empathielabs/imbd_dataset_v0 huggingface dataset:
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I saw this film a while ago on a Video CD.
I will 1st mention the good points.
The movie, at first, at least tries to appear that it is not biased, like not showing one character as black and the other as white. Both main characters are friends and co-exist very well in an country and economy that is not booming while at the same time not failing. Their families get together and have parties and they practice their favorite sport, Sport Rifle shooting, as comrades not as competitors.
But, after the 1st 15 minutes the plot runs into a fork in the road. The audience is expected to believe that for some unknown reason these friends must hate each other. That for some unknown reason Bosnia is now on a path to conflict. Sure, the script adds in TV footage which the characters appear to be watching live news programs in English, but the clips are from 1993 not 1992 when the war began.
The history, the 1990 elections, the people who caused the war are not mentioned. The movie tries to place the blame with Karadzic, who had been a Presidential candidate and leader of the Bosnian Parliament's 2nd Largest Party(SDP). According to the Constitution of Bosnia, the SDP was to have the Presidency in 1992, but there was a Coup in January. The Bosnian Islamic Democratic Action Party seized total control and held a segregated referendum in March in which it declared itself the law in Bosnia and announced Secession.
The history of the IDAP begins with Bosnian Muslim Alija Izetbegovic, a man suspiciously absent from "STtH". He was a student of Nazism in WW2. He even wrote his own "Mein Kampf" in which he stated: "It is not in fact possible for there to be any peace or coexistence between 'the Islamic Religion' and non-Islamic social and political institutions".
In 1990 he lost the IDAP elections to "pro-Yugoslavia Moderate" Fikret Abdic, a Bosnian Muslim, that worked with Christian Serbs during the Civil War, and who treated his supporters like brothers. Abdic was prevented from taking power by Izetbegovic, who lost the elections but seized the seat of power.
The events from above are missing from the movie, but they are the factual events that lead to the war.
There were problems with props too. Serb soldiers in the movie were wearing Soviet WW2 helmets, which they did not use. Also the one soldier was holding an M-1944 WW2 rifle only used by USSR not Yugoslavia.
The Director and Script Writers had a chance, but they chose to re-write history.


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 an anti-Serb propaganda film made for TV.
"The Muslims are good; the Orthodox Christian Serbs are BAD."
That's the message.
Using "entertainment" to get across a propaganda message is nothing new.
This movie lays it on thick.
And apparently many viewers and reviewer lap it up.
I know better.
The Serbs, under General Draza Milhalovitch and his Chetniks, saved over 500 shot-down US fliers from the Germans in World War II.
Churchill decided to betray Milhalovitch and put British backing behind communist Tito. Roosevelt followed suit and as a result, after the war ended Yugoslavia was delivered over to communist Tito.
And US ally Milhalovitch has been smeared by the media ever since.
This movie is part of the anti-Serb propaganda campaign engineered by George Soros and his International Crisis Group (ICG) which culminated in the Kosovo "War," in which Serbia was bombed by NATO because of totally false claims by the ICG of "mass graves" in Kosovo filled with "victims" of the nasty Serbs. The fact that there were no such mass graves and the Albanians (Muslims) had no business being in Serbia's Kosovo are facts that most of the media won't print.
I chose this movie to watch because the one-sentence description on the video cover looked interesting.
Imagine my disgust when I discovered I had been fooled into renting another branch of the propaganda machine aimed at Serbia.
Instead of this propaganda someone should make a movie about the unwillingness of the Clinton Administration to come clean with the Congress and with the American people about its complicity in the delivery of weapons from Iran to the Muslim government in Sarajevo.
I won't hold my breath waiting for such 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
Previous comment made me write this. It says that Muslims are blonde and Serbs are dark (because our blood is mixed). This comment just says that this opinion can be made by racist.Look,race is nothing.I'm color blind.I look like Pierce Brosnan but I'm no Irish. So what?I might add that I am not 100% Serb,that I have some Austrian and Croat blood within me but whats the point.I'm dark, half-breed?Is that so? Anyone using racial prejudices with such bad intent like Lantos(producer9and director is racist for me.Karadzhic, Izetbegovich, Milosevic, Tudjman they are all monsters and I blame them for destroying my life, my family, my country, Yuggoslavia. Hope they will be all in hell but that wont return our dead relatives back. I am proud of being Serb and I am proud of my cousins, Austrians,Croats,Muslims, Hungarians, Arabs (yes I am from Serbia and I have multiethnical family).This movie doesn't show sufferings of Serbs or Croats within Sarayevo,terrible terrorism of street gangs,Muslim extremism.I add: I kneel and pray for all innocent sisters and brothers Muslim,catholic or orthodox, killed in this war.This film is manipulation with our misery,false humanitarianism's which doesn't help at all.It helps Lantos to fill his pockets with more doe,alright!


