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
If you hit your head with a shovel, write the script with your feet, you may come close to the intelligence level of this movie. There is nothing in this movie that hasn't been done a thousand times in other gangster flicks and done much better. Those who think "Scarface" was some kind of hero to be looked up to or saw "Goodfellas", "Menace II Society" or "Dead Presidents" and thought MMM "That's the life for me!" will like this movie. I thought I'd give the movie a chance, since the premise was perfect for a prequel. I should have known better after seeing Mario Van Peebles and Sean Combs were involved. Anyone above a 4th grade education, see the original with Pacino, a real actor, and be satisfied.


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 big fan of Pacino movies. He's one of, if not the best, actors of this genre. However, this movie could've been a whole lot better even though it had a poor cast. All they had to do was tell the story of Carlito Brigante up until he went to jail. Instead it seemed like this was just one of many stories that could be told of Carlito. All or even some of the questions about his past that we wondered about in the original could've been answered. As far as I'm concerned, thats the only way you can make this movie. Instead we get this prequel that has almost NONE of the original characters in it, a character that plays a different part from the original (horrible move), and a totally different love interest for Carlito. Don't even get me started with Puffy. No way can I take that cat seriously as a gangsta after watching him dance in all his artists videos. Evertytime that dude opened his mouth I was waiting for him to start dancing. He made me laugh if anything. Mario Van Peeples surprised me with his role. I thought he was gonna give a lackluster performance due to his recent history. He did rather well. He was probably the most "believable" out of the entire cast in my opinion. Jay Hernandez did his best but doesn't have the skills right now in his career to take on this role. I appreciated his energy and his efforts though. Hard to follow up Pacino. The only way you could even have a clue about what kind of person Carlito was, is to watch the original. Otherwise, Carlito looks like a cold blooded killer in one scene then a spineless wimp in another. He was one of the baddest gangstas of his time but you would only see flashes of that in this movie. Maybe this is a pitiful way for Hollywood to try and make a 2nd prequel to cash in on this failure. Wouldn't surprise me.
Overall, in my opinion, this movie fell well short or what it could've been. The only reason I gave it a 3 was because I laughed a lot and Mario Van Peeples earned some respect back with me. A serious director should've taken this movie and actually put time into the story and turned it into an actual prequel. I'm extremely disappointed that this movie wasn't taken seriously. They would've been better off making this into a mini-series on HBO and actually telling the story like the original suggests. At the end of the movie, they had the nerve to suggest that Carlito would have to come back to the city. HEEELLLLO....thats the part everyone wants to see!!! Then again, this is all just my opinion. I can't tell you how to waste your money.


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


user
I have to say this is one of the worst films I've ever seen. They had a pretty good storyline to go on, but than the messed it up so badly. First of all the cast is all wrong, where did that van peeble(crap actor btw) and puff daddy come from??? It looks like Carlito has come from the hood, and used to hang about with some real idiots. This film doesn't do "Carlitos Way" any justice. Im so happy that the sequel "Carlito's Way" came out first, if I had seen this rubbish first, I would have never given the pacino version a chance. And anyway, pacino is supposed to have read this story, thought it's crap and did the sequel instead. Carlito's Way: Rise to Power - 1 out of 10. Carlito's Way - 9 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
This was so lame that I turned the DVD off...maybe halfway through. It was so weak, I couldn't even pay full enough attention to tell you how far in I made it.Though I really wanted to believe that the depiction of the young Carlito would be somewhat different, I just couldn't buy it. I don't really blame the actors, because I think it was the script that may have fallen flat. I did find myself laughing a few times, but I don't think those lines were intended to be funny.
It's only saving grace is that I bought it in a 2 DVD set and I would have paid the price I did for the original alone. This is one of those cases when they should have let the classic stand alone.


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


user
Carlito Way, the original is a brilliant story about an ex-drug dealer who hopes to leave his criminal past and so he invests in a club and the deals with the trouble that comes with it.
This film was....
I saw the trailer and knew instantly it was going to be bad..But after dismissing films in the past and finding out they were great( Lucky Number Slevin, Tokyo Drift)...I gave this a shot and it failed within the first five minutes...
The script is something a teenager would come up with if given five minutes to prepare...It was weak, with weaker dialogue. It seems there is an instant need for romance in a gangster movie. So Brigante decides to beat a guy up for the girl....and she say's 'Yes!' And if you need to act bad just throw racism around...As we learn from the 'Italian mobsters'...
The acting was terrible to say the least...I found 'Hollywood Nicky', hilarious.
I absolutely hate all these musicians turning to movies. Lets face it the only reason P Diddy did this movie was so he could play a gangsters...The actress who plays Leticia was weak but beautiful. The sex scene was weak but we got to see her..which was okay...
But overall I expected it shed light on how Carito ended up in prison and the love of his life...And the assassin towards the end completely added to the horrendous movie that is...
Carlito's Way: Rise to Power..


