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
What happened? 'Doubt' had so much potential to be a brilliant film - but instead it faltered with a dragging simplistic plot line which made me want to stop watching. The only thing the film had going for it was the brilliance of Meryl Streep, who no DOUBT deserved the Oscar-nomination. Though it was not one of her best performances, she still gave a solid and truthful character to us which blossomed through the screen.
However, not even the brilliance of a screen legend could save this film from going down hill. From the boring start, which had no power or punch - to the less than convincing ending, the film was truly a disappointment - especially since it provided so much potential through its promotion and trailers. It was obvious the director had trouble with the simplicity of the plot and he ended up with a boring film, which dragged on for too long, with too much talk and not enough action.
Furthermore, the other Oscar-nominations were less than convincing. Though Philip Seymour Hoffman gave a decent performance, it was by no means Oscar-worthy. (Especially since they completely left out performances such as Will Smith, in Seven Pounds). Amy Adams did not deserve the nomination. Watching Amy Adams was like watching a cardboard box - as it was one sided and plain. It would have made more sense to nominate her for a Razzie, as I am sure she would have walked away victorious. Viola Davis gave a short but truthful performance, but the length of her performance made me question whether the academy really should have given her the nomination.
Overall, I consider Doubt to be one of the most disappointing films of 2008. It was a mess of a film with so much potential, and I do not recommend it. The only shining light in the film is Meryl Streep, who though gives a stunning, solid performance - doesn't even do enough to save this film. *** / 10.


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


user
OK, I am blessed. I have seen two very strong stage productions, the one in New York with the original cast, and another at the San Diego Rep (Rosina Reynolds and Monique Gaffney, you rock!). Compared to either of these the movie is almost unwatchable. I've been plodding through the DVD for the past two evenings and am still not finished. Way too much extraneous dialog, and waaay too many added scenes and people. Yes, the four major performances are quite good, esp. Ms. Streep's. But comparing stage to film is definitely an example of "less is more." The thickening of the play to satisfy film-goers' need for scenic variety and specificity was a poor choice. Please, please, please go find a stage production somewhere near you.


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


user
I am not one of those people that will walk out of a movie that was based on source material and automatically say, "The book was better." I know better than to demote the value of a movie just because it wasn't a faithful adaptation. There is a lengthy process and lots of decisions that go into making a movie that are sometimes out of the director's/editor's/cinematographer's/producer's control and certainly out of the original author's control. Therefore, it is unreasonable to expect a movie to be exactly the same, word for word, as a book or play or video game or Disneyland Ride, or whatever! A movie should be judged on its own standard and how it fits in society. Moreover, a successful movie should be made because the material is relevant to the society which it belongs and, if it is based on source material, its relevance needs to be reexamined and enhanced by the filmmakers.
Films like There Will Be Blood follow this paradigm because while it was based on a novel written at the turn of the century, Oil!, it feels relevant because of things like the Iraq war and energy concerns that the film's country of origin, the US, was and is experiencing. Even King Kong, based on the original film, benefits from using new technology and concerns of animal rights that people have.
With that said, I just don't understand why they even bothered to make this movie? Besides the great performances, guaranteed Oscar nods and Shanley's director/writers fee and royalties he will get, this movie seems to come from nowhere. It should have simply stayed as a play. The movie (which is essentially the same as the play) says nothing new about the reprehensible sexual atrocities committed and in many cases covered up by the Catholic church here and abroad. It says nothing new or different than the original play. I can't help but compare this movie to another movie that came out at around the same time: Frost/Nixon, which was also based on a play. Frost/Nixon, while about Nixon's regrets, seems relevant because it seems to have come at a time when President Bush was about to leave office. The regrets that Nixon had, as depicted in the play/movie, about the war and his presidency could just as easily reflected on Bush and his presidency. In that respect Frost/Nixon seemed more relevant and actually benefited from a wider distribution via film because it got people talking and reflecting about the political status quo in the country at the time. In contrast, Doubt felt like it was yesterday's news and didn't seem to offer anything that the play didn't offer.
Of course the movie is "good," the performances are outstanding, and the screenplay adaptation is apt, but so what? Why didn't it just stay as a play? Why, besides marketing and financial reasons, make it into a movie? It gave audiences nothing new to discus about the awful subject.


