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
Not long enough to be feature length and not abrupt enough to a short, this thing exists for one reason, to have a lesbian three-way. There are worse reasons to exist. One sad thing is that this could have made a decent feature length movie. Misty fits snuggly into her outfit and is a very cocky girl and when people are so infatuated with a game character, like Lara Croft, that they make nude calenders of her, you know that a soft-core flick is set to explode. Unfortunately, this is pretty pathetic. Especially the painfully fake sex scene between Darian and Misty, where you can see her hand is fingering air. Watch this if you just can't get enough of Misty or Ruby, who makes a nice blonde and has zee verst jerman akcent ever.


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


user
I can't say I'm all that experienced in misty Mundae flicks having seen only a handful, but it's obvious that this was made on a shoestring, and while it might have been respectable that the filmmakers were able to make a Tomb Raider rip-off inside a garage, it isn't because it's completely obvious that this is what they were doing. The film only runs for forty five minutes, and this is definitely a good thing as there isn't nearly enough plot here to stretch it out for any longer. It has something to do with an evil Nazi scientist (who looks about as evil as a porn star playing a Nazi scientist ever could), a mummy, which is clearly a man wrapped up in toilet roll and Misty - this film's version of Tomb Raider, who keeps her top on for much less time than Angelina Jolie did in the big budget version. I have to say that even in spite of its shortcomings, this film could have been better. It's got Misty Mundae for a start, and even better than that if you ask me is the fact that it also stars the even hotter Darian Caine. The pair gets to engage in all the lesbian sex that you would expect from a Seduction Cinema film and this is at the expense of the nonexistent plot, although that isn't really a bad thing. Obviously, this is a rubbish film - but the fact that it's short is to its credit, and if you're after a bit of lesbian sex, you could do worse.


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


user
**MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS**
The titular topless heroine rescues another beautiful babe and her father (an eccentric professor whose stock pith helmet is broken in one shot and whole in the next) from a moth-eaten, dime-store mummy and nasty Nazis out to--what else?--build a Fourth Reich. Misty's costume, like those of some other wimmen, gets skimpier as the movie rolls on. The last portion of the movie is devoted to protracted lesbian action; this footage actually gets real boring, real fast, which says more about the critters behind the camera than the curvaceous creatures in front of it. MISTY gets its nominal plot out of the way first and fast, then gives undivided attention to nudity and soft-core sex. This makes MUMMY RAIDER a throwback to movies made in the 1960s by guys like Stan Borden, David F. Friedman and Harry Novak. Just think: if this wonder-work had been cranked out four decades ago, it would have played for years on 42nd Street along with WHAM BAM THANK YOU SPACEMAN and KISS ME QUICK. As it is, MISTY MUNDAE MUMMY RAIDER went straight to home video. Grab yours, quick, before it goes out of print.


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


user
There is no way on earth you are going to care about any of these characters. A bunch of spoilt middle class overgrown kids take some drugs at a party and get off with each other and argue. I've just seen this on TV and I didn't think it was a 'film' as such, more a post-'This Life' indulgence that really has no resonance or proper drama to it. Stuff like this will get commissioned for time immemorial unfortunately, irrelevant middle class "lifestyle" crap that takes itself far too seriously. It's got David Baddiel in it and that bird out of "Cold Feet", you know what to expect. There was a lot of this stuff about in 2000, it was a particularly British malaise..."they're educated and doing drugs? friends, but kinda dysfunctional and with incestuous relationships? sounds great!". This kind of nonsense, and post-Guy Ritchie comedy- gangster stuff...dark days. If you have taste, this will annoy you to the point of violence.


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


user
I'm rarely moved to make a comment online about a film. But I can't understand how this one got made. Who made it? How could they have possibly thought they were capable of making a feature film? Did they do a weekend course at some film school, get a nice big cheque from daddy and kidnap David Badiel's family one by one until he agreed to be in it? Or was he by any chance a longtime family friend/distant relation doing this out of sheer, misplaced kindness? I don't care, don't want to know. Even he looks utterly embarrassed to be in it, mumbling his lines and hiding his face from the camera. Meanwhile the DOP must have been the gaffer from Neighbours, there seemed to be absolutely no sound design, the script, the direction and editing were all abysmal, and quite frankly the apathy that overwhelms me right now means that I can't be bothered to spend any more of my life thinking about this film.


