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
While killing time on a Saturday morning, "Looking For Lola" came on HBO. I decided to give it a shot even though the description of the movie looked pretty bad. It was even worse than I could imagine. The movie was incredibly unbelievable and there was absolutely no on-screen chemistry between the lead actors that I found myself shaking my head almost every 10 minutes. Between Mike Greenbaum (lead actor) in scenes in which he skips the bill at a fancy restaurant and where Lola (lead actress) allows him to use her boss' house to fool his parents into thinking he's rich, it was almost as bad as him "daydreaming" about people around him doing the macarena (it was HORRIBLE!) and the two actors ultimately falling in love. I kept wanting to change the channel, but I was trying to give it every chance into becoming a cute love story with a few chuckles. It never did. In fact, it became so bad that I decided to finish it just so I can claim that I watched one of the worst films ever made in it's entirety, instead of being criticized for not "giving it a fair chance". The last scene where Lola tries out for a dance part was the culmination of the movie. She comes in late after getting married (even that scene where Mike tells the priest to hurry up and then just snatches the papers away claiming that it's done was in tune with the believability of this movie), and then somehow "convinces" the judges to give her a look. The two male judges are already put-off with how late she is. But after watching her waif around the stage (ok, she dances fine, but not overly impressive), everybody joins in including Lola and Mike's families, other dancers that were there, and *cough* even the judges. Bad, horrible, terrible. It was so bad I had to write a review. Watch at your own risk.


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


user
As much as I love the story of David Copperfield, I cannot claim to have enjoyed this movie. It was probably the second worst movie I have ever seen. One problem I see is that the magnitude of the novel asks for a miniseries of several hours, rather than a regular movie. It is just impossible to capture a significant amount of the events that take place in the story in two hours. I dis not enjoy the brooding flashback format. It was disjointed and would be impossible for someone who did not already know the story to fully grasp. Also, I don't think the filmmakers interpreted Copperfield's personality correctly. The idea of him strolling around on a beach moaning about his life seems inconsistent with the proactive, forward-thinking nature Dickens gave him in the novel. Agnes also bothered me. She came across as a ditsy household decoration, rather than a strong woman. Dora was perfect, however. This movie was fraught with problems, and I wait eagerly for someone to make a decent screen version.


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


user
One only has to read the cast list and credits to salivate in anticipation of this DAVID COPPERFIELD, but, alas, alas! How so much major acting and directorial talent could have turned one of literature's richest tales into such a monumental BORE, is totally beyond me. It's pretty to look at with lovely photography, particularly the Yarmouth sequences, but, JUST PLAIN DULL!!! No need to go on! Skip it and check out the Selznick or the marvelous BBC mini-series from the 1980's.


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


user
This version of David Copperfield is dreadful from start to finish. I knew we were in for a wasted evening's viewing when a rather silly to the point of embarrassment Attenborough and Olivier camp it up as two baddies. It was all downhill after this. Aunt Betsy was adequate but had none of the eccentric flair she was noted for.The worst of the worst was the producer's choice for Uriah. This was the music hall version of this character, previously and admirably played by Roland Young. And what was all this self-absorbed Angst from David. Dickens must have rolled over in his grave to see his favorite child turned into a wimp weeping in his beer.
This was one time when Hollywood knew more than jolly old England.


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


user
Director Delbert Mann was a much better director than this film indicates. He directed ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT, THAT TOUCH OF MINK, and THE LAST DAYS OF PATTON among others. This mediocre, made for television retelling of Dicken's masterpiece is so bad, even those unfamiliar with the often filmed tale, will be unsatisfied.
Besides the fact that the movie is available from only two known suppliers (Brentwood and BCI Eclipse LLC) the poor quality of the transfer, and the scratchy and muddied sound track make the task of finding this film on video not worth the effort.
I have always believed that if a company is going to put a film on video and charge the public money to buy it, then they should at least have a descent copy of the film and do a good job on the transfer. Unfortunately neither of the two suppliers have such a work ethic and the result is only fit for the bargain bin in the local discount store.
The story is told mainly through flashbacks, making the film episodic and talky. Much of the rich detail of the novel is lost in this translation. The characters of Martha, Traddles and others have been cut and the relationship of young David and Steerforth is not explored enough, so we are left wondering why David would hang out with the guy.
The relationship between David the boy, and young Agnes is never developed and it is hard to understand why she and David eventually marry. Since Martha is left out, it is a mystery how Dan Peggoty finds his niece. And the absence of Traddles makes David a very lonely fellow.
Some have credited this film with doing a good job of abridging the lengthy novel. I disagree, this is at best a hatchet job on the book. Anyone who has seen the 1935 George Cukor version will agree.
The performances in that version by Fields as Micawber and Rathbone as Murdstone, are definitely worth the trouble of watching it. And the more recent Masterpiece Theatre version (April 2000) and Hallmark (2000) versions are both outstanding achievements in made for television adaptations of classic novels. Directors Simon Curtis and Peter Medak who are responsible for those films are deserving of the highest praise.
My final comment on David COPPERFIELD 1969 is Don't buy it, there are several much better versions of the film available. If it is on television, turn the channel to something else. It is a waste of one hour and twenty minutes of your life. Sorry folks, but I can't praise such an appallingly bad film.


