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
I watched this film because I'm a big fan of River Phoenix and Joaquin Phoenix. I thought I would give their sister a try, Rain Phoenix. I regret checking it out. She was embarrasing and the film just has this weird plot if thats what you want to call it. Sissy was just weird and Jellybean just sits on a toilet who both sleep with this old man in the mountains, whats going on? I have never been so unsatisfied in my life. It was just total rubbish. I can't believe that the actors agreed to do such a waste of film, money, time and space. Have Sissy being 'beautiful' didnt get to me. I thought she was everything but that. Those thumbs were just stupid, and why do we care if she can hitchhike? WHATS THE POINT??? 0 out of 10, shame the poll doesnt have a 0, doesnt even deserve a 1. Hopefully, Rain is better in other films, I forgive her for this one performance, I mean I wouldnt do much better with that film.


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


user
Certainly one of the dozen or so worst movies ever released in any form, featuring a bizarrely abominable performance by Rain Joan of Arc Phoenix (River's sister, inevitably), as Bonanza Jellybean plus inconceivably awful voiceover narration by Tom Robbins, the author of the novel, which had/retains its peculiar sweet/loopy charms.


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 candidate for the single most disappointing movie experience of my lifetime. Cool title, excellent director (I saw "To Die For" and "Drugstore Cowboy" before this), and hey - Uma Thurman in the cast. How can you go wrong? Well, that is a question that throbbed in my temples for hours after I watched this turkey.
Disjointed and unfunny in an attempt to be offbeat, this is a dead-zone of a movie that should be avoided at all costs. Its critical lambasting was well deserved. You have here one of those rare films that does not contain a single redeeming quality. Zero out of ****.


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


user
There are movies like "Plan 9" that are so bad they have a charm about them, there are some like "Waterworld" that have the same inexplicable draw as a car accident, and there are some like "Desperate living" that you hate to admit you love. Cowgirls have none of these redemptions. The cast assembled has enough talent to make almost any plot watchable, and from what I've been told, the book is enjoyable.
How then could this movie be so intolerably bad? To begin with, it seems the director brought together a cast of names with no other tie than what will bring in the 20 somethings. Then tell them to do their best Kevin Costner imitations. Open the book at random and start shooting whatever is on the page making sure to keep the wide expanses of America from being interesting in any way. Finally give the editing job to your brother-in-law, because the meat packing plant just laid him off. He does have twenty years of cutting experience.
This movie now defines the basement for me. It is so bad, it isn't even good for being bad.


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 surprised that even cowgirls get the blues if this movie is anything to go by. I expected something better from Uma Thurman, which was the reason I suffered my way through this experience in the first place. An awful film with only the music as a redeeming quality. It´s just a shame that we are incapable of giving 0 out of 10 in these reviews. This movie deserves it.


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


user
When it comes to movies, I am generally easily entertained and not very critical, but must say that this movie was one big flop from the start. I gave it 30 minutes and then rewound it. What a waste of some great talent! I was very disappointed with this movie, as it was not what I expected.


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


user
i'll admit. i think Uma Thurman is the most beautiful woman on the planet and have made it a mission to see every movie she has been in (unfortunately that includes the horrible films Batman and robin, The Avengers) and this one.
this has to rank as the worst movie i've ever seen. (yes it ranks even lower than The Avengers). everyone looks lost in it and it is incoherent beyond belief.
even if you think Uma is a goddess like i do, PLEASE PLEASE don't subject yourself to this movie. you'll hate yourself the following morning 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
Why would any legitimate actor having read the script participated in this piece of crap? My god it is actually embarrassing to even watch it. I can't imagine the shame these people must feel for being a part of it. Also, there is apparently some controversy as to whether River Phoenix had a cameo in the movie. He was uncredited but his list of roles here (IMDB) does give him credit. BTW... Rain is his sister for those who have were asking before. This film is proof that no matter how many big "names" you have. Sow's ears don't make silk purses. I love Lorraine Bracco but this was just sad, sad, sad... Maybe somebody someday can explain to me the reason for this kind of film. It has no endearing, entertaining, or even comedic properties in comparison to it's bad everything else.


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 stinks. The stench resembles bad cowpies that sat in the sun too long. I can't believe that so many talented actors wasted their time making such a hopelessly awful film. Whew!