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


user
do not be suckered into renting this movie. It has nothing to do with an escape from death row, despite the (english) title. I can't think of a single good thing to say about the movie. Poor acting, poor editing, poor directing... laughable "plot", and the sound/music was so irritating, it's a wonder this movie doesn't come with a warning label. The only possible way to sit through this movie and enjoy it is for it's historical cheesiness quality. They just don't make films this bad anymore.


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


user
Kalifornia is disturbing. I believe there is no reason for this story to be told. It is neither entertaining nor does it have social value. Technically, the movie is very well make, the performances are top rate and first class. The story develops in an intriguing way that holds interest. But at the end this movie sickens and is abhorrent to decency. I recommend Kalifornia to no one.


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


user
honestly, if anyone has a brain, there's not 1 positive thing
to say about this movie what so ever.
I lost my $1 renting this. I'd rather laugh at Will Smith saying "If you got a dream, you got to protect it".
all the actors must've been bored or had no fame at the time. even Matthew Mc Conahay *however you spell it* was better then all the actors in this movie, when he played a psycho in Texas Chainsaw 4. If you see this movie, and have anything good to say, you IQ, must be extremely low, with such bad taste in movies, it hurts. Thank YOU...and the TRUTH, has been spoken!
Save yourself from the misery.
Get Devil's Rejects, now that's a classic.


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 expecting to love this movie--film noir, serial killer, dark irony. I was baffled by many choices the characters made ("Hey, I know they're creepy looking, but let's hook up for a cross-country road trip anyway!"), found the pacing to be glacial, and the emphasis on moody lighting to take the place of original thought by the director and cinematographer.
Thinking about it now, this would have been a much better movie if someone had just run the script through the common sense-o-meter (1992 model) before starting to film...


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


user
Distasteful, cliched thriller has young couple doing cross-country research on America's most infamous murder sites, becoming road partners with a dim-witted young woman and her snarling boyfriend--who is an actual psycho. Arty and alienating, the film's tone alternates between pouty pseudo-irony and silly flamboyance. Handsomely-made perhaps, but ultimately laughable. Brad Pitt's performance as the low-rent killer is godawful. * from ****


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 interview, David Duchovny said he hasn't been able to watch even the first hour of this film - and neither should you. The scene where he asks the owner of a house where a murder was committed if he can look around - change the name he gives and he could had lifted his performance from just about any episode of the X-Files. He's on autopilot for the whole film. Brad Pitt overacts appallingly.


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


user
Another movie to suffer without an adventure to run, no enigma to solve. Just an illness man, acting like an animal. No a good reason to take this journey. Pitt and Lewis are great actors; magnificent Michelle Forbes but a weak David Duchovny performance...


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


user
German nut case Jörg Buttgereit apparently has fans - but I don't know why, and I'm Definitely not one of them! The only Buttgereit film I'd seen previously was Nekromantik and I hated every minute of it, but - shockingly - this film is worse! Der Todesking is pointless in the same way as Nekromantik, but it's a worse film because it's boring in a way that few movies have ever managed (it's not far off The Blair Witch Project, seriously). Some people say that this film is 'sick' and 'shocking', but it really isn't. The director may have been making a point about death, but only he knows what it is. How anyone could watch this film and be anything other than bored with it is completely beyond me. The film revolves around the theme of suicide, and follows the deaths of seven different people over the course of a week. Yes, that means we have a pointless and boring episode for Monday, a pointless and boring episode for Tuesday, a pointless and boring episode for Wednesday etc etc. This film manages to be even more boring than my average week!
Der Todesking is apparently an 'art' film, although this would appear to be a reference to the way that not very much makes sense rather than a reference to the film bearing any resemblance to 'art'. Each segment of the film is meant to tell a separate story - but it doesn't! We just get a quick little sketch on suicide, and it only makes you wonder what the point is. The film feels like it should be deep, but there's a great big void where the intelligence should be and nothing there to fill it. Buttgereit uses a few evocative images; but I'm unlikely to remember any of them for more than a week or so because this film just isn't that memorable. There's a shot involving a decomposing man's body that features fairly often, but that gets old pretty quick and all you're left with is the rest of the film, which is unfortunate. If I were to struggle for good things to say about this crap, all I can think of is this; the title sounds cool. As I mentioned, Nekromantik is the only other film I've seen from this amateur director; I have copies of Schramm and Nekromantik 2, and now I'm really in no rush to watch either. Der Todesking is a dull film with no point and anyone that calls it 'art' is very much mistaken. Give it a miss.


