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
To Die For (1989) was just another d.t.v. feature that made an appearance on cable ad nasuem during the early nineties. The only thing notable about this feature was the last movie Duane Jones appeared in. Other than that there's no reason to watch this vampire flick unless you like pseudo chick flicks masquerading as a horror film. A tired vampire longs for love and searches the back streets of L.A. looking for it. Will he succeed or will Vlad just strike out again like he has for the last century?
This movie must have been big because a couple of sequels soon followed. They're so bad they make this one look like a classic. I know this is a movie about vampires but the film makers could have used to lighting.
Not recommended by me because I didn't like it.
'nuff said?


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


user
Shame really - very rarely do I watch a film and am left feeling disappointed at the end. I've seen quite a few of Ira Levin's adaptations - 'Rosemary's Baby' and 'The Stepford Wives' - and liked both them, but this just didn't appeal to me.
When I read the plot outline - an award winning playwright (Michael Caine) decides to murder one of his former pupils (Christopher Reeve) and steel his script for his own success - I was excited. I like thrillers, Michael Caine's a good actor, Sidney Lumet's a good director and Ira Levin's work is generally good.
I won't spoil it for anyone who hasn't seen it yet, but all I'd say is there are LOADS of twists and turns. So many its kind of hard to explain the film's plot line in detail, without giving it away. I enjoyed the first ... 45 minutes, before the twists and turns began to occur and at that point my interest and enjoyment began to fade out. Though I have to give Lumet credit for the very amusing ending which did make me laugh out loud.
The main cast - Michael Caine, Christopher Reeve, Dyan Cannon and Irene Worth - were all brilliant in their roles. Though Worth's obvious fake Russian accent got on my nerves slightly (nothing personal Irene, I think any actor's fake accent would irritate me). Not sure if Cannon's character was meant to be annoyingly funny but Dyan managed to annoy and amuse - at the same time.
Anyone reading this - I don't want you to be put-off watching this because of my views - give it a chance, you may like it, you may not. It's all about opinion.


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


user
I do not believe all the praise for this movie. The play and movie were a ripoff of Sleuth. Michael Caine wishes he were Olivier, and Reeves wishes he were Caine. Caine even had the nerve to do a remake of Sleuth with Jude Law playing his original part. Jude Law? You mean the one that did the remake of "Alfie"?
This movie was made during a period of Caine's career when it was obvious he needed to pay off gambling debts. He would do anything for money. He would star in such award winning movies such as this, and "Beyond the Poseidon Adventure". What seems to be driving the praise for this movie is Reeves death. He deserves better than to be remembered for this lousy movie. And so does Caine. This movie can be found in the $5.97 bin at Walmart. Along with gems like "The Island", and "Blame it on Rio".


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


user
Ira Levin's Broadway smash comes to the screen with hardly any meat on its bones, a mystery plot with just a few tricks and twists but nobody worth caring about. Frustrated writer Michael Caine plots to steal the work of a brilliant young man and pass it off as his own; his devious plan may include murdering the talented kid, which has Caine's flighty spouse up in arms. The first act in which everyone is introduced is excruciatingly dead, with Caine doing everything an actor can to keep the pacing up. Dyan Cannon is miscast as his wife (she's too smart and clever herself to be passed off as a ditz) and Christopher Reeve (in the middle portion of the film) seems extremely uncomfortable in the role of the better writer. These three characters, and Irene Worth's bothersome neighbor, are so undefined that what happens after the set-up barely even registers until well after the second act has begun. Sidney Lumet's direction is stagy and fuzzy, the set design unconvincing and poorly-lit, and the finale is a total disaster. The actors struggle to give the script some substance, but with such thin material all we see are their laborious efforts. *1/2 from ****