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 not really want to watch this one. It seemed to be an old Raj Kanwar movie which disgusted me even before I started watching it because I don't consider him even close to being mediocre as a filmmaker. The only reason I took this one is obviously the Shahrukh Khan appearance in the film. I had not even known what the film was all about because I was sure it would be just an ordinary fairy tale. So I just imagined a love story between Shahrukh Khan and Divya Bharti with a substantial supporting role by Rishi Kapoor who I thought would be playing her father or uncle. And to my complete shock, Rishi Kapoor is actually the hero! He is the one who romances the young Divya! I was saddened to find out that Shahrukh had a small part of no substance and that too, only in the second part of this idiotic film.
Just let me repeat the question: why would a 17 year-old lovely Divya have fallen for a 40-plus long haired, chubby, swollen piglet like Rishi Kapoor? Rishi Kapoor should be ashamed of taking this part; the only thing he did is ridiculing himself. He romanced a girl who could logically be younger than his own daughter and to make things worse -- acts like a teenager at his forties. On top of that, just to make himself more pathetic, he plays a pop-star...
To make things clear, I have no problems with actors romancing ladies much younger than they themselves are. As long as they make a convincing couple, there should be no problem. In fact, leading actors have always been cast opposite young girls (Amitabh Bachchan-Sridevi, Mithun Chakraborty-Madhuri Dixit, Shahrukh Khan-Deepika, Salman Khan-Sneha Ullal) and made the pairing pretty well. Also, I have nothing against Rishi Kapoor, I think he is a good actor, and his act in Bobby is still well-engraved in my heart, but it's not that he looks in this film like, say, Shahrukh Khan, Salman Khan or Aamir Khan look today.
That was such a disappointment. Oh, and as for the reason every person actually watched this film, Shahrukh Khan made a good debut. He excelled in the very little his part allowed him to do. The late Divya Bharti made a promising debut as well. If you want to watch this film, go for the second half only. Personally, I would not do even that.


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


user
Dewaana as a film goes through the usual clichés. Man and Woman fall in love and marry, husband is supposedly killed by a family friend who wants their family fortune, woman remarries and surprise surprise husband no.1 reappears. The movie is reminiscent of Yash Chopra's Chandni and countless others. Divya Bharti and Shah Rukh Khan give good performances. Amrish Puri as a villain goes through the motions and is nothing more than a standard bollywood villain The music by Nadeem Shravan is superb, all the songs were brilliant. My favourites are Sochenge tumhe pyar or Koyi na koyi chahiyye. Dewanna is an ordinary movie that goes through the motions.


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 this movie because this was Shah rukh khans Debut.And i also liked to see how would he do.I must say he is excellent in his role.Divya Bharathi is superb in this movie.Rishi does a wonderful job.Susham Seth supported well.Alok nath was good in his role.Amrish and Mohnish did their parts well too.Dalip also was good in his small role.Actors shine in a Mediocre movie.The direction is average.The editing is poor.The story is boring.It tells us about Ravi a famous pop singer.He has a lot of female fans.One of them is Kaajal.Ravi and Kaajal fall in love and get married.Ravi gets killed by his cousins.Kaajal becoems a widow..To escape from Ravis cousins.They go to Bombay.She comes across Raja.She falls in love with him and gets married.Ravi returns.The story is predictable.The climax is predictable.The first half bores.It also drags a lot.But it is saved by the actors and music.The second half entertains.The music is catchy with some nice songs.The cinematography looks outdated in the first half but it looks unimaginative.The song picturisations are dull except for "Sochenge Tumhe Pyar" and one rain song.The costumes are outdated.Any way watch this just for the actors and music Rating-4/10


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


user
I'm one of the millions of Columbo addicts all over the world and just watched this,the episode that started it all, on British Channel 5. It IS fascinating to think what sprung from this so-so movie and I can only marvel at whoever spotted the massive potential of "Columbo" and added all the little touches that make it such a marvellous & classic series. That said, this particular movie is not as good as the rest (except for the embarrassing final episode & the patronising British episode). If Columbo had been made as per the original 'pilot' it certainly would NOT have gone on for very long, or be watched and loved world-wide. In this film Lt Columbo is smartly dressed, drives a normal car, has a partner, doesn't talk about his alleged relatives and comes across as quite aggressive. There's also none of the cat-and-mouse chemistry between Columbo and "the villain". Watchable, but only for the novelty of seeing how Columbo started out.


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


user
I really like slasher movies,but this one is truly awful.The acting is lame,the script is bad,and the atmosphere is non-existent.The plot is as follows:a deformed gardener Charlie Puckett slaughters people in a small American town.That's right-this is the plot.Very original,eh!"The Night Brings Charlie" isn't even gory enough-if the film ain't gonna be scary,at least they should make it bloody.Avoid this cheap piece of trash at all costs.If you want to see some good slasher flicks check out "Madman","The Burning","The Prowler","Just Before Dawn" or "Humongous"- just don't waste your precious time with this worthless piece of garbage.