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 brought a whole new meaning to that well-worn phrase 'like watching paint dry' because this was 'like watching paint dry in the middle of a monsoon'.
I was attracted to the film by its location on the west coast of Portugal which I have visited. It is a ruggedly beautiful place and the black-and-white introduced a whole new dimension to the beauty. That was the only good thing. The story was appallingly banal and frankly you have to have some story.
A film crew runs out of film and the entire crew then have to wait. Well, a wait is a wait. I can wait for a number 15 bus on Princes Street in Edinburgh, I can spend hours on a remote railway station in the middle of nowhere on cold winter's Sunday afternoon. However a wait is boring and yes, this wait was boring too.
So the leader goes off to America to remonstrate with the film supplier who castigates him for not making the whole thing in colour. After a number of arguments two blessed bullets ring out from wherever and the eagerly-awaited end finally arrives, and not before time.
Yes, I would see this film again if someone arms me with a couple of cans of colour film so that I can hurl them at the screen.


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


user
Did someone find the plot somewhere in the film?. Perhaps it is the thing missing in this pretentious exercise of cinema about cinema. It is quite surprising that Gordon says that "A movie without a plot is nothing"... It is possible that characters have more to say that the own Wim Wenders. Was this phrase in the original plot or the actor decided to send a hint to the director?.


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


user
I sat (uncomfortably) through this film becoming more and more staggered at just how it got made at all. The script itself makes the acting look embarrassing, and it fundamentally becomes a waste of time for everybody concerned. If you avoid seeing one film this year, make it 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
That's what I felt like yelling as well as stomping out of the theater, but I restrained myself. Yes the acting was great, no this wasn't the typical hollywood film, but the dialogue just wouldn't end (or get interesting)! And despite all the gabbing, you never get to really know or care about any of the characters. Definitely the most boring film I've seen since Sphere, but I was expecting that one to be boring. I had to sit through it, but please, spare yourself


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


user
I watched Hurlyburly as a second choice after Affliction was sold out. I have never seen so many people walk out of a movie. Sean Penn, Kevin Spacey, and Chazz Palminteri can do nothing to save this coke-snorting, endlessly pedantic, bad Mamet-wannabe.


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


user
A complete and utter waster of my precious two hours. The entire movie could have been made in less than 60 seconds by simply showing people getting coked up, a car crashing, people getting more coked up, people having sex, people crying, and people getting more coked up. The tagline for this movie should have read "Come see how f*cked up our characters are! They're stoned! They're coke addicts! They're a mess! Who are these people? Do you really care? Does it matter? Just give us your money please, because we sure don't care about anything else!" An absolutely terrible movie. It never went anywhere, you never got to know the characters (they never even said what these people did to earn such a big house and so much money and cars and coke), and it was just downright boring. You might like the movie a little more if you're a stoner yourself, but for the vast majority of us that aren't, this movie is a waste of film and of time.


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


user
Acting 10, Script 1. "Hurlyburly" is from that unfortunate postmodern school of theatre that has declared anything resembling a story or plot is forbidden. While people may get away with this on stage, on film it becomes deadly -- or at least deadly dull. We're left with a bunch of great actors spouting dialogue that, while brilliantly written, adds up to nothing. Even worse, every character speaks with the same voice despite their backgrounds. The only attempt to differentiate is to have teen-waif Anna Paquin use the word "ain't."
Never mind that the characters are unsympathetic losers to the extreme, the camera work is plain sloppy and (for LA residents) the attention to geography is laughable. (Hint: the view out Sean Penn's front window is about eight miles away from the view out his back window, and you can't drive south through Hollywood and wind up in Glendale pretending to be Burbank.) Okay, suspension of disbelief and all that -- and normally I wouldn't pay attention to little things like that, because they are just vagaries of production. But, the fact that they did stick out so much despite the thespian pyrotechnics on screen says a lot about the weakest element of this enterprise -- the script.
In short, skip this one, even on video. Rabe picked the wrong quote from the Scottish Play for his title; Hurlyburly would have been better named "A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." A bit long for the marquee, perhaps -- but at least it would be honest advertising.