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


user
George Brent is a reporter sent to interview an heiress. She is supposedly the heir to a face cream fortune. He interviews her on her yacht. They fall for each other in bathing costumes.
It turns out (quite early) that she is not an heiress. She part of an advertising campaign for the cold cream.
The movie follows the ups and downs of their romance.
The supporting cast does little to buoy it up. Davis and Brent carry the picture. Though it's fairly predictable, it is also fairly entertaining. It's far from her best. But, especially considering its obscurity in her oeuvre, it's not one of her worst, either.


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


user
Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare, the sixth installment of the Nightmare on Elm Street series and once again another bad sequel. I think this is tied up with the last sequel of the Dream Child. I was lucky enough to get the Nightmare on Elm Street series box DVD set for my birthday, so I got to see all the sequels. May I say that I'm just getting more and more disappointed though with these sequels, at least the past two, it just seems like Freddy lost his edge. It's almost like the writers were trying to give Freddy a soul and they're just destroying it instead of reinventing the story. This was a sequel that wasn't needed, sorry to Robert Englund, but this was very much below what Freddy Krueger represents.
Freddy is back, but he's got something we don't know about, a daughter. Maggie, she's not aware that he is her father, but soon she finds out what his dark secrets are and he wants her help. She has to do her best to resist his powers, but it's hard with all the good memories she has of her loving father. Ironic, isn't it? But Freddy isn't giving up without manipulating her into his ways.
Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare is also presented in 3-D, radical, huh? Note the sarcasm. This is one of the worst sequels, it's tied up with the fifth sequel of the Nightmare on Elm Street series, I'd rather watch the second Nightmare on Elm Street to be honest. This just had bad acting, stupid editing, and just over all a bad idea for a story. I didn't like the concept of it and it just ruined the whole idea of who Freddy Krueger really is, the death master of nightmares, not Father Knows Best.
2/10


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


user
Unimaginably stupid, redundant and humiliating closure to the "Nightmare on Elm Street"-series! Part 6 is so incompetent that it looks like director Rachel Talalay intentionally wanted to turn Wes Craven's initial premise into one big bad and tasteless joke. This isn't just the worst entry in the "Elm Street" saga; it's also one of the most embarrassing horror movies ever made and it downright offends fans of the genre! The story is dumb, the character drawings are ridiculous, the structure is all murky and  most of all  the special and visual effects resemble those of a Tom & Jerry cartoon. The sequences in which Freddy Krueger murders his victims are endless and very uninteresting. Were we supposed to be petrified when a jabbering Freddy turned Breckin Meyer into a video game-character and pogo-sticked him around the walls of a house? The story takes us back to Springwood and it appears that Freddy all of a sudden has a middle-aged daughter. You'd think he would mention that in one of his previous adventures, but no There's only one teenage-survivor in Springwood and Krueger uses him to get into contact with his long lost daughter. Another reason why this final installment is so awful is the completely illogical structure. The John Doe-boy is introduced as the leading character but then all of a sudden he dies and the plot continues to revolve on two adults! How about that: Freddy Krueger, who spent five entire films killing nothing but teenagers, eventually gets beaten by two adults wearing 3D-glasses! Sort of like ruins the whole essence, doesn't it? As far as I'm concerned, "Nightmare on Elm Street" has always been a dreadfully overrated series but, up until now, even the weakest entries had at least some redeeming elements. "Freddy's Dead", however, is simply unendurable and nobody should waste his/her precious time watching 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 a huge Freddy Krueger fan,but that doesn't mean that I don't like Robert Englund and his other Nightmare on Elm Street movies.I think that Robert is a very good actor.Nobody plays a better Freddy Krueger than he does.But,no offense Robert, this movie sucked.The acting is terrible,the plot is really weak,and Freddy Krueger is the only part of the cast that's even worth watching.Sometimes sequels can be better than the first,such as the Friday the 13th franchise(I thought the remake was the best in the series.)But this isn't one of those movies.The original was good,the 2nd in my opinion was better,the 3rd was okay but I haven,t seen the others.Whatever you do,don,t make the same mistake I did by watching this piece of crap.