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


user
Gods...where to start. I was only able to stomach about the first 10 minutes before I turned it off in disgust. Aside from the actor playing Robin Hood himself, the rest were just terrible. And, I can only stretch my suspension of disbelief only so far.
From the very opening of the first episode, I lost count of how many errors, plot holes, and horrible costumes there were. It began with some poor peasant trying to hunt for a deer to feed his family. All well and good. However, the poor blighter must have been mostly deaf, because a handful of soldiers, in full armour, on horseback, were able to sneak up on him to within about 10 feet.
Then, as he's running away, he goes from having them 10 feet behind him, to a shot where you cannot even see them at all, immediately followed by them about 20 feet behind him again. Then, he runs into some bushes, and is immediately manhandled by two of the soldiers...who just mere seconds before, were galloping on horseback, dozens of feet behind him.
The "armour" on the soldiers is so painfully obviously cloth which they tried to make look like maille, and miserably failed. Not to mention, the lead soldier's "armour" being about 5 sizes too big for the poor fellow. Seriously, he looks like he is a small child wearing his father's over-sized armour! Finally, Robin manages to fire about 5, perfectly aimed shots all around one soldier's hand, in the span of about 2 seconds, from what appears to be a recurve bow. No human alive could make those kinds of shots, in that short amount of time, with a scoped rifle, much less a bow.
After that, they escape the soldiers and stop to help an amazingly well dressed and clean "peasant" with digging a ditch...something that all noblemen were willing to do all the time, right? How this sorry excuse for a series ever got a second season is beyond me. The production costs (at least for what I saw) must have soared in the dozens of dollars (or Euros)...
Seriously - I think a highschool drama class could have put on a better rendition. This was so bad, even that terrible Kevin Costner version of Robin Hood was better.
I highly suggest you skip this monstrosity, and go rent or buy the mid-80's "Robin of Sherwood" series. Much better written, acted, costumed, and produced.
For shame, BBC...for shame...


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


user
Well, it's Robin Hood as 'geezer' all right... just as advertised! That didn't sound very hopeful, and alas, it was worse than I'd suspected.
A laddish Robin I can take; a Robin who tangles with a pert dyer's daughter I can credit; but a Robin who exchanges not-very-funny banter with his single henchman is harder to swallow, and a Robin and *entire cast* who seem to be having difficulty managing their lines is the kiss of doom. How could anyone let such laboured delivery pass without re-shooting the scenes? Again and again, Much sounds as if he's struggling with half-comprehended Shakespeare rather than letting loose with a salty quip; I hoped at the onset that it was just a failed comedy trait in a character clearly destined for the role of comedy sidekick, but then it started spreading throughout the rest of the cast.
Whatever else you say about Errol Flynn in the role, he had the knack of delivering high-flown dialogue as naturally as if he'd just thought it up on the spur of the moment... and as this production shows, that's not at all as easy as it sounds! If they were going to cast the characters as cheeky chappies, the actors in question should have been given appropriate lines: they sound as if they haven't a clue how to handle them.
I'm afraid I didn't even like the pantomime Sheriff, for a similar reason; the lines are clearly not intended to be taken seriously but delivered (and in this case written) with a nudge and a wink at the audience. They're out of place all right -- fourth-wall-busting stuff -- but really not that funny.
This much-promised production reminded me of a limping school play. The only actor and character I felt any appreciation for at all was the one playing Guy of Gisbourne, who was the sole one who appeared to have any handle on (a) credible villainy and (b) credible characterisation -- but frankly, I wouldn't have said that was a very good augury for the future of the series! As of the time of writing, I'll give it another shot in the hopes that things may improve and bed down a bit by next week, with less stilted scene-setting required and perhaps the actors more at ease with the dialogue: after all, the opening episode of "Doctor Who" wasn't exactly a show-stopper, though it was nowhere near as bad as this. But if I see no improvement after episode 2, I'm afraid the series has almost certainly lost one viewer.
Which would be a pity, because I've got a soft spot for the "Robin Hood" legend on screen, from the adventures of Douglas Fairbanks to the sturdy reliance of Richard Greene. But this Robin fails to stir my blood in the slightest.


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 clearly see now why Robin Hood flopped quickly. The first episode of it is probably the worst ever thing BBC has aired. The opening scenes were about as intense, meaningful and intelligent as two monkeys fighting, Robin Hood had no character, and the sword fight was just laughable. The worst part of the episode was Robin Hood snogging some cow clad in make-up at the beginning of the episode - how many people wore eyeliner in the 12th century? Nobody. The series may have improved drastically since then, but this first episode quickly put people's hopes down, and is essentially a pile of cr*p. A great hero of England has been disgraced.
"Will You Tolerate This?" I won't, that's for sure, unless the BBC start to understand what is a wise investment. 3/10


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


user
Siskel & Ebert were terrific on this show whether you agreed with them or not because of the genuine conflict their separate professional opinions generated. Roeper took this show down a notch or two because he wasn't really a film critic and because he substituted snide for opinionated. Now, when Ben Lyons comes on I feel like I'm watching "Teen News" -- you know, that kids' news show, hosted by kids for kids? Manckiewitz is not much better. It's obvious they've encountered only a steady diet of mainstream films their entire lives. The idea that these two rank amateurs have anything of interest or consequence to say about motion pictures is ludicrous. If they are reviewing a non-formula film, they are completely lost. Show them something original and intelligent -- they just find it "confusing". Wait -- I think I get it ... ABC is owned by Disney ... Disney makes movies for kids. While Siskel, Ebert, and Roper promoted independent films and were only hit-or-miss with the big budget studio productions -- what a surprise: these two guys LOVE the big studio schlock and only manage to tolerate a few indies. Plus everyone knows the age group TV advertisers are aiming for. The blatant nepotism is the icing on the cake. In what alternate universe do these guys qualify as film critics?