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


user
I rented this movie because I was browsing through the horror movie section for those movies that no one's heard of and could be a possible gem. I saw this and, since I'm a fan of violence and gore, I got it. It got the rating of EM which means: Extremely Mature. Thinking that this rare and high rating was totally meant for violence and everything else, I got it. The warning on the box said: Extreme Violence, Extreme Langauge, and Nudity. The "extreme violence" struck my fancy. The movie ended being a pretty tame slasher flick. It had one or two gory scenes but I've seen worse in a PG-13 movie. Of course the amount of gore in a movie isn't all that counts, right? You have plot also. Well, the plot was boring and there nothing really special about it. Don't rent it. I speak the truth. I can't imagine how someone could really enjoy it to the point where they say: "I'm gonna rent that again." It had it's moments where it kept you going but I'm never going to see that film again.


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


user
It really boggles my mind when someone comes across a movie like this and claims it to be one of the worst slasher films out there. This is by far not one of the worst out there, still not a good movie, but not the worst nonetheless. Go see something like Death Nurse or Blood Lake and then come back to me and tell me if you think the Night Brings Charlie is the worst. The film has decent camera work and editing, which is way more than I can say for many more extremely obscure slasher films.
The film doesn't deliver on the on-screen deaths, there's one death where you see his pruning saw rip into a neck, but all other deaths are hardly interesting. But the lack of on-screen graphic violence doesn't mean this isn't a slasher film, just a bad one.
The film was obviously intended not to be taken too seriously. The film came in at the end of the second slasher cycle, so it certainly was a reflection on traditional slasher elements, done in a tongue in cheek way. For example, after a kill, Charlie goes to the town's 'welcome' sign and marks the population down one less. This is something that can only get a laugh.
If you're into slasher films, definitely give this film a watch. It is slightly different than your usual slasher film with possibility of two killers, but not by much. The comedy of the movie is pretty much telling the audience to relax and not take the movie so god darn serious. You may forget the movie, you may remember it. I'll remember it because I love the name.


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 a big fan of slasher flicks as a genre, but even by the standards of low-low-budget exploitation, this one is really lame. Even on a nudity-and-gore level, it's incredibly boring (there is some of both, but it's all sort of...meh). Before the home video revolution, it might not even have been released theatrically (though it might have; after all, *Plan 9 From Outer Space* played in theaters). There is precisely one good (and competently-delivered) line in the entire movie; I assume they stole it from somewhere.
The acting is among the worst I have ever seen. I mean, even Ed Wood had a couple of competent actors, and the rest tended to be ludicrously hammy, which can be fun to watch. Anyway, most of his actors could pretty much pass as literate. Here, those who don't read their lines like cigar-store Indians sound like they learned them phonetically. And this film does have one distinction: it manages to be badly underplotted for most of the movie, then laughably overplotted for the ending.
(Update: I should have singled out the actress playing the receptionist as an exception. She is by no means wooden. Not that she's good, but she certainly isn't wooden.)
Even the worst slasher flicks are generally good for a few Puritan meditations on their grotesque offensiveness, but with this one, there doesn't even seem to be anything there to work up a moral outrage about.
And you know the funniest thing? They clearly expected to make a sequel!
It's so bad and boring that it actually becomes fascinating in a weird way. I sat enrapt through much of the video wondering why anyone would go to the bother of making it.


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


user
A teenager who seems to have it all commits suicide. It leaves his family and his best friend (Keanu Reeves) asking a lot of questions...and blaming themselves.
Good idea, badly handled. For starters this HAS been done before 1988--mostly in TV movies and After School Specials. Aside from some swearing and dialogue (hence the PG-13 rating) this added nothing new. The outcome is predictable and Reeve's attempts at acting were truly painful to watch. He's good NOW but not in 1988. Aside from that his character was dressed like a slob and always looked so dirty is was hard to build up sympathy.
That aside the movie is dull. I saw every scene coming and every "surprise" was telegraphed. I basically couldn't wait for this thing to get over.
I have a vague recollection of seeing it in a theatre in 1988 and hating it (it bombed BADLY). It still looks lousy almost 20 years later. The subject is worth handling but it's been done better (with better acting) in countless other movies. "Ordinary People" comes to mind. You can skip 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
Keanu Reeves stars as a friend of a popular high school student who suddenly commits suicide...he and his friends go through emotional turmoil and share their reactions to this horrible incident...Good acting by Reeves and a young Jennifer Rubin..but on the whole is a little too much.. 4 of 10