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


user
Sixth escapade for Freddy Krueger in which he has finally managed to kill off virtually every youth in Springwood; now he wants to broaden his horizons and (**SPOILER**) needs a family member in order to do it.
A failure as a horror movie because it simply ain't scary at all. Works better as a dark, macabre black comedy, to tell you the truth. Freddy Krueger has now been stripped of all of his ability to chill this viewer. (Too many wisecracks, that's for sure.) The actors aren't interesting (save Robert Englund, as always, and an obviously slumming Yaphet Kotto) and there are simply far too many visual effects. The finale is OK but doesn't provide as many sparks as I think one might hope.
In adding a new twist to the familiar dream killer's story, it provides Englund the opportunity to do more non-makeup scenes than ever before.
There are cameos worth noting: a joint cameo by then-couple Roseanne and Tom Arnold that is devoid of entertainment value, an appropriate appearance by veteran shock-rocker Alice Cooper, and a funny cameo by Johnny Depp that also sort of acknowledges the pop icon that he had become.
Film debut of Breckin Meyer, who plays Spencer.
One of the best things about it is the replaying of key scenes from earlier entries during the closing credits.
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
Okay this is stupid,they say their not making another Nightmare film,that this is the "last" one...And what do they do?They go on making another one,not that the next one (part7) was BAD,but why do they play us. Anyway this movie made no sense what-so ever,it was extremelly dull,the characters were highly one dimensional,Freddy was another joker,which is very stupid for such a good series.The plot is very,very bad,and this is even worse than part 2 and 5. I didnt get the movie,its a stupid tale in 3-d,pointless!Id say. I hated this film so much i still rmember all the parts i didnt like which was basically the whole film.This is SO different than the prequels,it tries,and tries,but this one tried the hardest,and got slapped back on the face.Again there were hadly any death scenes,although they were different,they sucked bigtime. How can they have gone this far?Didnt they see they made the biggest mistakes at parts 2 and 5?Yet they make this?Its all bout the money,DO NOT SEE THIS SAD EXCUSE FOR A NIGHTMARE SERIES.
I GAVE A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET SIX (6) 3 out of 10.
GOOD POINTS OF MOVIE: Had potential with plot.
BAD POINTS OF FILM: Terrible acting/lack of deaths/Too funny to be classified as horror/very confusing.


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 a good story, but was brought down because it didn't have enough horror film elements and violence. It was like watching a live action cartoon. It would of been better if this story is what they planned from the start of the first movie so they could of played seeds for where the series was going.


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 fan of the Nightmare series but this one is horrible. The deaths are so trendy. If you were to watch this 20 years later the whole nintendo scene is outdated. I did like the flashbacks. I think they should have just made a prequel about when he was still alive. That would have been more interesting. This is a movie you can take or leave. Depends on how much spare time you have.


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 just bad. Bad. Bad. Bad. Now that I've gotten that out of the way, I feel better. This movie is poor from beginning to end. The story is lame. The 3-D segment is really bad. Freddy is at his cartoon character worst. Thank God they killed him off. And who wants to see Roseanne and Tom Arnold cameos?
The only good thing in the movie is the little bit of backstory that we're given on Freddy. We see he once had a family, and we get to see his abusive, alcoholic father (Alice Cooper).
Other than that, all bad. There are some quality actors in here (Lisa Zane and Yaphet Kotto), and they do their best, but the end result is just so bad. The hour and a half I spent watching this movie is and hour and half I can't ever get back.


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


user
"Freddy's Dead" did the smartest thing it could've done after the disappointment of the fifth film. It started from scratch. Sure, this "final" film in the saga is silly but at least it's original. Some of the visuals are even a bit breath-taking. And the story of Freddy's kid (Lisa Zane) returning to town to face her evil father is unique.
Overall, the movie is nothing but another cartoon made to get kids in the theater. It has a bunch of good actors (Zane, Yaphet Kotto, and Lezlie Deane) who basically look dumb and wander around like sheep ready for slaughter. It's one-sided, it's a magic-trick, and, in the end, it's nothing but goofy, childish entertainment.



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


user
This movie was just terrible, the first movie wasn't that great i mean it's ridiculously stupid if they didn't have enough with the first 5 films you had to add another one, why just not make this into an ongoing series like James Bond, i'll tell you exactly why because the bond films are actually very very good and these films just stink, i don't understand, was this supposed to be a cross between to genres like horror and comedy for goodness sakes my 1 year old niece wouldn't be scared of such a ridiculous attempt at horror, a spit in the face of people who at least want to be scared at some point in a so called horror film. Please no more of these movies.