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 been familiar with the fantastic book of 'Goodnight Mister Tom' for absolutely ages and it was only recently when I got the chance to watch this adaption of it. I have heard lots of positive remarks about this, so I had high hopes. Once this film had finished, I was horrified.
This film is not a good film at all. 'Goodnight Mister Tom' was an extremely poor adaption and practically 4.5/10 of the book was missed out. Particularly, I found that a lot of the characters and some great scenes in the book were not in this. There was not much dialogue, It was rushed and far too fast-moving, but I was mostly upset by the fact that you never got to see the bonding and love between William Beech and Tom in this film which was a true let down. The casting was not all that good,either. I thought this could have been really good, but it was so different to the book! Anextremely poor adaption, one of the worst I've seen. This deserves a decent remake that'd better be 1000 times better than this pile of garbage.


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


user
Goodnight, Mister Tom begins in an impossibly exquisite village in the south of England where the sun always seems to shine. Before we have much idea of the period we hear a radio announcement of the declaration of World War II. Soon a train blowing clouds of steam brings refugee children from London and when shy little William is billeted with reluctant, gruff old Tom (who you just know will turn out to have a heart of gold) our tale begins.
And what a load of sentimental claptrap it is. In fact it's just the old odd-couple buddy formula. Aren't any new stories being written?
As I suggested there's hardly any period feel in the village and not much more in London apart from the odd old ambulance rattling around. And certainly no hint of the horror of the Blitz as London's citizens file politely into air-raid shelters. Even when the local schoolteacher's husband is declared missing presumed killed, he is later restored to life.
I found `Goodnight, Mister Tom' cliched and obvious and John Thaw's accent conjured up a picture of Ronnie Barker of the Two Ronnies with a straw in his mouth doing his `country bumpkin' accent.
Incidentally my wife enjoyed this movie for all the reasons that I disliked it and looking at fellow-imdb reviewers I seem to be in a minority of one.



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


user
Let me confess. I found this video used and bought it because Guttenberg looked so sexy in his underwear on the jacket. But inside was another story. Besides the fact that the movie was basically a parody of "invisible-man" genre special effects (highly visible strings and other such paraphernalia), the script wasted no chance -- in fact it went out of its way -- in insulting all non-WASP races and real-or-imagined homosexuals. Every insult aimed at a person in the script was either homophobic or racist or both. It starts to grate on your nerves, along with the shaky sound, candid- camera style photography and melodramatic story. However, the end is somewhat of a surprise. But by the time you get there, you hardly care less. Too bad, it could been a reasonably good movie.


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


user
The 3-D featured in "The Man Who Wasn't There" stands for DUMB, DUMB, DUMB! This inept comedy features lousy 3-D effects that makes the 3-D effects in "Jaws 3", "Amityville 3", and "Friday the 13th Part 3" look better by comparison. Not to mention the movie is asinine to the extreme. This was one of many 1983 movies to feature the pop-off-the-screen effects. Steve Guttenberg and Jeffrey Tambor got trapped in this mess, but at least it didn't kill their careers. Tambor would go on to star on HBO's "The Larry Sanders Show" and Ron Howard's box office smash "How the Grinch Stole Christmas", while Guttenberg followed this flop with "Police Academy" and "Cocoon". What them in those projects instead of them here in "The Man Who Wasn't There". If you do, you'll regret it.
1/2* (out of four)


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 tries to be immensely clever, and Tarantino-like
before you try that though, you need solid filmic fundamentals. these include good sound, editing, set design etc...
lets talk about the sound in this movie. absolutely atrocious. i have never been more distracted by a sound track, ever
and before we talk about low budget, film made in Chile etc.. lets bear in mind that desent sound these days is far more achievable than it ever has been. anywhere. and more info on technique is available then ever before
the sound in this movie is plain bad. the foley in particular is out of place and inappropriate throughout, the atmos is equally terrible. i heard at least four loud clicks during the movie, which are the result of poor sound editing. the sound inside cars is awful, the sound of car doors closing is awful. the sound of the lady singing is wrong. foley is either overboard, or simply not there like the sound person just got bored and gave up. the spaces are wrong. everything about it is wrong
and yet, not letting limitations of creativity get in the way, at the same time the movie tries boldly to be clever. for example the sound of the aquarium is used in the following street scene. we hear sound when we're not supposed to. sound edits precede visual cuts. every trick in the book is used, and yet the foundations are just not there
editing-wise we have scenes using heavy jump cuts, we have tinkering around with the time line etc etc etc, yawn. all of these techniques are imitated to a splendidly low standard
overall the mix is crap, the sound is crap. and so, the film is crap. how can a movie with so many fundamental flaws be considered for awards and high praise? Chile's cinematic new wave? the best creative output that Chile has to offer? i hope not, and i think not.
my theory is that Chile's more selective and better talent avoided this film like the plague maybe due to its risqué content. equally, the film has likely received so much unwarranted critical acclaim from so called 'world-cinema' enthusiasts for the same grubby reasons. they likely revel in it's trashiness. of course film critics rarely pay attention to technical details and quality
this film is rubbish. it's all mouth and no trousers and is never deserving of a 6.8 rating. the film has all the production quality of a cheap Tarantino, new wave inspired porno!