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


user
I picked up this video after reading the text on the box, the story seemed good, and it had Keanu Reeves! But after 5 minutes of watching, I noticed how horrible his acting was, he walks and talks so stupid the whole time, it's fake and not convincing. It doesn't end there, almost ALL the characters act so badly it's laughable, the only acceptable acting was by Alan Boyce (David), but the guy commits suicide early on and you don't see him again, you never even know why he did it! Everything about this movie screams low quality, I can't believe how such a thing gets released! I was tempted many times to stop watching, in fact I did, half way through it I decided to stop watching and turned the thing off, came to the IMDB to check what other's thought about it, I found zero comments (not surprised), so I decided to force myself to handle the pain and go back to finish it then come here to comment on it. The only good thing going (for me) was the high-school Rock band theme, the occasional guitar playing and singing parts, but that's not worth it.
Very bad acting and directing... Terrible 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 can't recommend this film as a date movie. Gary Oldman's semi-autobiographical account of life lived on a South East London estate is a violent, Beckettian account of one of Dante's circles of hell, frankly. At the centre of it is Ray Winstone, who has done this sort of character before but never as well. The film opens with him ordering drinks at a pub bar - that's all - and you are already gripped with a sense of the frustration, self-loathing and barbarism that he exhibits in many different ways throughout the course of the movie. It's an acting masterclass.
Of course the stymied and dispossessed need a foil in a drama such as this and Winstone is matched by Kathy Burke as his long-suffering wife, who absorbs and ultimately rejects his unbearable behaviour. Charlie Creed-Miles does an able turn as the fuse-lighting druggie son Billy although he must have wondered sometimes exactly what he let himself in for. Gary Oldman directs close up on the actors, maximising the claustrophobia of their council flat squalor. 4/10


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


user
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning
Ray (Ray Winstone) has a criminal past, has had problems with alcohol and is now forming a drug habit that is making him paranoid and prone to domestic violence to his wife Valerie (Kathy Burke) who tries to hold the family together but ends up coming off more like a doormat. Meanwhile, her mother Janet (Laila Morse) is aware of Ray's son, Billy (Charlie Creed-Miles) and his escalating drug habit that is sending him off the rails. The film follows these despairable characters as they tredge along with their lives.
It is said that the British seem to enjoy being miserable, and that would include watching films that entertain them this way. Films like Nil by Mouth highlight this. It's a tale of a broken family, torn apart by crime, poverty, booze and drugs, the kind Jeremy Kyle would lap up like a three course meal. It is also essentially a tale of self destructive men, three generations apart and each copying the other, tearing a family apart and women trying to hold it together, despite not being strong enough. If you pick up a little of what it's about from the off-set, you can see it doesn't promise to be cheerful viewing from the start and it certainly doesn't disappoint in this.
It's true what everyone said about the performances, and the lead stars, Winstone and Burke, do deliver some great acting. We see Winstone lose it with his wife, beating her senseless after some more coke induced paranoia, breaking down during a phone conversation with her and unleashing a typical arsenal of f and c words when she refuses to let him see his kid. Likewise, in a private moment, we see Burke skillfully lose her composure on a staircase, the full impact of the night before kicking in.
This is another of those films where there's no 'plot' to follow, as such, just a real life feel of these hopeless lives carrying on from one day to the next. It's been acclaimed by many (including the Baftas!) but it really was just too grim and bleak for me. I have no right to criticize it for this, knowing what I knew about it from the off-set, but sadly this is how I found 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'm not usually one to slate a film . I try to see the good points and not focus on the bad ones, but in this case, there are almost no good points. In my opinion, if you're going to make something that bad, why bother? Part of the film is take up with shots of Anne's face while she breaths deeply, and violin music plays in the background. the other part is filled with poor and wooden acting. Rupert Penry Jones is expressionless. Jennifer Higham plays Anne's younger sister with modern mannerisms. Anne is portrayed as being meek and self effacing, which is fine at the beginning, but she stays the same all through the film, and you see no reason for captain Wentworth to fall in love with her. Overall the production lacks any sense of period, with too many mistakes to be overlooked, such as running out of the concert, kissing in the street, running about in the streets with no hat on (why was this scene in the film at all? the scene in the book was one of the most romantic scenes written.). To sum it up, a terrible film, very disappointing.