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


user
The first in the series was brilliant, easily one of the best Horror films of all time. This is the crappiest. When I sat down to watch this, I was actually thinking that how bad the fourth and fifth ones were, this would have to be good after the previous terrible ones. Boy was I wrong. Incredibly wrong.
When I watched the first ten minutes of it, I was actually really tempted to turn it off, but I thought no, maybe it'll improve. It didn't.
Not only is this just a dire film by itself, it didn't need another sequel, because the last two (fourth and fifth) had already been terrible enough! Also, how many times can you bring Freddy back!? The acting in it was TERRIBLE, the story-line was predictable and crap and it also had flaws in it as well. The way they made Springwood was just totally wrong. Pays no respect to the first one at-all. To add to this, the whole thing seemed really over-the-top.
Some people are saying that this film was "funny". This film is not "funny" at all. Since when is Freddy Krueger supposed to be "funny"? I would call it funnily crap. This film is supposed to be a Horror film, not a comedy. If Freddy had a daughter, wouldn't that information have surfaced like in the first one!? The ending was also just plain stupid and cheesy, exactly like the rest of it. This one completely destroys the essence and uniqueness of the first one. Just shows itself up.
Such a shame that Wes Craven created something so good in the beginning, yet it has to be dragged down because of this trash that belongs in the bin. They shouldn't have even bothered making this film. Nor any of the other sequels, except the third one. The third one's the only decent one out of all the sequels.
If this was a DVD by itself and not part of the Nightmare On Elm Street DVD set that I got, I would have chucked it out when I got it.
Summary: A pathetic and poor attempt at a sequel.
- a complete MOCKERY of the first film
So please, don't waste your time on this worthless junk.


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 easily the worst of the series. Though New Line might just be looking at sales, they all know the only reason this one made more money than the one prior was due to its 3D ending. It wasn't that the 3-D was good either, because it was 50's 3D with the red and blue lenses(anaglyph.) It was just the fact that people wanted to see what it would look like. Beyond that this movie was so poorly done! Bad script, bad characters, bad acting, worse directing. This movie is trying to push the camp factor almost to the point of being like a "Looney Tunes" episode.
Seriously, not for horror audience, because it is corny and not scary, and not funny or amusing for comedy crowds. Just a total mess with some really bad cameos that are still trying to play this whole thing as camp and having it fall way short of what they probably wanted.
I remember most of us who had been fans of this series were just praying that it would end at this point because of how bad it had gotten. This is one of the movies that helped take horror out of popularity and ride a fad of belief that audiences really wanted to laugh with some stupid comedy than see a good and scary horror film.


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


user
This is going to be the most useless comment I have ever put down, but yet I must do it to warn you about the atrocity to cinema that "Freddy's Dead" is. It is not only the very worst chapter of the Nightmare series, but is right up there with the worst horror sequel of all time! It was boring, pointless, and nearly death free. The horrible 3-D ending and over-the-top CORNY kills are enough to drive this "film" into the ground. However, it doesn't stop there, just add bad acting, a terrible script, and a number of cheesy cameos and you've got yourself this heaping pile of guano! It's no wonder why Freddy, as always played by Robert Englund, has made two postmortem appearances. I would too if I went out like that. This is a strictly fans only movie, don't stare at our shame.


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


user
It WAS supposed to be the last Freddy movie (and it was for over 10 years)--you would think they would have tried to get a good movie done. But they turned out giving us the worst of the series (and that's saying a lot). The plot made no sense (I seriously can't remember it), all the main characters were idiots (you REALLY wanted them dead) and Freddy's wisecracks were even worse than usual. The only remotely good bit about this was a brief (and funny) cameo by Johnny Depp (the first "Nightmare" movie was his first).
Also I originally saw it in a theatre were the last section (reaccounting Freddy's childhood) was in 3-D. Well--the 3-D was lousy--faded colors and the image going in and out of focus. Also the three flying skulls which were supposed to be scary (I think) had the opposite reaction from my audience. EVERYBODY broke down laughing. Looks even worse on TV in 2-D. Pointless and stupid--very dull also. Skip this one and see "Freddy vs. Jason" again.


