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
It's sad when you can see what a movie was attempting to do, and it is quite obvious that it fell far far short of the mark. Film students should take this as a lesson and a warning. Would be graduate has an idea. He wants total control. So he writes, directs, produces, his cinematic masterpiece all by himself. Usually, his concept is far beyond his budget. Usually he writes an overblown script full of every tag line he can come up with. Usually, he is more interested in the grand sweep of the story rather than on the nitty gritty of working with actors on individual scenes. Usually, he ends up with a movie that is feeble in it's attempt to create miracles on a tiny budget. Usually, he ends up with a series of encounters (we cannot do justice by calling them scenes) that feel like they were written by a 12 year old. And usually he ends up with badly acted scenes that fail to grab the viewer. When you look at Judges from this perspective you can immediately tell it's just the usual fare.


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 high hopes for this movie. The theater monologue is great and Nic Balthazar is a very interesting man, with a lot of experience and knowledge when it comes to movies.
I am a fan of a lot of Belgian movies, but this movie is bad. It's completely unbelievable that actors who are 34 are suddenly playing the roles of teenagers. The "linguistic games" were hideous and over the top. Nothing about the film seemed real to me. The ending was way too deus ex machina for me.
I am very disappointed and think I wasted an hour and a half of my life.


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


user
Oh my goodness. This was a real big mess that just couldn't help itself. Jeffrey (Jon Heder) is a 29 year old man still living with his mum (Diane Keaton) and not planning on going anywhere. Until his mother meets a rich businessman named Mert (Jeff Daniels) who she may be getting married to.
It would have been an OK movie if Heder didn't play his Jeffrey so annoying, from the very start there is no chance of liking him and it only gets worse and worse. In the end, we are supposed to like him, but there was no reason to as he hadn't changed from the selfish brute that he was at the beginning of the movie.
Keaton doesn't look to even be trying and is in horrible form after 2007's Because I Said So. Not to mention the shocking chemistry between Heder and Keaton, and where supposed to believe that their mother and son? The only saving grace is Jeff Daniels and Anna Faris although they don't look very interested either. Apart from a few little smiles, this film really doesn't deserve to be called a comedy simply because there is barely anything to laugh at! If your in the mood for a recent Diane Keaton flick watch Mad Money or Smother which are a lot better than this abysmal effort.


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


user
Starts really well, nice intro and build up for the main characters but after about 5 minutes, the charm is lost.
The character is in the same mould as the main protagonist from American Pie and Loser without the supporting cast or innovative storyline that made the Pie movies more of a commercial success.
Let's be honest - Heder's acting was pretty poor. Keaton, Daniels and Faris did their best but had no substantial plot or script to get their teeth into The movie just plods on without any pace or clear logical storyline justifying its length.
The ending is about as predictable as they come - so predictable I've ticked the spoilers box for this one line.
My advice: avoid at all costs unless you really really have nothing else to do/listen to or watch and even then you'll feel the producers just cheated you out of an hour and a half of your life.


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


user
...except for Jon Heder. This guy tanked the entire movie.
The plot sounded entertaining. A 29 year old slacker son(Heder)still lives with widowed mom (Keaton)who happens to meet a new love (Daniels). Slacker son is jealous and anxious to lose his comfortable life and tries to sabotage the relationship. He also meets a girl(Faris).
I really liked the performance of Daniels and especially Faris but whoever casted Hader would be better of selling hot dogs at the beach. Heders performance is annoying, which would be a good thing since he plays an annoying guy, problem is he is to bad an actor to loose this act making this guy likable in the finale. At the end you still wish you can personally punch the guy in the face and you're upset about the end. In the future every movie with this guy will be a no go for me!


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


user
The wife and I saw a preview of this movie while watching another DVD and thought "Jon Heder, Diane Keaton, Jeff Daniels and Eli Wallach, it's gotta be better than summer reruns, so I ordered it from local library. Well, any episode of "Lawrence Welk" would bring more laughs than "Mama's Boy". I actually felt sorry for the actors for having to read the script in the privacy of their own homes and I couldn't imagine what it must have been like for them to have to actually say their lines in front of a camera. Perhaps, at least, maybe next time they're offered a movie of this sort, they'll "Just Say No!' A one anna two....


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


user
This movie is poorly conceived, poorly acted, and poorly written.
Jon Heder is terribly annoying, and cannot escape the same Napolean Dynamite routine. Self-obsessed and ignorant.
Furthermore, Diane Keaton plays the same manish, overly obsessed mother, who cares too much and yet not nearly enough about the lives of her children (see Because I Said So).
Anna Faris, though i generally like her, plays a vapid idiot in this film as well.
Jeff Daniels is passable but nothing special.
Please, skip this film if you want to keep your soul.