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


user
this film was totally not what i expected.
if this film was called something else no one would even notice the difference between the two.
its really strange because i cannot see the point . the prequel and sequel lets just say don't make sense, the don't even match . maybe i am naive but ain't a vol 1 & vol 2 meant to match up.
carlito was in jail in the 1st one and dies in the original, and in the prequel he lives and don't go jail.
the plot was OK , but they should have changed round some actors and some of the story line and the name of the film and it would have been a good film .
i really expected it to end like the other one started.
if some one has a opinion on this post it please.


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


user
really awful... lead actor did OK... the film, plot etc was completely crap and inaccurate it may as well have been a sequel to well... anything it had little or no relevance to Carlitos Way... and should be avoided like the plague by any Carlito's ways fans... no mention of Gail in fact he ends up with some other bird, no mention of Klienfelt, no mention of how he got caught, no mention of how he ended up in jail... they attempted to make it like the original with flash backs at the beginning... but to be honest when rating it I was looking for a zero mark... unfortunately I had to rate it higher...
Its a terrible attempt to cash in on what was one of the best films of the 90's... overall it was approximately £6 and 2 hours of my life wasted... for all the "action" in it, it was truly boring slow and predictable... again to any Carltio's Way fans avoid this fiasco...


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 just a butchering of a wonderful story by Edwin Torres. This movie doesn't follow the storyline in the book. And, there are so many inconsistencies with the original movie that you have to wonder if the screenwriter had even seen the first movie.
Al Pacino (the original and still the best Carlito) gets out of prison at the start of the original one. Here, Carlito retires with his woman in paradise.
What happened to Gail from Lorain, Ohio? In this installment, she isn't mentioned, and Carlito retires with and presumably will marry some other girl.
Also, where is Kleinfeld? I think he was in the first book.
I also like how Mr. Guzman plays a totally different character in this film. He was Pachanga back in the Pacino days. Now, he is Nacho Reyes, a killer from Cuba. I remember that Nacho Reyes had a much bigger role in the book.
It's been a while since I read the book, but where did Sean Comb's character come from? Also, I think this movie really glosses over the racial tensions in Harlem that Torres was writing about. And, the mob doesn't get the treatment that they did in the book. They are also wiped out in this movie. But, magically the Pleasant Avenue bunch is around for the second movie.
The book told a great story. This movie could have told a great story. This is just a huge disappointment. Read the book. It's a better use of 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 watched this movie and the original Carlitos Way back to back. The difference between the two is disgusting. Now i know that people are going to say that the prequel was made on a small budget but that never had anything to do with a bad script. Now maybe it's just me, but i always thought that a prequel was made to go set up the other movie, starring key characters and maybe filling in a bit about life that we didn't know. Rise to Power is just a movie that has Carlito's name. There should have been at least a few characters from the original movie, the ending makes no sense in relation to the original. In the end of this movie he retires with his sweet heart but how the hell do we get him coming out of prison in the next movie? And his woman isn't even the same woman that he talks about as his only love in the original. I would say the movie is mildly entertaining in its self, with a few decent bits but it pales when held up to it's big brother. Don't lay awake at night waiting to see this, watch the original one more time if you really need a hit.


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


user
The movie and acting are not bad and Jay Hernandez does a good job playing Calito Brigante but the movie forgets it's suppose to be a prequel to a hit movie. The makers of this prequel clearly did not watch the original Carlito's Way or at least did not care about continuity. This movie is a prequel which means the original movie has already laid out some history for us and this movie should end where the original begins or at least lead up to it. Not one of Carlito's close old friends from the original make an appearance in this movie, they're not even mentioned. Luis Guzman, Pachanga in the original, is in the movie but he plays a completely different character. The original takes place in 1975 and the prequel takes place in 1969-70. Considering this movie takes place less than 5 years earlier, wouldn't you think one of Carlito's long time friends would make an appearance? In the original, Carlito start's out being released from jail after spending 5 years in jail. That's only a few month's between the end of the prequel and the start of the original! ***Semi Spoiler*** We know from the beginning of the original, Carlito has spent 5 years in prison so when the prequel gives us this Hollywood happy ending it's an insult to the intelligence of fans of the original. What happen to Gail? It's the lack of continuity that made this film go direct to video release.


