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
There's been a vogue for the past few years for often-as-not ironic zombie-related films, as well as other media incarnations of the flesh- eating resurrected dead. "Fido" is a film that's either an attempt to cash in on that, simply a manifestation of it, or both -- and it falls squarely into the category of ironic zombies. The joke here is that we get to see the walking dead in the contrasting context of a broadly stereotyped, squeaky-clean, alternate-history (we are in the wake of a great Zombie War, and the creatures are now being domesticated as slaves) version of a 1950s suburb.
It's a moderately funny concept on its own, and enough perhaps for a five-minute comedy sketch, but it can't hold up a feature-film on its own. The joke that rotting corpses for servants are incongruous with this idealized version of a small town is repeated over and over again, and loses all effectiveness. The soundtrack relentlessly plays sunny tunes while zombies cannibalize bystanders. The word "zombie" is constantly inserted into an otherwise familiarly homey line for a cheap attempt at a laugh.
The very broadness and artificiality of the representation of "the nineteen fifties" here can't help but irritate me. It is so stylized, in it evidently "Pleasantville-"inspired way, that it is more apparent in waving markers of its 1950s-ness around than actually bearing any resemblance to anything that might have happened between 1950 and 1959. There is something obnoxiously sneering about it, as if the film is bragging emptily and thoughtlessly about how more open, down-to-Earth, and superior the 2000s are.
Because the characters are such broad representations of pop-culture 1950s "types," it's difficult to develop much emotional investment in them. Each has a few character traits thrown at him or her -- Helen is obsessed with appearances, and Bill loves golf and his haunted by having had to kill his father -- but they remain quite two-dimensional. Performances within the constraints of this bad writing are fine. The best is Billy Connolly as Fido the zombie, who in the tradition of Boris Karloff in "Frankenstein" actually imparts character and sympathy to a lumbering green monster who cannot speak.
There are little bits of unsubtle allegory thrown around -- to commodity fetishism, racism, classism, war paranoia, et cetera, but none of it really works on a comprehensive level, and the filmmakers don;t really stick with anything.
Unfortunately, this film doesn't really get past sticking with the flimsy joke of "Look! Zombies in 'Leave it to Beaver!'" for a good hour- and-a-half.


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


user
This would be a watchable Hollywood mediocre if it had a good editing. It relies on the typical American thriller plot - "who is going to outsmart everyone". Acting is below average, but with shining appearance of the detective who is the best actor in the film and he is mostly responsible if the tension in the film rises. Film was completely suffocated by blank video and sound shots and most of it looks like raw film material. All in all, if you don't mind watching a movie that looks like a student film project, this is a film to watch. I guess that would be enough to say on this film, everything else could really spoil the tension that is probably low enough.


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


user
Loved Part One, The Impossible Planet, but whoops, what a disappointment part two 'The Satan Pit' is. The cliffhanger of something apparently rising out of the pit was - nothing coming out of the pit. Then ages spent crawling round air vents to pad out the story, the Beast a roaring thing empty of intelligence, so no Doctor/villain confrontation I'd been anticipating. The TARDIS is somehow inside the pit despite the pit not being open till long after the TARDIS fell through the planet crust. And finally another ready made solution which existed for no logical reason - I mean, why not plunge the Beast into the Hole as soon as the pit opened? Why not plunge him in all those years ago instead of imprisoning him anyway. Why not - I could go on but I've lost interest...


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


user
I don't know how to describe this movie. It's definitely one of the weirdest movies I've seen in a long time. It is very unsettling at times but also boring in other places. The scenes of dental torture are very elaborate and may attract anyone who's into gore & splatter. I found myself holding my teeth during some of the aforementioned scenes. The clever thing about the movie is that it plays with our fears and The Dentist is therefore quite unsettling.
The humor of the film is somehow hidden and may not be recognized by everyone. But if you're a fan of weird and strange entertainment and teeth getting drilled to dust this is just the film you were looking for.
If you read the comment and feel somehow attracted by this kind of entertainment, give it a try!
My rating: 4/10 (maybe a little too weird for my taste)


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


user
Well, I do like the gore in this movie - it is genuingly unsetteling. Anyone that's been to the dentist will know why. The story really isn't that bad, Corbin Bersen's character's motivations do make a lot more sense than in most horror movies.
I've seen worse acting, directing, script, etc. but at the end of the day this is still a bad horror movie. So it comes down to if you enjoy that type of thing or not. I tried to watch the sequel, but it was exactly, exactly the same thing as this movie. Just keep in mind if you enjoy people getting tortured at the dentist, then this is the movie for you!


