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
I'm a big fan of Thomas Harris,I read all his novels at least 5 times and Hannibal's the book I really love the most.Therefore the movie was my biggest disappointment and I really don't get it why some folks here give it a nine or even a ten.Either their demands are very low or they haven't read the book or both.Even if I hadn't read the book I'd still consider the movie as absolute average and I'd give it a five. The creepy,mysterious atmosphere from the novel doesn't appear one single time in the movie,when I saw it first in the cinema I even fell asleep.Why was Margot Verger, a very important character, totally omitted? Why was Barney shown as a dumb ignorant whose only ambition is to earn money? And most of all, why was the psychological process Starling went through in the end,caused by the drugs Lecter applied to her,descended? Not to speak about the fact that the ending was omitted,too,and totally changed? Well, the reasons why Jodie Foster refused to play Starling again are well known and I accepted it,although like surely many others I'm very disappointed 'cause I identified Starling with her.For stories like Red Dragon,The silence of the lambs or Hannibal that possess such psychological depth, it is very important to identify with a character when they're adapted for the screen,but as the Germans say, that's "snow of yesterday". Ridley Scott did some incredibly good movies but with this one he doesn't live up to his name. Jonathan Demme had exactly the right feeling for the plot, the characters and their relationships towards each other in The silence of the lambs, he should have done Hannibal,too.My only comfort is that I've seen the movie only two times,it's long ago and thank god for that reason I'm able not to see the scenes from the movie when I read the novel. I'm so sorry but I really can't recommend it to anyone.


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


user
I completely understand WHY this movie was made. Silence of the Lambs was an incredible film - a gruesome thriller with a superb story and high jump-factor....
What I don't understand is why THIS movie was made... and why Anthony Hopkins agreed to reprise his role as Hannibal the Cannibal in this terrible and dissatisfying film.
There's no possible way to spoil the movie any further than going to see it could, but for those of you who prefer to waste your money, DON't READ ON. The film is absolutely horrible. It's so bad that the transition from Jodie Foster to Julianne Moore becomes a non-issue.
The only way to truly enjoy the film is to set your watch and leave the theatre exactly two hours into the film, because up until that point, it's quite an interesting thriller. The reparte between Moore and Hopkins is comparable to Hopkins and Foster, and the performances by the other characters are pretty good. But literally at the two hour mark, the film degrades into nothing but a cheesy D-grade horror flick...it's sick, and it's stupid and almost like the crew ran out of filming time, and threw together an ending in one day of filming.
Initial buzz over the Thomas Harris' book's unsatisfying and bizarre ending led director Ridley Scott to order a re-write... and, honestly, having seen the film AND read the book's finale, I don't know which is worse.
Please - don't waste your money OR time on this film, unless you're prepared to leave EXACTLY at the two hour point, because that's the ONLY way you'll feel satisfied about the saga of Clarice Starling and Hannibal Lecter... continuing the mystery that made the first film, and the wait for this one, so great.


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


user
Well, 1st off I haven't seen "Silence of the Lambs" yet.... but, I think that I would have become sick if I would have seen it before this piece. Not from the gruesome violence but, from the lack of everything else. Anthony Hopkins was very good as Hannibal and I really believed that he was as psychotic as he played himself off to be but, from the reaction of the audience around me, the film was filled with cliches from "Silence" which left me lost at points where others were laughing at what was on the screen.
Now, I heard that the movie would be very gruesome and if the director wanted to gross folks out... he did it... but, only in 2 sequences? I mean, if you want it to be gruesome and I mean, so gruesome that you're going to play the film off of that... you need more than 2 sequences.. I always see it as a film has to either become that cinematic jewel which will ultimatley take you to another place and time or either go over the top (which most of the time is done in bad taste). But, this film left me sitting in my chair and falling asleep at times.
Anthony Hopkins and Julianne Moore are the stars of the movie, right? Well, with the exception of Hopkins, I didn't feel that way.. Who cared about the stupid Italian police officer? I definatley didn't. So, really the film is left with a big hole talking about a guy who dies anyway. I mean, come on.. who cares?
In a nutshell, the movie is good if you want to see Lector and Starling once again but, if you're going for a really good thriller... you'll jump once and be grossed out maybe twice. Depends on your level.
Thinking about how much money this movie will bring in... there will probably be another "Hannibal" made and this movie probably won't be on video until the fall. If you must see it.. wait and save the $3.50 - $4.00 and get it on video. Don't spend the big bucks on this film.