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


user
I saw Hurlyburly on Broadway and liked it a great deal. I don't know what happened with the film version, because it was dreadful. Perhaps some dialogue that works on stage just sounds incoherent on screen. Anyway, I couldn't wait for this film to be over. The acting is universally over the top. Only Kevin Spacey has it together, and he seems like he knows he's in a bad movie and can't wait to get out.


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 not funny, it's not interesting, it's not well shot, you don't care about the characters, not one single one of them. There's nothing that engages you in the narrative flow, you really could care less what happens. Big, big waste of time and talent.


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


user
I watched this movie with no idea what it was about beforehand. I was intrigued for the first whole hour. It was shaping up to be a great thriller. A very talented cast and good dialogue.Then it all fell apart for me at the sight of the first vampire. I couldn't believe my eyes.A great thriller was flushed down the toilet. The rest of the movie from that point was totally awful.
I gave it 4 stars for the brilliant beginning alone. I think that's a little generous, but I was entertained for a while. I'm not a fan of vampire or zombie movies at all.If you are, then you may disagree with my opinion.


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 not a good movie!! Why do you people keep saying that? There is a nice little story going on and then some sexy girls and then BAM vampires!!! Why? Why are there vampires? Where did they come from? Also, what the hell?! There are all of these "super human" vampires but George Clooney and three other random guys dominate ALL of them. Quickly too. It's not like there was a long fight scene with lots of struggle. There was just three dudes from the bar killing these vampires like a fat man kills twinkies! The next thing you know, Clooney and the stupid girl are rescued by Cheech and leaves the family-less homeless in the middle of Mexico. End of story. Literally. Oh and the strip club was an Aztec temple which is funny because that would have to be southern Mexico not the border. Why are you people lying and telling people this is a good movie? Do not rent, buy or even watch this movie at a friend's house. You will wish you had that time of your life back.


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


user
Just what is the point of this film? It starts off as one film, then changes track, cheating us of a resolution to that film and ends as another movie which is nothing but a pale, pale imitation of so many other schlock-horror flicks you've ever seen. The overall impression is confusion in every respect and a great deal of hubris. Screenplay by Tarantino, direction by Rodriguez, two guys who have previously shown talent, but who now seem to believe their own hype and assume that whatever they do must be good merely because THEY did it. But it doesn't quite work that way. You're only good while you continue doing good things. There are so many questions to ask: Just what are George Clooney and Harvey Keitel doing getting involved in such pointless dreck? Clooney initially makes an intriguing bad guy  utterly ruthless and efficient  and it would have been interesting to see where that was going. But, of course, we never do. And the Clooney of the vampire film changes into a completely different character. That's not clever or witty, that's just bad, bad work. Keitel looks thoroughly ill at ease throughout, and no wonder. Did no one in the studio take a look at the script before this project was given the go-ahead? Tarantino is utterly unpleasant as a murderous sexual deviant (and why did he, as writer, assume we would find the rape, gruesome murder and butchering of an inoffensive hostage funny). On every level  except the technical  this film stinks. Avoid.


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


user
What could have been an excellent hostage movie was totally ruined by what apparently looks like a bored director ... there were so many directions that the movie could have taken ... a vampire slash-fest was not one of these!!! The last 45 mins. or so results in the movie being an absolutely ridiculous waste of time. ...and sex machine?? ... you gotta be kidding me! The acting talents of the likes of Juliette Lewis and Harvey Keitel (not to mention George Clooney) are completely wasted in this nonsensical movie.
The director... Robert Rodriguez, known for his other gory flicks including el mariachi, desperado, once upon a time in Mexico, and the very recent sin city ... really holds your attention with the well executed first half ... which leads you to believe that you are in for an entertaining time ... but then apparently for no reason, and without any provocation, the madness starts ... there's even feeble attempts at parody and comedy ... truly exasperating!!