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


user
There are probably more people afraid of the dentist than of, let's say, little monsters or scary looking dolls. Which makes it a perfect subject for a horror movie, really.
Dr. Feinstone (Corbin Bernsen) has been a successful dentist for several years now, but when he catches his wife cheating on him with the poolguy he snaps, and he brings his anger and frustration to his work. Well, give a mad dentist a drill and a mouth, and you can probably guess what happens next...
As I said, brilliant idea but not delivered as well as it should. In particular the ending is a huge let down. Last note: watch for Mark Ruffalo (You Can Count On Me, Eternal Sunshine...) in this one.
5/10.


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


user
I really wanted to like this movie, but it never gave me a chance. It's basically meant to be Spinal Tap with a hip hop theme, but it fails miserably. It consistently feels like it was written and acted by high-school kids for some school project, and that's also the level the humor seems to be aimed at. There is no subtlety and, more damningly for a mockumentary, it never once feels like a documentary. And while the lines aren't funny in the first place, an attempt at dead-pan delivery would have helped -- certainly, anything would be better than the shrill overacting we are subjected to.
I'd recommend this to people who like "comedies" in the vein of "Big Momma's House" or "Norbit"; people who think that words like "butt" are inherently hysterically funny. Other people should stay away and not waste their 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 cant describe how terrible this movie is. Am i the only one here who finds the way its animated totaly disgusting? The Men of Rohan look 100% fake with their poorly colored hair, that doesnt even come close to matching what the actors look like. The orcs looked terrible. Why does gandalf walk with a bad limp? Why cant they pronounce things correctly? Saruman isnt Aruman. There were other what sounded like terrible pronounciation*sp* of Tolkiens characters. All and all im glad the studio who made this pulled the plug out from the sequal, it was just a terrible terrible adaptaion. Go watch the hobbit cartoon for a better cartoon of Tolkiens work. Hell, even the cartoon version of ROTK is better then this dribble. 2/10


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


user
Some people don't like the animation. Personally, I think the animation was quite remarkable given when this movie was done. There are lots of older cartoons that I just love. My problems with this movie are not the animation, but basically the way it was constructed. The characters are all just... well, goofy. And for this movie, they shouldn't be. Apparently, everyone in LOTR has a limping problem (for starters.) Just the way they acted in general annoyed me. My two sisters and I were laughing through most of this movie. I think that if many people had seen this before seeing the newer ones, they wouldn't have gone. I'm glad I rented this and didn't buy it. There are few movies that give me a headache. This was one of them. However, this isn't the worst movie I've ever seen, although it ranks up there. Or down there, depending on your view.


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


user
I remember going to see the movie in the summer of '78 with my parents, and being pretty into it at the time. Of course, I was seven at the time.
Right before the Jackson movies came out, my wife and I rented this movie since she had never seen it and I was feeling nostalgic.
Ralph Bakshi ran out of money about mid-way through the animation process for this movie, and was forced to drastically cut corners on this production. Since this movie was done primarily with rotoscoping, the animation technique for people on a budget, this is saying something. Much of this movie is animation only in the very loosest sense of the word. There are some scenes which are very obviously just people standing in front of a screen, with maybe some animation effects superimposed on top of them.
Because of budget constraints, the movie -- already a compression of "The Fellowship of the Rings" and part of "The Two Towers" -- was pared down even more. What you get is sort of like a film-strip version of the Cliff Notes of the books.
Its not all bad, though, the animation brings a warmth to it, that I found lacking in the Jackson movies. Its nice to imagine what it could have been like with decent funding.
This movie is also noteworthy for having the sequel which never came. Several years later, a half-hearted half-hour long TV special was aired, which was meant to wrap things up. All I will say about that is that it was a musical.