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


user
This is an hybrid creature born at Carl Macek mind. With Robotech the second generation (Robotech Masters) and Megazone 23 into one miserable movie, that have no logic! The story is very, very bad, and you cannot forgive the action of Megazone when have nothing to do with Robotech. If this movie have so high rank is for the TV series and not for itself!! I did said it, the name cannot save this!


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


user
You will recognize the plot immediately. Daughters of a divorced couple trying to get Mom and Dad back together again. Yes, that was the theme of The Parent Trap in the 60s, 80s and 90s. But here's the spooky thing. Even though Deanna Durbin was younger than the 21 year old Hayley Mills while playing the doting daughter(s) roles, Durbin looks much older, as in adult. And so do all of her so-called siblings.
And this confusion between adult and child goes throughout the film. The girls are dressed in cute little sailor outfits but look ridiculous in them as the director seems to take pains to point out their ample tops and tushies throughout the film. So you're constantly torn between thinking of them as children or women. When Ray Milland and others start "hitting on" them you get the feeling as if they're pedophiles, and you might be one, too for noticing those tushies and tops the director was pointing out. Teens or temptresses, little girls or little foxes, you are never quite sure what you're supposed to be thinking of them as.
The parents, too, seem very old and the whole film seems very dated.
It is a rusty version of the Parent Trap and you should avoid it, or at least ensure your tetanus shots are up to date if you don't believe me.


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


user
Well, the big money machine has done it again! Disney very shrewdly takes advantage of morons like myself who feel we must own every video (good or bad) stamped with the Disney moniker. Why is it that I continue to look forward to these "sequels" which make Don Bluth on a bad day look like Leonardo DaVinci? Cinderella 2 consists of three storylines (already a poor choice!) Doesn't one of the most endearing Disney creations at least deserve a linear story? Of these three, only the last comes anywhere near the quality of animation and storytelling that I would expect. The music is atrocious and modern (meaning in 2 years it will already be dated) and adds nothing to the story. Why does everything have to be updated? You know, the original cartoon is still popular because of its timelessness, so why not be respectful and true to the original with songs that reflect the same style? Gee, I can't wait for a sequel to Sleeping Beauty. Instead of music based on the themes of Tchaikovsky, we'll get music inspired by Britney Spears!!! So Disney, if you're listening, remember we're not all indiscriminate children out here. How about throwing a bone or two to the fans who've been around long enough to know the difference between craft and crap?


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


user
Possible Spoilers, Perhaps. I must say that "Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" is one of the worst movies ever made. First of all, the movie was made during the height of Disney's sequel rampage. It was created around the same time as "The Little Mermaid II," "The Jungle Book II," and "Peter Pan II," all of which were disservices to their original film classics. (Disney also made "The Hunchback of Notre Dame II" and "Atlantis II," but I'm going to drop that topic because their original movies were never really classics in the first place.") Let me go ahead and say that I am an avid supporter of good Disney films, and I absolutely adore the original Disney "Cinderella." The sequel to "Cinderella," however, was a waste of time. The character of Cinderella in the sequel was so very unlike the original girl that I grew up watching. In the original, Cinderella was kind and loving. The new Cinderella had very out-of-character moments with current-era phrasing like, "I'm going to do this banquet my way!" Let me also tell you that new Cinderella (as I have affectionately named her) says, "Ewww!" That is the anti-Cinderella. I try to find the best in people, but in the sequel, Anastasia, one of the stepsisters, is good! What the heck? Why? They made it all out to be like Lady Tremaine and Drizella are just horrible family members for poor little Anastasia. My question to the world: did the people at Disney watch the original "Cinderella" when making this sequel? Well, it surely doesn't seem so. If I remember correctly, Anastasia was just as abusive to Cinderella as Drizella and Lady Tremaine. I am all for redemption and forgiveness, but there was no point of redemption for Anastasia in this movie. In the first one, Anastasia was evil. In the second one, she is good. One just can't leave a story like this. I hope Disney realizes that this movie, among other movies, is shaming Walt Disney's name. Perhaps now that Michael Eisner is gone, things will start shaping up around the House of Mouse.


