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
This movie is incomprehendably bad. It begins with several random explosions and then cuts to a sock puppet of a T-Rex that talks (!) to the audience. It goes back and forth between sock puppetry and animation throughout, probably because the film makers couldn't afford live actors. I'll spare you the long, tiresome, relentless plot that drags this pitiful film on for a brutal 85 minutes.
One of my friends found this very rare video at a hobby shop somewhere that sells out of print b-movies, and he bought it for the sole purpose of making fun of it, but, as it turns out, our intervention was not neecessary. This film makes fun of itself better than we could.
I thought that Ed Wood's "Plan 9 from Outer Space" was the cheesiest movie in existence, but leave it to Japanamation/Lego cars/Sock puppets to outdo him. If you see this movie anywhere, buy it without hesitation. It is very rare and worth many, many good laughs.


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


user
Good performances can't save this terrible script, larded with every cliche in the chick-flick book. Both main characters are deeply unsympathetic, and the scene where Laura Linney's character reminisces about sex with her dead husband in front of her teenage son -- which I think is supposed to be poignant -- is just horrifying.


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


user
I cringed all the way through this movie. First of all, the idiotic plot has little to do with Parson's own story. Hollywood has attempted to create a kind of comedy car chase movie. Imagine "Englebert Sings Hendrix".
Do not take anything about this movie to be accurate. The name Parsons in the title and stealing of his body is just used as springboard for a low budget chase movie, a blatant attempt to grab a few bucks from the Parsons legacy and his fan base. Gram's father had long since been dead in 1973, the other global characters are fictional, none of this has anything to do with Grams life or death.
If you are a Gram fan, I advise you to not see this movie. I wish I hadn't. It's saddening to see something special be treated as such disgracing fodder. I'd swear I could hear Gram turning in his grave while the movie was playing. If you are not familiar with Gram's life and legacy, do not take anything in this movie as being representative of Gram.
I cannot say enough bad things about this movie. If Gram were alive and saw this movie, he would kill himself. Then again, maybe he'd be afraid to if he knew this movie were to result.


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


user
I doubt this will ever even be a cult film. I loved Gram Parsons to be sure and I did not expect much out of this film and got even less. What could have been clever and moving was campy. It was devoid of the music that made Gram and had more filler than cheap dog food. There was no background on Gram or the colorful people of that era. The characters shown were not familiar to me even as a fan of Gram's and all the versions of his "afterlife adventures" I have heard. Rock and roll is full of tales, good ones too but they should taken with a grain of salt. They can be great stories even though exaggerated. However, this movie took a good story and turned into tripe. Stealing any dead body and the ensuing implications should never be a dull tale but they made it dull, somehow. I am tempted to steal every copy of Grand Theft Parsons, head out to the desert and burn them all.


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 not sure if users ought to be allowed to review films after only sitting through half, but I'm afraid I just couldn't stand another minute.
If this abject excuse for a film doesn't have the late, great GP spinning like a wheel in his grave, then I doubt anything will.
The excellent review above 'Not a film for Parsons fans' sums up most of my feelings. How dare a (second rate) director and writer attempt something to which they're so clearly incapable of delivering. What were they thinking? Where to start?
THE SCRIPT: I thought I'd be getting a slice of bittersweet Americana. What I got was poorly executed slapstick with no cliché left unturned. Stupid hippy? Check. Stupid fat cop? Check. Awful plot contrivances? Check. Embarrassingly written female characters? Double check. Total disregard for the story which you're trying to portray? Check.
After a while, you realize that what you're watching is a soap and not a very well written one at that. Scene with Knoxville. Scene with Ex girlfriend. Scene with Knoxville which hasn't moved on much. Scene with Ex girlfriend which was a bit like the last one. And so on...
THE DIRECTION: My friends and I decided, after some consideration, that watching this was like watching a bad episode of Quincy, or maybe a particularly poor Dukes of Hazzard. That's how bad the direction was. Terrible jump cuts, awful camera work, clunky ins and outs to scenes. God, it was cringeworthy. And then I discovered the director was an Irishman who's most noteworthy recent work is a really lousy BBC Sunday night drama called Monarch of the Glen (trust me, it's lowest common denominator TV). And then it all made sense...
THE ACTING: Are we now so critical that when some random guy from the TV decides to give acting a go, if he's not so bad, he stinks, we applaud his efforts? Knoxville JUST ABOUT manages to get through every scene. Poor Christina A. has no such luck. Her performance is a car crash (though what you do with those lines, I don't know). The 'hippy' in the hearse: oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Have we not moved on since Cheech and Chong?
I could go on, but I think you get my drift. What I would say is that, as other reviews have mentioned, no one on this film clearly gives a flying damn for The Byrds, The Flying Burrito Brothers or Gram's solo work. They knew nothing about the American road movie and they certainly give a damn about trying to do anything with an admittedly decent story from rock mythology. This film was shallow, failed to explore anything and was jaw droppingly unfunny from beginning to...oh wait, I didn't quite make the end. And I suggest you stay away too.