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


user
I haven't seen this movie in a while, so I'm afraid I can't be very specific about details... It did have some interesting points. Ralph Bakshi's attempt at an animated adaptation of J.R.R Tolkien's masterpiece was a very ambitious project, so ambitious in fact that it went bankrupt at some point during the production. Therefore, not only does it stop abruptly somewhere around the middle of the second book of the trilogy (with sort of a shade of a hint of a sequel that was never made), the film itself seems less than finished. It seems that some characters were animated while others were filmed, but whether or not it's intentional is hard to say. The whole thing seems shabbily made and undone, especially the Orcs and the Nazgul. Another problem, of course, is the huge gaps in the plot. Bakshi was in a rush to finish this movie, and he somehow hoped to cram a book and a half in little more than two hours (the new trilogy by Peter Jackson does it in about twice that time.) Far too many important bits were left out (and I don't refer only to Tom Bombadil, which, I think, was lovely in the book but would look silly in a movie.) And of course, the ending, which is completely sudden and out of place. I'm not even sure if Bakshi originally intended to end the film there, or if he even had any idea where he's going to end it.
The characters... well, most of them were okay. The hobbits don't look so bad (except for the gay Sam. Did you know that the producers of the new trilogy originally wanted to make Sam a woman so there would be a feminine lead character?) If you're a Tolkien fanatic (like me), watch this movie (though I'm not too sure about buying it. What special features does the DVD version have, anyway?) But know in advance that you're not going to watch a real 'Lord Of The Rings Movie' but not much more than a historical curiosity, which probably looks not much better than the 60s version would have had the Beatles carried on with their plan (I actually think a psychedelic LOTR could have been quite cool. The idea was to cast George as Gandalf, Paul as Frodo, Ringo as Sam and John as Gollum.) If you didn't read the book or didn't like it much or don't like animation films or don't want to see a half-finished movie... stay away.


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


user
I might have given this movie a higher rating before Peter Jackson's trilogy came out, but seeing the two of them side by side there is simply no comparison. The pace of this movie is rushed, many important scenes from the book are left out, and there is little character development. The animation is a strange mixture of traditional cartoon drawings and live action scenes that were painted over, which I found distracting. And the most disappointing thing about this movie is that it breaks off in the middle of the story and was never finished. There are some good points- the battle scenes are exciting to watch, and the dialogue follows the book pretty much to the letter. Watch this one if you're in a hurry and can't spend 10 hours watching the new trilogy. But if you haven't read the book you'll probably be confused, because there is a lot missing from this version. 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
This movie causes more unintentional laughter than anything else I've ever seen. Really, if you are a Tolkien fan, rent it just to laugh at it with your friends. I won't be the millionth person to rip apart its flaws... all I will say is that the movie (for me, anyway) lost major points for turning my favorite character, Sam, into a bumbling idiot. Shame, shame... 3/10


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


user
I watched Peter Jackson version of Lord of the Rings when I was half way through reading the Two Towers and I thought it was absolutely brilliant.
At this time the animated version of the Lord of the Rings was released on DvD but I told myself that I will finish reading the Two Towers and Return of Kings before watching it (as I thought it showed the whole of the trilogy).
So when I did finish the trilogy I went and brought the DvD, which was a stupid idea because it was absolutely rubbish.
I was acturly bored 20 minutes in to it which was really strange because I love the book and I am shooked that the maker of this film could of even thought of fitting at least 1 and a half of the books in to a 2 hour 8 minute film.
None of the characters had any emotions when they were talking and they seemed to be reading it of a page, even my favourite character who is Gandalf did not seem interesting at all.
The animation was the only okay in parts of the film except for the orks (they looked awful) and Aragorn and Sam face.
I don't know way this film was released because there was not even a proper ending, but maybe it was good that the maker ran out of money because the film couldn't of got any better.
I just hope that nobody judges the books by this film.
3/10


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


user
Bashki should be congratulated for attempting to convert one of the great works of English fiction into a movie, and then slapped silly for this attempt. The animation was poor, the characters looked ridiculous, the music was overwhelmingly blaring, and the film was a ramshackle blitz through the first book and a half of Tolkien's masterpiece. I can still remember my sheer disappointment and loathing for the movie when I first saw it. Now I realize that any attempt to convert a book into a movie is bound to fail in many ways, simply because of the medium, but this movie, regardless of the source of the story, is just plain pathetic. Bashki is capable of much more.