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


user
The only reason I didn't fall asleep during this movie is because the seats were not that comfortable. Hannibal is BORING>BORING> BORING and BORING!!! This film is just dreadful, not because of any violence or graphic mutilations. It's actually quite tame in that regard. The story moves at the speed of a lazy snail. I have the feeling that director Ridley Scott just phoned this one in. The actors are all fine they just needed some direction. The music score is also very annoying. It's especially noticeable since so little is going on in the film. It does look good but that's not enough reason to see it. By the way did I mention that it's BORING?



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


user
With a little dressing up, this movie could be served for Thanksgiving dinner. Not only is is boring, implausible, historically inaccurate and poorly directed, the best actors were the bit players (mainly because they had so few lines to say). A waste of time, even for war fanatics.


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


user
I have to admit I was deceived by the title and the summary on the back of the box. So I popped it in the vcr and kept waiting... and waiting... and waiting for something good to happen. But of course, it never does. The makers of this film should be tied to a chair and made to watch "Saving Private Ryan". Maybe they would learn something.


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


user
Ty Cobb is, by far, the most interesting and belligerently insane athlete to ever live. His baseball career was unparalleled in absurd statistics, brilliant strategy, and pure unadulterated violence. Every game he played in was a spectacle in human ability and cruelty. So of course, the film about him deals with none of that, instead focusing on the writing of his biography by author Al Stump. Now this isn't such a horrible idea in theory, as Cobb himself slid even further into paranoid dementia as years progressed and the stories of his crazed outbursts even as a senior are shocking even by today's desensitized standards. But instead of focusing on these events, which I guess was simply too interesting, the film is a pseudo fictionalized road film with clichéd a clichéd plot that will cause any knowledgeable Cobb fan to cry vinegar tears.
Tommy Lee Jones does quite well as a crotchety Cobb, but somehow manages to overplay his cartoon supervillainy. Most stories about Cobb are barely believable, but to make him even crazier seems both impossible and unnecessary. Robert Wuhl, portraying the writer Al Stump, is a dark vortex of nonexistent talent. He sucks the life out of every scene, trying to make this film his own Nagasaki. There is a reason we never see him as a leading man anymore (Arliss doesn't count. It's barely a show). Even the played out, inevitable "role reversal" of Cobb and Stump by the end is made even worse by his pure inability to utter words that don't sound like a poor book on tape narration voice.
For all the awful writing and bland film-making on display, there is one sequence which stands out as so far superior to the rest of this failure that accepting it's from the same film is near impossible. A hyper stylized flashback sequence displaying Cobb's overpowering psychology and brutal athleticism while actually playing the game of baseball is pure brilliance. The camera moves in bizarre fashion and the whole event seems like a dream due to the unique playing style of the monster Cobb. Every slide, hit, and tackle are rendered even more forceful due to enhanced sound, and Tommy Lee Jones OWNS the intensity of the master player. It makes the viewer drool over the possibilities of a true biopic of Cobb in his prime with the same actor. It's worth watching the film for this incredible few minutes alone, just to see what could have been.
I may be slightly unfair to this film due to my own knowledge of Ty Cobb and wanting it to be something it isn't, but to make such boring, neutered movie about this maniac is nonsensical. I'm glad Ron Shelton's career has slid ever since.


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


user
Over all, it was a real good movie. Though all the actors, besides Jones, sucked. By the time I was half was through it I was really getting tired of seeing 'Al'. Only change I would have made to it would to have more flash backs, possibly with the real Cobb.


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 about the real Cobb but I got the distinct impression that the filmmakers' aim was to try to soften his jagged edges and reputation, not give us a true portrait of the man himself. In the movie, besides a few racist remarks, he's shown to be just another hard-nosed, cantakerous old coot (he's so full of life!) with a heart of gold(more or less). This is also the worst acting I've seen T.L.Jones do(he brings nothing new or subtle to his stereotyped character). He just doesn't flesh out Cobb in a way that pulls me into the movie. Not for one minute did I forget that it was Tommy Lee Jones on the screen pretending to be Ty Cobb. Robert Wuhl didnt impress either. The "comedic" elements in this movie were just distracting and didnt ring true at all. A bloody waste of time, it is