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 a real disappointment to me. I have been a fan of Gram Parsons for a long time, and when i found out they were making a film about him i was very exited, I got the movie on VHS when it came out, and was sickened by what i saw, This film wasn't about his life, it was about the aftermath of his death. I thought it would be a descent film about Grams Life and Music, but they had to make a film about his death. I am tired of hearing about his deaths in books and movies, i wanted a film about his life, not his infamous death. I was very Disappointed. I wish people would look at his life, more then his death. The only thing good about this film was its soundtrack. This film is a disappointment to any Gram Parsons Fan.


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


user
When THE MAGIC OF LASSIE opened at Radio City Music Hall, I was foolish enough to believe it would be as heart-warming as some of the first Lassie films were. Not.
The story was abysmal, the songs by the Sherman brothers were way below their usual level, the characters were uninspired and JAMES STEWART and MICKEY ROONEY had both seen much better days.
Then too, I was interested in seeing what ALICE FAYE's contribution would be like, since she'd been absent from the screen for so many years and was always so fetching in her earlier roles at Fox. Alice too, was letdown by the foolish script and the unflattering photography. Another disappointment.
Nothing original here, nothing even remotely interesting for an adult to enjoy--and clearly, no magic present for anyone. You can skip this one without missing a thing.


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


user
9, the film I've been looking forward to for months.... was little more then a disappointment.
I was deeply surprised by 9's lack of story and strange character development. All the awesome action sequences in the world don't make up for a single unsympathetic character.
The strange, almost thrown in occult sequences were not only out of place, they were infuriating. The story is about robots and scientists... why does it suddenly turn into a necronomicon horror wannabe with mystical symbols and green magic ghost lines instead of giving answers to what could have been excellently scary story devices??
How, what, when, why.... questions that bode asking only if you care and it becomes less and less likely that you will as you get away from the theater.
A film like this is frustrating because of its lack of depth.... I would watch this film drawn in crayon if the story was good. But the filmmakers have relied on CGI wizardry and Tim Burtons name to draw in the crowd. Which... is what drew me in but failed to gain my respect.
9 could have been awesome... with a few more rewrites and a little more respect from its own creators.


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


user
This really was a waste of time...the movie has a weak plot, the story is fragmented and ends very abruptly with many loopholes....though the animation is top notch.
Once the movie started, I tried to give it the benefit of the doubt by telling myself that it might get interesting in the later stage, but it was never unique. This same plot has been played over and over again, but what made it worse was that the major plot hole was the whole story on how to kill the baddies...The writer could have done so much more with the entire concept, but seemed that he or she did not have their heart in it and wanted to close the movie as soon as it started.
Overall, too much hype but not able to deliver.


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


user
What?!?? Why are people saying this is "mind blowing?" Just face it the ending is on of the worst endings in the history of cinematography! 4 left and the whole world has ended! Not to mention the character 9 was a idiot the whole time he got everyone killed. 1 was right the whole time, if he sacrificed 9 then non of this would have happened. People giving there lives for a stupid cause and for what?... to make it rain? I admit the movie had it's parts, and the whole concept was fascinating. But a lot of it was clichés one after another. And did anybody else get this feeling that this is a lot like "Lord of The Rings?" Characters died for stupid reasons, there was almost no character development, and honestly ask yourself is it good to have only four guys left in the world; its pointless and stupid. It was one of the shortest movies I've ever seen, and thank god! How is robots turning against humans creative in any way! It's been done like a hundred times! This movie is really stupid, go see a movie that's worth watching like Star Trek, The Hangover, or Inglorious Basterds, those were good movies!


