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
Imagine the worst skits from Saturday Night Live and Mad TV in one 90 minute movie. Now, imagine that all the humor in those bad skits is removed and replaced with stupidity. Now imagine something 50 times worse.
Got that?
Ok, now go see The Underground Comedy Movie. That vision you just had will seem like the funniest thing ever. UCM is the single worst movie I've ever seen. There were a few cheap laughs...very few. But it was lame. Even if the intent of the movie was to be lame, it was too lame to be funny.
The only reason I'm not angry for wasting my time watching this was someone else I know bought it. He wasted his money. Vince Offer hasn't written or directed anything else and it's not surprise why.


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 goes beyond just being bad, it is definitively the worst movie I have ever seen in my entire life. Unless you yourself have a problem with necrophilia than you will not enjoy will not enjoy the scenes depicting it in this film, (if you can call it that).


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


user
First of all.....
What the hell? Why in the world are they trying to sell a low budget piece of crap on late night TV with the promise of disturbing, offensive sick garbage that any normal real human being with a soul couldn't watch.
What the crap is funny about a dog being injured, a grandma getting her head knocked off...a guy getting his hand blown to pieces and two girls going to the bathroom? what in the hell has this world come to that people find comedy in some thing so completely sick. Anyone who thinks this kind of material is funny, should not even be allowed to walk the earth.
But from what I hear its not even offensive...so...they promise comedy through demented piles of sick garbage...and they cant even pull that off.


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


user
The Underground Comedy movie is perhaps one of the worst comedies I've ever seen. I should have known it was going to be bad when the box had the phrase "guaranteed to offend" written on it... meaning that the filmmakers were going to focus more on grossing you out than making you laugh.
This movie is an amateurish jumble of childish skits, bad characters, and worse jokes... from the pathetic Bat-Man sketch to the painfully unfunny Arnold Shvollenpecker skit, they just aren't funny. The few skits that are a little funny are few and far between - watching Micheal Clark Duncan play a gay virgin, for example - but even they go on too long and get ruined from Vince Offer's ineptness at comedy.
Keep The Underground Comedy Movie underground... bury it!


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


user
Anyone who has watched Comedy Central around midnight in the past few years has probably seen ads for this movie. I first saw ads for this movie back in 2001. It looked like it could be funny, but I wasn't about to call up the number on the television screen and order it without seeing the movie first. I figured I would wait until the movie was available to rent at Blockbuster.
About a year and a half later, I was at Tower Records and in the "DVDS for less than $20" pile, there was a copy of this movie. Seeing that the DVD was only $6.99 I decided to buy it. I got home, put the disc in the DVD player, and waited for the laughs to start...and I waited some more. The laughs never came.
I'd have to agree with almost every other comment on this page when I say that this movie was horrible. Sick, desperately tasteless, and poorly written and directed, THE UNDERGROUND COMEDY MOVIE is an atrocious piece of garbage and is in my opinion the worst movie of all time. No stars.


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


user
Sometimes you wonder how some people get funding to create a movie as bad as this one. You can only stand about 5 minutes of this utter piece of garbage before you stomp back into blockbuster and demand your money back. I will now look at Michael Clarke Duncan with apprehension...why....he lent his name to this vermin.


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


user
Sure, we all like bad movies at one time or another, and we in fact enjoy them, This however, wasn't even a guilty pleasure, it was just crap. Some guy, vince offer, who is conceited enough to make himself the main character while probably got drunk/high--probably both--and thought it was a great idea to make a movie. He then proceeded to show his script to equally high/drunk individuals. Overall, this movie was so bad, predictable, and unoriginal I couldn't get through 20 minutes of it before I turned it off. It makes You Got Served look like Citizen Kane. Bat Man? WTF...Some guy that walks around with a bat, real original. Almost as good as calling him Fat Man, and having a fat guy walk around in a superhero outfit.


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


user
The Underground Comedy Movie, is possibly the worst train wrecks I've ever seen. Luckily I didn't pay for this movie, and my friend reluctantly agreed to watch it again siting that it was so awful but he needed to prove to me how awful it was. I love off color comedy. I figured at the least it would have that and I would be entertained. No, instead the acting was so awful, the "jokes" were extremely cheesy, and the plot was no where to be found. Maybe there wasn't supposed to be a plot so I can't hold that against this movie. It's pretty sad where the funniest thing in a comedy is an old woman having her head hit off by a bat.....by Batman...A man dressed in a baseball uniform wielding a bat. Hilarious. Simply genius. I got the feeling watching this movie that its creators made it and laughed hysterically with their friends about it. Perhaps this was full of inside jokes we just didn't understand. Or perhaps it's the worst piece of trash ever made and it should be locked away in a vault and dumped in the Arctic Ocean.
P.S. Don't buy this movie!