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


user
I was staying in one night and got extremely bored around 2:00 a.m. so I flipped aimlessly through the channels and happened upon H.B.O. where this "classic" was playing. Initially I was happy to have caught something at the beginning, but my happiness faded about two minutes into the movie. The whole movie centered around an unattractive man who had a fear of females, four beautiful but empty minded women who worked as waitresses at his uncle's diner, and his enormously fat and extremely miserable cousin who also works at the diner. There are a few strange twists in this movie that make it somewhat interesting, but certainly not worth watching. Basically, if you have nothing to do some night or just can't sleep medication works much better. However guys there is a lot of skin so it may be okay to watch with no sound, but even that can get annoying


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


user
Buford's Beach Bunnies gives B-grade T&A films a bad name. As a fan of the genre, I was appalled to find little attempt being made to exploit the young actresses talents. I refer specifically to the distinct lack of nudity and simulated sex scenes. What are the next generation of sad teenage boys watching this on late night TV supposed to think?


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 one of those awful, sex-driven B-movies that couldn't have played anywhere near a theater. Women run around dressed in scantily clad "bunny" outfits, an extremely fat woman is the brunt of many tasteless jokes, and they all work at the restaurant of a dirty old man, who has an oddball son (Jim Hanks, who is of course Tom's brother), whom the man wants to get "laid." Hanks is actually sort of good, but this movie goes nowhere and has no point. One must wonder why it was even made? Nevertheless, because of Hank's performance and a few entertaining moments(but no more than a few), it received a stellar "2" out of 10. I think I was being nice, though.


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


user
Incredibly muddled, off-putting and ultimately ludicrous ("the horses, oh my God, the horses!") thriller. It's creepy at times, but it has one of the worst scripts ever written for a horror film. Watch how in the final 10 minutes everybody "magically" does exactly what the plot needs for the "resolution" to occur. Bland performances by the leads, a typically eccentric one by Richard Lynch. The video transfer is a real hack job, cutting scenes in half and making the movie even more difficult to understand. 0 out of 4 stars.


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


user
I awake suddenly, aware that I'm drooling onto the plastic couch cover, and realize it's a warm Saturday afternoon. Why was I sleeping? Did I hit my head? Or accidentally swallow all of my grandma's muscle relaxers? Could it be adult onset narcolepsy?
No, I momentarily paused on Cheap Seats while channel surfing, and the stunning lack of humor and talent drained my life force with such speed that I blacked out.
It's that head-shaking, mouth-agape, shoulder-shrugging bad. But I have to give these moronic and boring twins credit for selling this idea through. Perhaps they had the same effect on the ESPN programming executive that they had on me, and when he/she woke up, a few horrendous episodes were already in the can and he/she hoped that since all the viewers will be asleep, no one will now how awful it is and he/she can keep the $425,000 annual salary.
You've been warned.


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


user
I was going to say this was the worst gay-themed film I've ever seen, but I can honestly say this is the worst film if any genre I've ever seen.
You know you're in trouble when a movie starts with a "personal note" from the Director, asking for the audience's "understanding" for the "many challenges" facing a first-time Director. The audio track is so bad in many scenes it's almost impossible to follow the dialogue, and this from a DVD version. Bad lighting, bad sets, bad photography, poor script, generally bad acting all add up to make this "film" unwatchable. I did make it through to the bad ending after several attempts, and immediately gave away the DVD I foolishly purchased. I'm sure there are many challenges facing a first-time Director. But, don't try to palm off this lame attempt as a finished product. I see from IMDb details that this was not only the first Directing attempt of Richard Natale, but also the only. That's the one positive thing I can say about this alleged "movie".


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 yet another depressing and boring film about AIDS and tragedy. It begins very uneventful and predictable and continues throughout the movie. I kept waiting for it to pick-up, but unfortunately it never did. The acting is fair, but the script needs A LOT of work. And if you're looking for the nudity, don't waste your time with these not so hot actors. Due to the poor sound quality and lack of captions, I missed 1/8 of the movie. If you have never seen over five gay films, or have recently come to terms with being gay, you may find this film interesting, otherwise it's your run-of-the-mill low budget movie. It ranks as one of the worst gay films I have ever seen.