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 made it into one of my top 10 most awful movies. Horrible.
There wasn't a continuous minute where there wasn't a fight with one monster or another. There was no chance for any character development, they were too busy running from one sword fight to another. I had no emotional attachment (except to the big bad machine that wanted to destroy them)
Scenes were blatantly stolen from other movies, LOTR, Star Wars and Matrix.
Examples
>The ghost scene at the end was stolen from the final scene of the old Star Wars with Yoda, Obee One and Vader.
>The spider machine in the beginning was exactly like Frodo being attacked by the spider in Return of the Kings. (Elijah Wood is the victim in both films) and wait......it hypnotizes (stings) its victim and wraps them up.....uh hello????
>And the whole machine vs. humans theme WAS the Matrix..or Terminator.....
There are more examples but why waste the time? And will someone tell me what was with the Nazi's?!?! Nazi's????
There was a juvenile story line rushed to a juvenile conclusion. The movie could not decide if it was a children's movie or an adult movie and wasn't much of either.
Just awful. A real disappointment to say the least. Save your money.


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


user
It used to be my thinking that movies required plots, or some other means of making you care at all about the story line or anything that is going on. This movie has showed me that you don't actually have to have anything like that.
I could sum it up simply as that. But, IMDb wants me to have more lines. It was kind of pretty. not compelling in the slightest. The way the characters talk in the movie makes you think it should have taken place over a matter of days, but there is no passage of time and i'm pretty sure it all happens in an hour.
If you are looking to entertain yourself, then buy a gallon of milk and see how fast you can drink it before throwing up. It would be a far better use of your time. Time that you will never get back. Jurassic Park 3 was pulled off better than this movie.


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


user
This is the worst movie I have seen since "I Know Who Killed Me" with Lindsey Lohan.
After watching this movie I can assure you that nothing but frustration and disappointment await you should you choose to go see this. Hey, Tim Burton, I used to be a big fan of yours... did you even screen this movie? I mean seriously, what the f%#k?
Without giving anything away, here is the story in a vague nutshell... Nine wakes up, he does stuff, his actions and decisions are irrelevant... and the movie ends. Oh wait... here comes a spoiler...
Spoiler alert! Spoiler alert! At the end of the movie.... it rains. I think a part of my soul died while watching this movie.


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 just one word for this film. Appalling. The director clearly has talent but like his character Robert Carmichael he throws it all away.
Carmichael has potential, but like Cray he can't be bothered to use it. Being drawn into petty crime and then descending into depravity is Cray's vision of British youth. Like the British tabloids this film portrays young people with no aspirations or respect. Cray cries out for attention, but deserves none.
I was appalled by the act of violence that Cray chose to shove in the faces of the audience. He assumes the audience are ignorant of world atrocities. Like a piece of obscene graffiti on a toilet wall he shows us male depravity with adolescent glee.
Some actors of quality have small parts in this film. Danny Dyer and Leslie Manville both make short appearances. The acting is otherwise amateur, the young men Joe and Ben are cringe making. Carmichael played by Daniel Spencer is creepy. Miranda Wilson plays Monica, the attractive wife of celeb chef Jonathon (Michael Howe); how she was able to subject herself to such an ordeal is beyond belief. The film is never subtle and Monica is treated to the most gratuitous violence which is cut with war action. War imagery is used to convey the idea that young men cannot help themselves, that acts of violence will occur within even "civilised" countries. This is most certainly true and is symptomatic of our altered society where males have an increasingly less important position, but Cray descends to the level of the barbaric males he seeks to expose through his use of such brutal and violent images. The female characters in the film offer no relief. They are either victims or in Manville's case a washed out mother. The community is represented as dysfunctional.
This is Cray's first film. I listened to what he had to say during a Q and A session at Edinburugh and he is not unintelligent, he simply lacks experience and his film exposes his naivety. The film is due to be released later this year, but I hope the company goes bust cos the public really don't need this kind of messed up material.


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 commits what I would call an emotional rape on the viewer. The movie supposedly caused quite a stir among the critics in Cannes, but for me the final scene was just a pathetic attempt for a newbie director to get himself noticed. Hardly a voice in the discussion on the issue of violence, drug abuse or juvenile delinquency (or any other issue, for that matter).
The main character's metamorphosis from good, but troubled boy to the vicious rapist is virtually nonexistent, whereas the rape scene (being an over-dragged, exaggerated version of the rape scene from "A clockwork orange") is unbearable and I refuse to comment on its aesthetic values. There are some things an artist should not do to try and achieve his/her goal. At least in my opinion.
To wrap it up: shockingly brutal, revolting and NOT WORTH YOUR TIME. See "A clockwork orange" or "Le pianiste" instead.