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


user
This movie had potential and I was willing to give it a try but there are so many timeline problems that are so obvious - it's hard to swallow being treated like such an idiot.
Rise to Power is set in the late sixties. Carlito's Way is set in the mid to late seventies. For this movie to be realistic, it would have to be set in the fifties, if not the late forties.
Rise to Power has no sign of Gail (Pennelope Ann Miller), no sign of Kleinfeld, no sign of Rolando that Carlito supposedly ran with in his "hey-day". None of the primary characters in the original film were in this movie. We're supposed to believe that Carlito met all these people in the span of a few years.
Rise to Power ends with Carlito walking down the beach talking about retiring in paradise which is what he wanted to do in the original film. Also, the pre-quel creates the Rocco and Earl characters - what's supposed to happen with them since they are clearly not in Carlito's Way? It's also hard to understand how Carlito could have the relationship with the Italians he has in the original film watching the events of Rise to Power. Where are the Taglialucci's in this film? There is probably seven years between the two films and he spends five of them in prison. It's like trying to put a square plug into a round hole.
It is obvious that no one was interested in telling a good story and that they were more interested in making some bucks by making an average gangster film and throwing a character called Carlito Brigante into the story. The film had some good moments but I think they would have been better off leaving this movie to stand by itself instead of trying to make it a prequel to Carlito's Way.
If you feel determined to see this movie, the only advice I can give is to not think of the movie as a linear pre-quel. Think of it like the spaghetti westerns with Clint Eastwood's man with no name, in other words two movies that have the same character but aren't necessarily connected with each other.


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


user
Quote: theurgist: Anyone with an I.Q. over 50 would have seen this film what it is, an intelligent well acted prequel to a modern day classic, yes it doesn't have a blockbuster cast or a huge budget BUT it is still very well done and had me hooked for the full duration.
An I.Q. over 50 you say.. that most mean you have an I.Q. lower than 50.. its name is CARLITOS WAY: Rise to power !!! meaning it should have something whit the first one to do..
all and all its a OK movie if.. YOU CHANGE THE TITLE AND NO CHARACTERS NAMED CARLITO BRIGANTE!!!
P.s don't comment on a movie if you don't know anything about movies. but i guess an I.Q. under 50,, you wont know what the hell i am yelling about...
Peace out!!


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 bad attempt to make original fans feel complete. The one thing people have forgotten is the fact that the reason the original won such acclaim, was strictly do to the fact that it was supposed to make you feel incomplete.
This movie makes me want to go to the washroom. I am not a negative type of guy, but man the acting in this flick is.... no comment. The plot was a bad reflection of the life of Carlito Brigante and I am sorry to have had two hours of my time and my money wasted on this flick. I still love the original and will do my best not to let this movie ruin my opinion about it.


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


user
Soon after watching this film you will realize why it didn't even make it to the theaters! This movie does not deserve the "prequel" tag. Instead this is a common theme in Hollywood, rip off previously good movies with disastrous prequels, sequels, etc.
This film's plot was bouncing all over the place like a ping pong ball, and the character development was non-existent. I seriously felt like I was watching a comedy at some points in the movie because the acting was so bad. P Diddy needs to stop tainting movies with his horrible acting, he actually made me laugh every time.
The only good thing that comes out of this movie is Jaclyn DeSantis, who looks excellent in this movie and actually brought some enjoyment from watching this film.
If you are a big Carlito's Way fan, I recommend you not watch this. If you decide to watch it anyway then treat this movie as if it ripped off the original, because that is exactly what it did.


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


user
Last night I decided to watch the prequel or shall I say the so called prequel to Carlito's Way - "Carlito's Way: Rise to Power (2005)" which went straight to DVD...no wonder .....it completely ...and I mean completely S%&KS !!! waist of time watching it and I think it would be a pure waist of time writing about it.... I don't understand how De Palma agreed on producing this sh#t-fest of a movie....except for only one fact that I tip my hat to... Jay Hernandez who plays the young Brigante.... reminded me how De Niro got into the shoes of Brando to portray the young Don Corleone in Godfather II ...but the difference De Niro was amazing and even got an Oscar for it !!! Jay Hernandez well he has guts for trying to be a young Pacino.... too bad for him I don't think he will be playing in film anymore and by the way after I watched this sh#$%ty movie, I sat down and watched the original Carlitos way to get the bad taste out of my mouth.


