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
It's so sad that Romanian audiences are still populated with vulgar and uneducated individuals who relish this kind of cheap and demonstrative shows, as superficial and brutal as the "Garcea" series or the "Vacanta mare" child-plays... The difference is that Mugur Mihäescu, Doru Octavian Dumitru and other such sub-artisans never presume to claim their shows as "art". Pintilie, who 40 years ago made a very good movie ("Duminicä la ora sase") followed by another one, nice enough ("Reconstituirea"), tries to declare his film-lenghts "art works" - but, unfortunately, he masters at a way too limited level the specifically cinematographic means of expression. As such, "Niki Ardelean" offers again a sample of "HOW NOT" - this being about its only merit.


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


user
This guy has no idea of cinema. Okay, it seems he made a few interestig theater shows in his youth, and about two acceptable movies that had success more of political reasons cause they tricked the communist censorship. This all is very good, but look carefully: HE DOES NOT KNOW HIS JOB! The scenes are unbalanced, without proper start and and, with a disordered content and full of emptiness. He has nothing to say about the subject, so he over-licitates with violence, nakedness and gutter language. How is it possible to keep alive such a rotten corpse who never understood anything of cinematographic profession and art? Why don't they let him succumb in piece?


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


user
Yes, he is! ...No, not because of Pintilie likes to undress his actors and show publicly their privies. Pintilie IS THE naked "emperor" - so to speak...
It's big time for someone to state the truth. This impostor is a voyeur, a brat locked in an old man's body. His abundance of nude scenes have no artistic legitimacy whatsoever. It is 100% visual perversion: he gets his kicks by making the actors strip in the buff and look at their willies. And if he does this in front of the audience, he might eve get a hard-on! Did you know that, on the set of "Niki Ardelean", he used to embarrass poor Coca Bloss, by telling her: "Oh, Coca, how I wanna f*** you!"? She is a great lady, very decent and sensitive, and she became unspeakably ashamed - to his petty satisfaction! And, as a worrying alarm signal about the degree of vulgarity and lack of education in Romanian audiences, so many people are still so foolish to declare these visual obscenities "works of art"! Will anyone have ever the decency to expose the truth of it all?


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


user
Terminus Paradis was exceptional, but "Niki ardelean" comes too late. We already have enough of this and we want something new.
Big directors should have no problems seeing beyond their time, not behind. Why people see Romania only as a postrevolutionary country?
We are just born not reincarnated, and nobody gives a s**t anymore about old times. Most people dont remember or dont want to remember, and the new generation of movie consumers dont understand a bit. This should be the first day of romanian movie not the final song - priveghi! Maybe younger directors should make the move.


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 begins with an ordinary funeral... and it insists so hard on this ordinary funeral feel that i lost interest within 5 minutes of watching, and started skipping scenes. it seems to me whomever made this movie is afflicted to the extent of becoming trapped in a permanent morbid trance, unable to contemplate anything else but death and destruction. well, i ain't one of the dark kids from Southpark, i want a movie that within 10 minutes gets me well into an interesting story, i won't sit and watch 10 minutes of nothing but preparations for a funeral.. my grandma on her last years was fascinated by funerals, perhaps she might have enjoyed this "movie".


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


user
I saw this movie twice. I can't believe Pintilie made such a fantasy movie. I'm also a movie/theatre director and I know what I speak. This is not Romania anymore, but I see the events are happening in the same period with the incident from 11 September. No story, no plot, nothing. No conclusion, no message, nothing profound, nothing hidden. Just empty images.
What most of Romanians don't know, this movie is for the french viewers, not for us. They really believe that is the reality in Romania. Also for teenagers. Pintilie should stop making movies. I don't really know if we can call this a movie, maybe a horror :) And we wonder why we've got such an image in Europe. This WAS a reality, but isn't anymore. A good friend of mine from the Brithish embassy said: "You have no idea what a long way Romanian people walked from Ceausescu".