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


user
The original is a relaxing watch, with some truly memorable animated sequences. Unfortunately, the sequel, while not the worst of the DTV sequels completely lacks the sparkle.
The biggest letdown is a lack of a story. Like Belle's Magical World, the characters are told through a series of vignettes. Magical World, while marginally better, still manages to make a mess of the story. In between the vignettes, we see the mice at work, and I personally think the antics of Jaq and Gus are the redeeming merits of this movie.
The first vignette is the best, about Cinderella getting used to being to being a princess. This is the best, because the mice were at their funniest here. The worst of the vignettes, when Jaq turns into a human, is cute at times, but has a lack of imagination. The last vignette, when Anastasia falls in love, was also cute. The problem was, I couldn't imagine Anastasia being friendly with Cinderella, as I considered her the meaner out of the stepsisters. This was also marred by a rather ridiculous subplot about Lucifer falling in love with PomPom.
The incidental music was very pleasant to listen to;however I hated the songs, they were really uninspired, and nothing like the beautiful Tchaikovsky inspired melodies of the original.
The characters were the strongest development here. Cinderella while still caring, had lost her sincerity, and a lot of her charm from the original, though she does wear some very pretty clothes. The Duke had some truly funny moments but they weren't enough to save the film, likewise with Prudence and the king. As I mentioned, the mice were the redeeming merits of the movie, as they alone contributed to the film's cuteness. I have to say also the animation is colourful and above average, and the voice acting was surprisingly good.
All in all, a cute, if unoriginal sequel, that was marred by the songs and a lack of a story. 4/10 for the mice, the voice acting, the animation and some pretty dresses. Bethany Cox


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


user
I'll just put it out here, that was the Worst sequel to a classic Disney film I've EVER seen. In 1950, Disney released what I hail as one of his greatest films of all time. Now Take away the great songs, add a poor plot that resembles that of a lost TV show. "Put it together and what do you get?" the biggest load of Crud I've ever seen. After i saw this, I thought it was all over for Disney. Cinderella should've ended with, "and they lived happily ever after." not this garbage. This film did not deserve a sequel like this. I thought it would be like "A twist in time" which was moderate but better than this. Also, What do we care of Anastasia? She switched sides like Iago did, but it didn't help 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've got a question for those who thought of this idea. Why? What made them think to make a second movie of this. If memory serves, didn't Cinderella end with "They all lived happily ever after"? I'm pretty sure it did, or it was implied. Wait a minute, if they all lived happily ever after, how could there be a sequel? Unless they were trying to make the most boring story in history, there couldn't be a sequel. I mean sure, they could have Cinderella singing about nonsense for two hours, but why? A movie that ends in "happily ever after" can not have a sequel; if it does then they don't live happily ever after! Something's got to go wrong which causes problems with the first ending! Why? That's not right, it's evil. That's my final word on the matter.


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


user
I've always thought that Cinderella II was the worst movie I've ever seen, (followed by Peter Pan 2, and some other sequels like The Lion King 2 and the Hunchback of Notre Dame 2). All these movies are made with the same idea; because the movie has no plot, they try to make up for that by filling it with jokes. I'm not saying the jokes are bad, but they make up most of the movie. The first time I saw the movie, I would have given it a 1/10. But now I think about it, most kids don't care how good the original movie was, they just care that the movie is entertaining. I still think the movie was a bad sequel, but that doesn't mean it's horrible. Now I think it deserves a 3/10.


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


user
I grew up watching the original Disney Cinderella, and have always loved it so much that the tape is a little worn.
Accordingly, I was excited to see that Cinderella 2 was coming on TV and I would be able to see it.
I should have known better.
This movie joins the club of movie sequels that should have just been left alone. It holds absolutely NONE of the originals super charm! It seems, to me, quite rough, and almost brutal, right from the (don't)Sing-a-longs to the characterization.
While I remember the character's telling a story through a song, this film's soundtrack was laid over the top, and didn't seem to fit. Jaq's transformation into a human is a prime example: Where he was walking around eating an apple and adding a few little quips in here and there, he should have been dancing around and singing about how great it was to be tall! And in the ballroom, there's old barn dance type country music. It's as though the writers forgot where and when this story was set. The upbeat fiddles certainly didn't fit.
Even the artwork and animation in Cinderella 2 isn't up to scratch with the original. The artwork in this film seems quite raw and less detailed. And we see part of Cinderella's hoop skirt, which doesn't feel right.
The movie itself could have been it's own story, I think that it should have been just that. I wouldn't say that I hate it, but I believe that it had many shortcomings. It seems to downgrade in a significant way from the beloved Cinderella original.