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


user
Cobb. It sucked. I learned nothing about the man I had not heard before. The performances were over the top. A scene where Cobb and Al are driving down a snowy road in search of women in Reno has to be one of the worst conceived scenes in recent memory. It's just plain STUPID and unentertaining. The flashback sequences were terrible. And they used the same sequences OVER AND OVER AND OVER again. If I saw the same shot of Cobb fighting with someone at a base one more time, I would have become physically ill. By watching this 'movie', we get to learn NOTHING of what it was like in Cobb's era. We learn nothing about his relationship with his players, nothing about his days as a manager, nothing about his relationship with his family members, other than that `they don't like him'. I thought when I sat down to view this film I would learn SOMETHING about the era of baseball in which Cobb played. Instead, all I got to see was a retread of how Cobb hated everything and everyone, and how they hated him. Boy, what a great movie (sarcasm intended). Cobb is portrayed as a constant liar in the film, so which one of his stories is supposed to be accurate? Who knows? Who cares? No one will after viewing this piece of crap. If you decide to rent this film, make sure the fast forward button on your VCR is working, as you will be tempted to use it repeatedly. Hopefully someday someone will make a GOOD film about Ty Cobb. I liked this film about as much as the people in it liked Cobb, which is to say - I HATED IT. Now I know why I found it in the RENT ONE GET ONE FREE section of the video store. I think I will ask for my fifty cents back from the video clerk, since I can't get back the time I wasted watching this trash. Oh well, what could I have possibly been thinking about a movie that would feature Robert Wuhl.


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


user
As someone who loves baseball history, especially the early 20th century in which Cobb was a main figure, along with a ton of colorful characters, I was looking forward to seeing this baseball film. Well, it wasn't a baseball film, which was disappointing. No, it was just a sportswriter's account of being with Cobb in the ballplayer's later years while the two collaborated on a book. Even at that, this could have been a more appealing movie than they made it.
Granted Cobb was anything but a nice guy, an extremely talented player but brutal in that he would do anything to beat you....and he was viscous, intimidating and had a lot of demons to fight. He was so hated his own teammates tried to hinder his chances of winning a batting title one year. Nonetheless, this an over-the-top portrayal of the man. It makes him into something almost cartoon-like.
Watching and listening to an old man rant, rave and profane for two hours is entertainment? No, it isn't. Some day, I'd love to see a real biopic of Cobb showing him in his ballplaying days and if they want to portray him as an evil guy, so be it, but the way they did it here with just a bitter, blasphemous old man making an ass of himself in front of a reporter is not fun to watch.


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


user
I have to admit that in spite of all media promotion and being nominee for Oscar, my expectation from the film was not so high before watching it. And I really found what I expected; a film trying to be likable for both for conservatives and liberals in Turkey, trying being authentic for foreign spectators and enough funny for all. But it should be understood that it is not possible to be favorable for everybody, therefore film stays as average for all.
Whole movie is telling a story occurred within 24 hours. To fit the short story in a full movie length, some scenes are added without a connection with the main story. These are mostly the ice-cream selling scenes to the eccentric local people (i.e. goat herdsman, old women etc.), and each of these selling scenes are tried to be interesting to the spectators by skits with comic dialogs. The subject is mentioned as a universal problem: Struggle of a local producer-tradesman against holding companies and monopoly, but this was the interesting subject of twenty years before. Most of the readers will remember the "Hero grocer against supermarket" from Ferhan Sensoy in 1980's. This was the correct story at correct time. Shortly the story is not strong enough and worth to be a movie as by now.
Except some gibbers due to local accent, the performance of cast is so successful. The leading role is played by Turan Ozdemir with excessive body language but anyway he is successful too.
On the other hand against limited budget, appreciable efforts of director and players are obviously giving a good mood to the film. But this is not resulting a film well enough either to compare with Italian neo-realists or worth to be Oscar nominee.
Note: In the real life, normally the Ice-cream seller would stop his own production and be the dealer of one of the competitors of Manda brand.


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


user
I walk out of very few movie screenings and this movie managed to become one of those that I couldn't bear to watch any longer. As far as the awards it won goes, the ones awarded by Turkish festivals are not credible in my opinion. My only explanation for the Queens festival award was to think that somehow a layer of comedy was "gained in translation" as the subtitles helped distract attention from the horrendous performances.
At the beginning of the screening I attended, the presenter briefly talked about the history of Turkish cinema and at one point mentioned that early Turkish cinema was appropriately named "stage cinema" since many of the filmmakers and actors involved were people from the theater scene.
Ironically, this movie falls right into that category. English speakers reading subtitles may think that Turkish is a naturally loud language and attribute all the yelling in the movie to that, but observant native commentators will immediately notice that all the actors are performing with exaggerated loud voices. You could attribute this to the amateur nature of all actors, but the biggest source of "yelled-out-dialog" is the main character, played by the only professional actor in the movie. Not surprisingly his background is in theater. My guess is that in response to his loud delivery of lines, all other amateur actors raised their voices as well, hence turning the whole movie into a series of unnatural performances.
Put on top of all of this a storyline that develops at a snail's pace, you get an extremely boring movie.
I have to say I also have a personal problem with Turkish movies that depict entirely rural life with shallow uneducated characters. Ever since "Zugurt Aga", one of the best Turkish movies ever made, Turkish filmmakers seem to be not able to avoid the appeal of the rural part of the country. This is only interesting in small doses and if it is as beautifully orchestrated with excellent writing and directing as in Zugurt Aga. Most often, however, it is extremely boring and frankly somewhat embarrassing to native "urban" Turks. Rural communities make up a neglected, undereducated part of the country, and while this provides good material for comedy, it comes at a huge cost to Turkey's image.
A western audience member whose only exposure to Turkey is this movie will undoubtedly think that Turkey is like Afghanistan. I wish filmmakers would realize this and let go of their passion for the stories of the "rural man" and stay loyal to the majority of the country, who live in cities that put metropolitan areas in Europe to shame.