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


user
"The Rainmaker" released in 1956 - has some of the finest actors of its time. Katharine Hepburn, Lloyd Bridges, and Burt Lancaster being the principle players. Not even they can save this completely over acted melodrama. First of all, Hepburn is horribly miscast as a shy spinster - despite her brilliance as an actress, not even she can pull this off. She is too strong to be credible as being this much of a simpleton, and was just too old for the part. Lancaster over acts to the extreme, and Earl Holliman is way too hammy and comes off more like Jethro Clampett. Only Bridges and the ever reliable Wendell Corey seem to rise above the cast a bit - but even they can only do so much. It seems like the 1950's was a time when Katharine Hepburn wanted to spread her wings a bit as an actress, and that is fine. She just made a bad choice here. Fortunately for her fans (me being among them) she didn't make too many of them. Despite an A-list cast and good production values, it doesn't work.


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


user
I generally LIKE watching Burt Lancaster's films--especially when he is needed to go nuts with his imposing screen presence like in Elmer Gantry. However, his greatest strength, his magnetism, was occasionally also his greatest weakness as he rarely, if ever, underplayed ANYTHING. And it is this lack of subtlety that really hinders The Rainmaker. Now I understand that his character was meant to be a sort of showman but how Katherine Hepburn could fall under his spell is completely inexplicable. She is supposed to be smart but doesn't seem so when Lancaster's blarney is being thrown about the screen! In addition to this, the story is perhaps one of the most stagy looking films I have ever seen and it is way too obvious that this is a movie based on a play. It just looks like it was mostly filmed in a sound stage instead of in the great wide open West like it was supposed to be.
Overall, a very overrated film.


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 was disappointing. The book was powerful. The views and the learning of Little Tree were powerfully portrayed in the book. The movie just coasted along and finally dribbled away. Still a nice tale for kids.


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


user
I'll give this movie two stars because it teems with beautiful photography. Otherwise, it teems mainly with clichés and stereotypes: mountain people are either dumb white trash of the fanatically religious or ragged racist kind, or wise white Indians. Indians are magical people who move around without a sound, can disappear in the blink of an eye, talk to animals, and read minds over large distances. And so on and so forth.
Throughout the movie I kept wondering what the point of the film was (other than showing me pretty pictures of mountains, log cabins, woods, an assortment of animals, free-spirited mountain-dwellers and freaky people in church).
The plot touched a whole range of issues but explored none of them in depth. This was neither a story about growing up during the depression, nor about about being an orphan, nor about a struggle for identity. It tried to be all of those things and more, which made it superficial and unsatisfactory.
Although the movie was supposed to be about Little Tree's education, we learn almost nothing about it. He was given a brief summary of the history of his people (who were brave and stoic) and a distillery demonstration; tried his hand at chopping wood (at which he failed) and whiskey running (literally); learned how to read (and maybe to write) with the help of grandma and her dictionary - and that was it. Apparently he didn't learn much during his stint in boarding school because he was locked up in the attic.
However, grandma and grandpa and Graham Greene's character made sure that in the end Little Tree became a very spiritual person whose main goal as an adult - after, and I'm paraphrasing here, "riding with the Navajos" and "getting caught up in a couple of wars" - was to "catch up" with grandma and grandpa and Graham Greene's character in heaven (instead of, say, dating girls, getting married, having children or other such nonsense).
Last but not least I must say that I found grandpa's trade offensive. Why of all things did it have to be a whiskey still? To counteract the stereotype of the "drunken Indian"?


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


user
The Education of Little Tree is just not as good as it could have been. Little Tree's education is about things like the circle of life and how you should look at a star to help you. Whatever happened to the three R's? Readin' 'Ritin' and 'Rithmetic? When the idiot back talks the teacher at the boarding school place he starts crying and talking to the sky. Oh my gosh. Sure, the lady was a little harsh, but then James Cromwell's character comes and takes him away, leaving the audience thinking that Little Tree was absolutely right. He should learn to adapt to new discipline. Those were the times! Talking to a star is not going to change a thing! Little Tree needs to learn that his adoring guardians are not always right.


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


user
since this is part 2, then compering it to part one...
man that was on many places wierd... too many time jumps etc.
I have to say that I was really disapointed...
only someplaces little lame action... and thats it....
they could have done that better....