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


user
Yet another "son who won't grow up" flick, and just the other recent like entries. Heder in another bad wig, channeling Napoleon for, what, the third time? Anna Faris is forgettable, as always; Jeff Daniels phoned this one in from another state, at least; and Diane Keaton...how does one become typecast this late in a career? Do not bother. Nothing is said here that hasn't been covered many times over. I will say this; it's about a hundred times better than "Failure To Launch". There are very few amusing bits in the movie, unless you think Eli Wallach cursing is funny. Ha, Ha! He's old and he dropped the f-bomb! Tee, hee, hee. Pitiful!


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


user
John Heder was absolutely horrendous in this movie. I felt like I was watching a bad college kid act for the first time in a student film. Anna Farris was par for the course, not good, but not horrible (plus she's cute). Dianne Keaton should have known better. Jeff Daniels was the only saving grace in this movie (even though it was poor judgement on his part as well).
All in all, I would avoid this at all costs. I'm just glad I didn't pay to see it!
John Heder will forever be stuck in the typecast role of' the dorky kid,' unless he does some SERIOUS work on his acting chops.


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


user
...in an otherwise ghastly, misbegotten, would-be Oedipal comedy.
I was the lone victim at a 7:20 screening tonight (3 days after the movie opened) , so there is some satisfaction in knowing that moviegoers heeded warnings.
The bloom is off Jon Heder's rose. The emerging double chin isn't his fault; but rehashing his geeky kid shtick in another bad wig simply isn't working. It would be another crime if this were to be Eli Wallach's last screen appearance. Diane Keaton will probably survive having taken this paycheck - basically because so few will have seen her in this, the very worst vehicle she's chosen in the last few weeks.
Sitting alone in the theater tonight I came alive (laughed, even) whenever Daniels was given the latitude in which to deliver the film's sole three dimensional character. He really is among our very best actors.
In summary, even Jeff Daniels's work can't redeem this picture.


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


user
I being of Puertorican descent, had mixed fillings about this "documentary". First I was offended that Ms. Perez compared Senor Campos to Che Guevarra. Also just a point of fact,Mr. John Leguzaimo is not of Puertorican descent.His parents came from Columbia. Whomever did research on this was not very accurate. I feel that the future of our race rests on education. This message should have been resounding throughout this film, Education is our road to freedom and power I think any future endeavors of this production team should make this their focus.In my opinion,this film swayed toward an anti-American sentiment.


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


user
I hated the way Ms. Perez portrayed Puerto Ricans! We are not all ghetto - and we do speak Spanish- not Puerto Rican! I can not speak for the uneducated persons you have run into. But our language is intact, our island is our pride. Puerto Rico is better off economically than any other Caribbean island! I'm glad we are not like Cuba, Dominican Republic or Haiti, free from American influence? Free in true poverty, not the U.S. standard of poverty. We are not victims we are resilient, humble,honest and intelligent people. Our ancestry does include strong African roots, but not "black" roots- I have nothing in common with Black Americans 9do the research).
The analogy between Pedro Albizu, Che Guevarra and Martin L. King could not be more off the mark.
MLK was a great hero a true revolutionary- an honest man who saw a day when we would all be free.
Che Guevarra helped Castro create the Cuba that is today, is that why boat fulls of Cubans risk their lives to come to America- because Che made such a better place for them? You had a great, awesome, bright idea but you politicized it too much. We have so many things to be proud of as a people - don't bring shame to our people by victimizing us. I am not a Nuyorican and perhaps that is why I can't share your views. I am Puerto Rican, I speak Spanish, I am not a victim and I have been able to accomplish many of my goals in America. If there is a part 2 in the future - less politics more history more stories of triumph- there are many.
Damaris Maldonado