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


user
Thomas Clay has been mixing with the wrong types. That's the trouble with young people these days, they have no respect.
Seriously this film should be avoided at all costs. The action in the main body of the film is slow and rather stodgy and ambles to the drug crazed ending as if, like it's director, it has no where better to go. We are introduced to the main title character who is a bit of an outsider, we see him at school and at home not quite fitting in, feeling awkward in himself as so many adolescents do. Robert falls in with bad lads and starts missing school and taking drugs and before you know it he is a psycho rapist.
The film is really about Clay's total failure to understand the links between violence imagery and violent acts. Clay seems to think a generation of crazed youth are made evil by scenes of war on our TVs. yet he has filmed the most disgusting piece of SIMULATED violence. Is this guy for real?
If Clay has not seen YouTube perhaps he is naive and unaware of will be done with the brutal climax scene from his film? All anyone will want to see is the most hideous scene from the end of the film and I am sure that will be what sticks with people.
The rest of the film is pointless for in committing such an act of violence to film Clay not only damns young people who are actively engaged in preventing war, he also damns himself as perpetrator of extreme, tasteless violence for no better reason than his own personal celebrity status.
Shame on all involved.


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


user
So they hyped the violence and it's been branded as sick. Well, the violence is the best bit I'm afraid, but unfortunately the characters are not developed enough to allow us to understand why they go on their (entirely predictable) rampage. This film has a truly dreadful script. We never get a chance to get to know Robert and his actions at the end are just plain pathetic. The acting isn't much better, either, the worst of them being the TV chef and the school teacher. The direction is clumsy, the pace enough to send you to sleep. And what on earth is the school film project all about? A comment on the film itself perhaps? The use of newsreel during the climactic murder is laughable. These guys obviously think they're intellectuals but are hopelessly out of their depth. How on earth they got the great Yorgos Arvanitis to light it I'll never know. And how they got the money to make it in the first place is an even greater mystery. Absolutely awful beyond comprehension.


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


user
Violence whether real or not always has an impact. In this film the violence is about as crass as you could ask for. In the Great Ecstacy the director has successfully demonstrated what extremes of violence people are capable of. But what was the point? The violence looks like a mix of Noë's 'Irreversible, and ' Kubrick's 'Clockwork Orange'...both of which are remarkable films. Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to screen violence at all and I've seen some nasty stuff in my film-going years, but this film as a whole is totally juvenile. The story is never developed enough to offer any reason for the extreme violence, the rizla paper thin reason we are give for Robert's demise is his introduction to drugs. Danny Dyer plays the character who is partly responsible for Robert's drug fuelled demise, however he is on screen for less than 5 minutes. Lesley Manville is Robert's unable to cope mum, I am not sure what either of these actors is doing in a film of this low caliber. The acting is wooden, the scene in the kitchen with the TV-cook and his wife for instance is as painful to watch if not more so than the shocking finale- who wrote those dialogues?! Some of the comments the boys make...'looks like she's enjoying it' are so trite as to tempt one to laugh if it were not for Clay's ardent desire to bombard us with harrowing images of mutilated female genitals. Why we need to be shown such detail possibly down to the director's adolescent obsession with sadistic pornographic imagery...one can only wonder at this young man's psychology.
The 'political meaning' of the film was repeatedly brought to our attention due to the amount of scenes; in the bar, outside the TV-cook's house, war in Iraq reports, was perhaps too obvious in my opinion. Yes, war is violent, social determinism causes frustration, we're all prone to horrifingly violent acts whether you're in politics or on the street popping E. Juxtaposing all these things as part of the same underlying issue is evading the actual issue which is the meaning of violence in man. This issue is one that we still haven't managed to grasp and certainly not in this film.
My opinion: derivative, badly-made and pointless.


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 this at the Edinburgh Film Festival. It was awful! Every clichéd, violent, rich boy fantasy was on display, you just knew how it was going to end especially with all the shots of the chef's wife and the rape of the first girl.
The worst part was the Q&A with the director/writer and writer/producer they tried to come across as intellectuals but you could tell they're the types that get off on violence. I bet anything they frequent brothels and do drugs.
Don't waste your time. I had to keep my boyfriend from walking out of it.