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


user
I love dissing this movie. My peers always try their best to defend it, probably out of love for Quentin Tarantino or Harvey Keitel, but they'll never convince me that this one should be treasured. Here's some huge reasons why: A: The plot goes from kidnapping road trip movie to vampire-inhabited strip bar slasher flick with no set-up whatsoever. Suddenly something very real turns into something very fake, which is like sitting the audience down to a Thanksgiving feast then exploding it with dynamite. B: That untalented Juliette Lewis is in it. C: Preposterous ideas abound such as actual torso-and-leg guitars, brothers with the last name "Gecko," bad vampire make-up jobs, Cheech Marin playing three characters (?), and a crotch-based gun that only fires when "erect" and belongs to a guy who goes by "Sex Machine." If Robert Rodriguez didn't pathetically try to be so innovative with his violence, I might've had fun with this obvious popcorn flick. The whole project's like he got the ideas by playing with action figures. The only thing even close to being considered my favorite scene is George Clooney's laugh-out-loud cheesy monologue after he kills his blood-sucking, horny-for-children, terrible-acting brother. I swear I think they thought it up right then and there. This movie's out to offend, and ends up offending those who want the offensive. Horrible movie.


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


user
WARNING:I advise anyone who has not seen the film yet to not read this comment.
When I first started to watch this movie my expectations were it was a vampire movie, that is going to be awesome considering how Rodriguez and Tarantino both helped make the film. I began about 15 minutes into it and already my hopes for this movie were down the drain, which shocked me. First, the story it was going with was not at all appealing in anyway possible, and just flat out boring and uncompelling to the point where I just wanted to turn it off. I was getting more frustrated with this movie as it dragged on, but I guess I had hopes that it would get better.... then when it finally showed vampires it BLEW MY MIND, in a VERY bad way. I thought,"Okay this movie started with some backwash horrible story about these two criminals, then VERY slowly turned into some vampire movie which I thought it was going to be from the beginning, in like, the last 30 minutes?" To add on to that, they try to make the main characters all cool and awesome and mean around the end when they're just not; A bunny would've been more intimidating than these characters! This movie is a horrible piece of crap!!! From Dusk Till dawn disgraced me and left a terrible taste in my mouth, disheartening thoughts in my head, and left my body unable to move from the horrible shock that I just wasted 108 minutes of my life away on a horrendous film. I do not understand how George Clooney, Quentin Tarintino, Cheech Marin and Danny Trejo, all being the good and honorable actors that they are, could take part in this useless filth. In my opinion, From Dusk Till Dawn is one of the worst movies ever made that I have suffered my eyes on. Do not see it, you'll be doing yourelf a GREAT favor...


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 simply appalling, how the talent involved made this is beyond human belief.Iguess they must have been boozing when they thought of this idea,I feel as if 2 hours of my life have been taken from me.Harvey Kietel will try and distance himself from this rubbish, it should have been a great crime movie but it develops into a gory mess of vampires.I would recommend this film to people who like to sleep through movies ,you wont miss a thing.The humour is set to appeal to the lowest common dominate, movies can uplift us and remind us that life is worth living, this film just depresses you.As DeNiro said in one movie the saddest thing in life is wasted talent this film is a perfect example of this statement.


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


user
It's a long time ago I saw this movie and still it's one of the worst I've ever seen. I like lots of kind of movies; sci-fi, action, drama, thrillers and sometimes even horror. Not a combination of two. This could have been a wonderful movie, but they all blew it up. I didn't want to see this movie, but friends of mine insisted to watch it. I didn't know it was such a crap. I loved the first part, in which Clooney and Tarantino drove through Texas, killing everybody on their way (especially the scene with the liquor shooting was excellent), but at its turning point, in the titty twister bar everything changed. Stupid Vampires took over the place and what could have been a perfect gangster movie became a stupid horror movie like 'Nightmare on Elmsteet'. If you like horror, watch a real horror movie. And when you love bloodstolling thrillers don't watch it at all, you will be very disappointed at the end.


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


user
Has anyone else noticed that this version is basically a scene-by-scene remake of the 1933 version, with some of the scenes taken out? It makes me think less of a film that does that, showing a definite want of creativity. In all fairness, I tend to be biased in favor of Katharine Hepburn, but this version of the film seems like cinematic plagiarism. The 1933 version was nice and sweet, though a little awkward in presentation and transition at times, and then this version took the script, the music, and even a fair amount of the scene blocking from the earlier version. I don't understand the point of making the film again when the method of remaking it was to basically redo George Cukor's film with everything the same except the people working on it.