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


user
I will never forget the wit and great comedy of the ORIGINAL Vacation movie! The lines, pacing, and timing of events in that film are outstanding! However, this European Vacation sequel is a major let down.
In this sequel, the Griswalds win a European Vacation on a game show. The problem is that many of the jokes in the film are little more than mild, "ha-ha" laughs. For example, a Flight Attendant on an airplane asks Clark, "Do you want your Coke in the Can?" Clark answers back, "No, I'll have it right here." That's really about the only line that is funny in this film.
European Vacation's humor is strained. As if the writers borrowed all the jokes from the first movie, tried to re-hash a script that had been done before, and relied on a ridiculous slap-stick chase scene sequence toward the end of the picture just to kill time.
Worse, the natural comic standouts like Randy Quaid as Cousin Eddie and the original kids who played Rusty and Audrey from the first movie so well are nowhere to be found. Their replacements are not funny, can't act, and just look like they are going through the motions most of the time. There are also a few crude sex jokes and comments that are not only not funny, they are in bad taste.
The Griswald's should have stayed in Wally World. The place that made them legends! Don't join them on this European dreadful adventure. Viewers should re-watch the original Vacation movie in place of this! You'll be glad you did.


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


user
Any movie with "National Lampoon" in the title is absolutely guaranteed to die a death in London,England,Paris,France,Rome,Italy,and anywhere in Germany.It may be an institution in the U.S. but it is practically unknown in Europe to the larger audience."National Lampoon's European Vacation" is unlikely to rectify that situation. The appalling Griswalds are just that - appalling.They are not funny. Clearly Mr Chevy Chase thinks he's funny, after all Miss B.di Angelo laughs a lot at his jokes,but she's getting paid for it and didn't have to fork out £2.50 for the privilege. The section set in England is typical.The same old same old TV performers, Messrs Idle,Smith,Coltrane,Miss M.Lippman trot out the same old same old tired clichés,Mr Chase gets lost in the hotel corridor....yawn,yawn,yawn.. Bucking - ham Palace,Big Ben......I feel cheated that we never saw bobbies on bicycles two-by-two.........rosie red cheeks on the little chil - dren,need I go on? The English are buffoons,the French vicious - tongued Yank-haters.The Germans pompous and puffed up,(don't mention the war,Clark),and the Italians lecherous bottom-pinchers.Have I forgotten anything? Every possible "comic" situation is worked to death,Mr Chase gurns desperately,Miss di Angelo dimples sweetly,the children are embarrassingly bad. The fact that this franchise ran as long as it did must bring comfort to those who propound that you never lose money by underestimating public taste.


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


user
Some amusing humor, some that falls flat, some decent acting, some that is quite atrocious. This movie is simply hit and miss, guaranteed to amuse 12 year old boys more than any other niche.
The child actors in the movie are just unfunny. When you are making a family comedy, that does tend to be a problem. Beverly D'Angelo rises above the material to give a funny, and dare I say it, human performance in the midst of this mediocrity.


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


user
John Hughes wrote a lot of great comedies in the '80s. "European Vacation" is not one of them. The follow-up to Hughes' first big hit "Vacation" (1983), is about as predictable, unfunny and annoying as they come -- no matter how much you love the dumb but romantic Clark and Ellen Griswold (Chase and D'Angelo).
I greatly enjoyed "Vacation" as well as the third film, 1989's "Christmas Vacation," but the Griswold's trip to Europe is bland and forced. Perhaps because this was Hughes' first attempt at a sequel that he didn't get it, but it's really dumbfounding how uninspired and devoid of a story "European Vacation" is. There is no through story: the Griswolds win a game show for being "greedy little pigs" and go on a tour of Europe through England, France, Germany and Italy. Even the screwball physical humor that is the trademark of the first loses all effect because you see it coming, which is part director Amy Heckerling's fault. The "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" director sets everything up too predictably.
Maybe it was Hughes taking a cheap shot because he was put up to the sequel. "European Vacation" takes great pride in insulting Americans (recall the greedy little pig game show they win), especially tourists, represented by the cornball Griswold family. It also pats itself on the back implicitly saying "oh us Griswolds, we're always getting into something because our dad is an idiot." Then in nearly comic fashion it ends with a tribute to America and how grateful the Griswolds are to return to such a better country. If Hughes was going for satire and meant to do it in the form of a bad movie, well maybe I should award this 8/10 stars.
It's not just the unfunniness, but "European Vacation" boasts the two worst actors to play kids Rusty and Audrey (Jason Lively and Dana Hill). They're both annoying and obnoxious, with the unattractive and loud-mouthed Audrey blubbering about the boyfriend she's left behind nearly the entire film. Hughes even goes as far as to have her comment about missing him right as she observes a giant bratwurst. Quite tasteful. Speaking of, breasts are flashed in two different scenes for no good reason (unless it was to comment on Americans' love of gratuitous nipples in their comedies).
I will give the film one of its two stars thanks to Eric Idle of the Monty Python crew, whose cameo at a few different points in the film where he recites lines directly from "Holy Grail" is about the funniest part. If Hughes intended for us to find one of the film's only non- American actors as the only funny part, then another tip of the hat to him for ripping open the underbelly of Hollywood comedy in the '80s. Still, would it have hurt for him to do that while making it entertaining?


