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
Ugh! Where to begin ... first, Campbell Scott's non-stop angst becomes a real turn-off after awhile (a very short while) as he internalizes his mounting anguish, curiosity and anger. Only we don't care! These characters as presented by the writer and director are wholly unlikable, and therein lies the key. They haven't given us anything to make us care if they are adulterous and whether or not they are still in love with one another. When Scott quietly tells his wife, "I could kill you" before their three daughters at the dinner table, after the shock of his selfishly poor timing wore off I almost wished that he had--and then done the same thing to the smug, wisecracking apparition of Denis Leary before being hauled off the the looney bin. An utter waste of time and perhaps--only perhaps--resources.


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


user
Basically, a dentist husband-wife team and their 3 daughters deal with infidelity. The premise is interesting, the acting is good, and the music, although sometimes abrupt and without direction, is pretty cool.
The problem is the plot. The husband dentist drops his wife off backstage at an opera before the show (she has a minor role) and then walks back in to give her something, but sees her with another man. The rest of the movie deals with his angst about this episode, his visual hallucinations and a macho alter-ego (Denis Leary, a former patient of his) and his fear in confronting his wife lest he will have to "do something about it." I won't tell you the ending, but let me say that the film goes nowhere and the ending is like a sputtering whimper. The motivations of the characters are missing: Why is she cheating on him? He's a dentist, decent looking, good father. The film doesn't say. Who's she doing it with? Don't expect any answers on that either. Why does he want to keep the marriage going in spite of all this? Who knows. What purpose does all the kids vomiting serve? Where is this film going? Good performances by Campbell Scott and Hope Davis (and Denis Leary as comic relief)are completely wasted by this stilted nonsense which doesn't know if it wants to be American Beauty or a family film. A root canal is more interesting. Avoid 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 tend to like character-driven films. I also think Hope Davis turns in consistently good work, so I had high hopes for this movie. Those hopes were soon dashed.
The main flaw with this movie is the direction. There are a lot of scenes that are daydream sequences. The movie makes frequent use of the Denis Leary character as the alter ego of the Campbell Scott character. It doesn't work for me at all. This would have worked better as a play than a movie.
There are problems with the plot as well. It is important that the characters in a movie take a journey and end up in a place different from where they started. I didn't feel that the characters grew in the experiences portrayed in the movie.
Finally, the editing wasn't well done, either. There was a very big sag in the middle of the movie that was exceptionally boring.
Except for acting, which I felt was consistently strong, this movie failed in almost every aspect of cinema.


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


user
There may something poetically right in seeing dentists suffer. Suffer they do, in this dreary, truly dreadful film, but they cause the audience to undergo pain of the non-dental variety too. If you ever wanted to see a movie full of screaming kids, barfing kids, sick kids, lots of long, long meaningful glances, a deadpan wife and a concerned husband: it's all here for you. Boring, overlong, it stands out as one of those examples that scream out: why? Is there a saving grace? Yes, there is. There is a short scene from Nabucco, with some pretty good singing. Save your money, or if it's on TV or cable, save your time. You can always read a book or make an omelette.


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


user
It's common practice for a film about repression to be somewhat muted in style and tone. There's a difference, however, between using restraint and encouraging narcolepsy among audience members. In "The Secret Lives of Dentists," starring Campbell Scott and Hope Davis, director Alan Rudolph plays as close to the vest as possible, with the result being a film that never amounts to much beyond a rumination on how teeth are a metaphor for married life.
Scott gives a fine performance in the role of David Hurst, a dentist married to another dentist (Davis). Rudolph sets up the dynamic of their relationship quickly - he is completely absorbed in the day-to-day duties of being the parenthood, she is quietly disillusioned with their frantic family life - and then ratchets up the tension when Scott may or may not witness his wife with another man. From this point on, the film focuses on whether or not David is going to confront his wife Dana about her possible adultery, or whether she will beat him to the punch and leave for good. From time to time, David is treated to visits from an imaginary "friend" in the form of a former patient played by Denis Leary (borrowing heavily from Brad Pitt's Tyler Durden in "Fight Club").
While there is enough uncertainty about Dana's infidelity and David's instability to warrant examination, the last two thirds of the film are embarrassingly empty of theme or narrative. Instead, Rudolph creates drama out of a nasty fever that travels slowly through the Hurst family, culminating in a pointless hospital visit at the film's climax. The film never picks up on the hints at what David is really capable of if he wasn't so dedicated to his family; neither does it spend much time looking at Dana's precarious balancing act between her family life and her other, more fulfilling ambitions.
By choosing to spend the majority of the film worrying over a fever gone awry, Rudolph kills the momentum of his film. By the time the fifth member of the family shows up sweating and sickly, the film has used up all the good graces of Scott's well-measured performance. David and Dana end up retracing their steps over and over again until a less than cathartic finale. With nothing to build on over the last hour, the conclusion seems awkward and patched-on. "The Secret Lives of Dentists" takes a common theme and does nothing to improve upon it. Altogether, a disappointing, unimaginative film.