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 so appalled by this documentary. I am deeply embarrassed and ashamed by the way Puertoricans were portrayed. This documentary was not about the culture of Puertoricans. It was about the culture of Nuyoricans. Puertoricans and Nuyoricans are two different cultures. Very different cultures and should not be generalized to the Puerto Rican population. Rosie, before you make a documentary, you need to do the research. You also need to check and make sure your sources are credible. Puerto Ricans are not all loud and they do have class, which is one thing the documentary lacked to show. When I saw Rosie and Jimmie on the View and Rosie on Martha Stewart I was very excited about watching. I even made sure to let my parents know since they love Puerto Rico so much. After the first five minutes I could not believe how the documentary bashed the US and made Puerto Ricans look like a bunch of guinea pigs. You need to go and visit Puerto Rico and you will see that Puerto Rico is not a 3rd world country where more than 50% of the population is in poverty. Puerto Rico has colleges and well known Universities, roads, cars, shopping centers, malls (The largest Kmart and JCPenney's I've ever seen), restaurants, theaters, beaches, hotels(Ritz, Hilton,etc.), casinos, churches, agriculture, Auto Expresso, and restaurants just to name a few. Poverty? NOT 50% of the population is. Puerto Rican culture is about family, music, food, celebrating, and trying to move forward not backward. Oh, and new cousins don't just pop up out of no where. No that is not a Puerto Rican thing, that is a ghetto thing. We are not bastards. Parents of Puertorican descent who would like to teach their children about Puerto Rico should invest in a trip with the family so they can see first hand what Puerto Rico is all about. They will see its beauty, people and culture. Please don't show them this documentary because it will only cloud their minds with negativity. Oh, and please don't tell your American friends to watch this documentary because it will only make the Puertorican people look ignorant.
Yes, I am born and raised PUERTO RICAN from the island. Just so you know!


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


user
I was excited to hear that someone had made a documentary on what it was like to be Puerto Rican. When I heard it was Rosie Perez, I wondered..could she possibly know what it is really like to be Puerto Rican. As far as I knew....she was a Nuyorican. Well anyway, I anxiously sat with my popcorn to watch. I realized 10 min into it that my initial apprehension was right. Rosie Perez has little knowledge about what it is like to be Puerto Rican. This "documentary" is more a 1st hand, very very personal account on what it is like to be a Nuyorican..and all of what that entails. She (like most of the Nuyoricans I know) have a watered down, partial and sometimes twisted sense of history. (How could they not..they live here.) Yes, all of them are proud. As they should be! But a lot don't know the ins and outs of the REAL culture, history and political background or language for the most part. It all became very very apparent with her participation in the Vieques issue. Regardless of my personal take is on this issue..at least I know what the hell the fight is for. There is she is getting arrested for something she knew little about.. and only participated in because it was a "Puerto Rican Cause" I really don't understand how she is not embarrassed to admit to it. For those of you that are not Puerto Rican, please view this as a partial account of a woman's journey of self discovery and acceptance. Do not take this as gospel...a lot of it isn't even true. Please consider the source. Rosie is an actress; not a historian. This movie is not and should never be, for other Nuyoricans, the base for their information. Instead, just a step towards finding more info, learning and debating what the reality is. Not just the one coming from this woman's eyes.


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


user
Rosie wasted a lot of TV time talking about the Tainos as if they were super influential in the dynamics of the modern day Puerto Rican. They were not. The truth is that the Africans and the Spanish were and she knows it. What kills me is that she is standing on the screen looking like some average light skin black chick ( with an obvious black daddy, cousins and auntie)pretending to truly acknowledge the real essence of what makes them the modern day Puerto Ricans,but barely mentioned how Africans influenced the way their Spanish is spoken, the food and music. She is so typical and I lost a lot of respect for her and will not support anything else she does. Also, since she wants to dance around her African-ness then she need not take more roles associated with blackness (i.e. Lackawanna Blues). We can find a prideful Black Latina next time (thank you Zoe Saldana,Gina Torres, Gina Ravera and Melissa DeSousa).
To the Puerto Rican on here that said they are African and not "black"....thank you. We "blacks" certainly do not have anything in common with "you" so there is no love lost. But, since you are probably in the States and have benefited from the Civil Rights movement we would like for you refuse any decent human treatment you received courtesy of the blood ,sweat and tears from the backs of the "blacks" you share nothing with.
If I am correct Puerto Ricans have a terrible image in the media, but we blacks do not spend our time trying to disrespect you because we know that the media loves to exploits the low points and behaviors of all minorities to maintain mindless generalizations. However, you evidently have fed into the hype that one you are somehow white or superior...you are not. Also, you somehow feel compelled to believe that black culture is BET...again you are incorrect and need to take a vacation out of the hood. Try visiting Atlanta, Ga., Houston, Texas, Charlotte, N.C. Trust me none of those blacks want to claim your "culture" either.


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 Puerto Rican and this is one of the worst documentary of I've ever seen of any type. You can see that the people on it are clueless. They don't know much about Puerto Rico and its culture. They claim to be Puerto Rican because they are from Puerto Rican descendants, but they probably know less than others who are not from there. You can see while they are talking that they are contradicting themselves. If you would like to see a real, and I mean a real, genuine documentary from Puerto Rico, then you must see "Mi Puerto Rico". That's a serious, real documentary. Not like this piece of junk. Rosie Perez based this documentary on herself. I thought it was suppose to be about Puerto Ricans. They keep repeating I didn't know. Well, that's about the only thing they got right on this so called documentary. I hate to see such a piece of garbage being done using the name of the Island. It brings down the standards.