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


user
I find it rather useless to comment on this "movie" for the simplest reason that it has nothing to comment upon.It's similar to a rotten egg which has nothing good to show to the world excerpt for the fact that it is rotten as other endless number of eggs have been before it. But since a comment is mandatory for such a grandiose insignificance ...
Filth is definitely the proper word to describe this movie created in the same manner as any other Romanian "movie" directed by Lucian Pintilie who insists to depict the so called "Romanian reality" following the Communist era (1990 to present days).
Under no circumstances recommended for people outside Romania as for the others (who lately find amateurish camera, lack of plot, lack of directorial / actors's quality etc, noise etc. as being trendy and even art-like) : watch & enjoy this "movie" (as I know you will) but do the other well intentioned IMDb members a favor, don't write an online review for it will misguide, irritate and in the end waste their time.
On the other hand this movie (among others) has some value whatsoever, an educational one for it sets the example for : "How NOT to make 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
It's very sad that Lucian Pintilie does not stop making movies. They get worse every time. Niki and Flo (2003) is a depressing stab at the camera. It's unfortunate that from the many movies that are made yearly in Romania , the worst of them get to be sent abroad ( e.g. Chicago International Film Festival). This movie without a plot , acting or script is a waste of time and money. Score: 0.02 out of 10.


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


user
Was there a single positive to this film? Critics who knew nothing of video games could spot the gaming errors made. No damage taken with damage clearly visible towards the beginning being a primary example.
And I may have missed something, but wasn't Super Mario Bros. 3 suppose to be a game that had never played before? Well if that IS the case, and I did not miss anything... how did Fred Savage's character, and even the girl, know so much about the game already? We're talking things that some people don't know about by their second or third play-through.
Beyond the factual and gaming errors there is the general low quality of the film itself. Nothing here is honestly very memorable. The kid wasn't even that good at playing video games in the footage they showed. A lot of kids I knew way back in those days were significantly more experienced. On top of all this the acting and storyline are just mediocre at their strongest points. The characters are bland and completely uninteresting, the 'Wizard' (the youngest child) is a very silent, completely dry child cliché of a little kid who almost never talks because of a trauma. It isn't that this is unrealistic, it's the fact that it had to be thrown into the movie to actually even begin to form a plot that would exceed even 30 minutes.
Honestly, the only value that is to be found here is that of a nostalgic nature. If you grew up with this movie you're going to like it whether it was good or not. It was about kids playing video games, and at the time you saw it you likely had an obsession with the NES as well. But unless you loved it as a kid there just isn't anything that's going to keep you interested, and very little that will prevent you from turning it off.
No sir, I didn't like it.


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


user
This is a review of The Wizard, not to be confused with The Wiz, or Mr. Wizard. The Wizard is a late-eighties film about a seriously silent boy's ability to play video games and walk during the entire opening credits. The Wiz is an unnecessary update of The Wizard of Oz, and Mr. Wizard is that guy that attached 100 straws together and had some kid drink tang out of it.
Now that we've gotten all that out of the way, let me say this: there's really no reason to see this movie. It's simply a 100 minute Nintendo commercial designed to capitalize on the Powerglove, the Legend of Zelda and Super Mario Brothers 3. I use the word "designed" in the loosest sense possible, because it seems like this movie was written over a weekend by a crack team of people who had never played Nintendo, and directed by a man with less sense of style than my grandmother. Maybe if the writer and director sat down and actually played some games together, they'd realize that they were about to film total rubbish and instead go to vocational school to learn how to install car stereos.
I hope that this has been an enlightening experience for you. It sure hasn't been for me. In fact, I think I might have lost a few braincells in the act of watching this movie and writing about it. Next time you're at the video store and you see the The Wiz, The Wizard and The Wizard of Oz all sitting there on the shelf in a pretty little row, give them all a miss and play Duck Hunt instead.


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


user
What a great actor to have in such an awful story...
The film and its production, however, is quite good, even though set in London but with exteriors in Bristol. No matter  see one cathedral, you've seen 'em all, sort of.
The story however...is about a man born with the power to wreak death and destruction upon anybody and anything, should he so wish. With just a passing reference to true life instances of telekinesis, the narrative builds a picture of a man misused and misjudged as a boy, a teenager and finally as a man; so much so, in fact, that he exacts vengeance at will, literally. Over time, he comes to the conclusion that the whole world is heading the wrong way and thus sets out to destroy the lot  just by thinking about it!
The trouble with the narrative, however, is that it tries to mix genuine scientific data about strange mental powers and merge it all with quasi-religious claptrap to produce a hodge-podge theory about it all. Mixing fact and fantasy in this fashion rarely works  and I'm afraid Richard Burton had to overact awfully on some occasions when trying to sound convincing. His very best scene, however, is when he gave his wife and her lover a verbal pasting as they left his home: sharp, witty and deadly dialog, delivered as only Burton could.
A good supporting cast helps to make things look and sound a lot better, though, beginning with Lino Ventura, whom I last saw in Garde A Vu (1981), as Inspector Brunel; Harry Andrews as Assistant Commissioner; the much under-rated Lee Remick as Dr Zonfeld; Derek Jacobi as a publisher, Towney, and a few other well known character actors.
I liked the way the story was presented, as flashback within flashback to fill in the back story and thus solve the immediate mystery of the attempted murder of Morlar (Richard Burton), the writer with the killer disposition. Up till that point, it was a good piece of visual detective work by Brunel and his English sidekick. Still, it was very predictable as it became quickly very obvious to me about the identity of the would-be murderer.
Then, they went and spoilt it all in the last fifteen minutes. If you want a clue about what that is, think Samson and Delilah (1949), from the illustrious Cecil B. de Mille, and how Samson got the bad guys in the end. And, the very last scene is just plain stupid. Why? Because there are at least a hundred ways that Morlar's rampaging could have been stopped, absolutely.
Shame, actually, because this could have been a lot better story and movie. I guess Burton really needed the money.
If you're Burton fan, then spend the time to see that scene I mentioned above. Otherwise, don't bother.