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


user
The subject notwithstanding, this is an amateur, exhibitionist movie--or an effort at one--which is about as interesting and daring as a moody high school student's composition book full of death "poetry". To be sure, it will disturb viewers who are hell-bent on being disturbed, but the success will be attributable to themselves, not to the director. To genuinely get under somebody's skin requires sensibility, discipline, technique, and talent, as well as an eye and an ear. The film does contain one evocative image, shown as a still (and also used on the video case), but with no development leading up to or away from it. If the director had had an eye, he would have seen it as a possible starting point for an interesting movie--that is, a movie.


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


user
I'm sorry but this is just awful. I have told people about this film and some of the bad acting that is in it and they almost don't believe me. There is nothing wrong with the idea, modern day Japanese troops get pulled back in time to the days of Busido warriors and with their modern weapons are a match for almost everything. When the troops first realise something strange is happening does every single person in the back of the transport need to say "Hey my watch has stopped"? Imagine lines like that being repeated 15+ times before they say anything else and you have the movie's lack of greatness in a nutshell.


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


user
Watching CBS's "Surrender, Dorothy", I kept wondering why Diane Keaton would want to be in it (not because it's a television movie--with the dearth of enticing roles for slightly older actresses, it isn't any wonder why Academy Award winning performers such as Keaton turn to TV--but because it offers no opportunities for Keaton to shine). A single mother, grieving the sudden death of her twenty-something daughter, imposes upon--and gradually becomes friends with--the group of young people her daughter was close to at the time of her accident. Adapted from the novel, this teleplay gives us a group of self-absorbed characters one would cross the street to avoid. Aside from being coarse and dim, these phony people are incredibly unconvincing, as is the tidy scenario and the bungalow near the beach where the kids reside (one young man, who wears muscle shirts to tell us he's gay, hears Diane Keaton say, "Surrender, Dorothy" and actually asks, "That's from "The Wizard of Oz", right?"...no, genius, it's from "Citizen Kane"!). Keaton may have wanted to do this material based on the subject matter of confronting death. She tries turning this distinctly unlikable woman into a shadow of her own personage (lots of kooky outfits), but it doesn't sit well with the viewer since Keaton has always been warmly likable and flexible in a flaky way. Here, she's a crazed harpy who doesn't learn many lessons on her journey of self-discovery (the movie quickly forgets it's about a dead young woman and becomes an odyssey for the nervous wreck of a mom, who appears to be an overage hippie who has never lost anyone close to her). This is the kind of film actors promote on talk shows with the caveat, "It should help a lot of grieving mothers out there". I can't imagine it helping anyone since it is intrinsically a downer, muddled and baffling. It's deranged.


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


user
I waited for this movie to play in great anticipation. Assuming it would be more accurately portrayed like the movie, "The Christmas Box" based on the book by Richard Paul Evans. I sent out many emails to friends and family asking them to please watch this show, hoping they would better understand a tiny amount of my "new" life. After seeing this movie I was so disappointed. As a mother who lost her only child in November 2003 and REALLY knowing the pain, I had hoped that this movie would shed light to parents who "think" they understand the grief a parent goes through who has lost a child. This movie was a very light hearted movie and the silliness of Diane Keaton was a slap in the face to parents who have buried a child. It was VERY unrealistic from start to stop. I had a few calls after the movie, each call the same, "That was so off the mark and made it appear that in a short time you are back on the road and listening to songs on the radio and life is back" What a bunch of bull! It is clear that the director and Keaton have never lost a child because neither would have EVER made the movie to be so off the mark. I guess that's Hollywood.