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


user
I gave Timecop a perfect 10, I gave this 1
It's story is very boring, and it has only little to do with the original Timecop. Lots of things from Timecop was scrapped, and they put in new stupid stuff instead. This story is taking place in 2060 (if I remember correctly), but for some reason the timetraveling is now more dangerous :confused:
And the action scenes are nothing to be happy about, well most of them aren't... only the first one is great... and there aren't many action scenes at all, and they're all pretty short
At one point in the story, the main character travels through time about 5 times within a few minutes... no wait, make that two times...
In short: Don't waste time watching this movie, it's not worth 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 pretty much the first Jason Scott Lee film I've seen. I say pretty much, because I have also seen Soldier, in which he plays the villain... but from what I've heard, it's not considered a Jason Scott Lee film. This, however, is. And if this is any indication of the quality of such films, I won't be seeing any of the others. Lee is basically passable as a martial arts artist... as the lead, he's awful. He gets in a fight with random no-name characters every few minutes of the film, probably because the script writer couldn't figure out how else to stretch out the film to the minimum required running time for a feature film. The villain is the only character with even a hint of personality, and aside from the fact that he's certifiably insane, he barely seems like a villain at all. The majority of the film is basically Lee chasing the villain through time... or maybe it's the other way around. I can't say for sure... and I definitely wouldn't watch it again to make sure. The effects are not completely horrible... but it's close. The title comes from the popular idea of using a time-machine to go and kill Hitler. Somehow, the film screws up that interesting idea as well. The plot is too complicated for its own good. The pacing is poor. I can't think of one positive thing to say about this film... I really can't. It's simply too formulaic and pointless. If only I had a time-machine, so I could go back and prevent this film from ever being made... no, never mind. I just hope as few fragile minds are exposed to this as possible. Listen to the negative reviewers. Avoid this turkey. I recommend this to fans of Lee, and no one else. If you're looking for a quality film... well, this isn't it. That's for sure. 1/10


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


user
If you want to checkout a good Jason Scott Lee film, I recommend the following:
Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story
Rapa Nui
"Timecop 2: The Berlin Decision" is an awful film. Awful production values. Awful acting. Awful script. I would not recommend this film to be watched by anyone who seriously believes that tripe like this is quality entertainment or advances Asian American awareness in Hollywood (This film does neither.).
I would at the very least say that this film is passable entertainment on a rainy day if you ever come across it while channel surfing. If you are curious, perhaps a rental from Netflix, but this film is definitely not for keeps.
If you are one of the few people who watched this film as a means to raise your Asian American film awareness, and came away disappointed, then I recommend the following films for your personal viewing. These are well-written films with high production values that feature a talented cast of Asian American actors:
Better Luck Tomorrow
Mulan


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


user
Jason Lee's pecks are back! If that's what you are looking for, look no further. If not, better move on...
But about the movie. Clichés galore, some poorly shot but kinda exotic fight scenes (used JKD) and lots of bad acting & cheap effects. Poor Lee looks like he's in pain throughout the movie, and no wonder. Not a pleasant comeback.
The movie doesn't even cut it as a B-movie - sure, there was a Germanish bleached blonde Rutger-wannabe bad guy, but no gratuitous sex scene or even a single booty shots. None. Zip. Nada. Even in Starship Troopers 2 they had the common sense to include the mandatory nudie scenes (as for rest of my comments on that excellent piece of classic cinema excellence, please refer to our upcoming review on that mind-blowing sequel...). I did get the feeling that the writer was taking his revenge on somebody with this - thus I won't get into the "plot" of the movie or pretty much anything else related. Except that it did have some non-heterosexual overtones, so 'nuff said.
However, this movie has one thing going for it - no Jean-Claude :)


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


user
Sadly, it's true. "Legiunea sträinä" exposes with absolute clarity the parameters of Daneliuc's irreversible failure.
As it was already said, the author lost the faculty to coalesce his content factors and artistic intentions in a coherent form. Maniacally concerned with the mechanic trick of picking at random news subjects and join them together without any legitimacy, he only gathers a disordered pile of events, unable to follow the least story-line. The script's level is similar to a "Cântarea României" amateur play about the glorious feats of socialist realism - only, turned upside down: while the communist line dictated a narrow concern only with positivism and sugary festivism, now Daneliuc is as perniciously obsessed only with negativism and disgusting scatology. The ideas content is zero, and the "message", infantile and didactic, at a kindergarten level.
Unfortunately, he also forgot the most elementary professional tenets. He isn't able anymore to organize a dramatic situation, to order it in a correct movie scene, to frame it right and to edit it following the simplest rules of cinematographic grammar. His level of story-telling in film-images is similar to phrasing something like: "Holy sheet man it ain't nuthin right 'ere, and all da people is asses!" What a huge distance from the impressive artist of 1976-1984, who had created unique works as "Cursa", "Proba de microfon", "Vânätoarea de vulpi" - and even "Croaziera" and "Glissando"... Sic transit gloria mundi...