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


user
My brother is an avid DVD collector. He took one look at the cover (two models on toilets) and had to add it to his collection. I stayed up with him to watch what turned out to be likely the most cringeable movie (I use that term loosely) I've felt obligated to sit through. I dared not make eye contact with my brother, quite certain he must have been cursing the receipt in his clenched fist. The biggest name in the whole movie is Michael Clark Duncan who appears in one scene, which the "filmmaker" decided to show every take of (about four total) throughout the movie. In fact, the whole movie pretty much follows this suit. The fact that the DVD contained deleted footage was a shock. (I went to bed without viewing it, however). To no surprise at all, I found this disc without its case behind the TV about a week later.


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


user
I ended up watching this whole (very long) movie because I was fascinated by the sheer stupidity and naivity of it. It seems difficult to believe that so many famous people (Anthony Quinn, Lawrence Olivier, John Gielguld, Vittorio de Sica, etc.) would have willingly participated in this farce. But maybe in 1968 people really *were* so naive? The plot seems written by some confused Latin American Marxist priest with an agenda. There is a superpower conflict and the Russians are actually the good guys, with the Communist Party General Secretary being a nice and spiritual man, who, suddenly, after 20 years, sees the light and feels compelled to ease his bad conscience by releasing a prisoner priest from a Siberian gulag. The priest then promptly becomes the Pope by a series of coincidences. We are allowed to see the secret Vatican papal voting process which is portrayed in the most hillariously pious form you can possibly imagine.
Meanwhile, the communists in China achieved the usual socialist economic miracle of starving half of their country to death. To solve this minor hiccup on the relentless shining path towards communism they want to start a nuclear war (in order to justly distribute the Western capitalist riches to the poor workers of China).
Our good old comrade General Secretary gets a bit worried and calls the Pope just before his coronation to ask him to broker peace. They meet with the Chinese leader comrade Peng who looks and acts like a 15 year old boy. You will roll on the floor laughing about what people in 1968 thought the Chinese looked like. Comrade Peng demands that the Western capitalists must pay (which is quite logical after all, don't capitalists always have to pay for the madness of the socialists?), and that the Pope needs to sacrifice something, too, for the common altruistic cause of equality and social justice.
So when the Pope gets crowned in Rome, he pledges the entire wealth of the Catholic church world-wide to feed our poor Chinese brethren in Christ. And thus he saves the world from nuclear holocaust.
Apart from this, there are also some minor sub-plots, which, alas, provide little to redeem this incredibly bad movie. I'd give it three Oscars for stupidity.
By the way, Anthony Quinn looks quite unlikely as a Pope. He is much more plausible as Zorba the Greek.


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


user
*Warning - no plot spoilers ahead, but movie spoilers nonetheless...* My significant other rented this for me thinking it would be a terrific romance with an all-star cast. Wow - very, very wrong. This movie is an overdone, overwrought, and overly sentimental excuse to theatrically release a student film 15 years after it was shot! The copyright date on the box said 2005, yet during the very first flashback sequence I was looking at the clothes and hairdos that were supposed to be the early 1960s, and noticed that the girls especially were wearing late 80s/early 90s dresses and hairdos. It looked as if it had been shot a good 15 or 20 years before the rest of the film! I tried to convenience myself that it was a flashback, and therefore supposed to look old, but it looked WWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYY more 80s than 60s or even 21st century trying to be 60s... then an adult coworker of the lead character turns up, and he looks just like the boy featured in the flashback sequences (yet it's a different, much older character whose youth is featured in the flashbacks). I was completely confused until I saw in the special features the short film included - it was all the flashback sequences, shot in 1990 as a complete student film of the same title as this movie! It also features commentary that includes the little boy all grown up (and indeed acting the co-worker in the 2005 scenes). Thus, this movie is just a shell of story woven around an old, re-cut student film put together as an obvious excuse to get it up to theatrical running time. The shell story, shot in 2005, is mostly about a man who has lost his wife and finds healing and redemption at the dance class that he promises a dying man he will attend in his stead (something about a promise made by the dying man in the early 60's to his girl that they would meet on the "fifth day of the fifth month of the fifth year of the new millennium - an excuse to shoot the segments around the old film in 2005?) These new scenes and plot might have been OK except the awful, overly sentimental score that repeats ad nauseum over almost every single new scene and the clichéd action that permeates the new movie. Don't bother. There's a reason why you've never heard of this movie even though it has a well-known cast - it's terrible.