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


user
(Very light spoilers, maybe.)
Normally a fan of Diane Keaton, I tried to watch this tonight. I had to switch it off before the second hour because I found myself with absolutely no sympathy for daughter or mother. Both came across as self-absorbed with little regard for others, with the daughter also adding in rude, disrespectful and reckless to the mix. When the daughter died, the only thing I thought was, "At least we won't have to watch her anymore." Keaton did a good job of moving into her stunned state and into the grieving, but it was too far gone for me by then. I simply wasn't enjoying it, so I stopped watching. If you want me to care for the protagonist, you need to get me caring about the characters much sooner--if it's nearly an hour in and I don't care, it's too late.
The supporting cast was sincere and well played--I felt for *them!*--and the gay best friend was wonderful, but even combined, that wasn't enough to carry the film 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
**1/2 for this Diane Keaton farce.
Someone should tell Ms. Keaton, enough with your Annie Hall philosophy and hats.
This flick is just too much as Keaton's daughter, Sara, dies in a traffic accident, while her boyfriend survives.
Keaton, who could not be reached by phone at first, as she was in the sack with her pal and had pulled out the phone plug, grieves in a new way for grievers.
She retreats to the summer locale where all of Sara's friends are staying. She cleans the house, sleeps for two days and then begins to reveal things which were better not to be revealed. It appears that sweet Sara slept with her girlfriend and the guy who ultimately married the latter. In addition, she had an abortion thanks to this guy. We're all now put on this guilt trip.
Her only hope is to find the elusive diary that Sara kept. She also hopes that boyfriend,Adam, who is a playwright, will not include all this in another play.
When the diary is found, it has been written in Japanese. Sara had a Ph.D in this language. It's not that great news for mom when an excerpt of the diary is translated by a Japanese cook in a Japanese restaurant.
Naturally, everything seems to tie up nicely in the end.
The title of this shmaltz comes from The Wizard of Oz. Every time mom and Sara would speak, they would both utter Surrender Dorothy.
As if this isn't enough, during the course of this bizarre extravaganza of mourning, Keaton tells Adam not to be another Woody Allen in his film, Interiors, where he tried to successfully emulate Ingmar Bergman. Ms. Keaton also tries drugs with the group. Come on, folks, can we realistically believe that anyone in his right mind could mourn like this?
Fair to mediocre best sums up this film.


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


user
Although the casting for this film was admirable, particularly Dianne Keaton and Tom Everett Scott, the quality of the writing was so poor that it would be impossible for any actor or director to make this film worth watching.
My wife and I decided that the reason we watched the entire film was that it was like a train wreck, and it was almost impossible to turn away. It may have been that we "hoped" that the message would eventually make itself apparent, and that we would be able to glean some meaning from this effort. Unfortunately, this did not happen.
Of course the audience may have been able to "make sense" of this convoluted tale, a credit to the ingenuity of the human brain to make sense of the absurd. The writers, however, did NOTHING to facilitate this innate need we seem to have for finding meaning.
It was apparent that those involved were simply going through the motions of their respective crafts, and that any intrinsic passion for the characters or the story was either secondary or non-existent.
Unfortunately, made-for-TV movies have seemed to devolve over the years. Whereas communicating a message to the audience may to have been the primary interest of the writers in the past, present-day writers and producers seem condescending to their audience, concentrating primarily on manipulating us to "stay-tuned" through the incessant advertising which seems to be the only reason movies such as Surrender, Dorothy are made.


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


user
I could not believe how awful this film was; I rarely watch commercial TV, but thought "Well, Diane Keaton is always worth watching". I stand corrected. Everyone involved should be hanging their heads in shame.
I realize there are not a lot of great roles for women of a certain age, but the script to this was so inept, clichéd and baffling that I am surprised it ever got into development or that Ms. Keaton thought she could make a silk purse out of this sow's ear. None of the characters had a shred of believability and were so incredibly unlikeable. The acting looked like exercises in a BEGINNING class - I stared in open-mouthed horror through most of this wondering "What were they thinking?". Very, very sad that it has come to this. Don't waste your time.


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


user
I can't believe we watched this total piece of crap but we did and I feel obligated to warn others to avoid it at all costs. When one of the main characters announces that he's gay twice in the first five minutes, don't ignore it as typical PC nonsense and figure it has to get better because it won't. If his faggoty boyfriend hanging all over him doesn't make you sick, then be thankful the freak who wrote and/or directed this grossout is somehow attempting a little restraint. I mean, get real. It's one thing for there to be a gay character appearing in a movie in such screwed up times as these but quite another to have it continually slapped on the screen and examined up close and personal when the the liner notes clearly state the flick's supposed to be about a mother seeking some sort of "closure" over the sudden death of her daughter. What does one thing have to do with the other, one might be tempted to ask? Apparently, the two issues are inextricably interwoven. And if that weren't bad enough, there's the bearded lady at the ice cream parlor. I mean, seriously, hasn't that poor woman ever heard of electrolysis? Why must she go around like that? At the very least, how about shaving the ugly thing off, and while you're at it, have those horrible moles removed, too. Would YOU slurp up some ice cream she just served you? I think not. It must be a New Jersey thing.
You'd think Diane Keaton might save this piece of drek, but think again. Was she actually trying to put lipstick on a corpse? I don't even wanna think about it. So what if the body was supposed to be that of her own dead daughter. This grotesque excuse for cinema is slop from the word go and that's all there is to it. One wishes that each of these characters would simply walk out into the waves and just keep going. None of these flaky people even remotely gain our sympathy for an instant. Trust me -- pass this piece of crap up. It's not about death, a mother who inadvertently suffocated her daughter, or even the other much more unsavory issues it keeps bringing up no matter how little you want to hear it. It's a load of perverted trash from a misguided and talentless director.