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


user
In the future of 2001, Freddy is after the last surviving teenager of Elm Street. Forsaking ANY scares whatsoever for unfunny attempts at humor and needless celebrity cameos (come on..Roseanne??? Tom Arnold??!!?? WTF?), this is tied with part 2 is the worst the demon child rapist ever got. Wow was this a piece of crap. Not even the great legendary Alice Cooper could make the stench of this movie go away. And when they hell did Freddy ever have a daughter?? The whole film is severely retarded in ever single conceivable way, shape & form. Rachel Talalay, you stink to high heaven, babe.
My Grade: D-
DVD Extras: Cast and Crew Bios; Jump to the 3D sequence and Jump to a Nightmare options (more extras for the film can be found on the seventh disc of The Nightmare Collection DVD set)
DVD-Rom content: Trivia game; Screenplay; and web link


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


user
Let's hope this is the final nightmare. This is the epitome of a good thing gone bad. Okay, there is still some enjoyment to be had, but only in the most mundane sense. Rachel Talalay had been there for the duration of this franchise, had been on the production staff and produced even. I don't know what she was thinking, but this debacle comes complete with the human video game boy and a guest appearance by
Tom and Roseanne Arnold! I wish I had a clue what she was thinking when she wrote/directed this disappointing piece of garbage. She even tried to distract her audience from the fact that this movie was nothing more than an over-glorified popcorn movie instead of bearing any resemblance to horror, with the contrived use of a 3D ending. Aren't those glasses nifty? And you get to KEEP them! It's the equivalent of, you just spent $9.00 making me rich. Here's 10 cents. Now, don't you feel special!? Sorry, but for me, it just did not make me feel special.
And Freddy's had yet another face-lift. This one was for the worst, I think. All the beautiful artistry that went into his "look" in the earlier films has been replaced by an obviously cheaper, less detailed set of prosthetics. He looks ... less like the burn victim he is supposed to be, and more like he has a skin disorder. Changing the lead's makeup like that so far into a series is about on the same level as changing the lead actor. But wait! They've done that, and done that. So I guess it doesn't matter. But it mattered to me. Freddy is no longer SCARY. He's just ... another low-rent monster like the Leprechaun.
It's more...a dark comedy than the horror classic this series promises; riddled with what you can only hope the writers thought were witty one-liners and clever repartee (sadly, it fell short on both accounts).
So there's nothing more to say than grab the popcorn and get ready to laugh, because there was not one scary or suspenseful moment in this entire film.
It rates a 3.2/10 from...
the Fiend :.


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


user
The film was made in 1942 and with World War 11 around, the movie industry decided to capitalize on the fact that spies were around.
The film is fun to watch due to the fabulous dancing of Eleanor Powell. The late Miss Powell was certainly a great hoofer in every sense of the word. She is again paired with a very young looking Red Skelton here. The two of them also starred in "I Dood It."
Moroni Olsen, who 3 years later, was superb as the interrogating police officer in "Mildred Pierce" again appears as an officer asking Powell to deliver an item. Trouble is that Olsen and his rogues are really the Japanese spies.
Bert Lahr is his usual brilliant self here and he gets ample support from Virginia O'Brien.


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


user
I've almost forever been against the inclusion of songs in a movie. My belief was that the quality of the film would automatically be improved if only those extremely annoying songs would be axed. However, things have quickly changed after watching that horrible Black (no songs) & this movie, Page 3 (plenty of songs). While Black was weak to an extreme, Page 3 delivers a gripping story with some strong acting & good direction. The songs were almost incidental & blended in almost seamlessly with the film. There certainly weren't any women getting sprayed with water for no apparent reason from mysterious water sources while gyrating wildly on the streets at night.
I was pleasantly surprised with the bold and unabashed approach used by the director. There was no glossing over of anything and almost every scene was completely believable.
I'd recommend this films for Hindi-speaking people with at least a slight understanding of Mumbai life. The former because the English subtitling was below par and contained many errors which, at times, completely reversed the meaning of the actual statement. The latter because you'll definitely appreciate the accuracy of the depiction once you've lived it yourself.
I'd definitely rank this as a work worthy of international recognition. The scenes with the gossiping drivers was a nice touch and it served simultaneously as a source of genuine humour as well as another perspective on the whole mishmash. The movie does fall short in a few places though, where the characters sometimes say the most inexplicable things which detract from the overall direction of the film.
I also thought that a couple of the sadder scenes were not done very well. It was a touch amusing to watch, rather than arouse any feelings of sadness & the whole scene tended to come across as a bit foolish. These are minor issues though, because the film, on the whole, is truly a rare treat to watch.
Overall, it's a cynical, pessimistic outlook and a refreshing one at that! Actors, not 'heroes' - that's the key. A chance to glimpse believable human beings in an extraordinary setting - everyday life. A behind-the-scenes look at the extent of the depravity and a rare ray of hope for Indian cinema.
8/10.