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


user
My God, was this the "Run, Lola, Run" adaptation of Persuasion? It was horrible. Bad enough that the "screenwriter" (and I use the term very loosely) cut and pasted dialogue from one character onto another, often completely out of context and to rush the story along: but Anne Elliott running from location to location in pursuit of Wentworth near the end of the piece was an abomination! Austen must be spinning in her grave. No respectable young woman would have acted in such an atrocious fashion. And the actress that played Mary? Horrors. Needless to say, if the rest of the Austen remakes are this bad, they will be turning off a new generation of watchers.
If you want to see an impeccable version of this (otherwise) wonderful novel, get the 1995 Roger Michell directed version starring Amanda Root (whose expressions alone can speak volumes) and Ciaran Hinds. It is superb.


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 no idea why they made this version of "Persuasion" when they already had that fine mini-series with Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds. I suppose that they wanted to make a feature-length version, but of course a lot had to be deleted; alas, what ended up on the cutting-room floor was all the lovely wit and humour, leaving a film that was mere melodrama rather than an amusing exposition of English country manners and mores.
Also, the characters were shallow and uninteresting. They had poor Anne chasing up and down the streets after Captain Wentworth like a silly modern adolescent (and if you happen to be a silly modern adolescent reading this, let me tell you: running after a male like a female in heat is NOT cool). That is something a well-bred woman of the Napoleonic era would never have done, and certainly not this level-headed heroine.
Some have said they found this antic laughable; my reaction was not laughter, but outrage. The very idea of such a corruption of an Austen work is beneath contempt.
It was ghastly.


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


user
I am a huge Jane Austen fan and I ordered the movie from Amazon.UK just so I could see it without waiting forever for it to come to the U.S. I really should have saved my money. What is with Anne running after Wentworth? The whole point of Anne Elliot's character is that she was quiet and refined. She is not impulsive and vulgar. And Mary, was she suffering from a stroke or something? Her speech wasn't normal, nor was her walking normal. There was no chemistry between the two main characters which made their whole "romance" completely unbelievable. In the final scene they even have Sally Hawkins wearing the same dress Amanda Root wore during the letter scene. The same clothes do not make it the same movie. In my opinion they didn't watch the 1995 version, which even though it had it's flaws, it did stay pretty close to the book. The book, I don't even think they read it. This is kind of like a Cliff's Notes movie of Persuasion. Hit on all the high points without explaining anything.


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


user
Somewhere, on this site, someone wrote that to get the best version of the works of Jane Austen, one should simply read them. I agree with that. However, we love adaptations of great literature and the current writers' strike brings to mind that without good writers, it's hard for actors to bring their roles to life. The current version of Jane Austen's PERSUASION shows us what happens when you don't have a good foundation in a well-written adaptation. This version does not compare to the 1995 version with Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds, which was well acted and kept the essence of the era and the constraints on the characters (with the exception of the bizarre parade & kissing in the street scene in Bath). The 2007 version shows a twitty Anne who seems angst-ridden. The other characters were not very developed which is a crime, considering how Austen could paint such wonderful characters with some carefully chosen understatements. The sequence of events that made sense in the novel were completely tossed about, and Mrs. Smith, Anne's bedridden and impoverished schoolmate is walking around in Bath - - twittering away, as many of the characters seemed to do. The strength of character and the intelligence of Captain Wentworth, which caused Anne to love him in the first place, didn't seem to be written into the Rupert Penry-Jones' Wentworth. Ciaran Hinds had more substance and was able to convey so much more with a look, than P-J was able to do with his poses. All in all, the 2007 version was a disappointment. It seemed to reduce the novel into a hand- wringing, costumed melodrama of debatable worth. If they wanted to bring our modern emotional extravagances into Austen's work, they should have done what they do with adaptations of Shakespeare: adapt it to the present. At least "Bride & Prejudice" was taken out of the historical & locational settings and was fun to watch, as was "Clueless". This wasn't PERSUASION, but they didn't know what else to call 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 production never really got off the ground for me. The plot is so cut up as to be disjointed and the production is so short that unless you've read the novel or seen a better adaptation (like the 1995 one with Amanda Root) you're going to be a bit lost since there's no time for character development.
I liked Sally Hawkins as Anne, but the rest of the cast fell rather short of what they should have been. Mrs. Croft was far too old, as was Anne's elder sister Elizabeth. Mary uttered everything in such throbbing accents that the general peevishness and selfishness of her character was lost. Much better was Sophie Thompson's Mary, whose selfishness and sense of ill-usage is so well established that by the time Wentworth suggests Anne stay with the injured Louisa and Mary objects that she, as Louisa's sister in law, should stay instead, you can't imagine anyone less suited to do so. In this version, she might as well stay as she is insufficiently differentiated from anyone else in the production.
Rupert Penry-Jones is nice to look at, but he made a much better St. John Rivers (1995 Jane Eyre), probably because that character required less implied depth of feeling. I agree with the comments made earlier about the gig scene: seemed more like he was trying to get rid of Anne than do her a favor. Likewise the accident scene: it happens so fast and with so little context, you wonder what all the fuss is about. And moving the speech that Wentworth overhears in the novel to the beginning of this production is a critical misstep that only contributes to the disjointed nature of the script.
My other problem with this version was the lighting. Sometimes everything looked like a scene from the CSI morgue -- very very blue. Other times the lighting was so bad it was hard to make out the scene very well, like when Anne visits her old school friend, Mrs. Smith (who, by the way, is supposed to be more or less paralyzed. Having her run up to Anne on the street to tell her of Mr. Elliot's awful character was such a violation that for a minute I couldn't think who she was -- I thought she was one of the Musgrove girls. And she might as well have been. All the girls were pretty much interchangeable). And the running scene at the end...in an era where propriety was at a premium, it's hard to imagine gentle Anne tearing all over Bath like some demented hoyden. How silly can you get? It's too bad. Sally Hawkins had all the makings of a good Anne Elliot, but she was completely hamstrung by a poorly organized script and an over-truncated production.