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


user
The first 30min of the flick was choppy and hard to know just what was going on (unless you read the book - which I had not).
If you can stick with the first half, the second half is sweet - predictable, yes, but sweet none-the-less.
The way it was shot one would think it was produced in the early 80's, not 2005.
No stand-out moments, bland, but it moved along without boring me.
I would like to know why Keaton selected this role, her part would have been better cast with a player more at the level of the other actors to keep the balance.


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


user
As I sat subjected to this televised mediocrity, I wondered why? Why did Dianne Keaton agree to this trash? The movie uses meaningless, contrived plot lines to deliver trash to homes of thousands. The movie takes a political agenda to a new level. The movie was meaningless, and all creditability was lost to the excessive use of stereotype.
It was obvious that Keaton tried to make this movie worthwhile, but in the end she needs to remember the age old adage that you cannot polish a turd. I hope that you did not waste your New Year's Day watching another mindless made for TV movie. I now know why the networks started airing series on Sunday night, to rid us of trash!


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


user
My wife and I started to watch this movie with anticipation. It looked warm and touching. It started out well; but, soon became boring and frankly idiotic after a while. It got so bad that we turned it off The movie was poorly acted and honesty, we couldn't really understand or wanted to understand what exactly why or how the hell they could put up with this woman! You lost sympathy for her after she was rude and acting wackos singing and cleaning. I would have had her committed. And, of course, like most movies and T.V series made in Hollywood we have to throw it a token "gay" character! This movie was boring. I was expecting more from Diane Keaton!


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


user
I just finished reading a book on Anita Loos' work and the photo in TCM Magazine of MacDonald in her angel costume looked great (impressive wings), so I thought I'd watch this movie. I'd never heard of the film before, so I had no preconceived notions about it whatsoever. Thought it got off to a cute start with Eddy as the playboy and MacDonald as the secretary he doesn't know exists. The scene where she shows up at the costume party in her simple angel outfit with an uncooperative halo and wings that won't stay on was really endearing. I was even with the film when Eddy goes to sleep and imagines her as a real angel. But after a while it just started to fall apart for me. Eddy stays "asleep" for the entire rest of movie, so it's all a dream. Whatever happens from there on doesn't really matter, because he's just dreaming. The rest of it was pretty much plot less and pointless. I had to force myself to stick with it. And the final number where MacDonald goes from musical number to musical number in some mad hallucination was just plain freaky.
Had Eddy "woken" a sooner and the original story continued, or had he really married an angel, I think it would have been a lot more interesting. I wanted to see more of her real character.
There weren't really enough musical numbers to call it a musical. The first few songs were good, but the jitterbug number that MacDonald performs was like nails on a chalkboard. Completely wrong for her operatic voice. Even so, Eddy and MacDonald still manage to shine, showing what true stars they were.


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 say one thing for Jeanette and Nelson--even when stranded in a mirthless, witless, painfully inept musical like this, there's still that twinkle in their eyes. Yes, the chemistry between the famous duo is there even when the material is paper thin. Even when the score is practically a throwaway, non-existent one depending on just a couple of catchy tunes. And even when the circumstances are so unbelievable--yes, even for a fantasy.
Truth to tell, she has more chemistry with Nelson than with her own real-life husband Gene Raymond in SMILIN' THROUGH, which, nonetheless, was a considerably better film.
Sorry, I love Jeanette and Nelson as much as the next fan, but this is the bottom of the heap. Jeanette is more than embarrassing in her one "hep" number with Binnie Barnes--and Nelson can only come up with a blank stare when faced with the most ludicrous situations.
One can only wonder what this was like on Broadway in 1938. Surely, it must have had more wit and style than is evident in this weak MGM production. Edward Everett Horton fizzles in an unfunny role and none of the supporting players can breathe any semblance of life into this mess. It's like amateur night at the studio even with the few professionals sprinkled among the supporting cast.
Summing up: Painfully clumsy rendering of a Rodgers and Hart musical. Can't recommend it, even for fans of MacDonald and Eddy. And even if Jeanette's close-ups still glow with her gossamer beauty, this film is jaw-droppingly bad.