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


user
The premise and subject about making a criminal realize what his victims went through by capturing his family hostage sounds promising and interesting. But this is the only interesting part which was also dealt 20 years ago with quite finesse by director Ravi Tandon in his film "Jawab'(1985) too. The problem here is Ace Director Rajkumar Santoshi found himself in some sort of confusion as to whether to make it a fast paced action-thriller (viz. Khakee) or an emotions-rich heavy duty drama (Viz. Damini) and this confusion is quite evident in the final outcome. If we ignore two of his-Pukar (2000) and Lajja(2001), this brilliant director has always given us fairly engrossing films with high entertainment value. Therefore this film comes as a surprise, as to what made this script sensitive director going for half-baked characterization of both of his protagonists-Amitabh Bachchan and Aryeman. As the film is getting over, audience didn't know whom to hate and whom to sympathize with and this factor is the major limiting force in the complete narration. Therefore what starts as a war between a common man and an underworld don ends on a strange note of self-realization and regret by the Don about what went wrong with his own family. The revelation of Don's son as a real baddie does not come as a surprise element in the climax which if compared to similar situation in 'Khakee" worked so effectively with Aishwarya's character. That is not all, there is more to it. The whole dramatization of life of an Underworld Don, operating from abroad looks quite illogical. His openly landing up at Mumbai from where he is suppose to be absconding as well as running after his enemies and shooting them himself does not look believable. Pitching a mediocre, newcomer actor like Aryeman opposite Mr. Bachchan is again not a good idea. But nonetheless film has some plus points. Ashok Mehta's fine camera-work, two good fight sequences (co-ordinator Abbas Ali Moughal), some light well-acted scenes of Akshay Kumar in the Ist half, Santoshi's fast-paced slick treatment and of course Mr. Bachchan as usual trying hard to put some life into his lifeless character. But all these put together does not make this viewing an exciting experience for you and your Family!


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


user
After watching KHAKEE i felt i'll get to watch another good film but sadly The film is a joke and actually trying hard to introduce Aryeman Afterall his father Keshu is the producer
RKS spoke so highly about the film during promotions, saying the film has meat unlike films released that time, I wonder which films was he talking about
The film is actually a typical Masala film with loads of comedy, romance, action everything jumbled
The ease at which the kids kidnap the family, is one of the funniest parts ever, Imagine kids kidnapping Dawood's family
The end is a complete jumble mumble with sudden change of characterization
RKS gives his weakest film till date, except some Bachchan scenes the film is a bore
Music is boring
Amitabh tries to give the role his all, he does his part well, though not his best though he contorts his face too much when pulling a trigger and does a weird look while smoking the cigar His dubbing too isn't matched properly at times
Akshay is there for some minutes and just repeats his act and hams
Aryeman seems expressionless, tries too hard but overdoes it in some scenes
Bhumika emerges the best of the lot
The rest are okay


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


user
Rajkumar Santoshi Without Any Doubt Has Directed The Greatest Movies And Biggest Box Office Hits Of Indian Cinema.
This Movie Falls Short Of All Expectations As This Movie Stars Two Great Actors Mr. Amitabh Bachchan And Akshay Kumar And When You Have These Two Actors In The Same Movie You Have To Make A Magnum Opus.
In The Later Part Of The Movie You Can Make Out That Amitabh Bachchan's Voice Has Been Dubbed By Some Other Person Which Was Due To His Illness.
Still The Movie Did'nt Had Proper Character Development Plus Cinematography Was'nt Good Too And One Thing That Bollywood Should Learn Is That They Should Use Visual Effects Only When It Is Needed And When Applied Should Be Done With A High Budget.The Script Had So Many Flaws Which Gives The Viewer Excuses To Attend His Phone Calls Rather Than Watching The Movie.
The New Comer Shakes The Leg Well But Could Not Act Well But Where The Movie Loses Big Time Is The Storyline Screenplay And Cinematography.
A Talented Actor Like Bhoomika Chawla Has Been Wasted In The Movie As Well As Sushant Singh.
But Every Director Once In A While In His Career Makes A Bad Film.
So Watch It Only If You Are A Fan Of Multi-Starrer Flop Movies.


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


user
Hello, can anybody hear me? I don't know why you came to this page, but if you're a fellow viewer of this movie: join the fanclub! This movie was so unbelievably bad I couldn't stop laughing when I saw it. I think it's a must see, it's bad in a nice way. Every cliche ever invented for a horror movie can be seen here. I'm afraid it's very hard to get a copy of this movie, but it should be in the top 10 of worst movies ever made.


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


user
Two houses, one street, one phone booth, one car, a girl next door, a boy next door and a zombie. This list of ingredients should suffice for a great horror movie. All you need is some blue light, ambient music and...done. Not in the hands of Dutch director van Rouveroy though!
I like to organize "bad movie evenings" from time to time. The concept is really simple: get some booze, get some film-loving friends, and immerse yourself in the worst cinema can offer. For such an evening this peace of filth is one of the best. Laughs guaranteed!
The bizarre thing is, van Rouveroy is still defending her film as if it were a great achievement. To be a witness to this you'll have to listen to the DVD's commentary track. Again: disbelieve and laughs guaranteed!