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


user
After all the hype I had heard about the Jane Austin novel and different film versions of the book I found myself very disappointed with the movie. I had expected a classic drama but that was not the case. First of all let me preface my review with the fact that I love old movies, particularly mysteries and dramas, but not female oriented movies. This probably makes a huge difference, so take my review with a large grain of salt. I thought the acting was a bit over the top, but that is very common in movies of this era. June Allyson was good as Jo but I found every sister to be stereotypical and form driven. There were no surprises or overly dramatic moments. I hate writing negative reviews, but the movie left me very cold. It has always been my intention to read the book, but after this that seem unlikely. The only warming story line was between the old gentlemen and the youngest sister, that was a very welcome bright spot in an otherwise disappointing viewing experience. Again there are others who love this movie, I'm just not one of them.


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


user
I watched this movie last night, i'm a huge fan of the book, and i was pretty happy with the version in which Winona Ryder and Susan Sarandon starred. But this one, it's just awful. Oh my God, i don't understand how they dared to ripped apart this classic story and made the characters totally different, starting with the switching of Beth being the younger sister, and making Amy the 3rd one. And Jo interpretation, terrible, Jo was a feminist, intelligent and kinda angry young lady, and the actress portraying Jo in this movie acts like a foolish and very annoying little girl. And what's with the Laurie going to war?. i'm OK with the fact that when a book is made into a movie there has to be some changes made, but not re-write the whole story. very very bad done.


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


user
In the twilight years of his career, Charles Bronson forged long-running partnerships with several directors, most notably J. Lee Thompson and Michael Winner. He did two films for one-time Bond director Peter Hunt too - the first being the decent 1981 actioner Death Hunt, the second being this indifferent political chase thriller. Assassination is pretty dull if truth be known, and come the end you'll find yourself longing for something with a bit more passion and pace, like The Wilby Conspiracy for instance (which, plotwise, this film resembles).
Bronson sleepwalks through his role as bodyguard Jay Killian, whose assignment is to protect the American President's wife, Lara Royce Craig (Jill Ireland, real-life wife of Bronson). Killian believes that Mrs Craig has been targetted by assassins; she thinks he's an over-protective, paranoid pessimist. Turns out - surprise, surprise - that Killian was right all along and someone is indeed out to eradicate her. The pair of them go on the run, pursued by the assassins.
Everyone knows that the wife of an American President is known as The First Lady. For some reason, in this film they have renamed her "One Mama"! Quite what the point of this is is anybody's guess, but it's indicative of the film's pointlessness as a whole. Most of the film's performances are lazy, and the script takes a heck of a long time to get to where it's going. If I had to label Assassination within a specific genre, I'd say it is supposed to be a "thriller". I'd say that with some reservations, however, as to say that it's a thriller it has precious few thrills.


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


user
Bronson and Ireland, in their last film together, make a likable pair. He is more restrained than usual and she has become a winning actress. But as a thriller the film is totally worthless. Its premise is downright silly and its pace is much too rushed.


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


user
I can't believe I sat through this garbage. Palm trees in D.C. (already mentioned), a dummy-as-dead-body bit so obviously artificial that I thought it was SUPPOSED to be a dummy ... until it left a bloodstain ... stilted dialogue, ridiculous plot. I think it's a shame that Jill Ireland's final film before her death was this stinker. Don't waste your time - I wish I hadn't. The only saving grace is that it was on cable, so I didn't waste my money on top of everything.