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


user
This very loose retelling of Carmen begins on a high note with a smoldering, sexually-frank dance between Senaglese prisoner "Karmen" and her female prison warden, but the vibrant opening minutes never ignite into any coherent film. One minute Karmen is all sexual predator, the next she is dancing in protest to her unfair government, and then suddenly she is a smuggler on the high seas... Although the film deserves kudos for postulating the first carnivorously bisexual "Karmen," the broad strokes it paints are so vignette-like and unsupported by any narrative coherence that the film comes off as a schizophrenic, undisciplined melange of "Basic-Instinct" meets "Bound" meets an African version of a Bollywood musical.


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


user
I gave this 2 stars out of a possible 10.
I went into this not realizing what it was - and discovered it is apparently some kind of African musical - since people break into song every few minutes.
None of the songs rhyme, most of them aren't really saying anything sensible, and they all have the same non-existent tune - if you could call it a "tune."
Karmen is a tall, spectacularly built young woman, with the longest braids I've ever seen. [The actress looks as if she has probably done some modeling.]
The film opens in a women's prison, although not like any prison I've ever seen or heard of -- the inmates wear whatever they wish - and seem to be having a party.
Karmen does some frantic dancing, and the woman warden of the prison, Angelique,[a magnificently handsome woman]is definitely erotically interested. She and Karmen dance together. Later Karmen visits the warden's room and they make love - unfortunately the scene is not detailed, and is very short, although there is some nudity.
Karmen then escapes from the prison and next we see her dancing in front of another group where a man, named Lamine, maybe a Colonel - it was never really clear who he was, watches her. He is with a young woman who dislikes Karmen's seductive dancing and there is a dance-off between the two women.
After that the story [such as it is] becomes even more muddled.
With Lamine in jail, out of jail, and who knows where.
Karmen may be involved with a group of smugglers or thieves.
There is more singing. More dancing, and a scene of Angelique obviously suffering from heartbreak.
The film muddles its way to a finish, and I heaved a sigh of relief that it had ended.




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


user
For a film made in Senegal, based, I guess loosely on Carmen, the book, by Prosper Merimee, this film doesn't achieve a mere resemblance of the story that has been made famous as an opera and as other films.
Ms. Gai as the Karmen of the title is very good to look at. Her fiery dancing smolders the screen, as is the case with her torrid love scene at the beginning of the film.
This is a Karmen that aims to please to all genders, but a real Carmen, she is not!
We would like to see Ms. Gai in other films in which her talent is better used than here.


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


user
For this movie, based off of a TV show, and a serious finale. I thought that it was a lousy way to end off a serious. 'M*A*S*H Goodbye, farewell, and Amen' was pretty good, but not this one. Unless you really love the series (Like myself) skip this movie.
I was a loyal fan of the show Even Stevens, but the plot was too gimmicky, and Dave Coulier, man, that guy hasn't done anything good...well, ever. They shouldn't have used Tim Meadows, he's a great actor, but he was too good for the script.
I thought the movie was pure cheese. I would give it a 4.5/10