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


user
I do not even want to call this thing a film - it is a movie that should not have won any awards. The acting was horrible as were the silly scenarios. This is exactly the sort of film that so many folks think caters to an NRI audience but is in fact loathed abroad for its awkwardness and the overwhelming sense of "trying" throughout the movie.
I find it strange that so many actors conversant with the English language have such a hard time doing so convincingly in front of the camera. I'm sure many readers know what I am talking about - all those token English phrases thrown into a movie, in Hindi and in regional cinema for cool points. There are few Indian movies in which the English seems completely genuine - Being Cyrus was a recent one. Although not a great film, it was a good film and the language did not seem "put on".
I feel ashamed that P3 was awarded the NFA in 2005. The only semi-enjoyable parts of this rubbish were Konkana and a somewhat catchy background score. Other than that, do not even waste your time with this film.


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


user
Madhur has given us a powerful movie Chandni Bar in the past. His next film Page 3 was one of the worst movies of all time. It apparently tells the story of some high class people in India. After seeing a scene where the man forces another man for sexual reasons to Star in a Movie. I felt like spitting and breaking the DVD. Coincidently i did. The reason why was the movie contains scenes of child pornography and molestation. I literally vomited and was shocked to see a movie showing naked children. Very disturbing stuff, there was no need to show the children fully naked. One of the rich guys likes to kidnap poor children and sell them to foreign people, British men in this movie. I am shocked to know this film was a Hit in parts of India, otherwise Super Flop in UK, USA and Australia. I'm from UK, and this kind of stuff makes me sick, shouldn't of been released in UK.


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


user
Crude, some times crass - to me that's the summation of Madhur Bhandarkar's latest work - Page 3. He has no point of view - just shallow, funny digs at stereotypes. What is the movie about?? Is it about reporting a clan of people (so called Page 3 types) who are so busy socializing and progressing their profiles in life - that they have no time for anything else. And you are either in it or out of it. Is it that there is no press at all to report everyday incidents. Madhur Bhandarkar forgets that there is a main newspaper and Page 3 is just a supplement; perhaps an entertainer for checking out who's who and what's what. Don't mix the two. And then there is power play - that would happen in every walk of life. So what have you told at the end of it all - nothing - just a few crude jokes strung together in an otherwise direction less 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 have no idea how anyone managed to stay awake during this show. The acting was ham-fisted and amateur, the story was old news, and plot development (or lack thereof) invariably had my eyelids sagging less than halfway through each episode. That's about all there is to say of it, because it genuinely lacked substance of any kind.
How can you people like crap like this? It's freaking stupid, it's an insult to your intelligence. I don't even know how to further explain it... It's as if some of you will stare mindlessly at junk like this solely because you like the way some of the actors look, or because, for whatever crazy reason, you haven't seen the same formulas in dozens of shows a million times before.
I just.. forget it. This show sucked, and thankfully it's gone forever. I wish they'd get to work on demolishing The O.C. once and for all.


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


user
This show was laughably bad. The writing sucked, the dialog sucked. The guy who played Craig couldn't act his way out of a paper sack. Being it was on Thursday night, this was definitely great to watch with some beers. Cool music, bad acting, poor writing, all came together for my entertainment.
It was a drama/unintentional comedy. I don't care what happened to any of the characters, they were all boring and stupid. The first five episodes were the worst, since they couldn't reveal who the victim was, they had to write the dialog around it, which was terrible. I mean, the eulogy at the funeral was ridiculous. Actually, all the scenes that occurred in the present were utterly horrible.
So, let's review. Everything happening in present time sucked. The flashback scenes, only the writing, dialog and Craig's acting sucked. The music ruled though.


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


user
There was a great film to be made about Steve Biko. Sadly this wasn't it. Denzel Washington - never the most flexible of actors - is totally unable to convey the great charisma that Biko had. Attenborough's big crowd scenes are laughable. The Soweto massacre wasn't like this, three neat lines of children ( some doing cartwheels!) marching happily into the guns of the soldiers. With Biko dead the film rapidly descends into farce. If the struggle against Apartheid was anything it was a black people's struggle yet somehow we are all supposed to be gripped by the escape of a white man and his family. I'm sure Donald Woods was a decent man and he would be the first to say that Biko was important while he wasn't. Penelope Wilton's accent is pure Hampshire and she seems completely unaware that she is in South Africa at all. at all. The Wood's family dog gets more lines than the black maid. As the family make their escape one the women I saw the film with - incidentally one of only about a dozen black people in a large, full cinema - whispered "This is like the sound of music." She had a point.
Overall this is a film by a well-intentioned if somewhat inept white liberal about a radical black people's struggle. And really South Africa needs well-intentioned white liberals like it needs a hole in the head.