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


user
I did watch all of the film through to the disgraceful ending even though I felt so angry at what I saw. I felt that the director was screaming for attention and the only way he could achieve this was to be as repulsive as possible. Since I have lived in the UK I have come to love this country but this film depicts British young people in the worst way imaginable. There is nothing to be said but avoid it, it will make you angry and sick. The people involved should be ashamed.


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


user
I have seen it. It's not "good" but interesting in an understated way. The boys in it are quite naturalistic but................the graphic/gratuitous final gang rape scene is repugnant and -oh yes- the arbitrary insertion of second world war footage is offensive in the way it attempts to compare real horror with this misogynistic contrivance. Real atrocity is real- this film is just atrocious. However, the film has a look which can draw you in. But it seems to me that is the "Emperor's New Clothes", but in fact in reverse. The film looks good, but the direction, story, content and final feeling you take away from this film is vacuous. If a feeling can be vacuous-this is it.


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


user
This is the most disturbing film I have ever seen. It makes "Requiem for a Dream" look like a Disney film. Although, technically, it is reasonably well made, acting, cinematography, music, directing, etc., are good. However, the concluding gang rape scene is the most appalling and violent thing I have ever seen and I really wish I had not seen it. I am afraid that it will haunt me for the rest of my life. Although I think anyone would find the film extremely disturbing, my wife and some of her friends were victimized in a very similar manner and I really didn't need an explicit reminder of the horror that they experienced. I saw the film at the SXSW film festival in Austin, TX and none of the cast or crew were in attendance. I would have liked for them to have had the opportunity to defend the violence in their film, which I felt was excessive, gratuitous and unnecessary. An earlier scene successfully conveyed the mood they were apparently striving for, but without rubbing your face in the extreme and explicit sexual violence. This film should have a big WARNING label on it. For these reasons I would not recommend anyone seeing it. You've been warned.


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


user
First a technical review. The script is so slow, it is really a 25 minute story blown up to 1 hour 40 min. The dialogue is so flat and truly one-dimensional. The "acting" is pathetic, they seem to really have lifted schoolchildren out of class to read a few lines from an idiot board. As for the whole "point" of the story, namely "war is bad" (oh, there's a shock!) is really non-existent. Without out the "lets shock 'em and get great publicity" scene nobody would be talking about this film. It is so bad it actually bothers me to think what better things the money used this could have gone on. Believe me I've seen some bad "emperor's new clothes" films but the one thing I can say for them is at least they were well shot and well made while the camera wobbled during two scenes in this! Read all the other reviews - avoid at all costs and don't talk about it.


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


user
This cowardly and offensive film had me intrigued to begin with. The characters are the familiar dispossessed young males frequently to be seen hanging around bored in a sea side town. Robert is an outsider but he has his music which could have been his soul. Instead Clay makes Robert into a freak who embarks on a journey into cannabis and ecstasy and getting in with the wrong crowd. Clay seems to believe in "reefer madness" and Robert ends the film as a homicidal rapist. One wonders how much experience of real life this young director has. No one can save poor Robert. Clay leaves us with the message that young British men are out of control. A very unsubtle link is made to the Iraqi insurgents; during the needlessly graphic rape we are subjected to explosions and images of war. The film shows male peer group extremism pushed to it's limits. The young bombers in London draw a parallel with Clay's hateful depiction of modern male. Clay implies that men simply cannot help themselves from inflicting terrible acts of violence. It is a wonder the British film industry allows money to be invested in films which advocate such divisive propaganda, when in London we are still reeling from the recent attacks. This is Clay's first film, I would be delighted if it is his last.


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


user
At the end of the film I just asked myself :"is it the worse movie I have ever seen or is it the worse movie I have ever seen ?". And the answer is... Actually, after having seen this movie and thought a bit about the meaning of it, you just can't find any meaning and you can only remember the two rape scenes, which are unbelievably brutal and useless. It seems to me as if the director tried to push this question into the crowd's head : "what are such crimes compared to horror of war and extermination ?" because i noticed that the two awful scenes where directly connected to war and it's horrors (during the first scene you can here the girl that is being raped screaming and in the same time you hear one of president Bush's speeches about the necessity of starting a war with Iraq and in the second scene, the pictures of the three criminals sticking a sword in a woman's vagina, are directly followed by archive pictures of World war II. But as a matter of facts, i really could not think about the relative gravity of theses two different kinds of human horror's expression, being done i was too shocked by what i had just seen and felt. (sorry for bad English)