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


user
I simply cant understand why all these relics from the Ceausescu era refuse to let go. One can see clearly how frustrated they were during the commie censorship that forbade them so many things to show in their movies, and now they imagine its dunno what big deal of artsy-fartsy freedom so fill the screen with people defecating, urinating, vomiting, swearing, and any other kinds of hideousness imaginable. THIS IS NOT CINEMA, FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS! This is simply visual perversion. Forget about Bunuels Chien Andalou, about David Lynch, about Forman and neorealism and other movie makers who were able to work with an aesthetics of ugliness. THOSE people were mastering their jobs - well, you Don't! Do us a favor, all you Daneliucs and Nicolaescus and Saizescus and Muresans and Marinescus and Margineanus and other obsolete old-timers, and leave us alone! Its bit time to see some Romanian MOVIES on screen, enough with your immature terribilisms! You are not directors, you are ILLITERATE!!!


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 can be labeled as a study case. It's not just the fact that it denotes an unhealthy and non-artistic lust for anything that might be termed as caco-imagery. The author lives with the impression that his sanctimonious revolt against some generic and childishly termed social ills ("Moldavia is the most pauper region of Europe", "I don't believe one iota in the birds flu", "Romanian people steal because they are poor; Europeans steal because they are thieves") are more or less close to a responsible moral and artistic attitude - but he is sorely off-target!
What Daneliuc doesn't know, is that it's not enough to pose as a righteous person - you also need a modicum of professionalism, talent and intelligence to transpose this stance into an artistic product. Fatefully, "The Foreign Legion" shows as much acumen as a family video with Uncle Gogu drunkenly wetting himself in front of the guests. The script is chaotic and incoherent, randomly bustling together sundry half-subjects, in an illiterate attempt to suggest some kind of a story. The direction is pathetically dilettante - the so-called "director" is unable to build up at least a mediocre mise-en-scene, his shots are annoyingly awkward, and any sense of storytelling shines by total absence. (Of course, any comment is forced to stop at this level; it would be ridiculous to mention concepts as "cinematographic language", "means of expression" or "style"). The acting is positively "Cântarea României" ("Romania's Chant") level, with the exception of... paradoxically, the soccer goal-keeper Necula Raducanu, who is very natural, and Nicodim Ungureanu. Oana Piecnita seems to have a genuine freshness, but she is compromised by the amateurish directions given by Daneliuc.
The most serious side of this offense to decent cinema is the fact that the production received a hefty financing from the national budget, via C.N.C. (the National Cinematography Council). The fact that long-time-dead old dinosaurs like Daneliuc are still thirsty for the government udder is understandable (in a market-driven economy, they would be instantly eliminated through natural selection). But the corruption of the so-called "jury" that squanders the country's money on such ridiculously scabrous non-art, non-cinema and non-culture belongs to the criminal field.


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


user
This must be accompanied by a special rating and warning: NOT RECOMMENDED TO NORMAL PEOPLE.
The obsession of Daneliuc with the most dirty body functions becomes here a real nightmare. Also, it's evident that the man is a misanthrope, he hates everybody - his country his people, his actors, his job. And this hatred makes him blind and he forgets anymore the profession he knew long ago.
This so called "film" is just a hideous string of disgusting images, with no artistic value and no professionist knowledge. It is an insult to good taste and to good sense. Shame, shame, shame!


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 a DVD of "I Dream Of Jeanie" in the $1.00 bin at Wal-Mart. When I saw that it was the "story of Stephen Foster", being a musician and music educator, I had to see it. I had no idea what year it was made for it did not say on the cover, just that it was a remake of 1939's "Sewanee River". Bill Shirley's portrayal of the composer is sometimes painful, sometimes laughable. The man has NO testosterone and is a wimp all the way through! I have a difficult time believing Stephen Foster thought music publishers were doing him a favor by publishing his songs...without paying him for them! In addition to that ridiculous notion, there is a nearly 20 minute segment of Ray Middleton and his black-faced "Christy Minstrels" performing Stephen Foster's songs that was difficult to watch, to say the least. I can hardly believe anyone would consider this movie appropriate to resurrect in our current time. It is an embarrassment and should remain forgotten. Fortunately, Stephen Foster's songs will NEVER be forgotten....also, Eileen Christy's portrayal of Jeanie was certainly the highest point in this lowest point of Hollywood history.