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 not just a bad film, it's one of the worst films ever. it's so bad that i found it to be quite enjoyable. the acting, oh my god, the script, you gotta be kiddin'. how can you imagine the writer coming up with things like: - a kid who makes fireworks in school, fireworks SO powerfull, that when someone gets hit by it, they fly a hundred yards backwards and explode. -a girl is trapped in the celler, the killer is trying to break open the door. she gets a drill, but the wire isn't long enough. she first makes an extension cord, oh the horror, and then, when she's done, she drills through the door and drills through the head of the killer. WOW - and there are plenty more examples like that. oh yeah, and what happened to George Kennedy, he used to be great (Thunderbolt and Lightfoot/Cool hand Luke)


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


user
I don't know why I keep doing this to myself!! I keep on defending the Dutch and Belgian cinema and claim that it should get more credit and chances...and then they smack you around the head with junk like this! Intensive Care is a terrible production and probably the worst thing that was ever made in the Dutch-speaking countries. It's a Dutch attempt to create our very own horror franchise, clearly based on mainstrain American slasher classics such as Friday the 13th and Halloween. The producers and writers aimed really high with this, but fell really low. Intensive Care became an embarrassing product to everyone who was involved and therefore a true cult flick here. It's almost impossible to hunt down an original copy of this and it's only showed on special occasions, like "the Night of Distaste". For exactly 5 minutes, Intensive Care tries to tell a story and even to create a plotline...then it changes into a lame and low-brain slash 'n stalk movie with gruesome - yet very hilarious and cheap - make up effects. The acting of the entire cast is abominable, even though there are a few respected names involved. The leading male role is played by Koen Wauters...This guy might as well be the most famous and loved artist in Belgium. He's a beloved singer, host of TV-shows and idol of many young girls. He never ever mentions this thing he starred in, though. Like everybody else in The Netherlands, he's trying to convince himself Intensive Care never happened.


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 "Intensive Care" was quite bad and very unintentionally funny. But at least not as bad as I thought it might be. Sometimes it's somewhat suspenseful, but never a good shocker.
SPOILER AHEAD
The fun lies in ridiculous moments. But the all-time classic moment is this: Peter (Koen Wauters) is stabbed and beaten by the killer. He lies moaning in the corner of the hallway. Amy (Nada van Nie) kneels beside him and asks "Poor Peter, shall I get you a band-aid?".
This movie was shot in Dutch and English. To spare costs, all license plates are USA, and the background in the news studio is a skyline of Manhattan. Very funny if you're Dutch and watching the original version in Dutch.


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


user
Koen Wouters is a flemish singer and presenter. In the early ninety's he tried his hand on movies as well. But this unbelievable piece of junk ended his acting career once and for all. It also ended the acting career of dutch actress Nada van Nie who went on being a football-wife a TV presenter and program-maker. I actually did see this in an ( almost empty) theatre because I used to be a fan of the band of Koen Wouters, Clouseau. I so regret spending money on it. It looks cheap, it is a terrible story and it is executed bad in every possible way. Some people think it's so bad it's funny. I am not one of them. I just found it an incredible waste of time and money.


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


user
"Intensive Care" by Dorna von Rouveroy is easily one of the worst horror movies ever made.This extremely cheap Dutch slasher flick offers some gore and plenty of absurd situations.A horror veteran George Kennedy is completely wasted as as Professor Bruckner.The acting is abysmal,the action is slow and the climax is laughable.A famous surgeon has a car accident.He lies in a coma seven years and then he wakes up and goes on a bloody rampage."Intensive Care" is clearly influenced by American slasher films including "Halloween" and "Friday the 13th" series.The killings are hilarious and the dialogs are painfully stupid.Still if you are in the right mood you can give this piece of trash a look.You'll laugh until it hurts with this one-you can believe me!


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


user
Well, I'll start by admitting I'm not a John Ford fan. (I watched "The Informer" only because I'm trying to work my way through a list of the "greats.") So if you are, just move along, 'cause you're not going to agree with me.
What an overwrought and dated piece of silliness this is! I will say that there is a good idea for a movie here (it made me think about how few films there are about the Irish Revolution) but, as usual, Ford is determined to bury it under over-acting and cheap sentiment. I suppose it's somewhat interesting to watch for a while in order to see the less-than-seamless transition that was being made from the silents to the "talkies" -- the acting styles of some of the principals have that overbroad quality endemic to early films and movie does feel as if it might play better with title cards than spoken dialogue. (Of course, title cards would prevent Ford from restating every bit of emotion six times.) What dialogue there is usually has a "They're always after me Lucky Charms!" quality that is aggravated by the fact that each actor seems to have been allowed to use his or her own personal version of an Irish accent. Of course, as bad as they are, the accents are helpful in reminding us we're in Ireland because the sets mostly look as if they were dragged in from from some German expressionist piece being filmed on the next soundstage over. (It feels as if, with an eagle eye, you might see some villagers off to torch Dr. Frankenstein in the background.)
Techniques change. Tastes change. So I won't go off on how crazy it seems that this film was so acclaimed in its day. But it's not one of the classics that hold up --- more just "fair warning" about the kind of over-simplified malarkey to which Ford was going to devote his career.