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


user
If 1977's "Exorcist II: The Heretic" did him no favors, it's hard to imagine what thespian extraordinaire Richard Burton saw in this drab exercise in non-thrills. You've seen it all before: Burton plays a writer who discovered at an early age he possesses the power to move inanimate objects through force of his mind (and you thought "Carrie" had no impact on Hollywood!). Though adapted from a novel by Peter Van Greenaway, "Medusa" plays like recycled goods, though the special effects in the cathedral finale are solid (if typical). Lee Remick is somewhat present as a doctor, but otherwise the supporting cast is extremely weak. Burton is hammy but weary...not even telekinesis could save him at this point. *1/2 from ****


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 pointed out in a now deleted post from another IMDb user that anyone who might see "The Medusa Touch" should be warned about a scene that's eerily reminiscent of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in NYC. But I hope anyone reading this will consider this warning. Despite an interesting pedigree (producer Elliott Kastner produced "Harper" and "The Long Goodbye"; co-producer Arnon Milchan co-produced the Oscar-nominated "L.A. Confidential" and screenwriter John Briley won an Oscar for "Gandhi") and an international cast, I found "The Medusa Touch" to be a heavy-handed, unintentional laugh riot. It was a poorly directed, horribly written and acted mess. It tried to capitalize on the 70s telekinetic thrillers genre. The movie fails on many counts. Please consider "Carrie" and the underrated "The Fury" (both directed by Brian DePalma). They were two entertaining and exciting thrillers that dealt with the same subject matter.


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


user
The animation was good, the imagery was good, although not totally original, however, the story was too long, way too confusing, and over the top dramatic. After about an hour I couldn't wait to get it over with. With so many characters that have nothing to contribute and plot elements that either come from nowhere or go nowhere this movie really wasn't one movie at all and would have been better of as a short series or possibly two movies. If you like this kind of typical story maybe you will like it, but frankly, I've been spoiled by much more creative stories that actually have some sort message to tell. Go rent a Miyazaki film and watch it twice, you'll get way more out of it.


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


user
I saw this movie two weeks ago at the "festival des nouvelles images du Japon" in Paris. Though i wasn't expecting much from it, i have to say i've been disappointed just like many people in the audience... if i wanted to sum up how i felt, i'd say i've been comparing it to princess mononoke and nausicaa from the beginning to the end. Of course it's silly. But i couldn't help it. The stories are quite different, but the worlds pictured are very much alike. And from this point of view, "a tree of palme" definitely can't stand the comparison with Miyazaki's masterworks. Even if it's quite good technically, boredom remains... in the end its complete lack of originality makes me advise you not to care to watch it. I rated it 2 out of 10 (a bit harsh, i guess it deserves 3 or 4)