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


user
An idiotic dentist finds out that his wife has been unfaithful. So, no new story lines here. However, the authors managed to create a stupid, disgusting film. If you enjoy watching kids vomiting, or seeing a dentist imagining that he is pulling all his wife's teeth out in a bloody horror-type, go see (or rent) the film. If not, move on to something else (MY FAIR LADY, anyone?)


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


user
Alan Rudolph is a so-so director, without that special touch. As an example, there was one shot in The Secret Lives of Dentists in the dental office which could have expressed the entire relationship between the husband and wife. Rudolph squandered it. The camera is in the hallway looking through the doorways of the two dental offices, with Dana and Dave each alone in their respective rooms. You get the idea of their desolation and isolation, but not much more. The lighting, the colors, the body language, the facial expressions could all have been vastly improved upon. If I were directing, I would have spent all day, if necessary, to get that shot right. That's the beauty and power of film: it can express so much, whole lives, in a matter of seconds
The shot with the toddler stepping in the puddle of puke could have been improved on. The child should have shown more fascination with the puddle, should have stomped and shuffled her feet, should have had her head bent down to look at the puddle with all her attention.
Campbell didn't deliver. He plays a uncommunicative man, true, but instead of conveying his inner turmoil in voice, gesture, body movement, the film relies on voice-over narration and dialogue with his imaginary macho alter-ego, played by Denis Leary.


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 such a bad movie it's hilarious. Football hooligans arguing in a travel lodge? Suits? Shades?! Alan clearly had no idea what he was talking about when he made this, it is as far from the truth as you can get.
The casting was atrocious...Gary Oldman as a football hooligan? He doesn't look scary, act scary or even come across as someone who would like football. And as for Yeti? What the hell? Suits, shades and sitting in a travelodge childishly taunting each other with "its about time you got your nappy on". Please.
And the Yeti's gang spraying the ICC's underwear?
I don't see how anyone can even take this film seriously!.
4/10. Its possibly the most inaccurate portrayal of the crisis of the late eighties hooliganism i have ever seen.


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


user
What a shame that Alan Clarke has to be associated with this tripe. That doesn't rule it out however; get a group of lads and some Stellas together and have a whale of a time running this one again and again and rolling around on the floor in tears of laughter. Great wasted night stuff. Al Hunter homes in on a well publicised theme of the late 80s- that hooligans were well organised and not really interested in the football itself- often with respectable jobs (estate agent???). But how Clarke can convince us that any of the two-bit actors straying from other TV productions of low quality (Grange Hill) or soon to go on to poor quality drama (Eastenders) can for a nanosecond make us believe that they are tough football thugs is laughable. Are we really to believe that the ICF (on whom of course the drama is based) would EVER go to another town to fight with just SIX blokes?
The ICF would crowd out tube stations and the like with HUNDREDS. Andy Nicholls' Scally needs to be read before even contemplating a story of this nature. The acting is appalling and provides most of the laughs- Oldman is so camp it is unbelievable. Most of them look as though they should be in a bubble of bath of Mr Matey. A true inspiration to anyone with a digital video camera who thinks they can make a flick- go for 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 very much a television version of the tale, the film starts out like an episode of 'Xena...', with little meaningful dialog or character description. It does get a bit more substantive after a while, but all characters are still cartoonish.
Salma is the exotic beauty. Richard Harris is an evil and sexually repressed Frollo, fiending to bust a nut up in Salma. The other characters, including Quasimodo are quite forgettable.
Its also a sorta liberal version of the story, Frollo is a suppressor of Enlightenment ideals, like the abbot in 'Name of the Rose', and Quasimodo is a champion of liberty. The shadowy side of the Quas character is ignored, though he does pour liquid led on people. He is really only an outsider in that he looks different and enjoys playing with bells more than the average person.
Perhaps the film is intended for children, but I doubt it, considering Frollo flogs himself bloody to amend wanting to spank his monkey. A mostly uninteresting and forgettable, but not awful, and sometimes entertaining, rendition of the tale.