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 this movie on the film festival of Rotterdam (jan '06) and followed the discussion between director and public afterwards. Many people reacted shocked and protesting. He will get a lot of negative critics. But: the world is cruel like this, and it's not funny. People don't like it. That itself doesn't mean that the movie is bad. I can see that difference. Don't shoot the messenger that shows us the world outside our 'hubble'! Nevertheless I think this a bad movie. Film-technically it's a good one. Nice shots and script, most good fitting music, great actors. The director pretends to make a psychological movie, - the psychology however is of poor quality. Describing such a powerful violence itself is not the art. The art would be a powerful description of the psychological process behind that violence. How does a shy boy come to such a cruelty? The director pretends to describe that, - but is not good in that.
The director used several times the word the 'selfishness' of people, mentioning for instance the teacher. Only: this teacher wasn't selfish,- just someone in several roles, caring for his pupils, ánd worried about his script. I think it's a simplification to call him selfish. The atmosphere in the village is creepy, and the mother made awful mistakes ('you terribly let me down') but it doesn't become believable for me, that there is caused súch a lot of pain, that the shyest boy comes to such terrible things. In fact, reality is far more complex than the way, this film describes  and it needs far better descriptions. The interesting thing would be: how does it work? Describe that process for me please, so that we understand.
With the written phrase on the end, the director said to point to an alternative way of life. It was the other extreme, and confirmed for me that director and scriptwriter are bad psychologists, promoting black/white-thinking. The connection between violence in films and in society has been proved. Use such a violence gives the responsibility to use it right. There are enough black/white-thinkers in the world, causing lots of war and misery. I hope, this movie won't be successful.


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


user
Badly made. Dreadful acting and an ending that the Director appeared to contrive out of nowhere as the film had frankly been nothing short of dull. Shocking that this film is considered for an award at the Gijón Film Festival.
Everyone that came out of the theatre was of the same opinion as I - what was the point of even making the film? The references to Iraq were either bizarre or just not thought through properly. I am astonished that this film has been given a release - very, very disappointing and a waste of my time. Sorry, terribly negative review but hopefully will deter some people from making the same mistake. What a pity we did not have a Q and A at the end of the film - now that could have been interesting.


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


user
With a title "borrowed" from Werner Herzog and liberal helpings of Kubrick, Haneke and Noe it is painfully obvious that Thomas Clay considers himself a cut above the usual sort of rubbish our British cinema churns out. "Robert Carmichael" (for short) sets itself up as a realistic study of youthful alienation and at the same time seemingly a critique of the Iraq war. The problem with the realism is that the characters are so patently unrealistic and atypical - contrary to the fetid imaginings of "extreme" filmmakers most teenagers are not drug addled rapists. As a critique of the Iraq war, a film about youth violence (by a talented classical musician - subtext society has damaged this sensitive individual)is so infantile as to hardly bear thinking about. There are signs of technical ability but some reviewers have overstated this. Like Kubrick and Noe he does show that the desire to shock linked with supposed serious intent may be the worst cinematic con trick of recent film. People liked "Clockwork Orange" and "Irreversible" because they liked the rapes and the violence, but most of all they liked feeling culturally superior for liking things that most hated. So too much Kubrick and not enough Haneke (a serious and moral filmmaker) here labels this as one of the most moronic films in years. (I am not against violence in film. To do it seriously is a hard trick though - people in cinemas cheered Alex in "Clockwork Orange" showing how Kubrick's supposed intent was missed by miles. Gratuitous violence is much easier to achieve and is less offensive than the pretensions of many art-film directors.)


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


user
I can't believe I've just spent one and a half hours watching such a weak film. If there is only one film you have to miss, this is the one.
Robert is a teenager whose father's died recently so he starts hanging out with some local anti-social teenagers and using drugs. All these make him subconsciously more violent and at last such subconsciousness explodes...
The first thing is that I don't think I can find any sense or trace of great ecstasy in this film, not in any single character. If the director considers what I saw in the last couple of minutes as great ecstasy, I have to say that that's not even close.
The use of cinematography is also not mature. Most of the time I couldn't see any facial expressions from the actors and I didn't feel the body language was sufficient enough to make an impact. Maybe the crew was just so tired that they fixed the camera there to include everything in the settings. Everybody happy except the audience.
The plot is particularly weak. There are a lot of unrelated scenes and talking which might be supposed to be related but they are really so random that you can never pull them all together, perhaps unless you're the one who wrote them.
In the one and a half hour you may find less than 5 minutes of real acting and all other time there are just people walking, talking and moving. So I really can't comment on acting here.
Nice choice of music in the last couple of minutes though. Maybe this is the only good thing.
I have never given a film a 1 but this film certainly deserves it (at least you laugh when you watch Scary Movies). This is a film about when a failed attempt to portray troubled teenagers meets extremely disturbed audience. Hope you fall into neither group.