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


user
If I had never read the book, I would have said it was a good movie. BUT I did read the book. Who ever did the screen write ruined the storyline. There is so many changes, that it wasn't really worthy of the Title. Character changes, plot changes, time line changes...
First off who was Henry and the investigator? They weren't in the story. Henry had Mitch's persona somewhat, but Mitch wasn't a cop. No you made it so Roz, helped 'sink ' his body and used that as Zenia's blackmail against Roz. The real so called blackmail was Roz thought Zenia was sleeping with her son and wanted her to get away from him. Her son was also being blackmailed because he was hiding being Gay from his mother. Her son wasn't even really mentioned in the story. Neither I don't believe was his lover, Roz's secretary.
Tony and West were not together in the beginning. He was actually with Zenia first while in college. The black painted apartment was their Idea, Tony just went to visit. This is where Zenia and Tony meet, become fast friends. Tony hides her love for West. Then Zenia left west, with cash from Tony, then West and Tony get together. Eventually marry, at some point West leaves Tony for Zenia again for a short time. Only to be heart broken again. Then go back to Tony. Zenia's blackmail for Tony was that Tony had written a test paper for Zenia. Now being a Professor at College she didn't want to let it get out. I will say the character who played Tony did it wonderfully.
Charis character was a blond, not that it really matters. Zenia didn't trick her about having cancer while Augusta was alive. No she was there when Charis had a lover named billy. Augusta's father, he was a draft dodger in the Vietnam war. Eventually after Charis takes care of Zenia for months for what was actually drug withdrawal. Zenia and Billy have an affair right under Charis's nose while taking care of them both. Then Zenia turns in Billy to the government, and leaves on the ferry with him. Not with Augusta, Charis was pregnant with her tho. Charis also had a split personality, Karen was her real name.
Zenia did not die from being cut up into piece's.... she fell or was possibly pushed (we never really knew) off the balcony and landed in a fountain. She had almost pure grade heroin in her blood and it was likely she took some not knowing and fell off as she OD'd. She was also really dieing of Cancer this time around.
It didn't show any of the childhood memories or anything that endeared the characters to the reader. The Book was striped down to its bare bones. Then re made in someone else's vision. Why couldn't you just write your own story along the lines of what you made the movie. It was different enough, and I'm sure could have been made more so.


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


user
I greatly enjoyed Margaret Atwood's novel 'The Robber Bride', and I was thrilled to see there was a movie version. A woman frames a cop boyfriend for her own murder, and his buddy, an ex-cop journalist, tries to clear his name by checking up on the dead woman's crazy female friends. It's fortunate that the movie script fixes Ms. Atwood's clumsy plotting by focusing on the story of these two men, victims of scheming women...
Heh. Okay, you got me. If these guys are mentioned in the book, and I'm pretty sure they're entirely made up for the movie, I'll eat the dust cover of my hardback copy. Apparently, the three main female characters of the novel aren't enough to carry the movie. Zenia's manipulations aren't interesting unless we see them happen to a man, and a man's life is screwed up. Roz, Charis, and Toni tell their stories -- to a man. Because it's not important if a man doesn't hear them.
I liked the characters in the book. It hurts to see them pushed off to the side for a man's story. I normally do not look for feminist angles on media, and I tried to enjoy the movie as is. If I hadn't read the book, I might have enjoyed the movie a lot more. So if you like the cop and the ex-cop, and you want to read more about them, you're out of luck. Read the novel, if you want to enjoy luscious prose and characterization subtly layered through a plot. It's the same plot: the movie excavated it, ironed it, and sprinkled it with male angst. It's like Zenia's revenge on Margaret Atwood.


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 Margaret Atwood was thinking to allow this movie to have the same name as her book. I've always been a big fan of The Robber Bride and was so excited to learn there was a movie in the works. I am aware that the translation of book to movie isn't perfect but this movie was the worst ever. The names of the women are correct and some of the back story is correct but that is about it. I feel like I lost a good portion of my time trying to make it through this movie. This really should have been a mini-series to tell the story the way it was written.
The actors for Roz, Tony, Charis and Zenia were well-chosen even though I was skeptical at first about Mary-Louise Parker. I only wish they'd had a better script to work with because this really had nothing to do with the book at all.