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


user
Just picked up this film for a buck at National Wholesale Liquidators, and after watching it, I feel like I got ripped-off.
I don't know that I've seen a worse film than this. Honestly. And I would never write a negative review of a film had I not such enormous respect for the subject matter, that is, Stephen Foster and his music.
First, what is it? It's a musical biography? Yeah, lot's of tunes by Foster then interspersed here and there are these pseudo-Broadway-Jerome Kern-type numbers that reek more than the Mississippi delta. I mean, somebody got PAID to write this drivel? Secondly, the REAL story of Foster is a fascinating one. Why not even come CLOSE to it? Thirdly, what did they have on the great Ray Middleton to get him to do this film? Pictures of him with small boys?? With communists? What a waste of a great talent.
So, friends of Foster, and the truth, and good entertainment, be afraid... be very, very, afraid.


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


user
Veteran director and producer Allan Dwan, whose huge string of films includes both the utterly forgettable and the recurrently shown (for example, John Wayne in "Sands of Iwo Jima") tried his hand at a big musical with "I Dream of Jeanie." Harnessing a lead cast of singers with little past film experience and, as it turned out, virtually no future, he spun a fictional and in no small part offensive story about the great American songwriter, Stephen Foster.
Bill Shirley is the young, lovestruck Foster whose kindness to slaves includes giving the money saved for an engagement ring to pay the hospital cost for an injured little black boy. His intended is Inez McDowell (Muriel Lawrence) whose pesky younger sister, Jeanie (Eileen Christy), is slowly realizing she's in love with the nearly impecunious song-smith. Foster is in love with Inez who is revolted by the composer's Number 1 on the Levee Hit Parade Tune, "O Susannah." Enter minstrel Edwin P.Christy (Ray Middleton) to help launch the profit-making phase of Foster's career.
This is, by the musical-film standards of the early Fifties, a big production. The sets are lavish in that special Hollywood way that portrayed fakes with all the trimmings. The singers aren't half bad and the Foster songs are almost impossible to ruin.
But this is also a literal whitewash of the antebellum South. The biggest number features black-face for all on stage, an historical anomaly and a contemporary piece of unthinking racism. Were these portrayals of blacks anywhere near reality, the abolitionists would be rightly condemned for interfering with so beneficent an institution.
"I Dream of Jeanie" apparently sank into the studio's vault with barely a death whisper. Now revived by Alpha Video for a mere $4.99 it's a period piece with charming songs and repulsive sentimentalizing about the victims of America's great crime, slavery.
This was what Hollywood was putting out two years before Brown v. Board of Education. Must have warmed the hearts of some moviegoers who wore their bed linen to the theater.


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 understand why so many peoples praised this show. Twin peaks is one of the most boring titles I have ever seen in my life.
Now I have seen all season 1 episodes, and seeing season 2 episode 1. Simply I can't take this show anymore.
1) Where is the proper induction in criminal investigation?
In season 1, there was a scene that agent Cooper throws stones to a bottle. Can you guess why he did that? He just want to identify murderer by doing this 'joke' while mentioning supernatural ability given by Tibet dream. Wow!!!
2) There are too many unnecessary scenes in this show.
For example, season 2 started with a 'funny' scene that a dumb old man serves agent Cooper with a cup of milk while Cooper are laying down on the floor.( He got the gun shoots in his belly already. ) This old man is doing nothing but saying some dumb comments. That's all.
This scene is really boring and even long ( 3 min 30 sec.... It's like Hell. )
I would read some comic books rather than see this show anymore.


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


user
We are not in the fairy tale of the naked emperor. We may confess the truth of what we see, without being stupid, confess, that this show is in many aspects just incomprehensible and that it is clear, that much of it was created out of pure intuition without real concept.
Well, obviously many people like such stuff. I don't. I prefer well thought and planed shows. And I also confess, that the show is much to serious for my taste and boring...those love and drug stories...There are so many exciting soaps with lot of suspense (Dallas e.g.), but Twin Peaks can't catch my attention. I don't care about those people, except Cooper and Gordon Cole.


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 nothing unique in either the TV Series nor the Movie. Which is a prequel to the TV Show, that isn't found everywhere else in life and entertainment. Both before David Lynches disgusting style of story telling, and after.
From the Moment the body of a poor misguided girl washed up on the beach. And being introduced to some of the most mind numbing shady immoral character of the Twin Peaks.
To the Mind numbing almost pedophilia disgusting way the movie seems to romantically tell of the destruction of a Human Life through some random psychedelic phenomena in the Movie Twin Peak:Fire Come Walk with me.
I watched it all just to make sure I wasn't missing anything. I didn't. It's is simply one mans obvious sexual fetish extended over long series fallowed by a ridiculous overly pornographic movie. Save your self the agony the suspense and watch anything else that at least has the ability to tell a story, rather then seduce you into some kind mental porn movie.
I have heard a lot of reviews, rants and raves about how great David Lynch. Because of his ability to define misery and and tragedy and making it into some kind of a wonderful thing. This is not life imitating art, as much as it is some sick twisted version of art doing its best to inspire complete mindless life.
Do yourself a favor and avoid this garbage.