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


user
When anyone comes into a film of this type of film it's not without saying that an overdose of that great over-the-counter brain-medicine, Suspension of Disbelief, comes in mighty handy.
Jeanette MacDonald plays two roles: Anna/Brigitta, the woman who Nelson Eddy has ignored since the beginning of time, but who also is -- an angel sent to Earth.
My reaction when I saw this was a mute gasp of "Hunh?" Where have I seen this before? It turns out, I have seen it before, but in a movie made much later than this one. DATE WITH AN ANGEL, a forgettable pile of dreck made in 1987, cashed in on the ethereal beauty of one Emmanuelle Beart who had no speaking lines, also wore a blond wig, and made life hell for soap-actor Michael Knight. Much worse in every conceivable angle with ultra-low 80s values but more than likely an updated version of this 1942 turkey.
Anyway, not to elaborate, this is not a memorable film and stands as a doorstop of information because it was the last time MacDonald and Eddy, neither very good actors but terrific singers, would be together playing up the "innocence" and "clean-cut" romance that they were known for. After that you may need a cold shower, not because there are any steamy scenes here, but to get rid of the memory.


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


user
The final pairing of Nelson Eddy and Jeanette MacDonald is basically a complete misfire.The script is weak and has been presented badly.The film just has no life in it.Eddy and MacDonald would have been better off just making a filmed concert for their final pairing.There's nothing wrong with their singing,its just everything else in this turkey thats overcooked.


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


user
The Sentinel represents everything about the soul-lessness of Hollywood and the saddening lack of imagination present in so many movies these days. I cannot possibly think of one good thing about it, it's all so generic, so factory-made and so lazy assembled that it really only exists as an infomercial on how to make money from the unsuspecting, undeserving public.
A plot about a Secret Service Agent planning to assassinate the Prez could well be entertaining. If handled by a good director or caring cast that is. Douglas is the one who is framed. Basinger is the First Lady, with whom he is having an affair (an undeveloped, unresolved plot contrivance). Sutherland is the best pal who believes his guilty because there would be no movie if he didn't. And Longoria is nothing. A woman with a fortune of Maybelline and...that's it. I guess there are less requirements for women when entering the Secret Service. As usual in a film like this the role of the Prez himself is nothing more than a tool, a token and is very badly written.
Clark Johnson's, he who gave us the equally as pathetic SWAT back in 2003, mechanical direction lacks any kind of signature and has all the visual sophistication of a cheap TV-movie. Douglas, Basinger and Sutherland look incredibly bored and phone-in their performances from afar. Eva Longoria, the most over-exposed woman of the 21st Century, is basically only in this to attract to the Desperate Housewives audience. Her role is 100% pointless and she does absolutely nothing to further the plot or add to character development. She barely has 2 lines to rub together. A truly shameless marketing ploy.
If you're a glutton for punishment then don't let me stop you. But it IS time and money you won't be getting back.


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


user
This, for lack of a better term, movie is lousy. Where do I start......
Cinemaphotography - This was, perhaps, the worst I've seen this year. It looked like the camera was being tossed from camera man to camera man. Maybe they only had one camera. It gives you the sensation of being a volleyball.
There are a bunch of scenes, haphazardly, thrown in with no continuity at all. When they did the 'split screen', it was absurd. Everything was squished flat, it looked ridiculous.
The color tones were way off. These people need to learn how to balance a camera. This 'movie' is poorly made, and poorly done.
The plot - You got to be kidding. If I was an SS agent, I'd sue the producers. looked like the Marks Brothers with radios and guns. Sutherland was in his '24' mode - I can see this for free. Eva Longoria would have been better with a little less on, and a lot more showing. As an action bimbo she wasn't much.
I couldn't see a real plot, other than Douglas boinking the Presidents wife. Never did say why the mercenaries were trying to kill the pres. I just don't see the President of the United States running for his life in the utility tunnels of a building, like a rat in a maze. p-l-e-a-s-e.
Hollywood is dead. This movie is the proof. I like 'the big screen'. Have since I was a kid. Many more 'movies' like this and I'll quit going. Whats the matter Hollywood, made so many chick flicks, forget how to make a real movie? If I owned a theater, I'd start running the old movies. The one with real actors, good story lines - and good Cinemaphotography.
This 'movie' is a dog. Don't waste your time or money on it. I rate this 'movie' a zero! Douglas isn't suited for this role. I can over look his age, but his just is to much of a wimp to carry this off.