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


user
I watched this movie for its two hours and have absolutely no idea what it's about. Somebody got murdered or maybe they didn't and maybe somebody did it or maybe they didn't. This brought back memories of the good old days (bad old days?) when all CBC Canadian movies were stinkers. Lately stinkers have been the exception but this confused hodge podge of trendy feminism, mind reeling flash backs and mumbled dialogue makes up for lost time. I've never found Margaret Atwood's books easy to read. This movie continues that fine Canadian tradition. It isn't easy to watch. Maybe the trendy folks at the chi chi Toronto cocktail parties will pretend they liked it. Us folks in the boonies are a little less pretentious.


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


user
When this play was first shown by the BBC over 30 years ago, it would have been something quite different for the time. So therefor some people would have found it quite scary, and may well have been impressed with the special effects?
Looking at the play in this day and age, It doesn't seem to be all that scary anymore, even the special effects can leave a lot to be desired.
Would a train really be allowed to pass a RED LIGHT into a dark tunnel? I don't think so......but if you watch this play again, you will observe that the first train that enters the tunnel, rushes straight through the RED LIGHT! (maybe that's how it was in dickens time)?
You will also notice that the footpath that leads down to the Signal Box is very steep and in a poor state. Surely there would have been a series of proper steps with handrails for the Signalman to climb up or down into the cutting. (i can't help but notice things like that)
I will not take anything away from the acting, both Denholm Elliott (signalman) and Bernard Lloyd (the traveller) gave wonderful performances.
I am not at all sure what is going on......I mean was the ghost the traveller, or what??? Does anyone really fully understand this rather confusing story??? (well maybe i am the only one that don't)???
To sum up.....
The play has a wonderful atmosphere throughout, with great character. It suffers from not being that scary these days, and a little if not very confusing in places, and has some rather unusual signalling practises....
Thanks for reading my review.


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


user
Movie had some good acting and good moments (though obviously pretty low budget), but bad rating due to basic premise being badly developed. The main point of conflict between the two leads doesn't play out in a realistic manner at all. There are a few scenes where they disagree because of it, but no discussions of any great depth that would explain how they can be together while seeing the world so differently, especially since the employment of Glenn is so wound up in this part of his life (and Adam is active enough with his that he supports it with time and money.) Also, several times Glenn is portrayed negatively for being the way he is (apologizing to Adam for his past) while Adam is shown to be upstanding and "traditional," which the film proclaims to be the "good" way in the end. I don't like being preached to like that. I attended a discussion session with the director after viewing LTR, and he said that he presented this conflict between them because, if he was in Glenn's shoes (and he said he does in real life relate to Glenn's view) that he could never date someone with Adam's views. Well, then, I think he should have done a much better job explaining how Glenn could do it in the film. Also, director said he directed this, his first movie, only after reading (Directing For Dummies.) Directing was not that bad, but far from a top notch effort. I've seen worse, but I rarely leave films feeling this frustrated.


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


user
Or listening to, for that matter. Even the soundtrack is a bore.
Honestly, this isn't the worst gay movie I've seen (that would be Regarding Billy), but it's down there very close to the bottom of the barrel.
This thing drags and drags and drags. It's not that the plot is inane--in the hands of a good writer it might have worked . . . it certainly could have been much more entertaining. There's not one plot point you can't see coming for ten miles down the road. The dialog is flat. The jokes are old. To add insult to injury, it's full of one-dimensional, stereotypical gays.
Nothing in this movie convinced me that the situation or the relationship of the two leads was possible, much less real. There was no chemistry, no dynamic, in fact no evidence of why the leads love each other . . . we're just told they're in love. Hard to figure when they have nothing in common and aren't compatible sexually. They like the same book? Huh?
The acting is not totally bad, but the pacing is excruciatingly slow. I mean, almost Jarmusch- slow, but without Jarmusch quality. In fact, that would be a good barometer for you. If you like Jarmusch films, avoid 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
A truly frightening film. Feels as if it were made in the early '90s by a straight person who wanted to show that gays are good, normal, mainstream-aspiring people. Retrograde to the point of being offensive, LTR suggests that monogamy and marriage are the preferred path to salvation for sad, lonely, sex-crazed gays. Wow! Who knew? The supporting characters are caricatures of gay stereotypes (the effeminate buffoon, the bitter, lonely queen, the fag hag, etc.) and the main characters are milquetoast, middle-class, middlebrow clones, of little interest.
As far as the romantic & ideological struggles of the main couple are concerned, there's not much to say: we've seen it all before, and done much better.