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


user
A previous IMDb reviewer has stated that 'Rafter Romance' is a 'rip-off' (that's the other reviewer's term) of a German musical called 'Me By Day, You By Night'. Apparently that reviewer is unaware that *both* of these films have borrowed their premise from 'Box and Cox', an English play written by John Maddison Morton in 1847. This play deals with two tradesmen who rent the same room from an unscrupulous landlady, each man believing himself the sole tenant. Because the two men have different work schedules, the ruse is not discovered straight away. This play was once so popular in Britain that 'to Box and Cox it' became a common term for an arrangement in which two people willingly shared accommodations meant for only one person.
The innovation of 'Rafter Romance' (and its predecessor) is that the two tenants are now a man and a woman, who inevitably develop a romance. As is usual in these cornball movies, the guy and the gal detest each other until they fall into each other's arms. Hoo boy.
The landlord in this film is played by George Sidney, a character actor who specialised in playing Jewish stereotypes that were meant to be sympathetic. George Sidney was never as annoying as the odious Harry Green (the Jewish equivalent of Stepin Fetchit) but Sidney's depictions of Jewish characters are still exaggerated and embarrassing to watch.
The single most notable thing about 'Rafter Romance' is that, to my knowledge, this is the earliest Hollywood film to make reference to Hitler and the rise of Nazism. At one point in this movie, landlord Eckbaum (Sidney) discovers his teenage son Julius engaged in chalking swastikas on the walls. Eckbaum and his son are clearly meant to be Jewish. Admittedly, nobody in Hollywood in 1933 had any real idea of what Hitler was planning for the Jews in Europe ... still, it's surprising to see a film depicting a Jewish teenager who thinks that swastikas are a joke. His father is, quite properly, angered by this display of the Nazi symbol.
A very shameful aspect of Hollywood history is the documented fact that all of the major Hollywood studios continued to do business with the Third Reich as late as 1939. Hollywood's leading ladies were medically documented as 'Aryan' so that their films could be distributed in Nazi Germany and Austria. For the same reason, Hollywood's leading men were documented as 'Aryan and uncircumcised'. Except for Darryl Zanuck at Twentieth Century-Fox, all the Hollywood studio executives who colluded in this policy were Jewish ... but clearly had no objection to doing business with Hitler. I'm surprised that 'Rafter Romance' contains a scene depicting swastikas unfavourably, as this sequence would have rendered the film Verboten in Germany and Austria. (Maybe the scene was cut out for German release: it isn't crucial to the movie's plot.) Apart from this, the movie contains nothing notable. Robert Benchley does his usual unfunny befuddled characterisation: I've never understood the appeal of this man. I'll rate 'Rafter Romance' 4 out of 10.


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


user
When watching this movie, with it's deterministic cause and effect, wall-to-wall clichés and hackneyed sentiment, can anyone be so naive as to think that this is actually how Barrie's life played out? You watch it in a posture of disagreement. Hollywood biopics aren't based on the individual lives anymore, they're just rewrites of previously successful biopics. If Hollywood made a movie about your life it would be filled with such perfect synchronization that you'd barely recognize your own story. Any personal complexity would be obliterated by some all-explaining, simplistic backstory. Your story would resemble "Rocky" because it's the only life-arc Hollywood knows how to produce anymore. We couldn't leave the audience pondering anything left open-ended as they exit. This movie doesn't trust an audience to figure things out without being led to them. I perceived the captain hook/mother reference eons before the movie literalized it for me. I could see the 25 kids twist coming for days.
This is a completely average movie. Not horrible but not great. Hence it's likely to be showered with a few Oscars next year. There's nothing the Academy likes better than congratulating itself for finally noticing patterns put in place over the previous thirty years.
From the New Yorker article "Lost Boys" by ANTHONY LANE:
"Arthur Llewelyn Davies, also adored his boys, and it may be unfair of "Finding Neverland" to omit him, for streamlining purposes, from the scene; by the time that Johnny Depp meets Kate Winslet, she is already a widow, whereas Arthur was very much alive when Barrie first entered the consciousnessand, little by little, the homeof the Llewellyn Davies family.
"Finding Neverland" is a weepie. From the moment that Barrie met George and Jack, and started to ponder the means by which they might be rendered immortal, the story is sad, but the reality is even more dismal: 1907Arthur Llewellyn Davies dies from cancer of the jaw. 1910Sylvia dies of lung cancer. The five boys are orphaned; Barrie is made their guardian. 1915George is killed in the First World War, fighting with his regiment in Flanders. 1921Michael, an undergraduate at Oxford, is drowned while swimming with a friend. The two bodies, when recovered, are found clinging together.
On April 5, 1960, Peter Llewellyn Davies, by then an esteemed publisher, threw himself under a subway train in London. We should not presume to read a mind in torment, but we may note in passing that, if he had lived another month, he would have reached the centenary of Barrie's birth and thus, one imagines, a fresh flurry of interest in "Peter Pan""that terrible masterpiece," in the words of Peter Llewellyn Davies.