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


user
I've seen about 820 movies released between 1931-39, and THE INFORMER is the worst major release I've seen from that time span. Awful, despicable, unpleasant, unhappy, unredeemable saga of a complete Loser. Watch a 1934 B Western instead.


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 warn you here: I chose to believe those reviewers who said that this wasn't an action film in the usual sense, rather a psychological drama so you should appreciate it on that basis and you will be alright.
I am here to tell you that they were wrong. Completely wrong.
Well, no, not completely; it is very disappointing if you are looking for an action flick, they were right about that. But it is also very unsatisfying on all other levels as well.
Tom Beringer wasn't too bad, I suppose, no worse than usual; but what possessed them to cast Billy Zane in this? Was it some sort of death wish on the part of the producers? A way to made their film a guaranteed flop? In that case, it worked.
If they were actually aiming for success, then why not cast somebody who can act? Oh, and might as well go for a screenwriter who knows how to write. Ah, yes, and a director who knows how to direct.
As someone who sat through this mess, actually believing it would shortly redeem itself, I can assure you it never did. Pity, it could've been a good film.


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


user
Realistic movie,sure,except for the fact that the characters don't look like to be scared. When Billy Zane tries to kill someone, he feels bad...but he doesn't look like to. That's why I don't like his performance in this movie. Tom Berenger is again playing a soldier. No good thrill, realistic sequences. Not always shooting, that is one great thing. Well filmed. I hate the helicopter sequence, cause only one terrorist kills almost the whole marine bunch...I give it **and a half out of *****


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


user
Despite its interesting premise, 'Sniper' is quite tedious. With a tighter script and sharper directing it could have been electrifying; instead it plods along with little tension.


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


user
Not much to say on this one. A plot you can pretty much peg, in the first 10 minutes. Nothing overly wrong with this film, very little action for an action film. There was a chance to explore the characters emotions occasionally. Whether an action film is the right genre to do that with, I'm still undecided. Sniper was one of the easiest films to watch without giving full attention to, as it had little twists and a straightforward plot. I was probably guilty of that, so with a second watch or with undivided attention it may be better.
4/10 (but the best of my 4 out of 10's)


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


user
Eleven "great" filmmakers, eleven pieces of garbage. Eleven minutes each of sheer tedium, sophistry, condescension, self-indulgence. Treats for people of all nations. Yussef Chahine of Egypt giving a "hip hip hooray!" for terorism in his amateurish segment. Across the green line we have Amos Gitai of Israel, using his eleven minutes to show a terrorist act and focus on a jerky newscaster. Alejandro González Iñárritu of Mexico concentrated on the Twin Towers but seemed to forget to turn on his camera. Sean Penn not knowing that there were no buildings within the shadow of the Trade Center on 9-11. Shohei Imamura of Japan ignoring the whole thing. Claude Lelouch focussing on a trivial and cliched love affair. Ken Loach of the UK focussing on Chile. Etc. etc.