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


user
-=contains spoiler from both original and movie versions=-
i am a huge fan of Notre dame De Paris musical,i also read book this summer and i watched movie today,in the beginning i was hopeful to watch a good film especially when i saw 6.3 IMDb point.first scenes were good but i actually waited for,theaters scene directly from book,but it was normal but when Esmeralda kisses gringoire i felt something is wrong..they don't even kiss in book,even in musical..
and there were huge gap why Esmeralda being judged by sorcerer,in the book she teaches her goat how to respond numbers of clock or write word "phoebus".. wait there were a phoebus weren't there? in this movie he is some soldier junk nothing more,the creators made Quasimodo's love to show around and they even canceled Frollo's love..but Notre dame was frollo. his thoughts his struggles between love of god and love of human in movie we cant find anything like that all we have is,some villain who is really bad and kills people whose clashes with his thoughts..and not mentioning phoebus,not mentioning love of frollo,not mentioning jehan (brother of frollo) not mentioning mother of Esmeralda (maybe it is OK,the storyline would have chopped much)they even not mentioned the real story.. (another PS:frollo wasn't a opus dei or some cult member he actually in interest with alchemy he tries to make gold..he was stuck in science and religion)
finally don't watch this movie,it is some kind of directors edition to real masterpiece,and if you have watched it before read the book,god have mercy on you..you must read to book immediately..
this movie is worse than hunchback of Notre dame II the animated movie,spend your time with watching Notre dame De Paris musical.. enough said..


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 probably one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Jessica Simpson not only lacks any acting skill, but the script is incredibly shallow and lame. You actually hear serious dialogue that goes, "I love you more." "No, I love YOU more." I stopped watching the movie (online) after the first half hour, I couldn't take it anymore. Her "southern girl charm" just doesn't work and is really quite annoying; her attempts at slapstick humor fall flat and she delivers lines like she is reading the script right off the page.
Poor Luke Wilson. Did he not read the script before agreeing to do this, or did he fall for Papa Joe's (Jessica's dad and also the producer of the movie) promise of big profits? Hopefully he now knows better than to sign on to another movie like this. Luke Wilson is actually a good actor - I hate seeing the pained look on his face as he suffers through the bad dialogue.
Also, I think the previous commenter giving this movie an 8 out of 10 was probably either involved in the movie somehow or hired by Papa Joe to give the movie a better rating. No one in their right mind would actually find this movie engaging.
Jessica has lots of money, right? Maybe buy some acting lessons?


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


user
Who wrote this? Some guy named John Cohen. I guess this was the first screenplay he's ever worked on. Someone should've told him you're supposed to write dialog that sounds like something someone actually might say.
And who directed this? Scott Marshal? Son of Gerry Marshall. My the nut has fallen far from the tree. Someone might have wanted to let him know that you can, in fact, shoot a scene in a cab in New York, and it will look real, and you won't have to fake it with a blue screen for no reason. Might have also wanted to let him know he should stay away from Jessica Simpson, but hopefully he's learned that lesson now.
And Jessica Simpson... naturally she can't act. Hell, she makes Jessica Alba look like Audry Hepburn, and yet she's starring in this movie. OH wait, it was produced by her father. Okay, that's why she got the part. That's really the only reason I can think of.
So should I be surprised it's bad? No. Should I be amazed at how bad it is? I think a lot of people would if they saw as much of it as I did. I mean you expect a movie starring Jessica Simpson to be bad, but this... it's not just bad, it's the complete opposite of a classic film. Think of a great Woody Allen movie, this film is as bad as that film is good. It's the Anti-Annie Hall.
I am so glad I didn't pay to see it, I stopped watching ten minutes in cus I couldn't go on. No doubt I would've walked out of the theater sooner. In fact I wonder how many of the 6 people who saw it per theater actually stayed and watched the whole thing. The film starts out laughably bad, and then goes to the point of being so bad it becomes a kind of Chinese water torture. And then, around when the first act is ending, you realize it'll only get worse, and that's when you either need to leave, or kill yourself.
In conclusion, this film goes under the category of being so bad it should be used in place of water boarding at Guantanamo Bay. Although some prefer the water boarding.