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


user
Words cannot begin to describe how blandly terrible this movie is. I wish it were "so bad it's good," but it's not. It's just dull, lifeless, and boring. It's so bad I couldn't even laugh at it.
In response to other posters, Anne-Marie Frigon is not the highlight of the movie. The only person less charismatic is the director Brett Kelly, who as a true statement on vanity, cast himself as the male lead. They both look like inbreeds, sister and brother.
The gal, Sherry Thurig, is a looker. The complete opposite of Anne-Marie - attractive. This girl is tall and willowy, and can act. Although you can tell she's holding back.
All the actors seem to be holding back, especially the supporting male, Mark. I've seen less wood in a rain forest, but he's still better than Kelly. Why would Kelly keep his actors from acting? Is he really that bad a director? Everyone else has summed the story up perfectly - there isn't one. Kids are kidnapped and Kelly steps in poo to solve the crime. I know how he felt stepping in the poo, it's how I felt after watching his movie.
Yes, I tried to get my money back from the rental store. This is a home movie best left to be seen by the friends of the director (and if you search them out, you'll see those same friends were the one who gave the movie positive marks).


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


user
Usually when a movie receives a vote of one it is because someone simply dislikes it and is annoyed it doesn't have a lower rating, and so decides to drag it down as much as they can instead of just giving it a low rating. This is not the case here.
Bonesetter is a perfect example of a 0/10 film. It does nothing right and it doesn't have the chance to because it doesn't really attempt to do anything. There are strands of a bad D&D novel kind of plot which doesn't hold together and a complete lack of any kind of acting throughout. It is clear that nobody involved in this project gave it any kind of serious effort, because even a completely patently untalented persons' hard work would amount to more. A truly awful film.


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


user
I live in Ottawa where this film was made and I really wish it hadn't been. This is one God-awful flick. I really try and support independent films but there is this stigma attached to anything indie and that stigma is: Indie Films Blow. Well, this film does nothing to shed this curse. The actor, writer, director Brett Kelly does little to contribute to the genre, rather he re-hashes tired clichés from movies past. I am really tired of menacing evil looking characters that lurk in the shadows and prey on the unsuspecting, it's way too overdone.
I can remember one scene in particular right near the end of the flick where the whole scene is lit with car headlights. Now some may say that this was an effect used to create mood and tension, but sadly it was to showcase the shoestring budget of this movie. As well for a movie that dares to call itself horror, a viewer will find themselves hard pressed to find any actual gore, other than a few scenes with corn syrup and red food colouring.
The biggest thing that drags this film down is the pacing and the lack of character development, the basic plot is that children are being kidnapped and the parents must track down this Bonesetter fellow before a certain time in order to get their kids back. Not that this concept bugs me, but, I didn't really find it believable that when the two main characters, both who have lost children can find time to make out with each other. This is done in such a short time span that it's inconceivable, my first priority would be to get my daughter back and at least get to know the lady before making out with her.
The last point that I have is.... and I won't hold this against Kelly, but the movie is shot entirely on boring, emotionless video and that really takes away from any tense moments that would have just oozed style on film. Although if this movie were given a million dollar makeover and redone the story and boring acting and lame everything could not keep this movie afloat. My only hope is that something happens to prevent Brett Kelly from making a sequel, which has been reported on his website, a sequel that was half written in one sitting.
Lord help us all.


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


user
A terrible film which is supposed to be an independent one. It needed some dependence on something.
This totally miserable film deals with the interactions among Irish people. Were they trying to imitate the wonderful film "Crash?" If so, this film crashed entirely.
There is just too much going on here culminated by a little brat running around and throwing rocks into buses and cars which obviously cause mayhem.
The film is just too choppy to work. One woman loses her husband after 14 years to another while her younger sister is ripped off by a suitor. This causes the former sister to become a bitter vetch and walk around in clothes not worth believing. The older sister also becomes embittered but soon finds romance.
Then, we have 3 losers who purchase masks to rob a bank. Obviously, the robbery goes awry but there doesn't seem to be any punishment for the crooks. Perhaps, the punishment should have been on the writers for failure to create a cohesive 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 movie blows - let's get that straight right now. There are a few scene gems nestled inside this pile of crap but none can redeem the limp plot. Colin Farrel looks like Brad Pitt in "12 Monkeys" and acts in a similar manner. I normally hate Colin because he is a fairy in general but he's OK in this movie. There were two plot lines in this movie-= one about a kid who throws rocks through windshields of moving vehicles and the other about a woman with a moustache. Let's face it- this movie has no freaking idea of what it wanted to say or where it wanted to go. THe characters story lines intertwine on some levels but are in no means worthy of being included in a script. The whole thing is weak and pointless and then there is an occasional OK scene. But overall- Don't bother unless you love irish accents so much that you can watch mediocrity and it is rescued by everyone sounding like the Lucky Charms elf -an American fetish that has catapulted some truly crappy movies to success.