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


user
I sat down to watch a documentary about Puerto Rico, and I ended up watching one about Nuyoricans. When I go to Puerto Rico, I fail to see the 50% that live in poverty. When I do see struggling people, they are usually Haitians, Dominicans, or Cubans that have recently arrived to the island. There is no such thing as spanglish... either you speak Spanish, or you don't.... and from what I heard... you don't. Pedro Albizo Campos IS NOT MLK to me. MLK was a great man. Campos is a great man to those that want independence which is 1%. To the rest he as loco as Osama Bin Laden. Puertoricans that want independence are a bunch of fools. If you want any proof to all of you dreamers of an independent Puerto Rico see Cuba, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Bahamas, all of South and Central America, and Mexico. Its worked wonders for them. This documentary is not about Puerto Rico, this documentary was about the Nuyoricans and their struggles.
To the person that complaint that not enough of Africa was on the show... it was suppose to be about Puerto Rico... not Africa. Denzel will make one shortly just for you.
In conclusion... to all those ignorant white people that think we need green cards to come to the US, and want to learn how the prime minister runs things, this is not a good documentary about Puertorican culture. Tell your kids to pay attention in Geography, and History class.
***Update***
Bocabonita... "doc." was about Nuyoricans. She promoted it as if its how we all feel. Should have been titled... "yo soy nuyorican... lunche...can't speak Spanish." PLEASE STOP USING PUERTO RICO, RICAN, BORICUA, OR ANYTHING ELSE ASSOCIATED WITH PR WITH THIS NUYORICAN HISTORICAL LESSON. God forbid they play this on the island.


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


user
Yes, this was pure unbelievable condescending babble. We know that the French often have a skewed idea of the USA, it's puritanism and views towards sex. As an American (Hoosier) who lives in France, I have ample opportunity to observe these attitudes. And while some of these preconceived notions may be true, NOT ONE ELEMENT of the midwestern town portrayed in this film rang real. A man who has never had sex because he was told in high school 20 years prior that his penis is too big? Where in the world would you find that? A juke box in a bar that plays only vintage bluegrass? A town with maybe 16 people less than two hours away from Chicago, but with no major gas station, no Tvs in the home, no McDonalds, no kids... A population that knows each other's intimate details yet relentlessly gets together like one big family that hates each other. The adult males plant whoopee cushions at the local cafe, have farms but don't harvest, kill the guy they don't like in front of everyone and seem to get away with it, and all with equal emotion? The liberated French girl who will screw the 17 year old virgin boy because of her sexual generosity, the too much flesh guy who goes from getting off in cornfields by the mere breath of an Illinois breeze to helping deflower this same 17 year old farm boy? HELP! I am so baffled and astounded by the absurdity of this film that I am not expressing clearly how ridiculous it is. Go see it for the A-to-Z primer on what to avoid. Gosh, I hope I didn't ruin it for you!


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


user
Kind of drawn in by the erotic scenes, only to realize this was one of the most amateurish and unbelievable bits of film I've ever seen. Sort of like a high school film project. What was Rosanna Arquette thinking?? And what was with all those stock characters in that bizarre supposed Midwest town? Pretty hard to get involved with this one. No lessons to be learned from it, no brilliant insights, just stilted and quite ridiculous (but lots of skin, if that intrigues you) videotaped nonsense....What was with the bisexual relationship, out of nowhere, after all the heterosexual encounters. And what was with that absurd dance, with everybody playing their stereotyped roles? Give this one a pass, it's like a million other miles of bad, wasted film, money that could have been spent on starving children or Aids in Africa.....


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


user
Jean-Marc Barr (Being Light, The big blue, Dogville) has directed and interpreted this strange movie which is the second installment of some kind of trilogy. I might be wrong but I don't think this movie's part of the Dogma '95 manifesto, though it really looks like it. I'm not really sure of what I think about this film. All actors are good. They deliver pretty good performances, especially Rosanna Arquette and Jean-Marc Barr. The story is somehow interesting. But I don't know, there's something about the movie that I don't like. The sex scenes are way too long. It goes from an interesting work of art to an erotic piece of crap I don't know exactly where it stands. Sure it's not a bad movie, but I won't suggest people to see it neither I'll tell them not to watch. Just do as you want. If you feel curious and you're open-minded, give it a try, you might like it.