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


user
With some films it is really hard to tell for whom they were made. Huevos de oro seems to aim at the well educated Spanish middle class. There must be many inside jokes in this movie which you will not understand if you are an outsider. This can be pretty annoying.
Symbols and references to art and popular culture abound, the movie alludes to the work of Salvador Dalí, Luis Buñuel and the Surrealists in general, a certain infatuation with bidet baths seems to point to Duchamp's ready mades. What's more, the main character has also a knack for karaoke tapes with songs of Julio Iglesias. But why all this is mixed together in a rather pretty but also gratuitous way simply eludes me. I can only guess that it all serves to highlight the vital, impetuous, boorish vulgarity of the main character who the director seems to admire and despise at the same time. How all the really pretty women run after him (the main character, I mean) is slightly disconcerting.
The movie has three parts. It starts in the Spanish enclave of Melilla in Africa, where Benito, the main character, does his military service, apparently in the corps of engineers. Then it moves on to the resort town of Benidorm in Spanin where Benito just wants to build the highest skyscraper of the place and become a vulgarized Howard Roark. For the last part a defeated Benito moves to Miami, Florida, presumably in order to start a new life". But the change of places is not really explained satisfactorily. It is also somehow irritating that there is no character development and that the movie descends into a soap opera modus without being convincingly ironic. It must be said that Javier Bardem acquits himself very well playing the young stud who grows limp and deflated.
I purchased this movie because I am interested in townscapes. And Benidorm is a kind of a special place, townscapewise. In this aspect Huevos de oro satisfied me only partially. In Jess Franco's She Killed In Ecstasy (1970) this specific location was used in a more rewarding way.


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


user
Thank God I have fast-forward. I think this is a movie about a guy who rises and falls. Whatever: It's a stupid cliché. It doesn't make any difference. There's this guy, javier Bardem, who constructs buildings or something. It doesn't matter. He is handsome, this Javier Bardem. Who cares? I think there is a car wreck but I watched this in fast-forward, so ...who cares? Car wrecks and handsome heroes who struggle back from them smells like a melodrama to me. Javier likes someone , but he marries Maria de Madeiros instead.She is magnificently, poetically beautiful, with a heart-shaped face. Then Javier has an oral-interface with Maribel Verdu, who washes her vulva, beforehand, for some reason. You would think Maribel Verdu, with her hand-washed vulva would be sexy. No, she is not. This is a tedious story about a bunch of people who don't interest me. Javier, Maribel, and Maria have a threesome: How boring. This film is annoying. I think this might be a minor THEME of (some) Spanish-language movies: The rise and predictable fall of a little guy who succeeds against the odds. Let me just clear this up: this is a high-class melodrama or perhaps soap opera. It is not worth your time, except for a laugh.


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


user
A bit too much Mediterrenean machismo for me. The cast was beautiful, lovely to watch in all of the romantic scenes. The locale was beautiful with azure skies and azure water. It just was not convincing to me that such an egomaniac crud bent on nothing but his building, could attract so many beautiful, vulnerable, women. Only in the Mediterranean I guess. Certainly in no world I am familiar with. The macho men were really obnoxious, and I found it difficult to believe that the female characters could have anything to to with them for so long. The screenplay, cinematography, directing, etc. was set up to deliver a Class B film, the central effort being on showing scenes of beautiful exposed female breasts. It was aesthetically nice for a while but it could not sustain a very mediocre 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 this film, there is a loose plot of a man (Bardem) who wishes to obtain financing for his construction business, and marries a woman he does not love (the wide-eyed Maria de Medieros) in the process. He maintains his passionate relationship with his first and true love, and ultimately gets entangled in his own romantic web. He never gives up his juggling act, until the three main characters come face to face. The film results boring, with lots of free sex (well, both girls are really good), all the reactions in the film are absurd, incoherent and of course, too much stupid. None of the characters are believable, which makes the movie a little annoying. Anyway, the acting is surprisingly good for such a bad directed film, which makes it a little interesting, but, if you can, watch another film please!


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


user
Director Kinji Fukasaku is perhaps best known, in his homeland at least, for his Japanese gangster films, a series with which this movie shares a number of characteristics. Violence and political intrigue are themes throughout both Shogun's Samurai and Battles Without Honor and Humanity, and both feature a lead character who finds his loyalties challenged by betrayals. Both films also feature a large number of characters who seem to have little purpose but to die, and since so little is done to develop them, their deaths have little impact when they do come. This film has other flaws as well. The makeup, costumes and sound design are distractingly poor, and the battle scenes were substandard as well, inferior to other samurai films of earlier years (Seven Samurai comes to mind).
Sonny Chiba plays the Sonny Chiba character in Shogun's Samurai, the no-nonsense master swordsman who strides through the film, scowling menacingly. What a guy; he even gets to wear an eye patch. If you were expecting to see the legendary Toshiro Mifune, you may be disappointed; his appearance amounts to little more than a cameo, and just when it appears that his character might do something interesting, he disappears for good.
Overall, the strengths of the film are its story, which is infinitely more comprehensible than those gangster films, and the challenges posed to traditional concepts of good and evil. Two brothers are challenging for the throne of their recently departed father, who may have had some help on his way out. Early on, it looks as if we will be faced with a couple of characters who couldn't be more clearly good and evil; after all, the older brother stammers and has a birthmark, the sure sign of a villain. Eventually, however, it becomes clear that in a winner-takes-all struggle for power, there are no heroes and villains, only winners and losers.