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


user
The teasers for Tree of Palme try to pass it off as a sort of allegory for a fairy tale with actual meaning, then immediately start raving about the animation. I should have known what that meant.
The main character, Palme, is a good example of the whole movie's problem. One minute, Palme is a humble hero in search of himself, the next a violent psycho with an unhealthy fixation on a girl he once took care of.
Like all of the characters in the movie, Palme is poorly defined. You do not bond with the characters at all, although Shatta has acquired a couple of fan girls. It seems that the writer was more interested in cramming all the drama and complexity he could into this movie than actually exploring his characters' motivations and personalities.
New, useless story lines were being introduced in the last fifteen minutes of the movie. The writer seriously needed to streamline his story. Perhaps he was trying to be epic, but it was simply too much information for a two-hour movie. However I can't help but wonder if a plot with so many dimensions and characters would have been better suited for a TV series or graphic novel.
In the last five minutes of the movie, I simply could not endure the sheer lack of quality any longer and began laughing at how contrived the characters, the relationships, and the whole plot was. I touched my companion and he started cracking up too, as did a young man seated behind us. We tried so hard to control ourselves, but we simply could not take the terrible quality of this movie.
On the bright side, the animation is incredible and viewers will find themselves admiring the lush backgrounds and charming character designs. The animation almost guides you; when you don't care about the characters, it tells you how to feel.


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


user
And a self-admitted one to boot. At one point the doctor's assistant refers to himself as Igor.
Working with the increasingly plausible idea that computers could be used to replace or reconstruct brain functions, this movie doesn't spend enough time exploring the premise. Most of the screen time is split between girlfriend-in-a-coma domestic strife and chasing down the brain donor's killer. It attempts to be a sci-fi/drama/thriller but fails to deliver on any of the three.
As a Frankenstein remake this one is missing everything that made the original good. Nobody calls the doctor insane or even threatens to kick him out of the hospital. The transformation scene consists of a coma victim opening one eye and the amazing computer that makes it happen isn't even shown. When the experiment works there is no praise, and when it starts going wrong there is little reaction.
Any suspense over who the killer might be is shattered by progressively showing him in the same room with all of the possible suspects. Finding the killer is as easy as opening one file and interviewing one person.
San Francisco as a setting is both overplayed and underused. The opening sequence hammers home the point that this is happening in SF, a cable car plays a significant role, the leads live in a hilltop Victorian, Pier 39 makes an appearance, and the final showdown happens at Golden Gate Park. More specifically along ten feet of cliff side at the park - just enough to keep the bridge in the picture at all times. Once the obvious scenery bases are rounded no other attempt is made to explore the city.
The acting is the only saving grace here. Keir Dullea shows a good range and pulls off a couple of genuinely emotional scenes. Suzanna Love portrays recovery from a coma well. Tony Curtis only gets a handful of lines and twice as many evil guy stares with most of the Frankenscience explained away by his assistant. The little blond kid hits his cues fairly well also.
I also gave it one extra star for the scene where the husband drives south from the bridge, it cuts to a U-turn in an unrelated parking lot, and then he's instantly back on the bridge driving north. It takes a whole lot of something - bravery, ignorance, deadlines - to try and slip that one by the viewer during the one single car chase.


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


user
I can't even believe that this show lasted as long as it did. I guess it's all part of the dumbing down of America. Personally, like David Spade said, I liked this show better when it went by its original title - "Seinfeld". What bothers me the most about this show, aside from the obvious, base sense of "humor", and general smuttiness, is the pretentious way the episodes are titled. Truly great shows are still funny after many, repeated viewings, like, "the one where Rob gets accidentally hypnotized", on the "Dick Van Dyke Show", or "the one where Lucy and Ethel work at the candy factory." In other words, it's an honor bestowed upon great programs by the viewers. That the writers and producers of "Friends" would have the unmitigated hubris to actually title the episodes, themselves, in such a fashion, before anyone's even had a chance to even see it a second time, speaks to not only the mediocrity and lack of original thinking on the part of said writers, but, also, of the stultified minds of their viewers.
You read the comments of some of these people and can only come to the conclusion that they live in a Hallmark Card-like Neverland, full of greeting card sentiment. The true meaning of friendship? I want to be a friend? I want to live in Manhattan? Wake Up. These people are supposed to be working in coffee shops and looking for work as actors, but they somehow manage to live in $4000/mo. apartments? Get real. All I have to say to those amongst us that want to move to Manhattan and live the idyllic New York life with your Rosses and Monicas, good luck with all of that. That New York doesn't exist for anyone making less than a serious six-figure income. But, good luck with all of that, anyway. Now, shut-up and pass the Soma.


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


user
TV does influence society...just look at the surge in popularity of cappucino shops after this shallow little piece of work debuted. Besides, real people who look as good as these people do don't have any problems.
Besides, does anyone really believe that these people can afford to live in a nice Manhattan loft considering what they do for a living? NBC just loves to insult the viewer's intelligence, even if they're just around Gump's level. I know a person who makes $100,000 a year as a web designer and lives in a tiny one-bedroom apartment in Manhattan that costs $2200 a month in rent.
I'd like to see a show called Phriends, where it's six ugly nobodies in dead-end jobs, living in a crummy neighborhood where sirens constantly wail and someone gets mugged every week...and then the landlord jacks up the rent. Now THAT I would watch.