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


user
The TV productions at the 2000's start were between weak and bad. Before marks like (Alias, Lost, Prison Break, Desperate Housewives, or Monk) the TV didn't have the right hit yet, which could capture the attention and the interests of the 2000s' viewer. Titles like (Relic Hunter), (Mutant X), (The Lost World), (Sheena), or even (Baywatch Hawaii) weren't encouraging for you to watch and follow, or at least weren't that captivating and interesting all the time as what preceded them. (Special Unit 2) was no exception. In fact it's Men in Black meets The X Files' spoof ! (As if these were the special unit 1). But even according to this brilliant formula; it didn't work well. It was promising; at the time there was some saturation out of the "supernatural" cases after a decade of many X files already, so the natural spirit to lampoon it naughtily too (imagine Mulder as womanizer !). However (Special Unit 2) wasn't the strongest in this, or a strong when it comes to make a comic Sci-Fi show. It was highly ridiculous, where for instance every sexy situation must turn into ugly disgusting one. It enjoyed that bad taste sickeningly. (Michael Landes) was non-charismatic and mostly unbearable as a comedian. His chemistry with (Alexondra Lee), as well as any supposed sexual attention, was all languid. Sure the show got a funny look but overall it was unfunny work. It's clear that there was nothing more interesting than its main idea. Among (Evan Katz)'s other works as a co-writer and a co-producer like (Seven Days) before or (24) later this must be a low point !. Despite the distinctive personality, it managed to be a silly jest for most of the time. Therefore if that was there goal, so they made one of the silliest indeed ! And truly, it would be one of the rarest times to be thankful for the cancellation of a show after 19 episodes of it only !


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


user
This show had pretty good stories, but bad dialog. The main character was especially annoying. It's quite obvious why this show was canceled, although, like most UPN shows, I never knew it even existed until it was in syndicated re-runs.
Most of it's plots seemed to be copied from other shows and movies, leading me to think the producers didn't have an original idea in their heads.
I haven't commented enough. You've got to have at least ten lines of text. The special effect were not bad for a 2001 show.
The gnome was a nice character.


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


user
A great concept gone wrong. Poor acting, even worse writing....After watching the first two episodes I was wondering why it ever made it to season two. The characters are forgettable, the writing is poor, the sets are just OK. The special effects are simply sad - so much better has been made in the same time-frame - where is the money going on this one? The first episode starts out interesting then goes downhill fast - the precept of the whole show is just silly. Now don't get me wrong, I am a huge Sci-Fi fan and 'geek' - but this show simply doesn't cut it. As I said in the beginning, I am truly surprised it made it to season two - so much better has been canceled after only one season (Jake 2.0 for example). This show was just bad.


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


user
A well-intentioned movie about Sonja Horowitz (Renée Zellweger), the wife of devout Talmudic scholar Mendel (Glenn Fitzgerald). who is deeply unhappy. Mendel's brother Sender (Christopher Eccleston) sees this and hires her to work in the field in which she's already an expertjewelry. He also starts an affair with her, and then when she spends time with a Puerto Rican artist, he dumps her and betrays her to the family, which shuts her out. There's a subplot in which Sonja's dead brother talks to her, and apparently takes the form of a magical beggar woman, but why is not clear. Much is not clear, unfortunately, including what is going on with Sonja, why she tells the Rebbe there's a fire inside her and maybe it's not from god, and what this means, and what the magical beggar woman tells her means. To an extent the story touches on the plight of women in the ultra-orthodox community, and yet Sonja is not exactly liberated. Nor is the notion of being redeemed by the love of a man of another race very well-thought-out. The title comes from the biblical definition of the worth of a good womanand yet it's the bastard Sender who quotes it to Sonja. Zellweger struggles with the part; she's supposed to be a Jew from the mid-west and sometimes her accent is flat, and at other times it's taken on the characteristic sounds of Brooklyn. She's at her best when she's being tough and taking charge, but ultimately the movie's a mess.