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


user
Slow, Slow, Slow... There is no mystery or excitement in this film. If you don't figure out who the "mole" is in the first ten minutes you must be brain dead. The secret service must have been too, because it took them the whole film to put it together. There are no compelling characters in the movie (not film). The pace of the movie is slow there is no tension. The hired killer is an excellent shot unless he is aiming at Michael Douglas than all he seems to be able to hit is large panes of glass. The funniest scene in the movie is when the presidents wife says the code word at the anticlimactic ending. It is laugh out loud ridiculous. At least six people got up and left the movie early. I would have joined them if I were not sitting in the middle of the row. I would not recommend this film to anyone.


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


user
Almost every plot detail in this movie is illogical and implausible. It carries no semblance of a genuine human story, dead and dull. It is a parody of Hollywood, with trumpet musical bits that remind you of a Denzel Washington movie, wobbly camera shots and focusing, racist stereotypes, absolutely unnecessary and comical shots and gestures of famous people in clothing catalogue poses. It is made to cater for the multitude of zombies whose meaning in life derives from watching celebrity names. The only good thing in the movie is the end credits and funky song that accompanies it. I feel like an idiot for watching this, save yourself.


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


user
Trying to conceive of something as insipid as THE SENTINEL would be pretty difficult. The problems are many. The result is terrible and loaded with plot holes.
Michael Douglas stars as Pete Garrison, a Secret Service agent who "took one" for Reagan during the attempt on his life. Years later we find Pete assigned to the Whitehouse Family, mainly as a guard for the First Lady (Kim Basinger, L.A. CONFIDENTIAL). Troubles arise as we see Pete's close involvement with the First Lady, and a sudden threat against the President himself (David Rasche, UNITED 93). When Pete fails a polygraph test, he's singled out as a disgruntled agent by investigator David Breckinridge (Kiefer Sutherland, 24 TV series).
As the presidential assassination plot unfolds, Pete finds himself on the run from his own people. His only confidant is the First Lady, and she's reluctant to tell anyone about their affections for one another (which is why Pete failed the polygraph in the first place). But is Pete really innocent? Or is he simply trying to buy time until he can kill the President? If he is innocent, how can he help prevent the assassination attempt while running from the Secret Service?
The one, big, overwhelming problem with this film is that there's no justification for the reason behind the presidential threat. Isn't that what the movie's supposed to be about? One would think so! But the audience is never let in on why the assassin(s) want to kill the Prez. Hmm. Someone forget to put that in the script somewhere?
And what's with David Breckinridge's (Kiefer's) new partner, Jill Marin (Eva Longoria, CARLITA'S WAY)? Seems that she was put in the film strictly as a piece of a$$-candy. What was her purpose again? Did she do anything other than look nice in tight pants and a low-cut blouse?
There are so many problems with the basic premise of The Sentinel as to be laughable. The action is too easily stymied by the "What the...?" responses sure to be uttered by those unfortunate enough to watch the movie.


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


user
Lets first start this review with the fact that I SIGNED UP JUST TO WRITE THE REVIEW AND WARN PEOPLE TO SAVE Their MONEY!!
This was one of the worst pieces of trash i have seen since The Hulk. The storyline was the most predictable garbage you could possibly come up with. If you are expecting 24 but on the big screen, flush that expectation down the toilet immediately along with the money you would use for a ticket.. You may get more enjoyment that way. The acting was terrible, the plot was completely unrealistic, (along with the so called "twist" in the end. I must say this.. The ending did surprise me. I am not referring to the plot twist that surprised me, but instead the effortless manner that they put together what could be considered the ONLY scene of somewhat decent action in the entire movie. They rushed the ending so quickly that I didn't even realize that it was over until I saw the credits rolling and at that point i considered burning the reel of film if I could just figure out how to get into that screening room.
Casting was awful for a few reasons. First of all, they must have accidentally switched the character assignments, because Michael Douglas played the roll that CLEARLY Keifer Sutherland should have been playing. While Douglas was sneaking around agents, tapping phone lines, hacking into systems and taking out people who are chasing after him, Sutherland plays the less capable agent who is always in a bad mood even when things aren't going that badly for him. He plays a very bland agent, nothing like his Jack Bauer type roll us 24 fans love.
I can just about promise you that this movie will disappoint in all areas. It can be best compared to a remake of the "The Fugitive" / "In The Line of Fire" but written by people with mental disabilities