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


user
First off, I'm a huge Bronson fan, have been since the late '70s. I watched every film he made on the big screen since "Love and Bullets", which ironically was the beginning of his end as a big name, Hollywood-blockbuster star.
I kept hoping that things would turn around for him, that he would make a really good film in the '80s, but that never happened. And I don't know what he was thinking when he signed with cheapjack studio Cannon and hack director J. Lee Thompson for most of his latter films.
"Assasination" gave me some hopes when I saw that Peter Hunt was directing instead of Thompson but those hopes were quickly dashed. First off, the film looks incredibly cheap, like it was made for about 3 mil, minus Bronson's inflated salary (I heard he insisted on 5 mil per picture which is probably more than the rest of the budget for all his Cannon films). The White House scenes were filmed on the VA grounds in West LA - I was taking the bus when they were shooting. Nice job on recreating the white house but did no one think about getting the Palm trees out of the shots? Guess not.
Secondly, the supporting cast is really bad. Ireland was dying of cancer and despite this she's not bad but the horrible Asian woman playing Bronson's sidekick was typical of Cannon's talent at the time --non-existent. I would be real curious to learn how she got this role. I can't imagine a worse actress for the part, plus she's a good 40 years younger than Bronson! The story is not that bad and it's something that bigger and better-budgeted studios did later (Eastwood's "In the Line of Fire" and Costner's "Bodyguard" film) but the way it's staged here is really sad. I'm wondering if they could not afford to do more than one or two takes per shot. None of it is believable in the slightest. If Secret Service men really behaved like the keystone cops in this movie we'd have presidents rotating out of office (and out of life) every few months...


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


user
Charles Bronson has given the viewers lots of great moments on the screen. But this movie lacks everything that a thriller/action-movie should have. There are a few action scenes in the movie, but they're really crappy. And when the action scenes fail, does the story save the film? Not at all, is my answer to that. The story is even worse than the action scenes. It's very straightforward and boring, and even though I'm a big movie fan, I almost fell asleep several times. I don't know how they came up with a failure like this. A low budget, maybe? Regardless of that, it looked like all the actors had no interest in being in the movie at all. When that happens, the result is really bad.


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


user
Secret Service agent Jay Killion (Charles Bronson) has been assigned to protect the President-elect's wife, the new First Lady (Jill Ireland). She is a very difficult woman and Killion has his hands full. She is the victim of numerous assassination attempts, all directed by the President's Chief of Staff, who wants the First Lady dead. This movie insults your intelligence with not only the story line, but also with the lack of realistic locations. For example, in the scene depicting the Inaugural Parade, the First Lady is in a Rolls Royce convertible with agent Killion and without the President. Also, we know what Washington, DC, is like weather wise in January, and not only is everybody "top coat less", you can even see some palm trees in the 70 degree and sunny weather! (Obviously filmed in Hollywood, not Washington, DC). This movie is a joke. It is not worth your time.


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


user
Lame. Lame. Lame. Ultralame. Shall I go on? There is one, I repeat *one* funny scene in this entire, drawn-out, anti-amusing Amateur Hour Special of a film: Fares Fares' fat father knocking someone over with his beer gut. That's it. The rest of this shockingly mediocre pile of nothingness consists of the usual trademark bored-looking Swedish "actors" delivering dialogue which goes into one ear and out of the other, a banal story, sloppy direction and, well, little else worth mentioning. Nepotistically cast Fares Fares is as charismatic as a chartered accountant and his nose rivals even that of Adrien Brody in terms of sheer ridiculous hugeness. Torkel Petersson should only work with Lasse Spang Olsen. The rest of the cast is, luckily, easily forgettable, whereas Fares' humongous, titanic nose will forever haunt me in my dreams.
Josef Fares helps ruin Swedish cinema. Don't support him and his nonsense. Jalla Jalla is to comedies what Arnold Schwarzenegger is to character acting, Kopps would have been much more respectable if it had been a no-budget Youtube video, and Zozo was simply the most pretentious, pseudo-touching garbage ever unleashed by a Swedish director. Wake up and smell the roses: Swedish movies can be so much better than this, so stop pretending Fares' flicks are worth watching simply because they're "good to be Swedish". Please.


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


user
If this movie would have been in English, all critics would have trashed it. The language is extremely bad, the scenes are awfully directed and it's not at all funny. After the movie I thought that this movie could have been written by an 8th grader, at least if you consider the lack of believable characters and the fixation on certain male body parts. (oh, on dogs as well...) The story is just plain nonsense compared to the more mature Vingar av glas that premiered almost at the same time. Of course the public chose Jalla! Jalla! while Vingar av glas got little attention.
What was really disturbing for me was the fact that the movie looked really bad. That was probably due to the fact that first time director Josef Fares used really cheap camera equipment and then decided to just play around with it, for fun I suppose. The result, however, is a movie that can easily be split into 12 short films with a new directorial style in each one of them. This was very frustrating. Maybe Josef Fares should have stayed with his short films since that seems to be the only art form he can master.
Another disturbing fact is that the story does not hold together. At several times in the middle of the movie, the story has to move on very quickly and the characters then run into one another in a way that is just too unbelievable.
And then I have not mentioned the 2-dimensional characters, especially those in the supporting roles.
Even though I consider this one of the worst Swedish films of the 90s as well as one of the most overrated, it is kind of understandable that the public liked it. I mean, bad taste has always been the trademark of the masses...
I'm more surprised that the critics enjoyed it. They should have known better...
Grade 2 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
The script is very weak & there is no depth in the characters. The story telling is not the importing thing here. The unnecessary action & Scenes does not really help this one. One of the worst movies in Sweden´s history of films.