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


user
This is an embarrassment to everyone and everything used in making this joke. I personally don't care one way or another about Jessica Simpson and her talent or whatever so many people find fascinating about her. Just as a movie this is something that wouldn't even get a passing grade in film school. The script is a mess, the acting is atrocious, and the fact Luke Wilson (co-writer of "Bottle Rocket") did this makes me wonder what the hell he was thinking. He did "Old School" for crying out loud! This doesn't even belong in the same state as my "Old School" DVD! Please for whatever reason DO NOT WATCH THIS! I see there is a comment that this is so bad it's good, but that frankly is too kind. When will we stop seeing singers that obviously can't act keep trying to, I hope ends soon. The worst part is that there are actually some decent actors (Penelope Ann Miller, Rachel Leigh Cook, & Luke Wilson) who are part of this dump. As far as the plot, well it is almost non-existent and so poorly done and written (yes I know it's another rehash) I very much doubt anyone will remember anything about this. Please whatever you do don't waste your time, but if you do, feel sorry for the ACTUAL actors involved for wasting their time doing this bomb. Jessica Simpson you're pretty, but stick to singing, although I'm not much a fan of that either. And whoever did this film, I wouldn't put this on your resume. 1/10 because you can't give a zero.


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


user
By now you should already know about this film, the Jessica Simpson "bomb" that pretty much went straight to video (limited, anemic theatrical run). Basically, Ms. Simpson's Katie travels from a small town in Oklahoma to visit her boyfriend, to surprise him, only to find him in bed with another woman. She is stranded, but has one friend (Rachel Leigh Cook, whom I wish we saw more often in film), who lets her stay. Katie ends up getting a job via two conniving co-workers (Penelope Ann Miller and the always amusing Andy Dick) who are just using Katie to get the president of the firm (Larry Miller) ousted. This is strictly a b movie, its not meant to be profound. Jessica Simpson is not a great actress by any means, but she is pretty much beautiful and never truly annoying. The film is watchable in that its not an abomination, but its throwaway fluff. In a cameo, Penny Marshall is funny (a subtle in-joke about Milwaukee made me chuckle), and there is a funny scene involving Norwegian priests (don't read too much into this). So, not horrible, but easy to skip. Your safe bet is to watch it on television if it ever does. Again, not good, but not a profound disaster.


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 a silly movie with a predictable storyline and dreadful acting!! Willy Nelson was as stiff as his braids. The movie just seemed like a very long advert for the bright red lipstick that Jessica Simpson wore - especially as there were so many close-ups on her face. The premise was not amusing and as I said - soooooooo predictable. Whatever money was spent on making this movie was a shameful waste. Any allusions to other old Marilyn Monroe movies did not enhance the viewing of Blonde Ambition at all. It was also so unbelievable - Jessica Simpson being able to step into an executive secretary position at the drop of a hat - that was laughable!!!


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


user
Watching this I mainly noticed the ad placements. DHL, Aquawhite Strips, Rockstar and more. It's one product placement after another. It's quite obvious how this movie got its funding. Jessica Simpson's "acting" is laughable. Any Dick shouldn't ever get work because he plays the same lame character. The "story" is just a backdrop for this very long commercial. I can't believe this movie was even considered for theatrical release. The longer you watch this movie the more you're embarrassed for everyone involved. The only minor saving grace is Larry Miller and Rachael Lee Cook, who gets almost no screen time as Jessica's cousin. I'm embarrassed I watched the whole thing. I would recommend avoiding this one.


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 had all the elements to be a smart, sparkling comedy, but for some reason it took the dumbass route. Perhaps it didn't really know who its audience was: but it's hardly a man's movie given the cast and plot, yet is too slapstick and dumb-blonde to appeal fully to women.
If you have seen Legally Blonde and its sequel, then this is like the bewilderingly awful sequel. Great actors such as Luke Wilson should expect better material. Jessica Simpson could also have managed so much more. Rachael Leigh Cook and Penelope Anne Miller languish in supporting roles that are silly rather than amusing.
Many things in this movie were paint-by-numbers, the various uber-cliché montages, the last minute "misunderstanding", even the kids' party chaos. This just suggests lazy scriptwriting.
It should be possible to find this movie enjoyable if you don't take it seriously, but it's such a glaring could-do-better than you'll likely feel frustrated and increasingly disappointed as the scenes roll past.