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 a severe problem with this show, several actually. A simple list will suffice for now, I'll go into more depth later on: superficial characters, a laugh-track and boring humour.
If you don't wish to look at the rest of this review and are only reading it so you can feel superior (as if you see anything in this show I didn't) to a frequently irked teen from Canada I'll summarize: Friends sucks, not only because it is unfunny but because it destroyed the TV audiences for new, good shows (Arrested Development, Dexter etc.). Friends is as much to blame for reality TV, "Two And A Half Men" and "The King Of Queens" as the television executives. Now then, on with the review.
These characters have no soul, they are exactly the same in every way (outside of gender and hair colour). They react the same way in boring situations and are completely secure in their own bodies. Where is the conflict and the humour that comes with it? Why isn't Rachel storming out on Monica after Monica starts hanging out with Rachel's enemy? Why doesn't Joey contemplate suicide because nobody seems to take him seriously? Oh right, cause he's the dumb one and he's comfortable with that. This is the curse of having perfect characters: lasting conflict and (god forbid) personality becomes an impossibility.
The laugh-track is the one thing that should have died out right after it was born. Any show that has one is almost certainly the opposite of funny. How can I make such a broad generalization? When a show that claims to be "comedy" requires laughter from someone BESIDES THE AUDIENCE it must mean that the audience would not laugh without it. Laughtracks destroy humour by preventing quick comebacks. Humour becomes a construct rather than a free flowing entity (see The Office, Arrested Development).
This leads to my next point: the humour is boring. There is no way to make a perfect character anything more than slightly humorous (without a laugh-track apparently) simply because our everyday humour comes from recognition of our flaws. So what if Monica dated a 17 year old? She immediately recognizes that what she is doing isn't right and breaks up with him. There has to be some sort of conflict rather than an immediate solution. Maybe her mother finds out or one of her friends tries to get rid of him and ends up seducing him. That would be great, it would be like a custody battle! So now I've provided evidence for my position. Many of my friends love this show because they haven't heard of Curb Your Enthusiasm or Arrested Development, many of my friends hate this show because they recently started watching Curb Your Enthusiasm or Arrested Development.
I have watched very little of "Friends" in my life, but I have watched enough to spot huge flaws that make the show, in my opinion, completely unwatchable. If you've read this far, thank you, and I hope you at least start watching some of the shows I have mentioned.


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 stunned to discover the amount of fans this show has. Haven't said that Friends was, at best an 'average' sitcom, and not as great as others have made out. Let's face it, if it wasn't for the casting of Courtney Cox Arquette, David Schwimmer, Matthew Perry, Lisa Kudrow, Jennifer Aniston and Matt Le Blanc, then who knows whether this show would've lasted as long as it has done. I very much doubt that. Although as the series progressed, Friends got more progressively predictable, lame and boring that I couldn't care less about the characters- of whom are the most overrated in TV history- or of their plight, nor of who was sleeping with whom. And it went from being funny in the first four seasons to occasionally funny. And even when it had all these A-list Hollywood actors from the movie world, I still didn't bother to tune in. The writing in Friends became stale that I lost interest in this show from the sixth season onwards and as for the ending, well it was predictable to say the least.
What was annoying though was that this lasted for ten seasons, whilst some of my favourite shows lasted for only three, four seasons for instance and were eventually cancelled and taken off the air for good. The show should've came to an immediate halt by the time the cast wanted bigger salaries. In truth, as much as the series waned, it was the show that was bigger than the actors themselves, not the other way round.
When it ended in 2004, I was so relieved to see the back of this sitcom. Now, there is talk of a friends reunion show coming to our TV screens very soon. And yet, I for one will not be looking forward to it whatsoever.


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


user
It is quite simple. Friends is a comedy of very basic humour aimed at teenagers and young adults, with unsophisticated sense of humour.
It is also painfully obvious that towards the end, they were desperately trying to make it last 10 seasons, most likely so they could say they beat Seinfeld's 9 season run. The trouble with this is, Seinfeld had 9 amazing seasons with great writing, Friends had (and I'm being very generous here) at most 5 or 6 OK seasons and then 4 abysmal seasons.
It became a soap opera with recycled humour and recycled character traits that weren't that good so start with, then got worse at the 100th time you saw them. I find it so hard to understand why people rate this so highly. It is truly awful.