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


user
I had eagerly awaited the first screening of this film ever since it was given to me on DVD at Christmas. Having reserved a special slot for it last night, I sat down to watch it with my daughter (aged 17 and a Film Studies student), with chocolates of course, in eager anticipation. We love Jane Austin.
After just the first two minutes we knew we were sunk. The shaky camera shots and angles, general poor cinematography, direction and wooden performances had already left us feeling flat and dissatisfied. Despondent, we viewed on.
Anne, played by Sally Hawkins, looked oddly and with no particular purpose, directly at the camera on several occasions, breaking our hard-won 'fantasy of the moment' and engaging us directly in an almost 'I'll find you' stalking fashion.
Poor Rupert Penry-Jones, who played Captain Wentworth, did his best with the script and direction, bless him. I hope they paid him well, however, as he was practically drowned on one occasion by a huge wave which predictably breached the seawall, drenching him and his co-actor. They were nearly swept out to sea. Health and Safety would have had a field day! Poor Rupert was left spitting out sea water in order to deliver his line. Presumably there was not enough money left in the kitty for a re-shoot of this scene. Anyone with any sense would have not attempted it on such a day in the first place.
Other than Mr. Penry-Jones, Alice Krige gave the only convincing performance as Lady Russell but her efforts were soon counterbalanced by those of Anthony Head's unconvincing portrayal of annoying Sir Walter Elliott.
Towards the long-awaited end of the film, Captain Wentworth appeared to oddly grace Anne with a visit every two seconds having taken great pains to avoid her for the majority of the movie. It was as if he had developed a memory impediment which caused him to forget his very reason for being. In contrast, Anne ran, hyper-ventilating, from pillar to post in search of the good Captain who, in the meantime, had managed to call upon almost the entirety of Bath we are told, in the course of only three or four minutes, without even having worked up a sweat.
We experienced none of Anne's charms crossing the screen. Indeed, we were left wondering what charismatic Captain Wentworth had ever seen in plain, spineless, opinion-less Anne and why someone, anyone, did not tell mean, winging Sir Walter to just shut the heck up.
The crucial kiss, normally our favourite girlie moment, was painfully drawn out. As they moved in closer, Anne kept opening and closing her mouth which had the effect on screen of making her look as if she were chewing gum before lips finally met. Eww!
The most enjoyable thing about last night was the chocolates and the half hour exchange of views between mother and daughter on just how bad the film had been.
What a pity to ruin such an enchanting and engaging story, filmed in some of England's finest scenery.
Sorry Jane.


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 to confess that I am severely disappointed.
This version can in no way compete with the version of 1995. The reason why I watched it was that I wasn't entirely happy with Ciaran Hinds as Captain Wentworth and thought that Rupert Penry-Jones looked much more like the Captain I had imagined when I read the book. And he was too.
Unfortunately that is the only redeeming quality of the film. The rest is as un-Austen-like as possible.
Miss Elliot would NEVER have run through the streets of Bath like this. It wasn't in her character and it just wasn't done by a lady of the those times. The Anne Elliot of the book was a lady and she had dignity. There are other painful anachronisms but this was the worst.
Although there are 3 important quotes from the book, they are at entirely inappropriate moments, warning those who know the book that yet another important part of the book will either be missing or completely changed.
And although this version is not much shorter than the other one, it feels like everything is rushed. Very little care was taken to introduce the characters, show their dispositions and motives. Important scenes were omitted. How could they possibly have butchered the final scenes in this way ? A disaster ! And it was by far not as beautifully photographed as the other one.
No, no, no. If you love Austen, then don't waste your time with this.