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


user
The story goes something like this: A small-town girl, Katie (Jessica Simpson), decides to visit her boyfriend in the big city. When she arrives she discovers he isn't quite as faithful as he should be. Katie then ends up venturing into the adventure that is New York. Filling in as bike messenger comedic and charming mishaps ensues. She falls into a hole in the ground and thus meets charismatic good-guy Ben (Luke Wilson). It's not love at first sight, at least for her, but destiny and Ben, won't give up quite that easy. Being "just" a small-town girl AND blonde a couple of evil executives at a building firm decides she's the perfect scapegoat for their cunning plan. Misunderstandings with hilarious and sad consequences follow. However, this is one blonde who won't take it lying down!
People being judgmental of this film will soon enough be proved wrong. The jokes are confident and fitting, and the story well developed. The relationship between Katie and Ben feels so natural that it puts anything Godard has created to shame. The multi-talented Jessica Simpson once again surprises with a strong role only she could pull off. Simpson really is the Marilyn Monroe of our day (there's even one scene honoring her!). She balances perfectly between vulnerable and whimsy. Katie really does show us that you can't judge a book by its cover! Luke Wilson is as charming as ever. Even if he was covered in manure that man would be as appealing as anyone. His light touch, puppy dog eyes and laid back manner makes it difficult to resist. Andy Dick plays the role he was born to play, one of the two diabolical executives. He really cannot be underestimated. The strength of the performance lies in his restraint. It's remarkable, because most actors would just run away with it and play it for cheap laughs. Not this guy!
In conclusion, director Scott Marshall has crafted an intelligent and frequently hilarious comedy that is destined to become a classic alongside masterpieces of cinema like Epic Movie and Norbit. Kudos to everyone involved in this, especially Jessica Simpson. Her sincere smile and whole-hearted laughter would make even the toughest man break out in a big grin. You may be tough, but you're not THAT tough! Warmly recommended to everyone who wants to be swept off their feet and see a romantic comedy that for once, feels honest. Thank you for this film! Oh, and the soundtrack rocks!
Now if you still haven't gotten it. I'm being sarcastic. 1/10


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


user
This might be unbelievable, but this movie has grossed $878,138 in Russia! It's shown in almost all cinema theaters and still running! Well, I have no idea why distributors put their eye on this particular uh "movie", which had almost no screening around the world. That's some kind of enigma! Haha! Maybe it was based on the fact that another movie, "Pledge This" with Paris Hilton, which was as well released only DVD almost everywhere, had major screenings in Russia and grossed more than 1mln$. Besides, both movies had a lot of promotion, like there were the banners all over the city, TV commercials and etc. Speaking about movie, I'd say it's dull and absolutely boring. It could be better, really. Even if it has Jessica Simpson.


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


user
I knew this movie wasn't going to be amazing, but I thought I would give it a chance. I am a fan of Luke Wilson so I thought it had potential. Unfortunately, a lot of the movie's dialog was very fake sounding and cheesy. I think that Aquafresh gave some money towards the production of the film because they were seriously dropping some hints throughout. There is a shot where the Aquafresh sign sticks out at you that you can't help but notice it. Maybe they should have focused on writing and acting more than how many times can we drop Aquafresh products in the movie without people getting annoyed. The movie had its moments, but I'm glad I didn't spend $9.50 to see it in the theater.


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


user
(First of all, excuse my bad English) Of course only a movie starring Jessica Simpson can include serious goofs like this.. I'm a norwegian and I felt offended and shocked the makers of this movie did not take the time to do their research upon making this American/"Norwegian" movie. Even Wikipedia is more accurate when it comes to facts about this country.
So I'm posting my corrections out of my frustration: -The Country is named Norway, not Norwegia. -"Da" is Russian, not norwegian. -Norwegian priests never use those black capes with that white paper by the neck as the protestant church is the dominant by far -It's true we have a native traditional folk-outfit (that we only use like twice a year) but the outfit in this movie is more like a German outfit. -I could NOT understand the so called "norwegian" in this movie.. Jessica was not making any sense.. neighter did the "norwegian priests"
The only thing I recognise is the norwegian flag (and the viking hats, but that's so stereotypic what people think about norway - vikings!:O gosh)
Well.. I guess the people who made this film will never read this comment. but at least I cleared some things up and got rid of some of that frustration..!
I'm proud of my country and I'd love if people in the US were less stereotypic and more accurate when they talk about this country.
That was all.. Lenge leve Norge ! ;p