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


user
The second in the Vacation series is easily the least enjoyable one, as Clark Griswold wins a trip for the whole family to Europe.
The tasteless, below the belt humor that worked so well the first time around is practically nonexistent here. That fault surely lies with director Hackerling, who's obviously nowhere near as good a director as Harold Ramis and a very uninspiring script that has only a handful of decent lines scattered around.
The cast does what they can; Chevy Chase injects some form of life into the proceedings but it's simply not enough and the very funny Eric Idle is completely wasted in a small role as a very unlucky Englishman. Some potentially hilarious moments aren't played out to their full potential and leave the viewer mostly aggravated. All depictions of Europeans are one-dimensional and almost universally not funny at all (like how the English are SOOO polite).
Apart from a few scenes, there's hardly a laugh in sight and the ending turn this one into complete slapstick. But if you're a Chevy Chase fan (like myself) the film is watchable, but no more than that.


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


user
The goofy Griswalds win the T.V. game show "pig in a poke" grand prize, and all fly off together to Europe where they manage to cause one stupid disaster after another. Of all the ridiculous, unfunny money-spinning sequels this one beats the lot. Harold Ramis' 1983 film was a below average misadventure in which the misfit family went on a nightmarish "Vacation" across the States. This time Amy Heckerling ("Look Who's Talking") helms what turns out to be a disastrous "comedy" which will annoy you more than it will make you laugh.
Hughes script (with Rob Klane) is awful and you wonder why the likes of Chevy Chase and Beverly D'Angelo bothered with such a dead-beat project, as even Anthony Michael Hall and Imogene Coca had the sense to decline the offer. Even an omnipotent Michael Palin is unable to lift proceedings to any level that one could call entertaining.
Yet, as inconceivable as it may seem, "European Vacation" was successful enough to warrant a second sequel! Surely it couldn't be as unbearable as this one. You know, I have yet to see a National Lampoon show that was worth the bother.
Monday, December 26, 1994 - T.V.


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


user
European Vacation (aka National Lampoon's European Vacation) is the weakest of the Vacation films (the first and third one the most superior of the films). While Chevy Chase and Beverly D'Angelo return as Clark and Ellen Griswold (with new actors in the roles of Russ and Audrey Griswold), this time they are given a weaker script with very bad dialogue. This causes the pacing to suffer, with the jokes not very funny at all. To be more specific, what really causes this film to suffer is the fact that the "jokes" as they are, are just pasted together into a cobbled-together script), rather than serving a central plot as the other 3 Vacation films have. Oh well, they can't win them all. 4 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
Read on and take note - you could save 88 minutes of your life (was that all!).
Unremittingly bleak, this film sets out to produce (I'm guessing) a modern small town American Christmas fable in the Capra style. If fails....completely and absolutely fails. I've been trying to think of one good thing about it and can't. Let me mention some of the highlights ...
People don't die, they get to spend eternity as immigrant workers in Santa's factory. Angels are actually ex-cowboys who sit in trees. Santa can bring people back from the dead (if you send him a nice letter).
And the plot.. I won't spoil it for you but there has to be some light in films if only to contrast with the darkness but there isn't any. Even the photography is bleak - snow shown at the end of a freeze, everywhere looking cold, damp and miserable.
As you might guess, the film has a happy (schmaltzy) ending. What a relief !


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 the WORST Christmas movie I ever saw. I took my two small children to see this. It was the darkest, most dismal plot- family has no money, mom loses her job, father gets killed in the bank, bank robber steals family car with both kids in the back and after high speed chase, drives off the bridge and drowns them in the river. Mom is left all alone. No wonder her Christmas spririt is gone. Christmas angels do not rescue children that have drowned, and Santa does not bring back dead fathers! I thought this was the WORST message to send children. Better to tell them that there is NO Santa than show them a movie like this!!