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


user
This is the worst show. Buntch of grown up acting like kids no humor nothing. Even Sesame Street has better humor and more adult than friends "Friends" may be the worst thing I've ever seen on television and I've been sitting in front of the tube observing Friends" simply does not stack up well to other, contemporary series. It lacks the smartness of "Seinfeld" and the wonderful self-ridicule of pomposity that is the hallmark of "Frasier". The characters in "Friends" seem designed to make them repellant dullards. This incestuous group of neighbors makes my flesh crawl.
The unintelligent show is completely without an edge of any sort. The characters are caricatures of caricatures and the writing is sophomoric -- though intentionally so. (It might be interesting to observe a writing session since the writers may have to slave to aim lower than their capabilities so as not to confuse the loyal friends of "Friends".)


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 plain bad. Weak story , weak directing and below average acting. The thing that really irritated me was the blatant advertising - constantly - for a well known internet provider. It is obvious some scenes are written to do just that , advertising. This movie is a slap in the face to anyone who payed money for this.
Do not watch this, it not worth your time.


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 believe they made this film. Completely unnecessary. The first film was okay. But there was no need for a sequel, certainly not after a television series that was already a sequel to the first film. This film feels like a soap-opera. The writing is so bad, it's utterly simple. The jokes don't come across, the acting is flat, it's shot like a soap, it lacks any direction. The first film had a good emotional spine behind it. Every character had a little arc. It was very simple then but somehow it worked and I could see the merit of that film. But this time around, there is no cohesive story-line. The characters are dull stereotypes and nothing interesting happens. One good thing: the Brazilian boy who plays Axel Daeseleire's son is pretty well cast. That was their one moment of creative success on this film. I hear they already shot a second television series as a sequel to 'Team Spirit 2' but please God, don't let them make a third feature installment...


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


user
Awful movie. It's a shame that a few of Flanders's top actors and actresses made such a lamentably poor film.
There is barely something changed since the first movie and the TV series: same actors, same prototype characters, same scenario (emotional complications, the team under emotional pressure but everything turn out tip-top after a predictable grand finale). Another constant fact in the work of Jan Verheyen is the exaggerated product placement (company logo's on the team's shirt and along side the pitch OK but two times a commercial (by one of the characters) about an internet provider is just over the top.
Meanwhile, rumour has it about the making of a second series for Flanders commercial TV station 'VTM' (coincidental or not, the station where Jan Verheyen is programmation manager since a few months)
To conclude ... and the golden raspberry award for worst foreign movie goes to ... Team Spirit 2


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 bizarre. Better put, it's "freakin' weird". I could give you a plot summary, or some hoity toity analysis, but I would consider it a waste of your time. All anybody needs to know about this movie is two young sisters, one incestuous relationship, homicide, post mortem mutilation, and one really disturbing infatuation. At the end of the movie you feel like you need to go take a shower to wash the filth off yourself, but not in a good way like after "Pulp Fiction" or "Fight Club". It's like you're a teenager (or high schooler being that i am myself still a teenager)and have just done something you A: wish you hadn't done, and B: hope to the Good Lord of Heaven and Earth that your parents never find out about. And nobody likes that. My advise is that rather than defiling your mind and by watching piece of wanton cinematic filth, just go waste your time on something a little less horrible and watch "Kazaam"(yes, I would rather watch "Kazaam" than "Murderous Maids", read into it what you want).


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


user
Anurag Basu who co-directed the flop KUCCH TO HAI made his debut in this film
The film was ahead of it's times in a way though it has a story not to different and it came closest to HAWAS which released 1 week before and luckily this was better and did a better business
The movie starts off well, Malika's guilt is well shown at the start though the scene with Emraan- Malika is too crude/vulgar
The scenes between Emraan and Malika are well handled and the twist in the tale where Ashmith confronts Emraan is brilliant
The pace moves fast and the viewer is kept on the edge but the second girlfriend track of Emraan isn't fully convincing
Also the cop track seems half baked
The finale is too filmy too
Direction by Anurag Basu is good Music is a winner, all songs were fab Camera-work was stunning
Emraan played his naughty streak very well, this was the role that gave him stardom and though he kept playing such roles and got annoying in this film he was superb Ashmith too was good in his role for once, He did a nice job and one of his only good performance and he looked good too Malika was brilliant in her role esp in the second half but her dial delivery was at times not up to the mark Sadly rarely she showed such potential in other films Raj Jhutsi is okay