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


user
Ahh this film had so much potential! A good cast of quality B actors, the thighs of Jessica Simpson and... that is about it!
I believe some guy in some unnamed marketing department had an idea. Basically, lets do a kind of Legally Blond film, but do it in New York. That big bright city of chances, power and money and where everyone is a heartless, power/money hungry person. Let's add to this Jessica Simpson, small town bimbo, that brother of Owen Wilson and for some no apparent reason Andy Dick (only because of him you should ignore this film).
Basic story line:
Boy leaves girl for NY, girl follows, boy cheats, girl stays in NY with cousin, gets a job under false pretenses, mucks up, is courted by other boy (Brother Wilson) and together save the day and kiss.
a few words come to mind when reflecting upon this film, i.e. dire, awful, unbearable, intolerable and xenophobic
Just don't watch this film, you will be happier. One reviewer referred to Guantanamo and i definitely agree with him. This film induces shock. And I know what you are thinking... at least at some point will I see Simpson naked or close too. It's not gonna happen, spare yourself the time and YouTube her. You will have better sexy time!
The films editing is flimsy, the acting is unbearable, and why do they use blue screens?
In conclusion; this is cinematic treason which should be punished to the maximum
Another question why does Willie Nelson always play a kind of father figure in almost every Jessica Simpson flick and why are there no black, Latin, Asian or European people in 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
A lot of promise and nothing more. An all-star cast certainly by HK standards, but man oh man is this one a stinker. No story? That's okay, the action will make up for it like most HK action flicks. What? The action is terrible, corny, and sparse? Dragon Dynasty's releases up to this point are by and large superb and generally regarded as classics in Asian cinema. This is a blight. They managed to wrangle a couple of actors from Infernal Affairs, but they can't bring life to a disjointed script. There are scenes of dialogue where two or three lines are spoken with a cut in between each and no continuity in what the characters are saying. You almost feel like they're each giving a running monologue and just ignoring the other characters. Michael Biehn is made of wood, really? Sammo Hung uses a stunt double? No way. Yes way. Stay away.


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 "Dragon Heat," all I could think of was why I bothered sitting through the whole thing.
The film's premise is interesting and that - as well as Maggie Q - is what attracted me to the film in the first place. But was I ever disappointed. Writer-director Daniel Lee can't hold a candle to the likes of John Woo, Ringo Lam and Corey Yuen.
This has to be one of the most annoyingly-directed films I have ever seen. Lee is so wrapped up in his visual style - and I use that phrase incredibly loosely - that he fills the film with completely needless black-and-white stills, freeze frames, slow-motion, fast-motion and other visual nonsense. I suppose he did all that to make up for the lack of a good story or dialogue.
The action scenes are nothing special and play out like some hopped-up music video more than anything else. There is little to care about any of the characters - including two supposedly professional snipers who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from the inside! - who are then laden with some of the cheesiest dialogue I have seen in one of these Hong Kong actioners.
The plot is devoid of any twists and turns - from the initial set-up, everything unfolds in predictable fashion - and Lee feels the need to keep reminding us of the characters' back stories in case we didn't get it the first several times. This is awfully amateurish writing and film-making and wastes the talents of Sammo Hung, Michael Biehn and Maggie Q. Though, to be frank, I am hard-pressed to remember Biehn being in any good film that was not directed by James Cameron.
If you really are in the mood for a great Hong Kong actioner, you are much better off sticking to some of the staples - John Woo's "The Killer" (1989) and "Hard-Boiled" (1992), Ringo Lam's "City on Fire" (1987) - which Quentin Tarantino stole for "Reservoir Dogs" (1992) - or his "Point Blank" (1967) remake, "Full Contact" (1992). Or, even check out Yuen's "So Close" (2002), a supremely entertaining, yet preposterous, popcorn flick. And there's always the terrific French police actioner, "The Nest" (2002).
True, most, if not all, are a bit over-the-top, but they were films that remain exciting, thrilling and even suspenseful. They have characters we care about and mind-blowing action sequences.
"Dragon Heat," on the other hand, is just terribly mediocre. The trouble is that Lee has not made a bad action film, he has made a dull one.