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, let me say that this is not the movie for people looking to watch something spirited and joyous for the holidays. This movie is cold, brutal, and just downright depressing. Mary Steenburgen plays a grinchy mom who is down on Christmas because her husband has lost his job, they are losing their house, can't buy Christmas presents for the kids, etc. You get the idea, happy stuff for the holidays. So along comes Harry Dean Stanton as Gideon the Christmas angel, who in his dark hat and long overcoat comes off more like a pedophile who hangs around children all day observing them. What better way to instill the spirit of Christmas in Mary Steenburgen than to kill off her family and then offer to bring them back if she believes in Christmas again. Santa Claus is a blackmailer and his Christmas workshop looks more like a haven for refugee Nazis on the lam. The movie lays everything on so thick that you don't care about the happy ending when it comes because the rest of the movie is so bitter and unbelievable. I'm sure this film wanted to be something Capra-like, but it left out the joy and sentiment on what a holiday film should be.


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


user
Sorry, but I will spoil both the plot line and the ending for you in hopes of avoiding a holiday fiasco like the one that I now face. The father dies and the mother asks Santa in a letter to bring him back to the family for Christmas,...and Santa does. Dad is peachy, happy healthy and totally unaware of the fact that he had died. All ends syrupy sweet.
But as a parent who recently watched my five year-old lose his best canine friend, it was a horror flick. Now my son is convinced that all he has to do to bring his buddy back is to ask Santa! Do not underestimate the willpower of a young heart- no amount of persuasion will convince him that it was only a movie and that his dog is NOT coming back for Christmas. It has been heart breaking to watch his joy only to know that Christmas Eve he will have to face his loss afresh.
Shame on you on behalf of all the believers that have lost a loved one recently. It is hard enough to deal with the loss one time for a child, but there are some wishes that we shouldn't even portray as a possibility.


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


user
I thought this was one of the most depressing holiday movies I have ever seen--the others being THE Christmas WIFE and JACK FROST. All three movies are about death. If you LIKE being thoroughly depressed, then by all means watch this film or any of the others. In this film, the acting is good and some of the scenery (apart when people are dying) is lovely. But, I am worried that a clinically depressed person might accidentally see the film and do themselves in! Despite a "happily ever after" ending, the major portion of this film is one awful disaster following another. And, for some crazy reason, I DON'T WANT TO BE DEPRESSED when I watch a Christmas movie (I know this sounds crazy folks--after all, isn't bawling your eyes out and feeling miserable what the holidays are all about anyway?).
For a more uplifting viewing experience, try the forgotten HOUSE WITHOUT A Christmas TREE, George C. Scott's Christmas CAROL or A Christmas STORY instead--unless of course you like being miserable.


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


user
My spouse & I found this movie to be very schlocky. It started out good, but quickly got unbelievable & ridiculous. Most of the acting was poor, with the exception of the little girl, Abbie, who really was terrific. In addition, the dialog was predictable & lame - especially Gideon, the Angel's. Also, without giving away anything, when one of the characters has a tragedy, she almost appears nonchalant. At first we thought it was 'shock', but then we realized that it was just a terrible script. We love almost all of the Hallmark movies & their heart-warming stories, but this movie doesn't rise to the occasion of being one. There are so many great ones - don't waste your time with this horrible movie.