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


user
The appeal of this film has to be the artsy Euro style, because there's absolutely no substance. A bunch of stuff happens that seems to be going somewhere... but it never gets there.
It's difficult to come up with a full 10 lines of commentary, because this film is such a totally empty experience. There's lots of nice photography of a cemetery, some really lame zombie effects, some flashes of what might pass for surrealist humor, and a feeble, existentialist ending. These elements undermine each other. Just when you might be enjoying the creepy mood, there's some silliness with bouncing heads or zombie sex. To keep from screaming with boredom, you clutch at the minimal story line - and it disintegrates into ridiculous illogic. It's like someone took several half-baked B movies and tossed them in a blender.
What comes out is mostly a film *about* meaninglessness - and *not* a good one. Clearly, it will impress that category of art-house fan who sees emptiness as indistinguishable from depth. Everyone else should stay well clear of this dreary mess.


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 utterly astonished at how over-rated "Cemetery Man" is among horror fans! Now, I usually welcome movies that blend two or more kinds of genre-styles into one and I love just about every zombie-comedy I have ever seen. To my dismay, this Italian cult-classic really didn't show me a lot to get too pumped up about... It follows the unusual duties of a full-time cemetery care-taker and his retarded, man-child, Curly Joe looking assistant as they seem to primarily dispose of the recently deceased who pop out of the ground seven days after their initial death. He meets a widow whom he "wows" with some grisly grave-yard atmosphere and develops a quick romance, soon having sex with her on her dead husband's grave. The husband's corpse springs alive and bites her, triggering a series of events that seem to consume the rest of the movie. "Cemetery Man" attempts to incorporate every element it can, like horror, romance, comedy, action, and fails entirely in the long-run. It plods along, never able to focus on any aspect long enough to make it interesting for the viewer, such as the paunchy sidekick's relationship with a living severed head, a motorcycle riding zombie launching out of the ground, the main character deciding to gun down random people on the sidewalk, etc. This thing is so convoluted and dull that it's nearly impossible to take it seriously. Sure, it's stylish and often "elegant", but even the most "artsy" kind of films need the right kind of lineage to allow it to make sense. "Cemetery Man" plods along, appearing unable to focus on anything for more than a few minutes which becomes very tiring after a while. People argue that "it's a more sophisticated zombie movie". Frankly, when it comes to zombies, I don't want anything more "sophisticated" than Romero... There's a little bit of gore and nudity - mainly in the scenes where it wants to play "horror movie", but not nearly enough to make up for it's uncompromising lack of structure. Terrible film.


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


user
In Michele Soavi's confusing art-house zombie film, Dellamorte Dellamore, Rupert Everett plays Francesco, a caretaker in a cemetery where the dead don't stay buried for long. Aided by his simple assistant, Gnaghi, Francesco deals with the cemetery's zombie problem by either shooting the undead in the head or splitting their skulls with a spade.
However, soon after falling for the mysterious beautiful widow of one of his recently interred, Francesco finds himself busier than ever before
Having garnered some particularly favourable comments from some of IMDb's more respected horror officianados, I decided to see what the fuss was all about. I've just finished watching the film, and I can honestly say that I haven't been this disappointed by a horror film for quite some time.
With its dreary, muddled pseudo-philosophical plot, and an extremely bland performance from leading man Everett, Dellamorte Dellamore is an irritating and plodding mess that not even some splattery gore (courtesy of Sergio Stivaletti) and welcome gratuitous nudity (from busty Anna Fialchi) can save. I am at a loss to understand the amount of in-depth analysis and discussion that this pretentious bilge has received from its misguided fans.