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, I ain't American or Middle-Eastern. Second of all, I don't have a religion. The closest thing to a religion I have are sports and movies. Henceforth, I believe I would be best served to supply an opinion of neutrality and free from bias.
Most of these short films are an utter disgrace. This dreadful event should be used to commemorated all those innocent people whom were murdered by "some" barbaric and uncivilized morons. Instead, most of what I saw in these short films were conceited attempts to score varied political points. Examples:
1) Ken Loach's segment. Sure, we are all sad that this dude had a hard life in his country but what has that got to do with the innocent victims of 2001? Two wrongs don't make a right?! Whatever! This film should have a subtitle for those who have trouble listening to a partially incoherent Chilean-English accent.
2) Most disturbing is Youssef Chahine's segment. It is obvious that he has trouble with logic. He justified the murders due to - America being a democracy and because some Americans voted the politicians in power, then all Americans in the end are responsible for the actions and decisions made by their leaders on the Middle-East. Helloooo! Is this guy for real?? Some Americans don't even vote! Some Americans don't even know where the Middle-East is; some don't even know what religion is practiced there; and majority don't know the real political issues that are played behind the scenes. ### Mr Chahine, the reason why we have all these problems in the world is because there are too many people with your kind of logic. The innocent victims in the Twin Towers came from around the world. The murdered firefighters, rescuers, office workers, by-standers and flight passengers have nothing to do with politics. And yet, we are not allowed to go about our lives because "some" people think everyone has to choose a side or a religion. We are perceived as fair game for the extreme politics.
3) The Israeli segment showed their own bombed victims. Another filmmaker using this event to push their own political agenda. Sometimes, it is not about you. Some people always think about the "me, me, me." Sometimes, it is about other people.
4) Idrissa Ouedraogo's segment is a joke and another political point scorer. They obviously want money from the international community by highlighting their poverty. Blah, blah, blah.
This movie denigrates the memory of "Sept. 11th, 2001" victims.
The best thing for it is the TRASH CAN.


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 never panned a film on-line, but I felt moved to do so, after seeing this one. One doesn't show up at someone's funeral and say to the bereaved, "My relatives died, so why should I care about yours?"
Minus the propaganda, there was little, if anything, that could be called "art." As the daughter of deaf parents, I was particularly annoyed by the use of deafness as a gimmick. Any deaf person feeling a vibration of that immensity would likely have investigated, not ignored it.
The word "chutzpah" comes to mind. As a writer, there are few subjects I would stay away from: the Holocaust is one; this is another. I wish these movie makers had not been so arrogant (and inept).


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


user
I've found the movie offensive for Americans which lost somebody in the towers, for American people in general. Pretending to be an homage to horrible facts happened last years, each director takes the opportunity to polemize with old facts (which have none to do with a terrorist attack), or criticize American's political behaviour, or compare different political situation as they have in own country having this nothing to do or to share with the atrocity of September 11. Shame on them.


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


user
Have you ever wondered what would happen if a couple of characters from Beverly Hills 90210 were thrown into a Thai jail?If so, this is your movie. This is Midnight Express for the MTV crowd. That would be ok, but the story was poorly executed. Contrived plot twists, poor dialogue and unresolved issues abound. This slight film did not earn the right to be as cryptic as it ends up being. Potential spoiler and impossibly preposterous plot line-the faux tension filled moment when the hotel employee discovers the girls do not have a room there and is about to kick them out. (This moment is innappropriately played with the same solemnity and gravity as the moment when they are arrested at gunpoint). Later the same hotel employee is somehow found-and Bangkok is a big city, mind you, Ive been there- and testifies against the girls, as if a couple of free Mai Tais warrant 40 years in prison. C'mon. Rent Another Day in Paradise instead.


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


user
I had been looking forward to seeing this film for a long time, after seeing "Return to Paradise," which I found to be gritty. I was so disappointed. The most realistic thing about it was the unpredictable ending which I think was partly stolen from "Return to Paradise."
Maybe I was expecting too much.
On the positive side Danes, Beckinsale and Pullman were fantastic in their roles. Although I didnt like Danes's character and first and found her very annoying.
I couldnt see anything realistic about the film. It could of been done so much better, for example there could of been more emphasis on the prison conditions and the sheer horror. It was too cheery a movie to be realistic. There could also of been more action and tension
The best thing about this film is the "tragic" ending. I couldnt of predicted that. But by that time I really didnt care what happened to them.
3/10


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


user
A very good story for a film which if done properly would be quite interesting, but where the hell is the ending to this film?
In fact, what is the point of it?
The scenes zip through so quick that you felt you were not part of the film emotionally, and the feeling of being detached from understanding the storyline.
The performances of the cast are questionable, if not believable.
Did I miss the conclusion somewhere in the film? I guess we have to wait for the sequel.



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


user
Brokedown Palace is not the kind of movie I would ever like to see. I also did not like the movie when some Aussie man smuggled drugs in Thailand and accused Claire Danes and Kate Beckinsale of drug smuggling. I would not go to that country no matter what after I saw this movie. In fact this movie stinks. I prefer to visit Germany to meet beautiful single women. Germany is the country I tolerate. I also would rather stick to the United States instead. After I saw some of the movie in the theatre including the false accusation of drug smuggling, I left the theatre and had my money refunded because I cannot tolerate this movie. If you are going to to Thailand to meet someone there who could be a drug smuggler, forget this!