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


user
The movie is steeped in religion, so it is impossible to separate it from religion in commenting upon it. In my opinion, this movie pretends to explore deep issues, but thrives on stereotypes and prejudices; with little true insight. What the people in the movie (and therefore, the writer) failed to see was grace. They failed to understand that God is the author of beauty and He is the Creator of passion and sexual gratification in the proper context of marriage bonds. To imply that the people of the society in which the story is based believe that nudity is sinful, and both the man & the woman enjoying the act of marriage is dirty, is just an oversimplification. Such stereotypes really don't exist, for even Jewish holy writings speak clearly of the caring husband who will seek his wife's pleasure before his own. Scripture says that a man ought to love his wife as his own flesh, and that no man ever hated his own flesh, but he nourishes and cherishes it. Even if you want to ignore the New Testament, the writers & characters completely ignore that there are passages such as the Song of Solomon in the Old Testament, and the even the book of Proverbs which says, "Rejoice in the wife of thy youth, let her breasts satisfy you always"! How can that be read in any way other way than that God knows, and approves of, and smiles on, the marital union and the enjoyment thereof? Real men don't ignore the value and needs of their wives. Those that do deny a very basic teaching of the Judeo/Christian religion. God NEVER said those things. It's absurd. Sonia rebelled because of the misapplication of the teachings of the true God of Abraham. It didn't need to be so. How sad. What Sonia desperately needed was TRUTH, not tradition. In knowing, loving and obeying God, we love others more; before ourselves. That is the faith of the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob & Joseph; once for all delivered to the Saints; bought & paid for by Jesus Christ, the Righteous. But alright, ignore all this and abandon ancient, holy Scripture and turn to the wisdom of homeless people & ghosts. That's a good plan. I would never recommend this movie; partly because the sexual content is unnecessarily graphic, but also because it really doesn't offer any valuable insight. Check out "Yentl" if you want to see a much more useful treatment of Jewish tradition at odds with society.


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


user
OK, admittedly as an Orthodox woman who LIVES in Boro Park, I'm going to be a little biased against this film. However, it seemed that Boaz Yakin's sole purpose in making this film was Orthodox-bashing. With our wigs, modest attire, and separate seating, we're a pretty easy target already. Yakin never made it past the surface. The result is a film with more holes than Swiss cheese: 1. Yosi tells Sonia off for loving him more than G-d or their parents. Then he deliberately defies his father's order that he not go swimming because of his poor health. 2. Sonia flips out at her son's bris. Why would a Hasidic woman from Monsey have such a strong reaction? It's hard to believe that she never attended one before. Let's face it, even Reform Jews hold bris milah ceremonies nowadays. 3. Was Mendel sleeping during his chosson classes? He's supposed to satisfy his wife's passions in bed and refrain from kissing her in the street. Especially in the middle of the busiest street in Boro Park! 4. Sonia and Mendel had to have been married for over a year, and he just now noticed that they were not meant for each other? A little clue--arranged marriage does not mean that the girl has to take the first guy her parents set her up with. Nor will she be shunned by the community if the marriage doesn't work out. 5. If Sonia really wanted to get into the jewelry business that badly, she did not have to go through her lecherous brother-in-law. There are Orthodox female doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc. Sonia came off as more whiny than sympathetic. Instead of taking control of her life, she sat back and waited for things to happen, and then complained that she didn't like the outcome. That's not standing up to one's environment; that's pandering to stereotype. Frankly, I think she got what she deserved.


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


user
We can start with the wooden acting but this film is a disaster. Having grown up in NY I can tell you that this film is an insult to anyone who is familiar with the community or the people. I'm not even a defender of the culture in any way and found this to be a Hollywoodized piece of trash to fit its own fictional, ridiculous culture presentation and language that anyone who watches Seinfeld knows is inaccurate. This is a colossal waste of time and, even worse, is not exactly interesting since the outcome is obvious and the scenes of confrontation are laughably bad. Who acts this way? Nobody.
The writer's name sounds Israeli or something of that nature but it is clear he doesn't have a clue about the subject he is writing about. Looking at his bio, it is shocking he lived in New York and wonder how much real connection he had with the community. Even mediocre films like "A Stranger Among Us" are better and more closer to the truth than this dreck. Reading this guy's credits it's no wonder he has written scripts on all C grade films that somehow feature stars. shocking. Perhaps he knows someone because this script is even below par for a bad Dolph Lundgren film.


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


user
This film has so little class in comparison to Strangers on a Train or even, Accidental Meeting for that matter, that despite plot similarities I wouldn't feel right in actually comparing this to either of them. The Yancy Butler character came across as such a dopey dimwit I was too embarrassed for the writer and director to continue watching.
I don't enjoy many Lifetime movies but feel compelled to watch one every now and then in the interest of promoting harmony at home. I often groan silently but this film caused me to protest out loud, stand up leave the room and walk around the house mumbling to myself, before I returned to my normally favorite chair to subject myself to more torture.
Dean Morgan, Rochester, NY


