth of movies per week (along with incessant "Golden Girls" reruns), this type of fare is now a t.v. staple. Also, it seems these flicks provide livelihood to the Canadian locales where most are made, as well as the host of Canadian actors appearing in them.
Tori Spelling, like the ferret-face Paris Hilton, is somebody who - if not for family connections and resources - would likely be working at The Gap. But at least Tori has become, say, a C+-level thespian, appearing in occasional presentations appropriate to this level.
This story is one which has been seen on Lifetime and similar venues God-knows-how-many times. Devious woman, a total sociopath, trying to screw-up everyone else's lives, operating during the initial parts of the story with more cleverness than a CIA operative could muster, committing murder when necessary, and out to wreck the life of the flick's "heroine."
As usual, the male lead is a completely clueless dolt. And in these types of films, one finds, say, characters about whom one can really "care," about 10% of the time. This one is in the other 90%.


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


user
I don't know if I should be amused or insulted by drivel like this put out by "Lifetime: Television For Women" Should be renamed "Lifetime: Television For Shut In Drama Queens" because I've yet to see a movie that wasn't a tear jerking pot boiler. This film was no exception. You know a film's going to be bad when the biggest headliner is Tori Spelling, completely a creation of bad plastic surgery and spoiled privilege minus any real talent. Everyone else matched her in unbelievably bad acting and the storyline was beyond dumb, as if anyone could believe any of it. If I hadn't have been helpless on the sofa pinned down watching with the same fascination you view a gory car wreck I would have changed the channel.


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 sucker for corny movies and are looking to see something you don't need to pay close attention to, this might be worth watching. the story itself is very unrealistic. the dialogue is also not very believable. it is doubtful you will find yourself relating to any of these characters because none of them are very likable. the acting could've been a lot worse. victoria pratt is noticeably out of place with the rest of the cast, as she seems to have a lot of potential and talent as an actress. while it's not saying much, this is one of the best acting performances i've seen from tori spelling. she appears to be getting better with age. overall, this extremely melodramatic movie is mediocre at best.


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


user
Lazy writing, bad acting and wooden direction lead us to a 2005 Canadian-made TV movie called HUSH, not to be confused with about eight other movies using the same name. Tori Spelling and her doctor hubby move from SanFran to his small hometown, where they run into his old gal pal, who decides she still loves him. She gets pregnant with Tori's baby (don't ask) and starts knocking off anyone who might get in her way as she plans to reunite with her old flame. The actors playing the old gal pal and the doctor are not worth mentioning, as they act flatter than flat. Tori isn't much better, but at least she is something to focus on as the plot meanders here and there before arriving at a very lame and all-too-familiar conclusion. Watch instead THE HAND THAT ROCKS THE CRADLE.


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


user
In 1970, feminists invaded the 'Miss World' beauty contest in London and brought the occasion to a halt by pelting the stage with flour and eggs. Why? Because, rightly or wrongly, they felt the event to be demeaning and degrading to women. I offer no criticism of their actions. Its a free world we live in. What I want to know is: why don't their modern-day equivalents invade the studios where shows such as this are made and do likewise?
'Sex & The City' is all about four self-absorbed women from New York: Carrie is a slave to fashion who turns into a pussycat when a man so much as claps eyes on her, Charlotte yearns to find the perfect man ( they don't exist, love ) so she can use sex to ensnare the poor devil, lawyer Miranda scares men away by wittering nonsense like 'out of touch with my emotions', and lastly we have Samantha, the living embodiment of the old Martini ad 'anytime, anyplace, anywhere'. Feminists hold up these characters - particularly Samantha - as a shining example of modern-day womanhood. Well, if shouting rude words in busy restaurants is progress, I think the feminists should take a long hard look at themselves and what they're supposed to represent.
Had 'Sex & The City' been the creation of a man, it would have been pulled from the airwaves for being sexist. Instead, like 'Charlie's Angels' before it, it has conned supposedly intelligent women into thinking it has acted as a positive force for good. There's something very clinical and cold-blooded about the show. 'The Benny Hill Show' was sexist too, but at least it was funny.