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


user
(SPOILERS AHEAD) Russian fantasy "actioner" (and I use the term loosely) that I've been trying to watch for over a year. I've finally gotten to the end and now I wish I didn't put in the repeated effort.
In an effort to save two hours of your life I'm going to tell you he plot- a guy who has the ability to project a long blade out of his arm returns home to see his mom. Things turn ugly after he is beaten up by the mafia boyfriend of an old girl friend. He takes revenge on the guy when he brings the girl home. The guys mafia mom sends her men out to get revenge while the cops begin looking for him as well.
Very little is said. no explanation is really given for anything (like why they lock id girlfriend in an asylum) and the action, for the most part is all off screen. The film essentially consists of a guy who looks like Adrian Brody looking intense and not saying anything, killing people (off screen-most of the action happens off screen). It looks good, is well acted and had there been some form of reason for what is going on it might have been a good film. Hell, I would have liked some sense of real character development or back story (all we know is that the guy was picked on as a kid). The movie runs the better part of two hours and it feels like its six. If they weren't going to tell us anything they could have at least picked up the pace so it seemed like it was moving too fast. No instead we get the hero on a boat. The hero in a bus, the hero walking, the hero looking disturbed.Hero with his girl. It really annoyed me since I think this could have been a good film if they had simply done something or had someone actually say something meaningful other than give instructions to "get this guy".
4 out of 10. Its about four hours (all my attempts to see this) I'll never get back. Only for those who want to see a brooding Russian action film with very little action


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


user
Nothing positive to say. Meandering nonsense, huffing and puffing with a "message". New Russian (post-Soviet) films can be very good (Cuckoo comes to mind), yet many have the bouquet of cardboard and the aftertaste of asbestos (Nochnoi Dozor would be a good example). This is a "dozor" type of emptiness. Acting would be horrible if not for the saving grace of utterly unappealing direction and incompetent editing that sometimes is so awful that it distracts from the impotence of the actors. Special award to the cameraman for making sure that every shot is shaky (would someone please realize that Blair Witch has had its 15 seconds of undeserved fame?) and takes are geared towards attention-deficit pre-teens who subside on CounterStrike and masturbation. The female lead poses and tries to look seductive too often, male antihero need a diction coach (although genetics aren't bad: rather expressive eyes.) One (middle) finger for this irrelevant pile of non-art. Anyone who reviews this positively better be a (distant) cousin of the "auteurs".


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


user
It's a really cheesy parody of Tomb Raider and some Indiana Jones, the humor's cheesy, and so is the acting. But after all it is a soft core movie, which is expected and doesn't matter because what you really want is the sex. Which gets me to the biggest problem of all, there barely is any of it. Which makes you feel like you're watching TV at 3 am and the independent movies are playing and the one that is on was made by some college kid that's going nowhere in that industry. You're left a very long time waiting for an actual sex scene, a lot of times you are thinking something is going to happen, then just left hanging. The one(maybe two, or one with two parts)that actually goes somewhere is very pleasing though. I personally can't recommend this unless you found it in a clear out bin for a dollar or two. If you lucking for a good movie with a plot and good acting, you don't want this. If you looking for a good soft core lesbian film, you don't want this either.


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


user
**Possible Spoilers**
This straight-to-video mess combines a gun-toting heroine, grade-Z effects, nazis, a mummy and endless lesbian footage and it's still boring; the video's 45 minute running time only SEEMS like Eternity.The only good part is one of the blooper outtakes, wherein the bad guys force a 400-pound Egyptologist into a chair--and one villain's foot almost gets crushed under a chair leg. Take this snoozer back to the video store and watch televised golf, bowling or tennis instead.


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 not for the faint or weak of heart. It couldn't decide if it was going to be porn or legit. It was neither one. It was just bad. There was nothing in this movie to make me want to see anything else made by these people again.


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


user
Someone had a great idea: let's have Misty Mundae do her own, R-rated version of Lara Croft - firing two guns not only in skimpy outfits, but topless as well. It WAS indeed a great idea. The problem is that the people who had it couldn't come up with any sort of script or budget to support it. Therefore, we get a "film" that barely reaches medium length by replaying many of its parts (often in slow-motion), and was apparently shot entirely inside a garage. The appeal of Misty Mundae is still evident: she is unbelievably cute and has a natural girl-next-door beauty. However her two female co-stars here, with whom she shares a lengthy lesbian scene, are nowhere near her league. If "Mummy Raider" was presented as a Youtube video, I'd rate it higher, but as a "film" destined for DVD consumption it cannot get more than 1/2 a * out of 4.


assistant
0