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


user
There is good. There is bad. And then their is The Sentinel, a bottom-barrel political "thriller" that ranks among the worst movies I have ever seen. The plot of a mole in the Secret Service is a good one, but never has a movie with so much potential been so utterly butchered. Directed with ham-handed "edginess" by Clark Johnson, every actor in this film seems to be working on autopilot. Even the great Michael Douglas looks bored here. I can honestly say I have NEVER, in all my life, viewed another film with so many glaring plot holes. The twist is predictable from square one, and the character's motives are so utterly ridiculous that they inspired laughter from the audience. Avoid this at all costs. This is a catastrophe of a movie with no redeeming value.


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


user
Seriously, I don't even know where to begin. It's like somebody gave a bazillion dollar budget to an autistic third-grader and said 'make me a movie about the secret service'. The editing is ridiculous, the cinematography was random at best, every single syllable of dialogue was completely retarded and the directing ... well, was there even a director there? Everything was just so pointless and lame and pointless...and random....and lame.
Here's a SPOILER for you; this movie is the dumbest thing you'll ever see.
However, if you liked this piece, you'll also enjoy; Deterrance, Dark Blue, and a partial frontal lobotomy.


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


user
I saw the film tonight at a free preview screening, and despite the fact that I didn't pay a dime to see this film I still felt ripped off. Ladies and gentlemen, time is money and if you see this film you are leaving a Benjamin on your seat. The acting is torpid at best; Kiefer Sutherland phones in his worst impersonation of Jack Bauer, and Michael Douglas looks like he realizes he made a bad choice leaving Catherine Zeta-Jones for the duration it took to shoot this turkey. Eva Longoria is a non-entity; she looks like she's reading her lines off a teleprompter. And if you can't spot the "mole" within the first 20 minutes, then you just landed on this planet from a world without TV and recycled story lines. If you truly want to see a good secret service thriller, rent In the Line of Fire. If you see and buy into this one, you'll start to fear for the president's safety because the Secret Service looks and acts like the grown-up versions of the kinds from 90210. No matter what your feelings about W, let's hope this "art" does not imitate life.


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 been willing to put up with a lot from late-spring/summer action fluff movies, but in general that's been due to the fact that most of them have reasonable payoff (i.e. cool special effects, interesting plot twists, comic value, Steve Buscemi, etc.). This movie, however, had none of this. All that we got was the cheap thrill of several minutes of Eva Longoria's cleavage (an issue of Maxim is cheaper than a movie ticket). There is an embarrassing lack of plot, suspense, back story, character development, continuity, etc. I would get into specifics, but quite frankly I've already-maybe willingly-forgotten most of the movie.
The entire time I was in the theater, I was kicking myself for not just spending the afternoon watching a 24 season on DVD. Save your money on this one, folks. Unless you really, really, really like Eva Longoria's cleavage.


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


user
Not to be confused with the above average supernatural thriller "The Sentinel". The Sentinel was a big bore of a movie for me, not delivering the consistent action, a couple of critics promised on the back. To me it seemed like everyone was Halfassing it, and only there to make some quick cash, because this felt very much like a made for TV film. The Sentinel is a rehash of several better films, like "In The Line Of Fire" this does not have any originality in it, and watching Michael Douglas run around, felt kinda silly in my opinion. The Main problem besides it's unoriginality, had to be the poor pace. I often got distracted while trying to view this movie, while looking how much run time was left, more then once. Not only the miscasting with Eva Longoria, who couldn't convince worth a lick.
Performances. Michael Douglas is usually a dependable actor, here is obviously going through the motions. He does not convince as a man on a run, or a secret agent. His chemistry with Bassinger, was also off. I'm a big fan of Kiefer Sutherland, but here he is only OK, nothing more then that. He tries to come across as a gruff, but managed to be more bland then anything else, and to be honest, he didn't seem that interested. Eva Longoria Parker is pretty mediocre. She does not convince in her role, and was pure eye candy. Kim Basinger is pretty terrible as the 1st lady. She looks bored to tears, and her role is a throw away, more then anything else. Martin Donovan has a big part in the end, but not enough to matter for me.
Bottom line. The Sentinel is yet, another political thriller, that bored me to tears. It's too old, too tired, and most importantly the lack of effort sucked. Not recommended.
4/10


assistant
0