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


user
I'm not usually given to hyperbole, but after seeing over two decades worth of Academy Awards, I can honestly say that this year's awards show was the most disgraceful example of poor direction, total cruelty, and sheer stupidity that I've ever had the misfortune to witness. I'm not talking about the awards themselves- as usual, there is plenty to argue about when you tally up who won, who lost, and who never even got nominated, but the process is as it's always been and is as fair as it's liable to be. What is terribly UNfair is the treatment both the "stars" and "non-stars" received at the hands of Cates and Horvitz, in the name of "reducing boredom."
It is bad enough that for the last several years anyone who isn't Al Pacino has been "played off" at 45 seconds without any regard for what he was saying, how he was saying it, and what the emotion was behind the statement. It demonstrates nothing more than a total lack of respect, however, to herd nominees on the stage like cattle without paying them the honor of showing their faces while their names are read, to make them slink away quietly when they lose, to deny them the thrill of a walk to the podium, and to force them to read their statements with their backs to the audience. All of those things were done to the "non-stars" -never mind that the movies wouldn't exist at all without those artists and that most of them only ever get one chance to face their peers and their audience.
The stars didn't fare much better. It's becoming more sad than funny when winners of the caliber of Hilary Swank and Clint Eastwood have to beg for a few extra seconds for their speeches. Chris Rock, as host, was neither as inflammatory and controversial as the Academy had hoped, nor nearly as funny as he could be. His opening remarks were almost (but not quite) as offensive as Sean Penn made them out to be, and his comments during the show were more innocuous than interesting. Of course, he could hardly be blamed when it was clear that was being kept on as short a leash as any host has. In the end, Chris Rock was something he's almost never been before: a non-entity.
Even the musical numbers were handled poorly. Beyonce sang well, but there was simply no reason why she should have been featured in three out of the five songs. Another example of utter disrespect for an artist was giving Jorge Drexler's nominated song to Antonio Banderas- even though Drexler was present and clearly wouldn't have minded singing his own song, based on his winning "speech."
The efforts of Cates and Horvitz to make the show shorter and faster may have worked to a degree, but what resulted was a show devoid of life. We've all whined about the overlong speeches given by people we don't know, about the overblown production, about the self-congratulatory quality. But this is THEIR night- not ours. What is meant to be a celebration has become an insult to the people being celebrated. Cates and Horvitz should, frankly, be ashamed.


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


user
Seriously the only good thing about this year ceremony were the winners.
Although the ceremony itself was pretty short it still was somewhat boring. I think it's seriously time to look for a new director and producers for the show, who can come up with something REALLY new. It's pretty obvious that they tried to make the show more 'hip' and appealing for a younger audience this year by letting Beyonce perform and letting P. Diddy and Prince present a category. Also letting Chris Rock be the presenter was an attempt to re-new the ceremony and make it more appealing. None of it really worked out.
Sure, Chris Rock is a funny guy but he wasn't really a good presenter. I really merely saw him as a guy who just talked every now and then in between of the different categories. His presence wasn't really as 'big' as for instance Billy Crystal's.
Also the handing out of the awards was pretty dumb at times. Not letting everybody come to the stage but also handing out some of the awards in the middle of the theater was plain weird.
Still, I can't remember being any more satisfied with the award winners. None of the movies really swept away the awards as the last couple of years always had been the case. So does that mean it had been a good year for movies with lots of competitive contestants? I don't think so. I think most of the movies will be largely forgotten in 20 years from now, with the exception of "Million Dollar Baby" and "The Passion of the Christ" maybe. Sure I don't agree with every single award that was handed out this year, for instance Caleb Deschanel should had won for best cinematography, not that I don't like Robert Richardson's work, he really did some amazing work for most of Oliver Stone's work but I really feel that Deschanel deserved the award way more. Also I would had liked seeing Jim Miller and Paul Rubell win for best editing and John Debney for best music. But oh well, there is no way the Academy Awards can please everybody of course, I understand that. There will always be people complaining about the winners.
It also was funny to see that most of the award presenters were way more nervous than the nominees and winners. Did Prince said any of the nominees names right at once? And were is Sean Penn's sense of humor? Al Pacino and Jeremy "I hope they missed" Irons were the best presenters of the night.
Overall a very forgettable show but with nice winners.
4/10


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


user
Like last year, I didn't manage to sit through the whole thing. Okay, so Chris Rock as a host was a good choice because he was vaguely engaging. Or rather, out of all the total bores packed into the theatre, he at least wasn't in the Top 10 Most Boring. A lot of the presenters, on the other hand, were in this coveted Top 10. I hadn't known that the whole thing had been done by autocue (although I knew it was scripted) but it was really terrible to see these supposedly good actors unable to insert expression, look away from the cue and stumble over simple words (Natalie Portmanif there's no director, she's gone). The Night of Fancy Dresses and Boring Speeches was long and tedious, Beyonce Knowles butchered some good songs and there were very few decent acceptance speeches and clips. Adam Sandler wins the Worst Presenter award.
For helping me write this review I'd like to thank my Mum, my Dad, my lawyers and my pedicurist for all believing in me, and I'd like to point out that I have a high metabolism and of course I haven't been starving myself for a month. I'm not going to cry...thank you.


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


user
This one acts as a satire during the women's rights movement era. Of course, that doesn't mean COACH (the movie) is a wonderful experience to behold. It runs into the same vein as FASTBREAK (which was better, but still tame), and is basically standard fare fluff. What I mean for this movie being uninteresting is simple to recognize. Anybody who serves time away from a normal job by training a bunch of lunatics earning their way to sudden victory makes waste. It's the same feeling you may get after watching this. A nice attempt at casting the opposite sex for a man's duty, but I expected better things.