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 Irish and I've been living in Denmark for a while so I was looking forward to going home last week so I could see Intermission. And I will go on record as saying:
THIS FILM IS AWFUL.
It is not quite as bad a something like "The Most Fertile Man in Ireland" but it definitely does not stand up there with other Irish films such as The Commitments, I Went Down or Michael Collins.
Some aspects of the film are actually quite funny, such as Colm Meaneys American-style garda. But the film itself is shot completely wrong. The bouncing around of the camera and the constant zoom-in, zoom-out tries to give the film an edgy look as if it were a gritty drama. But it isn't. This is an Irish Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and it should be shot like this. It should have smooth movement from one shot to the next. The film just looks sloppy and thrown together.
The performances are okay, given the awful script. A friend of mine said to me like it was like they just followed Colin Farrell around Dublin for a week. He gives a decent display as a Dublin Dirtbag, but it no way compares to his performances in Minority Report, Tigerland or Phone Booth. The best performance was from Dierdre O'Kane who plays a sexually frustrated middle-aged woman who has just been dumped by her bank manager husband for a younger woman. I think she should leave her god-awful stand-up and focus more on her acting.
All in all, its does in no way live up to the expectations put on it by the Irish press or deserve to be even considered as one of the best Irish films ever.
I'm expecting a backlash from these comments because most people I have spoken to have said it was great. But before you reply, ask yourself: Would think so highly of this movie if it was set in England or America?


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 loved "Pulp Fiction" and like hand held cameras you should love this film. I liked the quirky story (even though I feel that "Pulp Fiction" was the most over-rated movie since "The English Patient") and found the characters unrealistic but interesting. It's not "On the Waterfront" or "Citizen Kane" and is burdened by European pretentiousness. But the worst part by far is the hand held camera. It is so distracting and annoying I found myself waiting desperately for the movie to end. I don't know why new directors think this method of filming is so great. If you are prone to motion sickness, stay away, the hand held camera will have you nauseous in about 10 minutes.


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


user
This was no Trainspotting or Guy Ritchie film. It was a big wannabee. It wanted to be an edgy, nervous-laughter, urban-life affirming film, but it's more of a camera jerky, mess. It's a lot easier to imitate something else, than to create a real story with real characters. From the beginning, I couldn't care less about the characters or what they were involved in. They were always always hitting, pissing, or crying on each other. Only, there wasn't any substance to what they were doing. The dialog between characters is meant to be hip, revealing, instead it comes out trite, and one scene after another is predictable. I know there are viewers out there that really liked this movie, so I could be wrong.


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


user
How Irish critics rave about this movie is beyond me. Overacted by the usual band of Irish actors dragged out for every Irish movie. Terrible script, with forced character quirks (the brown sauce). Romanticising all that is bad about Dublin. The attitude of 'ah, it's a dump but sure isnt it great all the same'. Plenty of tidbits purely for American audiences (the supermarket boss and his horribly forced catchphrase). And the nail in the coffin was Colm Meaney's character. A great actor forced to play this part that could've been written by a five year old. Cringeworthy stuff. The best thing about this movie is Farrell, and it's a bad when you have to say that. Well, at least he wasnt putting on his dreadful American accent. International Audiences be warned: stay at home and watch Snatch and Lock Stock. You'll have a better time. Intermission is a walk-outer