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 a perfect adaptation of the English Flick Unfaithful. Ashmit plays the role of Richard Gere, Emran that of Olivier and Malikka the perfect cheating wife role of Lane.They have changed the second half of the film to adapt for the Indian masses.
Even then the movie has got the full traces of Unfaithful, though it couldn't catch up with the original. It was a cheap soft porn of the Bollywood lovers, where Mallika showed a lot more skin than anyone dared to show. Emran did more roles like this and was even nicknamed the serial killer. In the future if the Indian Directors plan to remake a English movie then they have to look into the feasibility of the plot with the Indian Censors. Though the film bombed at the box office, the actors got the undue recognition. In future the directors should be a little more careful in remaking a Oscar nominated film.
All said, this is not a family film, so take the extra caution while watching it at home with family.


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 want to see a movie about two utterly unsympathetic characters, this is the one. The acting is superb, both from John Cassavetes as the insane paranoid whom, as the saying goes, they REALLY ARE out to get, and from Peter Falk as his lifelong best friend to whom he turns for rescue. Big mistake, but since they're both amoral mobsters, and misogynistic bastards to boot, it's hard to decide whom to root for LESS. Only writer/director Elaine May could have gotten away with this one. I thought it interesting that in a lengthy interview with producer Michael Hausman included on the DVD, he disclosed that the two stars had "very different ideas" about the script, that the director was nearly impossible to work with, that the director of photography had impossible demands made of him, that the crew was constantly angry about being made to sit around waiting, and so on. This mood of one big VERY dysfunctional family comes across clearly on the screen.


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


user
(When will I ever learn-?) The ecstatic reviewer on NPR made me think this turkey was another Citizen Kane. Please allow me to vent my spleen...
I will admit: the setting, presumably New York City, has never been so downright ugly and unappealing. I am reminded that the 70's was a bad decade for men's fashion and automobiles. And all the smoking-! If the plan was to cheapen the characters, it succeeded.
For a film to work (at least, in my simple estimation), there has to be at least ONE sympathetic character. Only Ned Beaty came close, and I could not wait for him to finish off Nicky. If a stray shot had struck Mikey, well, it may have elicited a shrug of indifference at the most.
I can't remember when I detested a film as strongly. I suppose I'm a rube who doesn't dig "art" flicks. Oh, well.


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


user
Very outdated film with awful, cliché-ridden and mawkish dialog and a very poor construction. In addition, Cassavetes and Falk overact constantly. A pseudo "good movie". It takes no time to discover how catastrophic this intellectual turkey is. The first scene is a total bore, filled with histrionics and hysteric exchanges. The sound is horrible. Camera movements are without imagination as is the building of characters. No poetry, no subtle psychology, no interesting shots. The actors smoke constantly and we see ads for beer beverages. Very cheap, indeed. (one exception : Ned Beattie"s nice and simple way of playing the hit man).


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


user
***SPOILERS*** Let's start with the "good" of this film--the serviceable acting of Cynthia Rothrock and Richard Norton. The rest of the acting is awful (this isn't aided by the atrocious script). The worst culprit is the villain, Buntao, the head of an Asian crime syndicate (played by Frans Tumbuan). I was laughing my head off as he was expressing his "fury" over having lost a bunch of money; horrid performance. Patrick Muldoon isn't much better, and his "it's a hostile takeover" line (that's the remainder of the title of this film) was delivered about as badly as one could do it. There are no other main characters, but no other actor/actress distinguished him/herself in this film. We next come to the plot. This should tell you all you need to know: In the original "Rage and Honor," Cynthia Rothrock, who plays Chris Fairchild, was a teacher in the inner city. Now, she's a C.I.A. agent (or was it some other governmental agency--sorry, but this film was so bad that I don't even remember). Hmmm...I can imagine what that C.I.A. application process was like. Interviewer: What past job experience do you have? Chris: I was a teacher. Interviewer: Okay; you're hired! I only give it a "2" because of some decent acting and a nice plot twist at the end (though we know that Tommy (Muldoon), the secret villain, will be caught).