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 when I was a young lad full of raging hormones and it was about as sexy a movie as I had ever seen-or ever was to see. It may not have been a great movie. My guess is it wasn't. I don't really remember much about it, to tell you the truth. I only remember the sexual chemistry between Crosby and Biehn. No woman in ANY movie has ever done it for me as the unbelievably sexy Cathy did in this movie. I haven't seen it since that first time I caught it on TV in the 70s and I don't think I'd want to see it again since I'm sure it would be a disappointment-my hormones aren't as raging and I've become more jaded over the years. Still, when I think back on the shower scene I can still remember how great it felt way back when.
Added later: After watching the movie again, I discovered that it's dangerous to go home again. What was once erotic is now pretty tame. The older woman-younger man thing still works for me, just not as much as it once did, probably because I'm no longer a 12-year-old. That older woman is now younger than I am. Also, the amateurishness of the whole thing wasn't perceived by my twelve-year-old mind.
Moral: Sometimes it's better not to revisit the past.


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 about a very sexy Olympic track star who is hired to coach a high school boys' basketball team. Similar to Goldie Hawn's WILDCATS, it stars Cathy Lee Crosby in the title role, and she does as about as well as the script allows. I think Racquel Welch would have been a better choice, but considering the film's apparent TV movie budget, they probably couldn't afford her. Cathy Lee does look great in every shot, but we never get to see her completely nude. The story is pretty predictable, to say the least, offering no surprises. A young and lucky Michael Biehn has the male lead role. He is the star on the team and also the love interest for Cathy Lee. Keenan Wynn has a few amusing scenes as the rich old man who runs the athletic program and doesn't think a woman should coach sports. This point is brought up throughout the film, and, needless to say, is dated. Ironically, Cathy Lee doesn't put her team through any unorthodox practice sessions; she doesn't do anything a male coach wouldn't do. There is a funny subplot involving a tall and not-so-bright player who undergoes hypnosis in order to pass his classes and play like pro basketball player Sydney Wicks. It looks like everyone had a good time making this film, but the only real reason to see it is for Cathy Lee Crosby. She's not that great an actress, but she has a dazzling smile, beautiful hair, and a very tan body.


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


user
A high school principal (Keenan Wynn) with a losing basketball team unwittingly hires a coach who turns out not only to be a gorgeous blond woman (Cathy Lee Crosby) but a catalyst for their new winning ways. Are you really surprised? Along the way a romance grows between the coach and the team's star player Jack (Michael Biehn). The police are never notified.
Packaged along with other Crown International Pictures as a grindhouse movie really does this film no service. This can easily be edited into a television movie of the week. Cathy Lee Crosby looks great as coach Randy Rawlings especially in her skimpy outfits but I expected more than mere titillation from an R-rated film. A side plot involving a dorky center who is hypnotized by his teammates into thinking he is former NBA player Sydney Wicks is the actual reason for the team's new success rather than Cathy Lee's coaching. Too much tease and not enough sleaze makes this a major disappointment.


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


user
I found the DVD version of this movie at a rummage sale. The basic premise is an affair between a teacher/coach a student. The acting is weak and the plot razor thin.
This movie had all the depth and plot development of an adult film.


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


user
Seemingly intended to be a thriller of a movie winds up being almost laughable. It prompted me to exclaim "Oh my God!" more than once at the convoluted contrivances of plot that were just plain silly.
Fanciful or absurd locations just for the sheer novelty or dramatic situation and improbable, near impossible, human reactions and circumstances are too much to be comprehended as to why they exist.
If you have the time and wish to discover just how bad a picture can be then you will want to see this one. Otherwise dedicate some time into watching some paint dry for a more productive investment of time!
(That a film released in 2003 is already being shown on TV in July 2003 might give an indication of the film's quality)


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


user
There is one good thing in this movie: Lola Glaudini's ass! Sorry to be so blunt but it's the truth. Too bad she didn't do a nude. It would at least have made this mess tolerable. We see another chick's boobs but she's nowhere near Lola. And man, is Armand Assante old or what? The man looks like crap! "Consequence" is the usual B-Movie you would expect. The story had potential. It's like they had good ideas but didn't know how to execute them. The cinematography is just plain awful. Ugly! The directing is uninspired and the end result is a bland thriller with lame twists and washed up actors. Lola Gaudini is great as the vixen in a cheap, slutty way but not even she saves "Consequence" from being trash and not funny trash, just plain old stinking trash.


assistant
0