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 absurd - aside from the fellow Australian who has reviewed this flick, I can't help but think that everyone else who has submitted a review so far was some way involved in the production of Elektra, considering how generous they were with their praise.
Admittedly I'm not really a fan of comic-book-to-movie conversions so I didn't go in with many expectations, yet still I found Elektra to be incredibly underwhelming. The thing that irked me the most was the fact that there was SO MUCH in this film which went by unexplained, that left you thinking "huh, what relevance does that have to the plot?" or "so how did that aspect of the character come about?" I can only hope that these are things which are perhaps explained somewhat in Daredevil, which I have no intention of seeing.
Furthermore, the behaviour of the characters in this film appear to do an about-face at random moments to suit the storyline, and don't even get me started about the utterly pointless romantic sub-plot. I'm also (still) scratching my head over the fate of Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa's character, which seems to have gone by unexplained.
If I can give kudos to this movie for anything it would have to be the fantastic locations in which it was shot, but otherwise I gained little enjoyment from Elektra. I know we're supposed to suspend our disbelief for fantasy/action films, but almost everything in this film was so improbable or confusing (even by action film standards) that it simply frustrated me.
Well, hell, at least Jennifer Garner looks damn good.


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


user
Perhaps I'm out of date or just don't know what Electra is like in current publications... But the Electra that I read was far more manipulative and always seems to have a plan. She usually used others to do her dirty work and more often than not some sort of double cross was involved. Just when you think you have it all figured out she pull the wool over your eyes and gets her way.
This movie was fairly weak on the dialog, the acting wasn't particularly convincing, and the action was spotty. I was really looking for something more along the lines of Frank Miller's book "Electra Assassin." Which is much darker than anything in this movie.
Special effect where cool, action was interesting at times, but more often than not the story and plot was slow or illogical. Tha Hand was not menacing enough, and Electra was not..... bitchy enough. She's the girl you love to hate... but in this story, I just didn't care either way.


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


user
Believe me, I like horror movies. I like science fiction movies. I like independent films. And, I like low-budget, B movies.
Sometimes, I even like bad acting, plodding scripts, wooden lines, improbably situations, and the like. However, I did not like Christmas on Mars.
It just doesn't work on so many levels. For all the reasons listed previously, and many more. That includes the nonsensical, blatant use of images of female genitalia. And the many allusions to male genitalia, in a very Freudian way.
I am convinced this is purely from ineptitude. As opposed to some attempt at doing something really different. I mean any movie that takes years to film, just cannot keep up the level of congruity and focus demanded by modern audiences.
I had hoped that the whole movie was just a dream or hallucination by the main character. However, sadly, it was meant to have happened, as we saw things unfold on screen.
About the only kindness that I can express, is that the image at the end was stupendous. If this had been used at the beginning, instead of the end, it could have allowed the film to take off where 2001 ended...
To bad they didn't try that instead. I just don't understand what was so important about this film that it even had to be made. Was it the plot? Surely, it couldn't be. Was it the characters? I doubt it; I mean, I could live without knowing about Ed 15. Was it the dialog? Emphatically, no. The music? Perhaps, but more-likely the unvarnished ego of the principals needing to be stroked.
Much better efforts have died on the cutting room floor.


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


user
A friend once told me that an art-house independent film ran in a cinema when- upon the closing of the film - audiences were so enraged they preceded to tear up the cinema seats. Of course, my imagination ran amok, trying to conjure up the contents of such a piece of work. Well,now my imagination can be put to rest.
I am a lifelong Andrei Tarkovky fan and an ardent admirer of his work. I have come across many people who thought Tarkovsky's films are slow-moving and inert. Opinions being what they are, I found this not to be true of the late director's wonderful works, which are wrought with meaning, beautiful compositions, and complex philosophical questions. Upon hearing Aleksandr Sokurov called the heir to Tarkovsky, I was excited to experience his films.
With the exception of the open air ride through the fields (Stalker), this movie has no kinship to anything Tarkovsky has done. It does not seem to possess the slightest meaning, even on a completely mindless level. It's supposedly "gorgeously stark" cinematography is devoid of any compositional craft. There is a no balance, no proportion, and the exposure meter seems to be running low on batteries in the freezing snow. The main character is so inept and indecisive, it makes you wonder whether his father might have been alive if he made up his mind sooner.
I am also not adverse to non-plots or story lines that progress on multiple non-linear fashion. But there isn't even a non-story here. One must surely enter the viewing of this film with a shaved head if one were to exit it with nothing gained and nothing lost, as hair-pulling would be the only possible answer to a pace that could make a Tarkosky time sculpture look as if Jerry Bruckheimer had filmed a Charlie Chaplin short.
I won't rule out that this may be one of Sokurov's stinkers (Tarkovsky's Solaris), but to conclude that he is one of Tarkovsky's heir-based on this film- would be to call Paris Hilton the successor to Aristotle. C'mon guys, don't be afraid to say it. No amount of big impressive words is going to magically bring this corpse of celluloid back to life. I don't profess to fully understand Russian culture and I probably don't have Russian values, but I immediately picked up on Tarkovsky's work as something magical, a treasure and a gift to viewers.
If it didn't have Sokurov's name on it, and it aired on say, Saturday Night Live, I'm pretty sure nobody would "read" all these magnificent analysis into this wet noodle of a flick.