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


user
These kind of movies where a psycho of one variety or another tries to damage the reputation (and eventually eliminate altogether) some naive person in order to take over their life. Fatal Attraction, Pacific Heights, The Hand that Rocks the Cradle, Single White Female, and a thousand made-for-TV movies are some examples of this. But while a few, especially Fatal Attraction and Pacific Heights could offer at least some extremely paranoid, suspenseful characters or a few plot twists, Unlawful Entry plays everything by the book. And were it not for the notoriety of its stars (Kurt Russel, Ray Liota, and Madeline Stowe), this movie would sink to mediocrity faster than a Danielle Steele miniseries.
Russel plays Michael Carr, an incessantly naive guy who calls on the help of a pair of officers when someone breaks into his house and tries to attack his wife (Madeline Stowe). Unfortunately, he quietly vents his anger about feeling so helpless in the situation to the wrong cop (Ray Liotta), a typically psychopathic villain with no limits for his power. At first empathizing with Carr (probably only pretending to do so), the cop befriends the couple. But soon enough, the cops wants Carr out of the way so, destroying the guys life nearly any way he can (which is pretty easy when you're a cop, and when you're the cop who has installed the guy's security system in his house) in order to take over and presumably, get his wife. It seems less ends-oriented, and more like the cop just wants to prove his power. The wife is more like a trophy, in other words, than an end. And the story plays out entirely by the book, you can probably predict every occurrence before it happens on the screen if you've seen enough of these movies. From the "shocking" moment our main, naive character realizes he is a victim of credit card fraud (perpetrated by the psychopathic villain) to the turn-around-he's-not-really-dead finale.


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


user
Typical thriller, has been done many times before. Simple plot outline; cop Liotta becomes obsessed with Russell's wife, and he tries to bump off good ol' Kurt so he can have her. This is beyond predictable, it doesn't even try to make you guess, the plot is the plot and there's no thinking outside the box here. I guess then the only reason to watch it is to see how it develops, but nothing is done originally or interestingly. There's not really anything to say about this film, it's not particularly bad, but there's no good points either. Russell plays Russell and you know what you're gonna get when you see him in a film. Ditto Liotta. Stowe has an annoying Cher-esque voice. I read the plot outline and I could see the film in my head, it was so obvious and basic. I watched it and it rolled out in front of my eyes exactly as I had imagined. I felt not a drop of emotion throughout. I have no feeling towards this film, it's as if I never even watched it. Considering this, it's a pretty pointless film isn't it? Still, I'll give it 3/10 for some reason.


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 another typical unbelievable and non-sensical piece of Hollywood dreck.
Kurt Russell, as Snake Pliskin in a business suit, convinces me he was a better 2nd baseman. Ray Liotta as the psychotic cop is totally predictable and absurd. Madeline Stowe is her usual cardboard self, and does little to be a convincing victim.
Every scene in this persiflage is absolutely predictable all the way to the end when Kurt clouts Ray with a vase or something, knocking him down and out. Kurt and Madeline then do their obligatory end-of-the-movie embrace, and EVERYBODY--- except Russell and Stowe, KNOWS Liotta is going to get back up and menace the couple again.
He does, of course, and Russell drills him 10 times with his 9mm, which was ENTIRELY unnecessary. This movie could just as well ended with the bludgeoning scene--- EXCEPT Hollywood dotes on unnecessary violence, and the more they can add, or "enhance", the more slobbery they get.


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


user
Sometimes a premise starts out good, but because of the demands of having to go overboard to meet the demands of an audience suffering from attention-deficit disorder, it devolves into an incongruous mess. And for three well-respected actors who have made better work before and after, this is a mortal shame.
So let's see. Premise: a loving couple who lives in a beautiful home is threatened by a bad cop. Interesting to say the least. Make the encroaching cop a little disturbing, why not. It was well done in THE HAND WHO ROCKS THE CRADLE and SINGLE WHITE FEMALE, and it's a proved ticket to a successful thriller.
Now herein lies the dilemma. Create a disturbing story that actually bothers to bring some true menace into its main characters while never going so far as to look ridiculous, or throw any semblance to reality, amp up the shock factor, and make this cop so extreme -- an ultra bad variation of every other super-villain that's hit cinemas since the silent age.
The producers, and directors, chose the latter. Thus is the resulting film -- badly made, with actors trying their darnedest to make heads or tails in roles that they've essayed before, and nothing much amounting to even less.