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


user
Two years ago at Sundance I loved Josh Kornbluth's directing debut-Haiku Tunnel. So I was looking forward to his brother (and frequent collaborator) Jacob's, The Best Thief in the World. This is a drama about a seemingly good kid growing up in a lower-class area of New York. The movie is not without its poignant moments. But at times it is as if Kornbluth is working way too hard to state the obvious: Life can be very difficult for some people. And life isn't fair.
More subtle, and more important, is our understanding that despite all of these somewhat abhorrent cultural underpinnings and the anti-social behavior they may spawn, these characters have no shortage of goodness and humanity. We can recoil at their language and their living conditions, but we are cannot discount their intent. And in fact, their struggles to maintain a family under such adversity has a certain nobility that most of us can barely appreciate. Kornbluth grew up in this neighborhood, and his compassion for the people is evident throughout.
Having said all this, The Best Thief in the World suffers from many painful flaws (including the title). The characters aren't very believable. The writing is uneven. And the plot-line is barely discernible. And for many the most disturbing is that Kornbluth uses two young black boys mimicking gangsta rap between scenes. To each his own: But while I don't question the potential realism of this phenomenon, it pains me to see 5-year-old children mf'ing and talking about having sex with a line-up of women. It's unnecessary shock value and is a forced bit of borrowed interest.


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


user
We know that firefighters and rescue workers are heroes: an idée reçue few would challenge. Friends and family of these and others who perished in the attacks on the World Trade Center might well be moved by this vapid play turned film. A sweet, earnest, though tongue-tied fireman recalls what he can of lost colleagues to a benumbed journalist who converts his fragments into a eulogy. They ponder the results. He mumbles some more, she composes another eulogy, etc., etc.
The dreadful events that provoked the need for several thousand eulogies is overwhelmingly sad, but this plodding insipid dramatization is distressingly boring.


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


user
I read one other review that expressed the view that Platoon was a never ending cycle of marines killing people, being killed, taking drugs and talking trash.
I don't agree with that because the film actually had more to it, but it a way, I can see what this person is trying to say: this had no real plot - which is a point i agree with.
It is self-indulgent Stone at his best. He really wanted to show, not only how war leads to death, but also how it is extremely traumatic on those who survive. Unfortunately, the film seems to over "glorify" this aspect and the grand finale is just way too champagne, grand-standing, Oscar-hunting "let's create an enduring image" for my liking.
The problem I have with Stone and other film-makers of his ilk is that they fail to understand this simply concept: depicting the terribly bloody deadly waste that war is DOES NOT PROVE OR EVEN REFLECT ON WHETHER it was an unjust or immoral war. We have seen the same thing emerge at the moment with Iraq. In case you're missing the point, let me put it to you bluntly: if you saw how truly bloody the second world war was and how destructive it was on the lives of the surviving soldiers, would you think it was an unjust war? If that fact alone doesn't convince you that it was an unjust war, then why should depictions of the horrors of Vietnam convince you that it was wrong to go to war in that instance.
Personally, I do not support America's decision to go to war in Vietnam, but i certainly don't subscribe to the "this war is wrong because people died and suffered" theory. I don't think that motivations are always wrong by default, just because war in itself is terrible.
This says nothing of the fact that the ending or the final big "twist" was a bit stupid. However, this is not Stones first oddball departure. Wall street was a magnificent film, up until the last 30 minutes or so when it made a dreadful "wrong turn." JFK is probably one of the few films Stone did that actually ended very well.
But it hardly matters in this one because there was very little plot up until that point of the film to twist around. And this is why i gave it such a low mark. It was virtually story-less and ultimately boring - unless you fell for the manufactured poignancy.


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


user
Platoon is to the Vietnam War as Rocky IV is to heavyweight championship boxing. Oliver Stone's story of the experience of a US Army platoon in Vietnam in 1968 is so overdone it's laughable. While most or all of the occurrences in Platoon did occur over the 10+ year span of US military involvement in Vietnam, to portray these things happening to one small group of men in such a short time frame (weeks) gives a horribly skewed picture of the war. In Platoon, the men of the platoon see all of the following in the course of a week or two: US soldiers murdering civilians, US Soldiers raping civilians, a US Sergeant murdering another US Sergeant, a US Private murdering a US Staff Sergeant, US soldiers killed/wounded by friendly fire, 90%+ killed or wounded in the platoon. For Stone to try to pass this film off as the typical experience of a US soldier in Vietnam is a disgrace. Two Vietnam War films I would recommend are We Were Soldiers (the TRUE story of arguably the worst battle for US soldiers in Vietnam) and HBO's A Bright Shining Lie.


assistant
0