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


user
Dreadful. I hope I can save two hours of your life by warning you away from this. I just finished watching the film, BTW.
I love good cross genre films. This isn't one of them. Show me a sci-fi musical, a dramatic farce, or a religious action flick, I'll watch them all. But you cannot just throw epigrammatic quips at a rambling, camp, schlock-horror fest and draw my applause.
I love philosophical films. This isn't one of them. Anyone who is amazed at the depths of intellect plumbed in this film hasn't read a good book lately. Or ever. The "thought-provoking" dialogue is trite, at best. Perhaps it lost something in the translation.
I love a good horror-comedy. This isn't one of them. Laugh! I thought I'd never start! Squirm? Only when trying to think of a polite way to phrase my feedback of the film to the friend who recommended it.
Rupert is incongruously good in the setting of this film, but even he cannot resurrect it. I only wish he had shot the director instead if the zombies.
For shame, that the land that gave rise to The Inferno should also give rise to this. Dante would be spinning in his grave.


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


user
When this series aired I watched most of it. I think it was supposed to be a long running series in the vein of "The Fugitive" and "The Incredible Hulk" where the protagonist is being chased around the country looking for a solution to his problems. In this case the hero's problem is his progressive aging in reverse. I liked what I saw of these shows. The acting was good especially the sorrowful relationship between the lead character and his wife. Problem is: They cancelled it before it had a chance to end. (either that or I missed the last episodes).
They never got a chance to wrap up the story either, knowing it had been cancelled. Poof it was just gone. However, like I said before I might have missed the last episodes. But my proof to the contrary is this: I rented the tape. Where I left off in the series. The lead character's wife dies in a fire started by a chase involving King's famous organization the Shop. While getting away hero is kidnapped. It ends with his friends realizing they have to go save him from the Shop. The end. Last episode. On the video: His wife does not die but escapes the fire with him. Right when he should get nabbed by the Shop, he and his wife share a weird moment then phase out of existence. Abrupt, silly and cheap to the extreme. They just wanted to put this video out and decided to tag on an ending not caring how bad it was. They might as well of just shown some stock footage of the first atomic bomb detonations. Almost Pythonesque.
The show did have a cool opening title sequence set to the David Bowie song of the same name


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


user
Firstly, this is NOT an adaptation of a Stephen King book, short story, novella, or anything else. From EW's Web site, and their review on the show when it first aired, "...he never writes down to his audience, and he never betrays contempt for his subjects. His first original work for television, Stephen King's ''Golden Years'' (CBS, July 16, 9-11 p.m.), is no exception."
The series was apparently going to be (as others have mentioned) an ongoing series, which is why we never saw the ending after the cliffhanger they left us on. But this was never quite made clear to the viewers who were left wondering how it all ends??
When the series came out on videotape, it touted itself as having the "never-before-seen ending!" It should have said, "the should-never-be-seen ending!"
*** Spoiler ***
The very ending was the only significant part changed for the video (though parts of the whole were left out), and that changed ending was what destroyed the story. For example, rather than our two intrepid FBI agents realizing that they were now labeled as bad guys and on the run from the evil Jude Anderson of The Shop (as originally broadcast), Jude simply walks up to them... And they shoot him. Bang, dead, and no real emotion to speak of in the scene. Ditto on the bit with Harlan and his wife going poof. Whereas the original ending left us with a spectacular cliff-hanger, on the video, they simply get out of the cock-a-doodie car.
*** End Spoiler ***
It was a sad ending to a rather well made mini-series, and makes the video completely not worth buying, or even renting. Sincerely, save your money and your time.


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


user
I remember when this show came out. It was originally advertised as a mini-series. At the end of the last episode it said "To Be Continued" to the dismay of all the people who had watched the whole boring beyond words thing. It ended as it was supposed to, so yes, you can blame the series for having no ending. The plan was for there to be another obviously if ratings had been higher, but it was a boring show that way too long, and annoyed people by not ending when it said it would, so they never made any more. Quite a few of the comments blame its cancellation and lack of ending on the viewing public, when the truth is that for this show that is not the case, it ended the way it was actually planned to end, it is just a lousy ending.


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


user
Please -- if you haven't attempted to sit through this garbage and are considering viewing this flick/mini-series -- do yourself a favor and find anything else to do. Floss your teeth, start learning to play the cello, beat your dog -- anything you choose will be time better spent than watching this junk. This is not a bad movie that you can get a few chuckles out of -- it simply sucks in every way possible. Just boring from beginning to end.
And for those animal lovers out there that feel my comment above is insensitive -- if your dog could speak, he or she would beg for a beating rather than suffer through watching this mess.


assistant
0