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


user
I remembered this show from when i was a kid. i couldn't remember too much about it, just a few minor things about the characters. for some reason i remembered it being really intense. also it was on really really early in the morning up in PA. I finally, after looking around the web for a long time, found an episode. the first episode no-less. Criminey! This show was so horrible. it was obviously just made to show kids playing lazer tag and having a great time. the show opens with bhodi li telling his mommy "my names not Christopher, I'm bhodi li-PHOTON WARRIOR!!!!!" we then are forced to watch kids playing lazer tag to the song "foot loose". and not just a quick little bit, but the whole song. ahhhhhhhhh my brain hurts just thinking about it. oh yeah, and as if i couldn't get worse, you cant even see the laser beams from their guns. its like they're just running around to the entire "foot loose" song. later on, after bhodi goes up into space or where-ever, they have a crappy laser gun fight to the Phil Collins song "su-su-sudio." ah, trust me, you don't want to know the rest. what can i say......THE LIGHT SHINES!!!!!!!!!!!


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


user
I saw this film at the Rotterdam Festival, as did presumably all the other voters. The Director was present and seemed to have worked very hard and be very committed to the project, which I think explains the above average reception and mark it got. It's most similar to a feature length episode of Aussie kids favourite "Round the Twist" but it takes itself too seriously to have even that redeeming feature. The movie in itself is maybe worth seeing if you're trying to do a cinematic world tour visiting all UN member states, as I can't think of another Fijian movie but overall it was generic, poorly acted (albeit by an amateur cast) and prey to the subaltern mentality. The moral of the story seemed to be that native islanders will try and screw each other over, but as long as there is an essentially decent white governor to step in, all problems can be solved (by leaving the island).


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


user
Certainly NOMAD has some of the best horse riding scenes, swordplay, and scrumptious landscape cinematography you'll likely see, but this isn't what makes a film good. It helps but the story has to shine through on top of these things. And that's where Nomad wanders.
The story is stilted, giving it a sense that it was thrown together simply to make a "cool" movie that "looks" great. Not to mention that many of the main characters are not from the region in which this story takes place (and it's blatantly obvious with names like Lee and Hernandez). If movie makers want to engross us in a culture like the Jugars and the Kazaks, they damn well better use actors/actresses that look the part.
Warring tribes, a prophecy, brotherly love and respect, a love interest that separates our "heroes", are all touched on but with so little impact and screen time that most viewers will brush them aside in favor of the next battle sequence, the next action horse scene, or the breathtaking beauty of the landscape.
It is worth mentioning that there were some significant changes made to Nomad during its filming, specifically the director and cinematographer. Ivan Passer (director) was replaced by Sergei Bodrov, and Ueli Steiger (cinematographer) was replaced by Dan Laustsen. In one respect, Laustsen seems to have the better eye since his visions of the lands made the final cut that we see here. Definitely a good thing. However, the changing over to Bodrov as director may not have been the wisest choice. From what I'm seeing here, the focus is on the battles and not the people, which I sense comes from Bodrov's eyes and not Passer's. A true travesty.
The most shameful aspect is that this could've been a really fantastic film, with both character and action focuses. Unfortunately, the higher-ups apparently decided that action was what was needed and took the cheap (intellectually speaking) way out.
Even though I can't give this film a positive rating, it is worth watching simply for the amazing cinematography work. But that's all.


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


user
I am a huge fan of warrior movies. Some of my favorites are Braveheart, Troy, The last samurai and Gladiator. And after watching Mongol, which is absolutely awesome, and which i strongly recommend, i had high expectations from a Sergei Bodrov movie. But it was terrible, awful, even pathetic is not a strong word in this case. The whole movie i was waiting for something exciting to happen, but it didn't, then i was at least expecting a big epic battle at the end, but even that was a huge disappointment, just some random running around, waving with the swords... There are so many good warrior movies, this one is not one of them.


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 let me down decidedly hard. it was a great concept that was ruined with a horrible script. The story just didn't flow and was disjointed at best. There were so many elements to this story that were not explained, or were forced into place with out any real thought. elements like the love story could have been expanded on a bit more, and the cannons need to be written in better. the whole main character growing up thing needed more about the training he was receiving and less standing around. everyone likes a good "little guy overcomes" story and this showed promise but with the scripting failures wasn't to be. While it did have some pyrotechnics in the final battle sequence it was lackluster due to a lack of choreography. this made for a maddeningly boring watch
it could have been so good :(


assistant
0