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 are under the age of 6 or 7, then you're going to really enjoy this movie. My youngest daughter is glued to the TV when she watches it. As an adult, I can't stand it!! I'm all up for sequels....when they have a decent storyline. But this is nowhere near up to standard. Please forgive me for slating what is after all a kid's film, but when you have to sit through it nearly every day when your kids who love it so much, you'll understand why. My daughter would watch this film over and over again on the same day if we let her.
I've given this film 4 out of 10 purely for the fact that it keeps my youngest entertained.


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


user
I had the displeasure of watching this movie with my girlfriend, who, like me, is a fan of the first. This movie down right sucked! It lacked the magic of the first. You could actually understand every word the mice said, the animation is crappy, the palace is much much different from the first movie, there's new characters that were never mentioned before and were terrible, luckily the Prince didn't have many lines which kept him from sounding stupid. Basically its like The Lion King 1 1/2 except its different stories all told by the mice. The reason I'm giving this a 2 out of 10 is because the songs not sung by the characters were the most enjoyable.


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


user
Assassin Hauser's (John Cusak) mission is to whack a Mid-Eastern oil minister, whose name happens to be Omar Sharif (Neikov), in the country of Turaqistan which is run by American interests. Hauser poses as Trade Show producer to allow him to get to Omar.
Sometimes a satire can be so overdone it becomes most annoying. Here it does too much: the government, politics, music, war, people not generally accepted by society, and did I mention "war." And, that is what we have here - a most annoying movie that borders on a very bad nightmare brought to life. I am still asking myself why I continued with the DVD. Also, there are so many Cusak family members in this that John Cusak appears embarrassed by the family just being there, or is that just me?
It used to be that a John Cusak movie, while a little offbeat, was, in the end, rather good. Not here. Believe that John Cusak had a hand in the writing and producing of this mess. Make of that what you will.
There is too much going on in the movie accompanied by constant gun-fire, bombings, and shouting that you really cannot focus or was that the point? Probably. It just takes too long to set up the hit, which is largely forgotten until the last 15-minutes. In the meantime we have meaningless banter among all in the cast. And, chemistry between John Cusak and Marisa Tormei? I don't think so, but you know: the boy  girl thing and they needed something to take up more time.
Yes, for what they were supposed to be, (offbeat and annoying) the performances of Duff, and Kingsley were good. But, when I saw Dan Aykroyd's character, in the beginning of the show, sitting on a toilet taking a dump, I knew the rest of the show would go to the tank as well. I was not wrong. I am sure some will sing praises of this effort, but if a rose is still a rose by any other name so, too, is a mess
I now remember why I continued with the DVD. I was hoping that the story would somehow level out and save itself. Never did.
Violence: Yes. Sex: No. Nudity: No. Language: Yes.


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


user
I really wanted to like this, but in the end it's a poorly made film with too few laughs.
The politics are spot on, it's gonna offend the hell out of republicans but that's what it's designed to do. That alone gives me reason to chuckle.
The problem is, it looks like it was made in a REAL hurry (like about a week). And it contains a stupid subplot about some bimbo singer, which seems to be completely off topic.
Turiqistan is obviously Iraq, or Afghanistan, or any other number of countries the US has f**ked with since the 50s. The humour is a little dark (amputees dancing with prosthetic legs made by Tamerlane corporation) but it IS on the mark, especially with the corporations cashing in on the reconstruction ("democracy lite"!)
However like a lot of satire criticising the US, it seems terribly heavy handed and laboured. I guess it's running counter to so much bs propaganda so it has to bludgeon people over the head to make a point. Who knows. I prefer more of a nudge, wink approach - a bit of subtlety. But that's just me.
Anyway I might watch it again, perhaps I missed something.
I'm hoping "W" is more on the mark.