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


user
To be hones, I used to like this show and watch it regularly, but now (thank god!) I don't understand why did I watch it. Sex and the city is one of the most pointless and insulting TV shows I've ever seen. I really don't get the point of this show, despite of trying. People are saying, that Sex and the city is funny. In what way? By cursing all the time, talking about vibrators and the size of the penis? Give me a break.
I don't understand the plot: we have four girls who are trying to find a perfect man by sleeping with every dork, who comes around. And this show is all about four spoiled chicks, who are sleeping with every man in the city, but in the end they admit the best pleasure comes out of the penis vibrators. And yeah... the show is trying to tell us, that sex is the most important thing in every relationship. If you can have a good sex, you're a good husband (or wife). It doesn't matter if you want to be loyal and having a good heart.. the size does matter.
The biggest problem is also bad acting. The four main actresses (Sarah Jessica Parker, Kim Cattral, Cynthia Nixon and Kristin Davis) are so bad and unconvincing, that it makes me sick just watching this show. Parker is just screaming and complaining all the time, Cattral is showing her old boobs and saying "the f - word" all the time, Davis delivers her smile (and nothing else) and Nixon acts like she is bored all the time. And yes... men are sex - hungry pigs in this show. But, judging by this show, women are not much better. This show is insulting for men and women. The women are shown so primitive and emotionless, like they don't have any heart, just hunger for sex. It's insulting for everyone.
Sex and the city is one of the worst TV shows and I'm glad that the show ended, because it delivers bad acting and pointless stories. The whole world is not all about sex and vibrators.


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


user
I truly despair for womankind when they discuss this joke of a programme as if it's intellectually engaging and promotes female liberation and independence. This show is the biggest insult to women next to all those libidinous hip-hop videos. If talking like a bunch of reckless teenage boys over $100 lunches in swanky restaurants, indiscriminately shopping for unnecessary fashion and jumping into bed with the nearest male in site is considered empowering, the fate of western women may be doomed as we speak.
Aside from the damage it does to the female gender, Sex and the City is NOT ENTERTAINING. Not once has it been funny, captivating, exciting or original. The episodes play out monotonously. Each character are factory produced mannequins who behave in the same manner every episode. Not once have any of these shallow, unattractive women evolved. Perhaps the worst is lead character Carrie Bradshaw. Aside from looking hideous, her penchant for over analysis of relationships is cringe worthy. On top of all this, the show portrays men as a bunch of empty headed slobs who are unable to commit to healthy relationships. Even when there is a decent man, he is somehow painted as a villain. The utter lack of empathy for men is clearly the work of some "progressive" pseudo feminist.
Saddest part of the whole show is that these women live unfortunate miserable lives. Any intelligent woman would never envy them. It is a banal show with even more banal characters. The NYC tourist board must hate the way this garbage is showing up their otherwise fine city! Thankfully this train wreck is over! Desperate Housewives is seen as the fitting replacement for SATC. While DH can be quite far-fetched, at least it explores women in more multi-faceted ways. Plus it treats men more respectfully and it's actually entertaining!


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


user
Appalling, shallow, materialistic nonsense. How women (and gay men?) can enjoy this rubbish is beyond me. No self-respecting man would ever want to be with one of these neurotic gold diggers. What is even more concerning is that so many reviewers say they relate to the women on the show. If that is the future of women, Lord help us all. Showing your independence and being respected as equals with men should not be about spreading your legs every three seconds with a different man. I think this demeans women and does not do them justice. But this review is no rant against women. Fans of this show say it is "hilarious" and "rivoting" but every time I have watched this show I have just struggled to stay awake. Despite the narrative of the reporter woman, at no point in this show is there even anything close to something that could be considered a rational thought. So, it's not entertaining, and it's not informative, so why would you bother watching it? One out of ten stars.


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


user
I didn't expect much from the movie so am not all that disappointed. Carrie looked ugly, Mr. Big had his eyebrows colored with crayons and Samantha didn't say f***.
Charlotte's kid was annoying to watch as she was in too many scenes--the title could easily have been "SATC: Parents' Night Out." Camera angles just weren't that good, especially regarding Carrie's face.
There was a token black woman thrown in whose character doesn't have a proper exit and too few appearances by the gay men friends who seemed thrown in with no purpose anyway. Samantha's going back and forth from LA choked the story flow, especially when she comes in for Fashion Week and nothing happens.
The movie seems to have been made in rush because it could have been good but scenes were just thrown in to show different outfits or to offer viewers a chance to jump back in the show without adding much to the story 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
The very first time I saw this I recoiled in HORROR at what was being presented as modern, liberated women.
Sorry, but I cannot relate to whining idiots whose lives revolve around loveless sex and the acquisition of Gucci, Prada and Louis Vuitton labels. The troubling thing is that some may actually think this is how career women live in NYC. It's definitely not. These women are incredibly shallow and materialistic and as another reviewer said, they act like gold-digging hooches.
This is not liberated womanhood and I'm glad it's gone. 0 stars and just plain AWFUL