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


user
The Great Ecstasy of Robert Carmichael is bad film in every way. The script, the dreary pace, the lack of depth in any character, the pointless sub-plots, the dreadful acting, the needless climax all make this possibly the worst film I've ever seen. I found nothing likable, enjoyable or intellectually stimulating in any way.
I imagine the film makers thought they were making something clever and dark, with its moody lighting, long protracted silences and vaguely haunting classical soundtrack. If so, they failed utterly. It just bored me, and I wish I had never watched it.
Avoid at all costs.


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


user
I watched this film, along with every other adaptation I could get my hands on- including seeing plays- in preparation for some academic research. The cinematography is very moving, as is the music. Unfortunately all of the life was taken out of the story. I have never seen such an awful portrayal of Mr. Rochester. All of his most fundamental traits are gone. Where is his wit? Where is his passion? Scott's Rochester more closely resembles Rochester's foil, St.John, than the character from the novel. In fact, the actor playing St.John in this adaptation played a passionate St.John while Scott is content to smash things or just stare at the ceiling (which he does all the time). I have no idea what they were thinking. I would like to give this film a slightly higher vote based on the wonderful music and cinematography but I honestly can't bear to see this film for too long because of George C. Scott's performance.


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


user
I bought the DVD version of this movie on the recommendation of my wife who loved the version she saw aired in television. But the version put to DVD was a disaster. The lighting was poor to non-existent and entire scenes were simply excised. In one instance Adele is being put to bed, and we immediately cut to another scene - coming in in mid-sentence - where it's the next night. Characters such as Grace Poole and Mason are never even introduced, leaving one to wonder if they'd dozed off for a few minutes during the movie.
The DVD we saw was produced by Platinum Disc Corp and even at $6.32 it was a gyp.
Be careful which version of this movie you buy! We're sending this one 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 is by far the worst adaptation of Jane Eyre I have seen. It is uncertain whether or not the writer of the screenplay ever read the book by Bronte. George C Scott is ridiculous and bumbling as Rochester -- when not just plain old acting angry. Susannah York has the most dated 1970's hairstyle I have ever seen in a Victorian movie. The characters hardly speak to each other, so the rich banter enjoyed in the book that is the basis for their deep intellectual and abiding love, is gone. The ending is ludicrous.
Please, rent the Timothy Dalton version instead. It is so true to the book, it's like having the novel read aloud to you. Dalton is superb as Rochester. G. C. Scott is laughable.


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


user
This was in short a terrible disappointment. By far the worst adaptation of one of my favourite novels. The dialogue was horribly clumsy; I could sense no feeling behind the words expressed by the characters. The lines were delivered too hastily and felt rather out of place. They could just as well have been cited by statues. The chemistry between George C. Scott and Susannah York was non-existent and watching an American Rochester felt strange. He could have at least tried to do a British accent. I like George C. Scott as an actor, but this simply did not work. I felt like I was watching highlights from Jane Eyre, where the main pieces of the story had been randomly put together with no regard to the flow of the story. The scenery and music were all very nice, but I could feel none of the passion and love that is supposed to be between Jane and Rochester and the movie left me totally unmoved.
If you want to see a good version of Jane Eyre I suggest you watch the 1983 BBC version with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke or the 1997 version with Ciarán Hinds and Samantha Morton. Now these two are brilliant adaptations.


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


user
Miscasting happens. Susannah Yorke is a luminous young Jane Eyre, and her performance is impeccable. However, Edward Rochester is supposed to be 35. White-haired George C. Scott looks and behaves like an arthritic 80. Jane's deceased uncle is in better shape! He creaks and snarls, obnoxious and grim. He looks like an ax-murderer who has sent his ax out to be sharpened; we're not surprised he keeps a wife caged in the attic! The great love story looks like a sado-masochistic nightmare. There is enough darkness in the novel, but Bronte's Rochester is relatively young, athletic, powerful, and charming when he chooses to be. He has a fine speaking and singing voice, a good mind, and a conscience that he unsuccessfully attempts to stifle.