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


user
War, Inc. - Corporations take over war in the future and use a lone assassin Brand Hauser (John Cusack) to do their wet-work against rival CEOs. A dark comedy satirizing the military and corporations alike. It was often difficult to figure out what exactly was going on. I kept waiting for things to make sense. There's no reason or method to the madness.
It's considered by Cusack to be the "spiritual successor" to Grosse Point Blank. I.e., War is more or less a knock-off. We again see Cusack as an assassin protecting *spoiler* the person he's supposed to kill as he grips with his conscience. To be fair, John Cusack looks kind of credible taking out half a dozen guys with relative ease. The brief fights look good. The rest of the film does not. It's all quirky often bordering on bizarre. War Inc's not funny enough to be a parody, and too buoyant for anyone to even think about whatever the film's message might be, which I suppose might be the heartless ways that corporations, like war factions compete and scheme without a drop of consideration given to how they affect average citizens. Interesting, but the satire just doesn't work because it's not funny and at its heart the film has no heart. We're supposed to give a damn about how war affects Cusack's shell of a character rather than the millions of lives torn apart by war.
John Cusack gives a decent performance. His character chugs shots of hot sauce and drives the tiniest private plane but quirks are meant to replace character traits. Marisa Tomei is slumming as the romantic sidekick journalist. There really isn't a lot of chemistry between them. Hilary Duff tries a Russian accent and doesn't make a fool of herself. Joan Cusack just screams and whines and wigs out. Blech. Ben Kingsley might have to return the Oscar if he doesn't start doling out a decent performance now and again. Pathetic.
It's not a terrible movie, but in the end you gotta ask "War, what is it good for?" Absolutely nothing. C-


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


user
Even the first 10 minutes of this movie were horrific. It's hard to believe that anybody other than John Cusack would have put money into this. With a string of anti-military/anti-war movies already being destroyed at the box office, it's almost inconceivable that a studio of any kind would want itself associated with this script.
At first, it may have seemed like some kind of politically motivated derivative of Grosse Point Blank with Akroyd and Cusack(s) all over again. But only about 90 seconds into the movie, it becomes obvious that this is a talentless attempt at DR STRANGELOVE.
I liked so many of Cusacks movies that I thought I would risk seeing the DVD of this one. I have to say that I don't know if Cusack is sane enough for me to even watch another feature starring him again unless somebody else can vouch for it. Cusack seems to be so irreparably damaged by his hatred for George Bush and the Iraq war that he is willing to commit career suicide. Tom Cruise was never close to being this far gone. Not even close.


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


user
Quite possibly the worst movie that I have ever seen. When has Hollywood ever made a successful movie that attacked Republicans? Why don't they learn. The Dixie chicks haven't. These Lefties live in their own elite bubble interacting among themselves; oblivious to the fact that most of America is much further right than they are.
The best Hollywood productions are not partisan and are rarely political at all.
Dan Akroyd's imitation of Cheney was bad.
I would have thought Cussack could have landed better movies.
It wasn't funny.


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


user
Just utter trash. I'm a huge fan of the Cusacks, this being the sole reason I watched this movie, but the only reason I can see for their presence was the reprise, in complete and depth less quality, their exact roles from Grosse Point Blanc. Apart from that, the films' role as a political satire fails miserably as being too obvious for even the most moronic out there to serve any purpose. And to bill it as a satirical satire would be just plain insulting even to chimps. Imitation is, apparently the highest form of flattery, but seeing as though this is nothing near Grosse Point Blanc and in the same league as meet the (watch if your a moron) Spartans in terms of political satire, lets leave well enough alone and let this one fade into the obscurity it absolutely deserves.


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


user
With this cast and budget you will expect more.
John Cusack has made a number movies that border on the strange, yet still work. Neither he, his sister, nor Sir Ben could do anything to save this travesty of trite poorly written garbage.
The movie is nothing more than a series of sight gags and poor ones at that. The plot goes nowhere, the writing is contrived, senseless and the characters paper thin. If you think of a movie as being three dimensional where the story and characters bring a depth to the imagery, this stinker comes across as flat as steamboat mickey.
Dan Akroyd's appearance in this brought back memories of another truly awful movie, 1991's Nothing but Trouble. Frankly this movie is the type of project that kills careers and gets agents fired.