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


user
This movie was so bad it was laughable. I couldn't resist watching it though. The plot is standard, the acting quite horrible (supporting cast such as the nutty neighbor and the lawyer friend were better actors). Kind of amusing if you have some time to waste and like seeing the conclusion to a dramatic plot.
The headliner who plays "Kathy" was just fascinating because I couldn't decide if her deadpan, flat affect was the result of bad surgery or simply bad acting (I decided it was both). This leaves the script to comment on, which was pretty awful. Pat remarks, idiotic decisions, and reckless stupidity on the part of every character in the movie. Maybe this is what was so riveting; I don't know. I just watched it to see how bad it could be. (Actually the dialog doesn't even qualify to be called "cliche'" - but it's almost completely inane.)
All in all, very bad, cheaply made movie. The sets, the same scenes (a house, a building) were shown over and over with no artistry or actual tie-in to the action; more like props that were randomly dropped into the action in a bad play. A chase scene could have been shot by any juvenile in a warehouse or an old school: poorly shot, cheap props, minimal action.... and I still wanted to see the ending. Go figure.


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


user
oh my god, i give this film three stars out of ten for the following reasons. the final sequence is once again quite effectively handled and it was absolutely hilarious. that is what it gets those three points for. other than that, it was atrocious. it wasnt meant to be this funny, that much is obvious, but the dubbing, the acting of the dubbed voices, the dialogue they said, where often hilarious. the actions performed, and/or not performed also lead to much hilarity and/or throwing things at the screen. such as when the whole town is being slaughtered and one small group of people stand on a balcony looking on as if they were watching a cooking glass, or the "attempted" escapes from the church in which they hole up.
evil mayor: i think something is going on outside so you should go upstairs and look out the window.
hero: ok.
evil mayor: now is my chance to make some idiot go outside and flail around with fire being totally ineffective and getting hacked up.
insert sequence in which this occurs.
evil mayor: damn, wait, i will get this small child and she will walk outside and cry pappa seemingly obvlious to the fact that those rotten corpses are not just spooky strangers but are actually zombies with no flesh or skin or anything and she will lead them away and i will flee! insert sequence in which this occurs.
hero (upstairs): he is trying to escape again, fool, and he has left the door open, he is silly, this is a nice view.
woman: where is my daughter?
hero (downstairs now): i dont know, i cannot see her anyway and she was not outside because i could not see her despite her being out there and me having a view of the entire neighbourhood and she is standing right outside, where on earth could she be?
needless to say, anybody would be throwing things at the screen after 10 minutes of this. so, watch the first film with a couple of friends, having a few drinks, and make sure by the time you get to watching this one, you are absolutely blindly drunk and can just giggle at the stupidity of it all. and there wasnt even any decent gore, such a 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 superior inferiority to the original dumb "Blind Dead" movie is another trash bin waste. So many people have hyped up these films that I can't believe what they say about it. Since I was a kid I have heard about how scary and great these films are and I saw them all and was throughly disappointed, was everyone on drugs, from the 1970's or do they just not know how boring this crude is?


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


user
My first exposure to the Templarios & not a good one. I was excited to find this title among the offerings from Anchor Bay Video, which has brought us other cult classics such as "Spider Baby". The print quality is excellent, but this alone can't hide the fact that the film is deadly dull. There's a thrilling opening sequence in which the villagers exact a terrible revenge on the Templars (& set the whole thing in motion), but everything else in the movie is slow, ponderous &, ultimately, unfulfilling. Adding insult to injury: the movie was dubbed, not subtitled, as promised on the video jacket.


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


user
beyond the fact crazy people exist and there are religious nuts out there.
The characters basically make no sense most of the time.
The film has no real beginning, middle or ending, nor is anything ever explained much.
The film opens with a young man, with the unlikely name of Hazel Motes, apparently returning from a stint in the army.
He hitches a ride to a two story house that is in extreme disrepair, windows boarded over. He goes in the house, walks around and finally writes a note that he leaves there. This scene comes to nothing, and we learn nothing further about the house or its history.
It is never explained exactly whose house this is, or where the people have gone, but we are given the impression Hazel has probably lived there at one time.
Hazel decides to go to a city. Why - we don't know. Once he arrives in this city he writes down a name & address that he sees on a bathroom wall, and goes to visit this woman, who is a surprisingly fat hooker. He sees her for awhile and then he apparently isn't seeing her anymore. Like everything else in this movie, it comes to nothing and serves no purpose.
A young man named Enoch, tries to befriend him, but Hazel really isn't interested, although they keep crossing paths.
Enoch is about as crazy as you can get. One of his habits is to go to the zoo and stand in front of the cage where the chimps are and talk at them insultingly.
We never really know why Enoch behaves as he does, or why Hazel behaves as he does, beyond the fact Hazel had an overdose of old time scary, fundamentalist religion via his grandfather.
Enoch later becomes enthralled with a man who dresses in a gorilla suit, and manages to get the gorilla suit from him and then runs around in it.
Hazel, who is wound rather tight and seems to be in a constant borderline rage does a bit of street preaching. I got the impression he was trying to free himself from the untruths of the religion that had been drilled into him.
He has several encounters with a preacher and his daughter, although their interactions never really make any particular point, and there is no plot line.
Eventually Hazel succumbs to complete religious fervor and begins self-harming.
It is a very odd film. Interesting in it's oddness but other than that it has absolutely nothing going for it.
The cast does an outstanding job,but this film completely fails to deliver either a point of view or a storyline.
The film also has the characters tossing around the N word from time to time with no connection to the rest of the dialog.
2 stars