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


user
Non existent plot, tons of poorly directed / super-cheesy scenes (Snipers / world famous sharpshooters who can't even hit their targets a few feet away? plus what's up with the ending?---> a bunch of law enforcers vandalizing a carnival's shooting gallery? WTH?), technical mistakes (how many bullets can you fit into a magazine of a glock? 100+? These people fire their guns without the need of reloading). The movie is so bad that even senior Hollywood actor like Michael Biehn (Aliens, terminator) can't save this junk.
DO not watch this movie (I realized that I wasted some good 100 minutes of my precious life on this one). Hopefully the director would either stop making movies, or learn more for his next 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 esteemed production has it's fans. But to paraphrase the classic bad review of 'Mary Reilly,' Moby Dick is like a painting, only slower.
This is because the philosophical grounds for a movie "production" are never to make a great film, rather it's to substitute the lack of a strong guiding idea (in this case for a books transference to film) with a list of hopelessly atomized, undynamic but dazzling conceits in an effort to trick viewers into thinking they've seen greatness. As viewers & critics are apt to fall for this, Oscars follow, feeding the whole dumb equation.
I don't share in the pleasure all these reviewers found. Moby Dick is stunningly uninvolving. Actors dutifully recite essays about Jonah, Moby Dick, the ocean, Moby Dick, Moby Dick... all things that can't respond, and not one of which is absorbing in the slightest. It's dramatically inert. It doesn't build. In narrative terms Moby Dick (as a movie) is little more than a foregone conclusion in search of an actual story. After half an hour I was muttering "Oh terrific... another oath ...another 4 minute soliloquy!"
In the failed effort to involve you, it's a pretty campy overacting showcase. A lot of grey hair here. Starbuck is supposed to be a golden god. (!)
One knows one is looking at a great director when he makes the medium his own rather than trying to replicate the feel of someone else's paintings & palette, or reverently embalming a classic as Huston does here. Paintings and books are nice but they're a different mediums. A movie like this fails to grasp that an honestly enjoyable piece of crap (Village of the Damned) is better in most respects than an insufferable piece of culture. This is the Eat Your Vegetables school of film-making.
One appreciates the work that must have been done to make the movie, but not the narrative. Only a few segments reflecting maritime research are interesting; the recording of shanties as a means of structuring work & various sea efforts; and the technology of whaling. And that doesn't call for a two-plus hour 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 movie is horrible. Everything in it has been done before. There is nothing original. I cannot stand when writers don't come up with their own plots.
A girl makes a wish on her 13th birthday and wakes up as an adult. Hmm, sounds a lot like a movie in the 80s called Big. What is even more annoying is Jennifer Garner's acting. She doesn't act like she is 13 she just acts like she is stupid.
From then on, you can guess the whole plot. She gets a good job and it just so happens that a friend she had at 13 works with her. Wow, how awesome! But, no....her friend is bad and turns on her, trying to get her job. But, of course, she wins in the end when she comes up with a "great" idea.
There's also a dancing scene in the movie that I've seen a thousand times before.
I hate 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
I'm beginning to see a pattern in the movies I give a 1 to. They are almost all movies that my wife made me watch. Maybe I should stop having faith in her taste in movies. Anyway, this is typical drivel aimed at pre-teen girls but done even more poorly than usual. Once again, the writer broke the cardinal rule of any movie. He/she made the main character unlikable. She starts off by being a complete b*tch to her friend at the beginning, and then finds out when she becomes 30, that she's basically a sh*tty person (having affairs, etc.). Why the F would we feel for this person? OK, let's say we can get past that. Jennifer Garner is about as far from attractive as you can get without having some sort of deformity. I don't know if it's her or the writer's fault, but her character goes well beyond my threshold for annoyance. Here's a tip for future filmmakers: 13 year olds are NOT entertaining, they're annoying. Far and away the most embarrassing moment in the movie came when they danced to "Thriller". Holy crap that was painful. It showed her practicing that dance at the beginning. That explains why she knows it, but an entire club full of people?!? Argh!!! The Macarena would be more believable! All of a sudden she's completely incompetent and has no clue how to do her job and no one notices? At least Tom Hanks' character on "Big" had a job that made sense to a child. These body-switching/child becoming adult overnight movies are really getting out of hand, and this is by far the worst one yet.