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 actually watching this film as I write this . . . If the following comments "prove my lack of development as a true, artistic film maker", then so be it . . .
But . . . I thought (am still thinking as I'm presently viewing) that this film . . . to put it mildly, is very, very overrated. Again, very.
It looks like a really, really bad student film done by a someone with beyond extremely limited resources . . . and who didn't pay that much attention to detail.
I don't want to go on and on regarding all the different ways that I find this film lacking, but . . . well . . . I just don't get it (rememeber, I fully admit that maybe it's ME that's the idiot here - not the film maker - for not getting this "piece of imaginative genius") . . . I rented this on a whim because the reviews were very, very outstanding . . .
Sheesh . . .


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


user
I was unlucky enough to have seen this at the Sidewalk Film Festival. Sidewalk as a whole was a disappointment and this movie was the final nail in the coffin. Being a devout fan of Lewis Carroll's 'Alice' books I was very excited about this movie's premier, which only made it that much more uncomfortable to watch. Normally I'm enthusiastic about modern re-tellings if they are treated well. Usually it's interesting to see the parallels between the past and present within a familiar story. Unfortunately this movie was less of a modern retelling and more of a pop culture perversion. The adaptation of the original's characters seemed juvenile and usually proved to be horribly annoying. It probably didn't help that the actors weren't very good either. Most performances were ridiculously over the top, which I assume was either due to bad direction or an effort to make up for a bad script. I did not laugh once through out the duration of the film. All of the jokes were outdated references to not so current events that are sure to lose their poignancy as time goes by. Really, the only highlight of the film was the opening sequence in which the white rabbit is on his way to meet Alice, but even then the score was a poor imitation of Danny Elfman's work. Also, I'd have to say that the conversion of the croquet game into a rave dance-off was awful. It was with out a doubt the low point of the film.
What a joke. Don't see this movie. After its conclusion I was genuinely angry.


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


user
I went to see it in hopes of some good old fashioned Alice Entertainment.Once I realized I would not be getting that,I watched it for a pretty well made movie (in terms of filming,and yeah..that was it).But aside from it having a good film quality,considering I had been watching grainy movies all day long,there was nothing good about that movie.
He killed 42.Why were Tweedle Dee and Dum played by Mudler and Scully?Serisouly,Who can answer that for me?Who can answer anything awful about this movie for me.
I agree with whoever said it was just one big long inside joke for the staff.That's all it seemed to be.
Poor Mr.Carroll.I'm so sorry somebody did that to his wonderful tales.


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 terrible but it has some good effects.


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


user
Ouch! They don't come much worse than this horrid adaptation of C. S. Lewis's beloved novel. While the adaptation is very true to the novel, the acting is simply awful and the sets and special effects are on a scale equivalent to a school play. I've read that the budget for this miniseries was the grandest that the BBC has ever given at the time, but surely they could have scraped together a bit more than the $2 that it looks like this was filmed for. The worst effect of all is Mr. Beaver. I know computer effects weren't at the level necessary or even cost effective at the time, but the costume store man in a suit look was horrid. Better to have just cut the character from the film than do that to the role! Avoid this at all costs.


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


user
I'm a fan of the series and have read all 7 books. I wanted to see this just to see how it was done. All i can say, is that the only people who should watch this are ones who have already read the series and are curious about it. Its pretty bad, and will turn you off reading them. Not to be mean, but Lucy is so ugly it detracts from the movie. Was she the directors daughter? Seriously, I'm sure the beavers in the movie were jealous of her teeth. She had an overbite that would put any beaver to shame. The movie just loses so much in translation. CS books don't translate as easily as the Tolkein LOTR books, or even Harry Potter.
One thing they did right! Aslan! very well done. Although the other human actors with painted faces ( beavers, wolf) look silly, Aslan was really well done since it was not just a human actor walking around. ( i guess its like that old horse custume? 2 people inside? ) Also, i would be curious what kids think of this movie. Maybe they would enjoy it? But as for adults, safe bet they wont, even if a CS fan.


assistant
0