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


user
Ashley Judd, in an early role and I think her first starring role, shows her real-life rebellious nature in this slow-moving feminist soap opera. Wow, is this a vehicle for political correctness and extreme Liberalism or what?
Being a staunch feminist in real life, she must have cherished this script. No wonder Left Wing critic Roger Ebert loved this movie; it's right up his political alley, too.
Unlike the reviewers here, I am glad Judd elevated herself from this moronic fluff to better roles in movies that entertained, not preached the heavy-handed Liberal agenda.


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


user
First, let me state that I am a big fan of Ashley Judd; that's why I was curious to check out this, her debut role. No argument that her talent is apparent and her performance excellent. I guess I can also see how the professional critics liked the aesthetic content of the story. However, I like to think that movies are meant to entertain us and that is where this movie fails.
By the halfway point, I found myself thinking, "How much longer do we have to watch a bored shop girl, idly standing around a deserted souvenir shop, rearranging the merchandise?" It seemed to go on forever!
Then, I thought, maybe this is one of those movies where the director tries to lull the audience into a relaxed state before hitting them with some dynamic event. No such luck. The movie continues it's bland, boring, uneventful story all the way to the end.
I'm not saying this because I'm an action-junkie. I like all kinds of movies, especially romantic-comedies. But I expect to be entertained.
Add the fact that the cinematography and sound quality are comparable to your neighbor's bad home movies. Depressing!
I just don't get how anyone could like this movie. Zero-entertainment value. The longest 114 minutes of my life.



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


user
I saw this film for the first time not too long on TCM's "Essentials" series. The eye of the beholder cliché was never more apropos. This beholder saw little of value in this one. I was puzzled by the infinite attraction that Lucy (Lauren Bacall) possessed. Granted, Ms. Bacall was a beautiful woman, but in this film her character comes off more mousy than attractive. I would think men like Mitch Wayne and Kyle Hadley would more likely ignore Lucy than fall into an instant infatuation with her. In Bacall's defense, this film was made at the time of Humphrey Bogart's last illness and the weight of his deteriorating health may have affected her performance. Of course part of this mousiness on the part of Lucy was to contrast her to slutty Marylee, played to the hilt and beyond by Dorothy Malone. The scene where she engages in a wildly sensual dance while her father wearily climbs the stairs to a fatal heart attack is far and away the best scene in the film. Malone's performance outshines the rest, although Jasper Hadley's weariness at the disappointing behavior of his two children is brilliantly portrayed by Robert Keith. Generally, though, I would have to say that I'm just not much of a fan of melodrama. The cartoonish behavior of the characters just makes for a story too implausible for my tastes.


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


user
I watched Written on The Wind starring Rock Hudson,Lauren Becall,Robert Stack & Dorothy Malone- Robert Stack was terrible- just bloody horrible- he was supposed to be a charming jet-setting millionaire- instead he came off like a jerk from the word go- the plot was stupid and overwrought and the 3 "romantic" leads had no chemistry. Somehow Dorothy Malone won an Oscar for best supporting actress- although her campy tramp character was boring- think the older sister from Splendour in The Grass filled with malice and bitterness and lacking charisma. Director Douglas Sirk has the entire cast overact their way through dialogue that felt forced and the end result was a waste of 99 minutes. Had a cameo by the actor that played the chief on Get Smart


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


user
To me this just comes off as a soap opera. I guess any depiction of profligate people can be considered "social commentary." But in the final analysis, I simply don't care how you characterize this film. None of the characters are very likable or engaging. I felt no chemistry between Hudson and Bacall. If there is a love story here, it is lost in the malaise. And despite the twist ending provided by a complete and immediate (and therefore, incomprehensible) reversal by Dorothy Maguire on the witness stand, the story is insufficient to hold my interest. No matter how much Freudian symbolism and psychology are throw in, this story is sleazy, melodramatic and trite.
Rock Hudson is nobly wooden. This is Lauren Bacall's least engaging role and one of her poorest performances. Dorothy Maguire and Robert Stack deliver more inspired performances, but her character is vile, and his is pathetic. Robert Keith, as the loving, out-of-touch father of two miscreant adult children, is the most sympathetic character. Most interesting of all, however, is the severe-looking Robert Wilke in a small role as the bar owner. He is best remembered as a nasty henchman in countless Westerns, but here he is an honest, likable fellow.
I take my social commentary with an interesting, engaging story and a few likable characters, thank you.