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


user
I realize that bringing a novel to the big screen is always problematic. That is the only positive thing I can say about this truly horrid adaptation.
Have you read 'Wise Blood?' It's an amazing book. Flannery O'Connor wrote about the south as no one else has. She was a southerner herself, a devout catholic, and a remarkably gifted writer. In her first novel she wove together a dark and deeply disturbing tale of faith, doubt, and redemption with a macabre sense of humor and surprising evenhandedness. The characters in the book may seem outrageous to those who have not lived in the rural south, but I can assure you that such people do exist. Not only do they exist, they are human beings with families, feelings, and concerns like anyone else. Flannery's intentions were so often misunderstood - she was not lampooning these backwoods zealots - she saw in them the beautiful operation of what she would have called 'grace'...even in the most violent, distressing, and maddening of circumstances. To read 'Wise Blood' is to be washed over with a sense of dread and impending doom. Finally, it is to think long and hard about our judgments and preconceptions - our entire world view.
None of this comes through in John Huston's 'Gilligan's Island'-like adaptation. None. It is a farce. A bad farce. The entire film is saturated with a hauteur that turns the stomach. The acting is poor, the southern accents are fake and insulting. The filmmakers show no insight into the thinking of religious southerners. Ms. O'Connor's intense prose are reduced to sight gags and cheap, amateur theatre. The soundtrack is a mixture of hayseed silliness and 'Clockwork Orange'-style cheeseball electronics that doesn't fit the story or even the MOVIE. I was granted free admission to this movie and almost walked out. Truly, truly terrible.
As an aside, I do not agree with Ms. O'Connor's religious views, and while I was raised in the deep south, years ago I made my way north and have not looked back. But the south is a beautiful place full of fascinating individuals (like every other place on earth), and the cartoonish mockery with which southerners and their attitudes are dealt in this movie borders on offensive. If you're into being offended (which I am not), then this movie most DEFINITELY crosses the line.
I don't like to talk crap about an artist's work - John Huston was a man that I did not know, and I'm sure he was a sincere and gifted filmmaker, to which his respected place in film history attests. My views are clearly skewed by having read (and loved) Flannery O'Connor's work. So I don't claim to be coming from any other perspective. Maybe as a stand-alone film it works for cinephiles. But for Flannery O'Connor fans - and, I might add, for self-respecting southerners and openminded individuals of all stripes - this movie is a waste of time.


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


user
John Huston's Wise Blood was a more horrifying misrepresentation of Flannery O'Connor's book than I could have imagined. From the utterly terrible acting performances (and don't you, "Oh that was done on purpose, you just don't get it" me!) to the musical score that was more suited to an episode of Rockford Files, this film was revolting. I viewed it with no ill-will at the outset, and, in fact, expected a pleasant experience. But the misrepresentation of the southern characters, from the ridiculously fraudulent southern drawl to the lilting, comedic way their faith was portrayed, was inexcusable. Right down to it's end, which was completely devoid of any character sentiment, it failed in every place that O'Connor's book shined and resonated. The actors portraying the "southern" policemen may as well have been eating smothered hot-dogs from NYC street stands and quoting Godfather. The one redeeming acting performance was Ned Beatty's lively and dead-on representation of Hoover Shoates, a religious con-artist who hears Moates preaching the Church of Christ Without Christ and sees dollar signs and business opportunities. O'Connor's powerful book is most well-known for it's creepy, religious undercurrent that jibes the seemingly lifeless cadaver of "Faith". Mr. Huston's film is a shameful mockery of the author's intentions, as they are understood by me and most of her fans, if I may be so bold as to say so. While I acknowledge that I can't know exactly what the author wished to convey, I have enough affection for her and her works to desire to remain a fan. If I viewed Wise Blood the way Mr. Huston apparently did, I would have thrown it in the trash. For Flannery's sake, and mine, I forgive you, John Huston. The forgetting....that will take some time.


assistant
0