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


user
All my friends and various other coworkers think this show is soooo great. First I hate this show!!!!!!! I think I might be the only female alive!!! I only watched it because my best friend adores it and fancies herself to be the Charlotte character!
First the whole plot (If you can call it that) is about four women Superslut Samantha (Kim Cattrall)who most likely has every STD available and mossy,brown and green genitals considering she is tri sexual( she'll try anything).
Samantha is not like most 40 something women even in NY, but than the show would not have some kind of entertainment since Samantha (along with some good NY scenery) is the only reason to watch and those are not reason enough.
Charlotte (Kristen Davis) is a well dressed upper class NY idiot who still believes the Pince Charming myth! However sweet and pretty she is do not let that fool you, she spreads quite often.
Miranda (Cynthia Nixon) now this woman is stereotypical angry, butch feminist. I think in one episode she is thought to be a lesbian, but apparently is not...What a shame she's almost interesting.
Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker) the most annoying character. I swear I thought I was watching Twisted Sister front man Dee Snider's more manly looking, cross dressing, sissy boy, brother! This is a girl looking for can't live without you love....Heard of a puppy?
This show is stupid and I love making fun of it because I hear about how it is some kind of new awakening for women. That is just sad if your looking to watch slutty, pathetic, addictive people in way too expensive clothes drinking cosmopolitans and sounding like an annoying 15 yr old on cocaine than there is a show for you............just use protection.


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


user
I know that this show gave a lot of liberation to women in the late '90s and early 2000s, but come on! You have a whiner, a buzz kill, and an over-analyzer. This show really made women look bad. I cannot STAND Carrie's analyzing every little thing on this show and that's what really killed it for me. Also, Charlotte's whining about her nonexistent predicaments made my ears hurt and Miranda's cynicism was a complete buzz kill. I mean, can't she just be happy? Samantha was the only cool one on the show and the only one worth watching. There was also a good episode when Nathan Lane was on the show, but that was the only one worth watching--the rest of them were pretty much the same. The humor was drier than a bucket of sand, and not very interesting plot line. All in all, not a very good show and I'm glad it's over.


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


user
"Sex and the City" has some great things going for it. The problem is that it's saddled with a number of negatives that really hurt the ultimate rating and review for its' six seasons.
The good things about "SATC" is that a lot of the conversations ring true to life, the romance stories are interesting, and the characters are fun.
The bad things is that few women act like complete whores. These four women have so many partners, even going lesbian in some episodes, that you have no choice but to roll your eyes at the utter absurdity. Men on the show are for the most part depicted as shallow, degenerates, liars, cheats, and buffoons. The foul language these women use is far in excess as to what a normal conversation entails. Why do the writers do these things? Clearly, to be over-the-top and to get your attention.
Another thing that bothered me (without spoiling) is how some of the relationships ended. They simply didn't ring real to me or to others I discussed this with.
But, even though I gave the show 2 stars, in the end, I'm glad I watched the show. I've actually watched every season multiple times. I do recommend the show to anyone that won't be offended by strong profanity and soft-core pornography. I could have done less with the offensive language and the nudity and sex acts but the romance was very good and the saga ends pretty well.


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


user
Week after week these women just sweep all the men of their feet. Get real. None of these women are "Knockouts". Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker) looks like the type of woman men would pick up at !:45am before the bar closed after their vision and standards were equally impaired by ten or eleven martinis. Yet she's the queen bee, a super-sexy man-killer. The other three don't fare much better. And their constant foul mouthed comments.....not to mention that they jump in and out of bed with strange men and never catch a disease. This show is pathetic .and creepy.I don't think any man would be terribly attracted to any of these women, even if he popped Viagra like Tic Tacs while on shore leave.


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


user
I watch family affairs,coronation st &east enders on uktv every week night family affairs is by far the worst, bad plots, bad sequences and the worst acting of any soapie,even worse than the Americans and that is saying something.
I find it very frustrating that all these shows on uktv Australia" are so far behind the UK and when one trys to find out the reason for this they just fob you off with some story that they will show double episodes to catch up ,needless to say, this never happens. I am very happy that family affairs is going , to make space for something of better quality, but at the same time I would to know the background reasons, did they finally realize how bad it was? did people stop watching it? whatever it was you musn't leave us in suspense Why do you feel that you have to keep everything a secret from your fans? or is it that you just don't care? I feel strongly that you should try and keep your public up to date. Family affairs is notorious for just having its characters disappear and reappear for seemingly no reason,we do get involved in the people and enjoy following their lives.\
I can understand why family affairs would have to come to an end, even though we are so far behind here in Australia, it is easy to see that the writers are running out of ideas for new plots,so many plots are being repeated and old episodes coming back.I have also noticed that as new characters are being introduced, a lot of them are really bad actors, like you are scraping the bottom of the barrel and ending up with the drek regards Vince


assistant
0