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


user
What we have here is a classic case of TOO much patriotism. This is what happens when you live in a small country with very little (next to none, even) cinema history. Whenever somebody does come up with a slightly more ambitious film project  other than the usual dramas about struggling farmer families or long feature slapstick movies of local comedians  everybody feels obliged to love it and even responsible to spread favorable reviews across the countries' borders. This is especially the case when the writer/director of this particular film is already a nation's sweetheart, because he's also the founder and lead singer of a popular rock band. "Any Way The Wind Blows" is by no means a bad film, but it's definitely overrated (if that is even possible within the boundaries of a small country) and has absolutely nothing new or even remotely original to offer. This is basically the Flemish version of classic movies such as "Short Cuts" and "Magnolia" and illustrates a mosaic of characters whose daily lives initially appear to be unrelated but eventually come together in the end. The only thing that seems to unite the eight protagonists at first is the city of Antwerp, where they all live and work, but gradually the deeper relationships between them become transparent and near the climax they all gather for a party. The main problem with "Any Way The Wind Blows", at least according to yours truly, lies with the characters. They really are random, uninteresting and honestly don't experience anything that could be considered out of the ordinary. It was presumably writer/director Tom Barman's intention to depict the average & regular inhabitant of Antwerp but then, seriously, what is the point? One of the characters gets fired from his film projectionist job, another one is a failed novelist struggling with a marriage crisis, two siblings recently lost their father and the most "mysterious" one of them all is followed by the wind wherever he goes. There are a couple of more characters regularly walking through the screen, but they're even less worth mentioning. These people simply drivel on and on about very random topics (like life in the 80's, dates and each other's bowel motions) and philosophy about matters nobody cares about. Some of the dialogs do evoke mild chuckles, especially the interactions between the two twenty-something guys from Ghent, but still nothing extraordinary or even memorable. The film actually works best as a touristy video to promote the city of Antwerp and as an extended & versatile music documentary. There are several stylish & nifty sightseeing images of Antwerp and there's always beautiful music playing, whether really loud or subtly in the background. Generally speaking "Any Way The Wind Blows" is a competently made and stylish effort, but too mundane and slightly boring, and I honestly wonder most of its fans would even had bothered to watch if it weren't a Flemish 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 don't know what would be so great about this movie. Even worse, why should anyone bother seeing this one ? First of all there is no story. One could say that even without a story a movie could be worth watching because it invokes some sort of strong feeling (laughter, cry, fear, ...), but in my opinion this movie does not do that either.
You are just watching images for +/- 2 hrs. There are more useful things to do.
I guess you could say the movie is an experiment and it is daring because it lacks all the above. But is this worth 2 hrs of your valuable time and 7 EUR of your money ? For me the answer is: no.


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 is about the life of common people from Antwerp, living their lives. So I said it, and there is nothing more actually to tell about the story. The movie is fast, like an MTV-flick, and well photographed and we feel that the director is talented and should do more films. So let's forget about this one and hope for the best with the next Deus-Barman picture.


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


user
This whirling movie looks more like a combination of music-clips at MTV than as a real movie. There is no real story and as the movie goes on you ask yourself: "What is going to happen?"; but nothing happens. The story around Eric Cloeck, the frustrated writer, is the only good thing. The other persons seem to have nothing in common: then why bring them together in a movie. With music you can make watchable the worst movie. When I open the tap and there comes water out with the music of Bach then most people will like to look at it but this is not a movie. The director should learn how to write a script for a movie of 100 minutes or more before starting to direct a movie.


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


user
How is it possible that no journalist or critic reminded us of the resemblance with that other better Flemish movie "Congo Express (1986)"? There are also some characters in congo Express put together without having really a relation to each other: Jean, (de Congolees), the workman, the two taxi-drivers, the street-singer, Roger, Guy, Lucienne and Gilbert. Of course, Tom Barman is a star and Luc Gubbels wasn't. That should not be a reason to pardon the flaws in the script (if there is a script) of Anyway the wind blows. The joke (the only one!) at the party about the ice in the refrigerator is taken from that great Flemish movie "De Witte (1934)" where De Witte is putting too much salt on the potatoes. Some accidents happen in the movie but there comes no explanation after. Tom Barman delivers us here a movie that is more like an experiment to watch at the television than a movie for the theatres. Another missed chance for Flemish Cinema.


assistant
0