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 review of 2010 is "Into The Blue 2: The Reef". The story is about two divers played by Chris Carmack and Laura Vandervoort who love to explore hidden treasures at a bottom of a local reef. One day after a day of exploring they are approached by a couple played by David Anders and Marsha Thomason. They tell the young divers that they want to hire them to explore the reef and find a rare artifact about Columbus' hidden treasure that is reported at the bottom of the reef.
Next day the four dive to the bottom of the reef and of coarse after a whole day of diving they find nothing. A few more days past and the two hired divers found out that they a part of a major deadly plot in which they can't escape otherwise they will be killed. They were hired to find two big containers. One contains a nuclear reactor and the other contains a core.
The movie also has a back story about another person (brother of the lead character) trying to patch things up with his girlfriend, I reckon this part of the story was a waste of time, this also includes a very steamy sex scene between the couple which to me is a complete waste and wasn't needed to be shown.
However apart from that, this movie does have some good underwater photography and the colors blend in well which is why it receives 4 stars. Into The Blue 2 is a sequel only by name. None of the original actors or characters return, it has a dumb plot, stupid characters and a boring climax.


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


user
Brainless film about a good looking but brainless couple who decide to live their dream and take people on diving tours. The pair almost instantly make the wrong choice of customers and get mixed up with some people seeking to recover the items that we see falling to the ocean floor during the opening credits sequence. Great looking direct to video movie could have been so much better if it wasn't so interested in primarily looking good. Performances are serviceable and the plot is actually not bad, or would have been had the director and producers not redirected the plot into making sure we see lots of shapely people in bathing suits (or in what I'm guessing the reason for the "unrated" moniker a few fleeting bare breasts). The film never generates any tension nor rises above the level of a forgettable TV movie. If you get roped in to seeing this you won't pluck your eyes out since the eye candy is pleasant but we really need to stop producers from making films that are excuses to have a paid vacation.


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


user
In 2005,George W. Bush started with his second period as a President of the United States; North Korea announced its possession of nuclear weapons; Pope John Paul II died after a long illness; and a movie called Into the Blue appeared.The existence of this movie is not as bad as the other things that happened on that year,but the film itself was pathetic and maybe,the worst one from that year.Now,in 2009,the United States have another President,there is another Pope,new Korean nuclear weapons...and the film Into the Blue 2 : The Reef,which is better than the original one...but that's the same as saying : "getting your fingers cut is better than getting your head cut".This sequel is a really bad film which kept me tremendously bored and uninterested.The cast of Into the Blue 2 : The Reef is composed by TV-series actors who completely lack of any credibility and dramatic weight,but who are perfect for showing their bodies.Chris Carmack (The O.C.),David Anders (Heroes and Alias),Laura Vandervoort (Smallville),Marsha Tomason (Lost) and Audrina Patridge (The Hills) bring hollow and boring performances.I have liked some previous movies from director Stephen Herek (Critters and Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure specially) but on this movie,he cannot generate even the minimum level of tension,emotion or entertainment.The characters from this movie are not only badly performed,but they are also repulsive.Honestly,I wanted all of them to die.The cinematography from this movie is also lame and it seems to have been made by a technical team who makes promotional videos for Hawaiian hotels.Into the Blue 2 : The Reef is a horrible movie which is better than the original film,but that's the same as nothing,as I previously said.Avoid this crappy film at all costs.


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 makes Peter an elf in Robin Hood costume instead of a human boy in probably-not-Robin-Hood-costume and ignores all the persona features in him that really matter. This movie makes Wendy a babbling idiot. And poor Captain Hook a TOTAL clown. And of course as every Disney cartoon must have a character which has had too many hits in the head, they made one of the Lost Boys that one. The only character that has not been disgraced in this film is Tink. The only star is for her.
The story itself then? The Darling parents don't even get the time to notice their kids are gone!!! Probably one of the most significant point in the original story and they ruined it! Also the famous nursery scene between Peter Pan and Wendy is a stunning piece of- There are no thimbles and no acorns - one of the little things that makes the original story such a unique one. It's a wonder he even had lost his shadow and she helped him stick it. (Even though to his shoes and it makes no sense to me.)
Ruining a great story like this just to amuse children should be illegal. So know now if you haven't known it before - this Disney version does not have anything significant in common with the original story - which is not really a children's story but just a great, great story.
This just annoys me to no end.


assistant
0