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


user
I have seen nearly all the films of Kurosawa and dozens of other Japanese films as well. Compared to these other films, this is a rather average to poor film. The plot features two warring brothers--neither one of which I cared much for--and it is very confusing keeping up with who is allied with who. The music and cinematography is pretty good, but the special effects, at times, are terrible--rubber heads flying off with about the same realism as the average high school play! On top of these complaints, the ending of the movie completely DESTROYS and UNDERMINES the entire picture. It turns out that the end isn't true but was completely "fudged". What's the point of this, then? If you HAVE seen this film, understand that there are MANY better films out there, so don't give up!


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


user
"Yagyu ichizoku no inbo" (let's just say "The Shogun's Samurai") is somewhere between horrifically boring and mind-bogglingly painful to watch. As an historical epic, it could have had so many more chances to be a rich saga... but it's really no more than just another cheap '70s action flick with a based-on-real-events story and an eyepatch-sporting Sonny Chiba. Before this movie's halfway point, I was even tempted to commit seppuku! The music is like a thousand dogs in heat wailing in your ears to a tune composed by Ennio Morricone (that's not an insult towards Morricone). The use of zoom lens cinematography is more nauseating than fascinating. And in terms of action, it's really nothing more than a series of brutal attacks and oh-no-they-didn't shocks. What a terrible movie.


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 in the mood for a really bad porno with no good porn combined with a really bad horror movie, this movie is perfect for you. However, if you breathe air, make sure you spend your time watching anything but this. The acting is crappy. The "plot" is crappy. They try too hard, and the whole time I was waiting for the one good redeeming scene that might make the movie worth watching. Nope. Stick with the scrambled cable.


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


user
I see that C. Thomas Howell has appeared in many movies since his heyday in the 80s as an accomplished young actor.
I bought this DVD because it was cheap and in part for the internet-related plot and to see how much older C. Thomas Howell is; I do not recall seeing him in any movies since the 1980s.
In just a few words: what a very big disappointment. I give some low budget movies a chance, but this one started out lame. Within the first 15 minutes of the movie, this elusive woman is chatting with an Asian guy in a chatroom. They basically stimulate themselves to their own chat, she then insists on meeting the participant in person. She meets him, has sex, ties him up and then murders him in cold blood. The plot then deteriorates further.
The plot is thin and flimsy and the acting is very stiff. Do not bother renting it much less purchasing it, even if it is in the $1 DVD bin. I plan to take my copy of the DVD to Goodwill. I am truly amazed that any of the prior reviewers here gave this movie a bad rating.


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


user
I have seen this movie last week during the Berlin Film Festival and had medium-high expectations. - The director is Bertrand Tavernier and I was familiar with some of his previous work in French cinema. I actually enjoyed some of his earlier movies. -The cast: Tommy Lee Jones, John Goodman, Peter Sarsgard, Mary Steenburgen... I was looking forward to see all this talent on screen. -I wasn't familiar with the book it's based upon and I hadn't read anything about the movie beforehand but I was told that it was an investigation movie set in the Deep South (we've seen a lot of those in the past, maybe this one's gonna be as good as the others...)
2 hours later, the end titles appear: THANK GOD IT WAS OVER!!!! - The plot is beyond comprehension. If you've read the book, you have a significant advantage. There were too many minor characters and there were a lot of useless plot arcs. We didn't understand a thing! - The accents. My God! Tommy Lee Jones' accent is decent but I still have nightmares from Mary Steenburgen's Cajun-French singing... - Poor casting in my opinion. I can't believe old man Tommy Lee Jones can beat the crap out of a linebacker-built goon... And I'm not afraid of John Goodman. - Who were these people?!? We barely understand who all these characters are and what they do. There's a bait shop? Tommy Lee Jones has a girl from Guatemala? Blörg! - The comedic attempts were pathetic. The funniest thing about the movie was probably its "action" and "suspense" scenes. They were horrible. No thrills. Bad acting (Can Tommy Lee Jones make different faces or is he like Derek Zoolander?)... - And then there's the sci-fi stuff. No spoilers but it gets ridiculously and annoyingly weird.
I usually don't write any comments on IMDb but I thought the movie was so bad and disappointing that I felt compelled to share my opinion. But that's just me...