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


user
First things first: I'm not a conservative. And even though I would never refer to myself as a liberal or a Democrat, I was opposed to the war in Iraq from day one. I think it's safe to say John Cusack and I would probably see eye-to-eye on politics, in fact, I'm sure we'd become drinking buddies if we ever got to talking about how great Adam Curtis' BBC docs are. My point is this: don't discredit this review by thinking I'm not a part of the choir Cusack is preaching to in War, Inc. There's no question WI's politics are tailored to appeal to my demographic, but the problem is, the tailoring is substandard and the the film Cusack co- wrote, produced and stars in, fits worse than a cheap suit.
As they say "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." Cusack, his co-writers, director Joshua Seftel and even the actors involved, no doubt had every intention of making an anti- war film every bit as biting and funny as Robert Altman's M*A*S*H, unfortunately for the viewer, they ended up with one as unfunny and unintelligent as Michael Moore's Canadian Bacon.
The current state of US politics, foreign policy and the war "effort" is already absurd and, as a result, tragic, pathetic and, regrettably comical -- just watch The Daily Show and see for yourself. The bottom line is: you can't write material as funny as what the Bush administration provides us on a daily basis, so why try to compete?
The main problem with WI is that it feels it was put together in a hurry. To get it done, Cusack basically cannibalized Grosse Pointe Blank (one of his best films), changed the setting and crammed in a shopping list of ideas lifted from the collected works of Naomi Klein. Most of these ideas are rammed down your throat in the first twenty minutes of the film and what makes them so obnoxious is none of the jokes or gags or deliberately obvious references to Halliburton, the Neo-Cons and the US occupation of Iraq, are imaginative, clever or funny. The writers are so blinded by their own dogma they felt that by simply referencing these issues the film would be funny and subversive. The trouble is...it isn't. By now these ideas are yesterday's news and unless you've been living under or rock or are so blinded by ignorance, denial and sheer stupidity (read: a right-wing Christian), these jokes insultingly simple.
Perhaps WI would work if it was more nuanced, subversive, offensive and fattened up with detailed research/insights into the Occupation. As it is, the jokes and sight gags are all surface and are so bad, with so little finesse, subtlety or satirical wickedness, they did little more than make me groan. Homer Simpson once said "It's funny 'cause it's true" and The Daily Show proves this every night; War, Inc. however proves that just because it's true doesn't make it funny. The bottom line: hyperbole isn't required when it comes to lampooning US/Neo-Conservative politics...it's already a big enough joke.
http://eattheblinds.blogspot.com/


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 tried to be too many things all at once: stinging political satire, Hollywood blockbuster, sappy romantic comedy, family values promo... the list goes on and on. It failed miserably at all of them, but there was enough interest to keep me from turning it off until the end.
Although I appreciate the spirit behind WAR, INC., it depresses me to see such a clumsy effort, especially when it will be taken by its targets to reflect the lack of the existence of a serious critique, rather than simply the poor writing, direction, and production of this particular film.
There is a critique to be made about the corporatization of war. But poking fun at it in this way diminishes the true atrocity of what is happening. Reminds me a bit of THREE KINGS, which similarly trivializes a genuine cause for concern.


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


user
I wanted to see an action comedy with a satirical twist (as this film was touted) but this one failed me miserably. For me, the plot was a bit confusing to follow and I rapidly lost interest. I feel so sorry for John Cusack, Joan Cusack, Ben Kingsley, Marisa Tomei and Hillary Duff for getting involved with this movie. I'll remain a fan of all of them but only time can heal my feeling over this one. The one thing I can say positively about the film is that Hillary played Yonica's character so well that I didn't even recognize Hillary; it took me a few scenes to realize that it was her. Luckily I rented it for $1 through Red Box; had I paid to see it in on the big screen, I would be really fuming!!


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


user
I guess I am coming late to the party. I just saw this 1995 version of Bye Bye Birdy on Sky TV. I didn't know it existed and was fully prepared to see the 1963 film version when I turned it on.
I played Albert a long time ago and I am thinking of putting on an amateur production of the show because I remembered it as being so much fun to do. I was not impressed with this newer version. It just wasn't enough fun. It was not colorful. It lacked the exuberance of youth. The lighting was bad. No one seemed to mention this fact. This is not a moody musical, it is bright and up beat. The lighting decision was a poor creative choice.
Bye Bye Birdy is a farce, a comedy of errors. I got no sense of that in this version. The lighting was awful and it dulled the overall performances. The dance numbers seemed anemic as well. We do have music videos these day. At least the dance numbers should have measured up to some of the best of those, or how about some of the best of Broadway. The choreographer was asleep at the wheel it seemed.
Although all the actors were supremely talented, there were some really bad casting choices. Vanessa Williams is not Latin, and with so many talented Latin performers out there, wouldn't it have been more correct to cast one of them in the role of Rosie. Vanessa is African American, lovely and talented, but bad casting. Jason Alexander's effort was astounding, he always does intelligent work, but he just wasn't Albert. He was miscast and I think that is obvious to most people who see this version.
The medium of film is not the medium of stage. There needs to be translation from one medium to another. The exuberance and the flash of stage musical must be TRANSLATED to film. There is no merit being faithful to a stage script when it is being filmed. The spirit, the essence of the production must be brought forth. To me the 1963 film production of Bye Bye Birdy was bright and lively, while the 1995 production was as gloomy as the lighting and as lackluster as the dance numbers. It turned out to be an unfortunate waste of effort by many really talented people.


assistant
0