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


user
What the *bliep* is it with this movie? Couldn't they fiend a better script? All in all a 'nice' movie, but... it has been done more than once... Up till the end I thought it was okay, but... the going back to the past part... *barf* SO corny... Was waiting for the fairy god mother to appear... but wow, that didn't happen... which is good.
I loved Big with Tom Hanks, but to see such a movie in a new form with another kid who wished that he/she is older/bigger; that just is so pasé
Just watch till it comes out on TV. Don't get me wrong, but it ain't all that


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


user
She has been catapulted from 13 to 30, with magic dust involved, courtesy the 13-year-old Matt, but nothing is made of that except as an unexplained device. New York City, especially Central Park, but also every other slice of the place incorporated into the movie, seems hope-filled and easily livable, and save for Lucy there's no villain in Jenna's adult life, and even Lucy is not cast as monstrous, only as a nasty 13-year-old grown 17 years more devious. Chris, the one-time boy object of Jenna's yearning, is now a porky cab driver, and you have seen enough films to know that Matt will play a major role in Jenna's future. You don't know quite what might impede this before it is finally achieved, though I'm here to whisper in your ear, so to speak, that the device is not unique. In fact, not only is this a variation on the theme of Tom Hanks' "Big," though nowhere near as fine, it is also a strictly by-the-book version of this subset of the Cinderella story.


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 a film where the actors are all fine, especially Brigitte Bako and Erik Palladino, in a film where every one of the three couples meet in a situation that feels verrrrry forced to be either cute or to set the story in motion. In other words, it feels like they are contrived movie scenes, not like real life. Even if women who work at peep parlors ever go out with one of their customers, it just doesn't seem realistic at all the way it is written in this film. Also, when one of the characters meets the overweight woman in the film, it feels artificial, the way they look at each other seconds after arguing. Again, the actors are all good, and moments of this film are nice, but overall yet another indie that could have used some rewriting before production got rolling.


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


user
'Mojo' is a story of fifties London, a world of budding rock stars, violence and forced homosexuality. 'Mojo' uses a technique for shooting the 1950s often seen in films that stresses the physical differences to our own time but also represents dialogue in a highly exaggerated fashion (owing much to the way that speech was represented in films made in that period); I have no idea if people actually spoke like this outside of the movies, but no films made today and set in contemporary times use such stylised language. It's as if the stilted discourse of 1950s screenwriters serves a common shorthand for a past that seems, in consequence, a very distant country indeed; and therefore stresses the particular, rather than the universal, in the story. 'Mojo' features a strong performance from Ian Hart and annoying ones from Aiden Gillan and Ewan Bremner, the latter still struggling to build a post-'Trainspotting' career; but feels like a period piece, a modern film incomprehensibly structured in an outdated idiom. Rather dull, actually.


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 truly terrible: painfully irritating stylised performers screech and mug gratingly incoherent dialogues which take place in scenes which seem to have no purpose, no beginning, middle or end, cut together without any apparent narrative or even cognitive intention, all in the service of some entirely uninteresting and almost undetectable "story". What makes it worse is the film's pretentions to "style": suddenly a remote-head crane shot spirals downwards, and, without any apparent reason there are sudden whip-pans or wobblyhand-held sections: all this "style" merely serves to magnify the almost unbelievably huge misconception of the project and the almost offensive vacuity of the material. Definitely a candidate for the worst film ever 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 looked forward to watching this film and then realised that any hope of a coherent dialogue between the actors was swamped by the unnecessary swearing. Now I am not a prude in any way, but to shout obscenities at each other does not a good film make. Ewan Bremner is arguably one of the worst actors in the world at this time (witness his performance in the god awful Life of Stuff) & his "Cockney" accent is almost as bad as his Edinburgh accent. Avoid. How many more of these films "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang", "Beautiful Creatures" do we have to suffer before the film makers realise that the f-word, the c- word etc does not replace proper dialogue.


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


user
First off, I would like to point out that while I am not an expert, the way the trial was handled will insult your intelligence. Firstly, the prosecution never proved that 'facilitated learning' actually works. Irresponsible for both the prosecution(because they can get an appeal) and the defense for not acting on this. As another commenter said, facilitated learning was proved untrue. Secondly, they used Terry as the translator who has personal interest, and even will testify, in the trial which is just stupid. If the court had allowed him to testify that way, they would have brought in someone neutral otherwise they would be just asking for an appeal. Thirdly, this child was never asked specific questions about the defendant by the prosecution(birthmarks, details of the event, etc.) and even when asked by the defense specific questions like when it started, he could not answer. If that isn't reasonable doubt I don't know what is and a competent lawyer would have gotten an acquittal.
Bottom line, it starts off well with the pressures of being the parent of a child with autism, but the trial makes this movie wholly unbelievable.


assistant
0