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


user
The humor in Who's Your Daddy is such poor taste that I actually closed my eyes in certain scenes. Close ups of semen are not funny! Nobody thinks they are. People get nervous when they see something so gross and to hide their nervousness, they laugh. Watching Who's Your Daddy gave me a disgusting nervous feeling.


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


user
Chris, an adopted son of a moral family, a loser whom works at the school newspaper with Kate (Christine Lakin from of the awful sugary "Step by Step" show of the now thankfully defunct ABC's TGIF line-up), finds out that he's just inherited a porn empire from his biological parents. He loses sight of what true friendship and love is and blah blah some other nonsense. He also has to contend with an Uncle who wants control of the family business and a shifty lawyer (arn't they are?) A slightly below average teen comedy that steals from better teen comedies (the opening alone is HIGHLY American Pie-esquire), bops you on the head with the moral every chance it gets, and wastes the only star talent it has (Wayne Newton, Lin Shaye, and if i'm really stretching the star word, Martin Starr of "Freaks and Geeks", and Justin Berfield of "Malcolm in the Middle"). It's not bad exactly, but it's far from good.
Eye Candy: a few extras get topless
My Grade: C-
Where I saw it: Starz on Demand (available until September 29th)


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


user
My friends usually can put up with a lot of hopeless movies but this one was too poor for us to even watch it to the end. It was just so boring and unoriginal. Not even the "hot" girls that starred in this movie could keep me watching. Everything was just predicable and annoying.
The acting was at times good.....but more times bad. The most annoying character in the whole movie that you just wanted to die would have to be the main characters best friend. The more i saw him the more i wanted to smash my screen. (you know what fat ugly kid I'm talking about)
The plot has been done so many times before i think they should be sued by other movie companies. OK, it is a good idea but thats all this movie had.
Overall this movie can only be watched if by your self, to save any abuse from your friends. Or, if you have absolutely nothing better to do.


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


user
When a comedy movie boasts its marvelous soundtrack on the back cover you know your not dealing with a top notch movie. I rented this movie with friends expecting to get some chuckles but overall to get most of our laughs off each other making fun of the movie. We couldn't have chosen a worse movie.
The movie may have been alright with a few changes. First off, the comedy was painful. Physical gags were poorly performed and placed. The fat kid in the movie made us want to kill ourselves, bless him for trying scene in and scene out but he was like a puppy begging for love. If he had been pulled from the movie everything might have been bearable. There were some funny jokes, I believe one was when the group of boys steal one of the parent's porn movies and it turns out to be gay porn. But to best sum up the comedy I will simply tell the opening gag for the fat kid. He wears a puke stained shirt and talks about not knowing when something is done.
To finish off, the editor of the movie could have saved the movie by removing the fat kid, cutting out 20 minutes of the school scenes and making an ending that is longer than thirty seconds of random bickering.
OH, BTW, there are two good elements that the movie possesses. Kadeem Hardison plays his role wonderfully and performs his jokes so that none are missed or under-appreciated. The other redeeming element to the movie is the beautiful Mrs. Ali Landry. Her character is ignored most of the movie which is a shame.
Don't waste your time even renting this one. It didn't appeal to me and I was part of the target audience (18 male).