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


user
Being one of the founding fathers of my regions monkey movie club(this also includes apes/chimps and orangutans) I am reviewing this film from a monkey movie standpoint. Afterall it is a whole summer of monkeys, 100+ days for monkeys to do what they do best, cause mischief, shenanigans, hyjinx, solve human problems and teach us about ourselves.
The story is simple enough. In short poor boy needs money for stuff he wants. Luckily there's a few monkeys(chimpanzees) that have a bounty on their head that would get Boba Fett or Dog's(Duane Chapman) blood flowing. As the boy tries to catch the monkeys he learns about himself, his family, his grandpa, the local weirdo, flirts with a girl twice his age and learns the beast way to deal with bullies is to have someone point a shotgun at them.
There within lies the problem. So much focus is put on the boy that the chimps just don't get the screen time they deserve. The chimps are not as talented as the chimp(s) that play Jack from the M_P trilogy or the legendary orangutans that play Dunstin or Clyde(1 or 2). So don't watch this movie expecting to find the next big thing in the Chimp genre. The chimps hit some sweet flips which is what the film needed more of. There is an epic scene of the chimps breaking into the poor families house and destroys all the things they worked so hard for. Serious monkey movie enthusiasts will want to rent the film for this scene alone.
So in closing this movie is not for the serious monkey movie enthusiast. I wouldn't recommend this movie to families as it encourages a childs rebellion against their parents. I can only recommend this film as a rental for hardcore monkey loving adults and well supervised children.


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 in a movie club at my school and I was forced to sit and watch this utterly dismal film. The film's story is not dismal, but the entire movie itself is exceedingly dismal. The acting was absolutely dreadful. The children were overly whiny. A metal pole could have done a better job. I wanted desperately to fall asleep, but because the television was so loud, I was kept from peace. The monkey's are neither cute, nor are they funny. The drama is laugh-worthy. I cannot remember when I saw a more dreadful film. The story is weak, thin, predictable, and completely fake. The adults try to be good actors, but they just can't seem to break through stereotypes. The girl even appears to want to leave the film via falling off a hill during the movie in order to leave it, I don't blame her. Micheal Anderson should publicly apologize for this film. Not just to me, but to everyone else who was forced to sit through this awful film. In fact, I apologize to you. Even if I had nothing to do with this project, I apologize for this film, because this means at least someone will. This film even surpasses the dismalness of films that of Rob Schneider and the Cheetah Girls. I would even go as far to say that it is even worse that Hilary Duff's collection of films, but that's pushing it. Just please don't see this film, or else you'll be pushed to write a review similar to this one on how awful this film is. I'm very sorry.


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


user
When I saw this movie three years ago, I thought it exemplified a lot of the traits found in Singapore art-house movies: slow-moving, with a minimal of plot and dialogue, depending on film composition to make it work.
During then, amongst local cineastes, the inability to appreciate "Be With Me" is tantamount to panning "Citizen Kane" or any of Ozu's late films. I've no idea how "Be With Me" reached such hallowed heights in Singapore's cinematic consciousness, but I always felt that Khoo's "12 Storeys" is a better film, even though the latter film does not boast as good a cinematographer as Adrian Tan, Khoo's DP for "Be With Me". "12 Storeys" has a story that better relates to most Singaporeans and has bite too, something that "Be With Me"'s threadbare wistfulness doesn't have.
"Be With Me" is basically a barely interlinked trio of narratives strung together into a film by Khoo and his screenwriter Wong Kim Hoh. It deals with a security guard who falls in love with a girl whom he only sees in the distance; two girls in a horoerotic relationship; and the story of deaf-and-blind Teresa Chan.
"Be With Me" is very well filmed by Tan, using a Varicam camera. The film compositions are masterful. The film, almost entirely silent, has next to no dialogue. Characters move around, not in a realistic manner, but almost as if they are models under the instruction of a director, almost always looking into the screen and emoting: either loneliness or sadness. Unfortunately the characters don't act against each other. This kind of film has been seen before many times: in Tsai Ming-liang's films, in Khoo's protégé Royston Tan's "4:30" and elsewhere. Sadly, its ultra-slowness (essentially plot less) and use of a lento piano soundtrack simply doesn't appeal to me.
To criticize "Be With Me" seems almost to negate the inspirational story behind it, that of Teresa Chan, who is blind and deaf and yet lives a fulfilling life despite all this, yet I'm afraid this film doesn't do anything much to me. I'm willing to applaud Chan's steadfast and courageous march in life and Tan's striking cinematography, but for a better take on the same subject-matter with more meat (without the two other tedious and distracting subplots), try Werner Herzog's "Land of Silence and Darkness" (1971).


assistant
0