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


user
I caught this on Showtime tonight and was amazed by how a movie with such a interesting premise could wind up being so unbelievably awful. WHO'S YOUR DADDY? stars Brandon Davis as an adopted high school senior Chris Hughes, a geek who inherits the heir to a porn empire left to him by his biological parents. Though the premise sounds like the movie could be a lot of fun, it is ruined by inept directing from first-time director Andy Fickman, a clichéd and predictable screenplay, and acting that is even bad by direct-to-video standards. Even the normally funny Charlie Talbert turns in a surprisingly dismal performance as the best friend. Ali Landry is the only good part of this lame and unfunny dud. 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
No, this is nothing about that fairy tale with the pumpkin coach, fairy godmother and the glass slippers, but if I were to elaborate, I would have to spoil it for you, which I won't. But don't let curiosity get the better of you, as this movie is not fantastic. It's one of those movies that start off promisingly, before betraying its audience with cheap scare tactics and an incoherent storyline. And that's real horror.
Yoon-hee (To Ji-Won) and Hyun-soo (Shin Se-kyeong) are your ideal mother and daughter. One's a successful plastic surgeon, while the other your dutiful, obedient, and beautiful teenage daughter. Their relationship is like hand in glove, so close you'd think of them more as siblings rather than parent-child. But things start to go wrong (don't they always) when Hyun-soo's friends, whom Yoon-hee has operated on, start to go berserk.
Perhaps it's a warning to audiences, and for those Koreans ladies who don't bat an eyelid when going under the knife, if news reports are to be believed. The only truly scary moments are those scenes in plastic surgery, though somehow, I thought Kim Ki-duk's Time actually had more gore when featuring and describing what goes on during the surgery itself.
It's a tale of two halves, the fist being an attempt to shock audiences with standard scare tactics, which, I admit, did get to me now and then. However, the second half degenerated the movie into mindless mumbo-jumbo melodramatics, and was quite contrived into its forcing its ideas down your throat. Some things begin not to make sense, and while attempts are always presented to explain, you probably won't buy it, not that horror movies are logical to begin with.
The leads are all beautiful, and there is a distinct lack of male presence besides the negligible cop role. But hey, I'm not complaining, though the storyline could have been improved tremendously. I'd recommend you to watch this, only if you're a fan of mediocre Korean horror, on VCD. Watch out for those face off-ish moments!


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


user
Disappearance is about a couple who take their family on vacation in New Mexico and find themselves in deep trouble after taking a detour off the main highway to visit a town that was seemingly abandoned in 1948 for unknown reasons. The town of Weaver seems harmless at first and has tourist appeal until the family is stranded there overnight and they begin to have good reason to suspect that others have experienced their same predicament with fatal outcomes. The Henleys watch a Blair-Witch-Project-esquire video diary left by the town's last victim, which ironically demonstrates the best performance of anyone in this movie. Although Hamlin and Dey's performances are much better than the supporting casts', their emotional affect seems "flat" to me throughout the movie.
Disappearance has appeal for most of the movie as there is much suspense and good direction. However, the plot takes unexpected and implausible turns that seemingly make no sense. Worse yet it that there really is no understanding of what exactly is going on in the movie, which makes the bizarre ending less tolerable. It appeared to me that the movie makers were so focused on making a stream of suspenseful scenes, that they threw away all the elements of good story making: plot development, gradual explanation of themes and symbols that lead to a cohesive solution/outcome.
The most difficult aspect of the movie for me was that the first three-quarter of it was spent building up tension and curiosity about certain aspects of the plot that were then suddenly disposed of as if we didn't deserve an explanation:
What was the significance of the Indian symbols on the walls? What happened to the original people of Weaver? What was the connection with the people at the dinner? What did the Sheriff know? What did the missing boy discover if anything?
This was, I believe, a bad move, since it engendered some resentment. I had invested quite a bit of brainpower into hypothesizing some plausible explanations for some of these plot turns and strange events, only to have the movie makers simply end it without giving an answer to any of these things. These are some nice cliffhangers for the ending of a miniseries that is about to pickup again next week, but a totally frustrating and inappropriate ending for a stand-alone movie.


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


user
If you like movies about creepy towns, hotels, houses, states (ala the Eagles "Hotel California"), etc. that possess the people that are "just passing through," read almost any Stephen King novel instead. If you like the setting of "Disappearance" start by reading King's "Desperation" but also check out "The Shining", "Salem's Lot" and "Needful Things."
The crow motif, the desert, the family driving in desperation to escape or avoid possession are tired. Why didn't they just make the film from the "Desperation" novel? Maybe they approached King and he nixed? Must be.
Susan Dey and Harry Hamlin look happy to be reunited and they have both worn well over the years, but they're still TV and direct-to-DVD caliber actors.


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


user
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** When I saw a preview for this movie I thought it was going to be atleast a slightly admirable storyline. But as most superstation original movies I was left disapointed. This gullible family ends up driving through this "deserted" town to take a brake and find this video camera showing these people doing everything their donig and finds out they all eventually disappear, the family goes through all these mysterious stages and never discovers or displays what the heck is stalking them. Their are more gaps than I can count and they don't explain anything that happens how or what. It ends where the family gets in a car accident and get posest or brainwashed or something( which is never explained). The next thing you know ur hoping they somehow find out how all it happened but it ends leaving you completely confused.


assistant
0