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


user
It's often said that Tobe Hooper just struck lucky with his grisly 1974 horror film 'The Texas Chain Saw Massacre' and every time I see another Hooper film - that view is only reinforced. It would seem that Hooper wanted to make his own version of films such as Scanners and Firestarter in 1990 and so we end up with Spontaneous Combustion; a film with a couple of good ideas and a whole load more that are borrowed from other films. Put it all together and you get a messy, boring film that most people would do well to miss! The film leads the audience to believe that it might be half decent initially with an intriguing back story that focuses on some experiments carried out on two young people in the fifties. The couple have a child and shortly thereafter burn to death as a result of the experiments done on them. Fast forward some years and the baby is now an adult named Sam; but naturally he's not a normal person and soon finds when it's discovered that he has the ability to set things on fire at will.
The film stars Brad Dourif, who must have seemed like a good casting choice given his success with Child's Play two years earlier; but actually was an uninspired decision as the central performance is really terrible; and not helped by the terrible supporting performances. The turgid direction and dull script also don't do the film many favours and the trend of lacking in favours is continued by the special effects, which are very unrealistic and have nothing on the films that this one is ripping off; all of which were made some years earlier. The plot is really slow and it's almost an hour before anything of note happens, and I didn't care for it even then. It soon becomes obvious which direction the film will go in and it all boils down to the sort of tedious ending you would expect. The final confrontation is a big disappointment and nothing is really explained during the film. Not that any revelation would have been interesting anyway. Overall, this is a rubbish film and another reason why Tobe Hooper is a long way from being a great horror director. See Firestarter again 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 tried as hard as I could to sit all the way through this irritating mess, but I just couldn't do it. Brad Dourif absolutely sucked as the lead and all the supporting cast were only marginally worse.
The whole thing is just ludicrous, from the awful acting to the laughable FX to the stupid plot.
Complete waste of time; don't bother. Root Canal therapy would be more enjoyable. Bamboo slivers under the fingernails would be a lot more pleasant.
Watching a Uwe Boll movie would be only a little worse than this. Get the idea?


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


user
A man discovers that his parents were part of a nuclear experiment in the 50's and that he now has the power to... burst into flames!
I was really geared up for this film, what with being directed by the great Toby Hooper and staring wild card Brad Dourif. Unfortunately it didn't rise above the average individual-with-violent-powers movie. Spontaneous Combustion has an interesting premise behind it, unfortunately it never seems to live up to its potential and prolongs its plot too much. The special effects aren't bad though and help to carry the movie to the finale.
The cast isn't bad, Dourif does steal the show.
All around, no classic but it's not the worst of its kind either.
** 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
Pretty poor Firestarter clone that seems more like a bad TV movie than a bad feature film. How disappointing for this to come from Hooper and Dourif!
Government contractors do a human experiment with a Hydrogen bomb. The boy born to the couple from the experiment constantly runs a fever of 100 degrees, and when he's an adult, people in his life start spontaneously combusting. He tries to find out why.
The people completely on fire are well done, but when they get to the point that they are well done in another sense, they're obviously changed to dummies. When jets of fire shoot out of characters' arms, it looks silly rather than alarming the way it should. Also ridiculous is fire that evidently travels through phone lines and erupts in huge jets from the receiver's earpiece. How is that supposed to happen, exactly?
Something else that struck me as silly about the movie is when a character has visions of his late parents. We later see the exact same shots from those visions in home movies.


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


user
First off, the lead, Brad Dourif is a KOOK. If you're trying to take this movie seriously, then, I guarantee he's going to ruin it for you. If you don't take him too seriously, then he's actually kind of fun to watch. As with another reviewer, I loved the scene where Lisa (Cynthia Bain) and Dourif are declaring their love for each other - in between dodging the jets of flame shooting out of his arm in the car. Another great campy scene was watching John Landis as a snotty radio show producer getting toasted and flailing around the room. In fact, I found the last 15 minutes of the movie to be a non-stop laugh-riot - I'm just not sure if Tobe Hooper meant it to be that way.


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


user
Others have already commented on the "decline" of director Tobe Hooper, but what about Brad Dourif? He was perfectly capable of selecting good projects (as he proved by starring in the same year's "Exorcist III"), so why did he agree to appear in this? Sure, he gives a suitably demented performance, and the film is not outright bad; it's just uninvolving, uninteresting and unappealing. That's three "un-"s too many. (*1/2)


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


user
Now, i hired this movie because Brad Dourif was in it. He is an excellent actor, BRILLIANT in everything...except this movie. And i think that was only because he realized how stupid this movie was, and didn't bother with a good performance. This movie is a unintentional-comedy. Some of the lines just crack me up. And them there are some lines that make no sense, and it seems like Tobe Hooper just throw lines in without thinking about the plot. Oh! BTW the plot is BAD! But it one of those films that is TAHT BAD that its actually PAINFUL to watch. I recommend this only for BIG Brad Dourif fans, or fans of any of the other actors, because the plot is pathetic.


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


user
Seriously, what is THIS? Hooper has made such classic films like Texas Chainsaw Massacre, then he made this god awful film, what happened? did he dip into the crack a little too much? This film is about some dude named Sam who has the ability to set things on fire,(Firestarter, anyone?) the acting was godawful, the plot was rubbish, and the special effects were extremely rubbish, they looked like something from the 70's. Van Damme should be pleased that Derailed is no longer the worst film ever, and what was with the ending? he started glowing blue, turned into a glowing blue blob, sucked out his girlfriends fire, and the film ended. WHAT WAS THAT? HUH? when the film ended I hoped the DVD would Spontaniously Combust to save me from my pain.
STAY AWAY FROM THIS FILM.
DON'T THINK, OBEY, you'll thank me later.


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


user
Tobe Hooper has made great movies so I was certain this couldn't be BAD. I didn't read any reviews and tried to watch this unintentionally humorous film. At times this made me laugh, sometimes I almost fell asleep, sometimes made me almost CRY for Hooper.
I rated this 3/10 because its 1990 "horror"-movie and many interesting or funny things happened there. Throughout the movie I was thinking something like "they simply CAN'T add more things in this movie..." .. but they did.
Some tell this is some sort of Firestarter clone but truly isn't. It's based on that idea but thats all. This is combination of horror, comedy, weird religion/god things, funny gore, simple effects, drama, horrible acting, unbelievable script..and more.
*spoilers* Story is: Government tries to create ultimate weapon using nuclear power or something and fails, during process child is born for 2 test persons. When mom sings to her child after the birth, both husband and wife burns and it is SPONTANEOUS COMBUSTION. Government buries whole thing and leaves this child live amongst other people and ... then after x years this kid is grown up and realizes he has been born for a reason and whoa he can burn things with his brains. Then everything goes unbelievable messy nothing really explains anything and .. Well when The Government realizes "okay now he can set this fire thing to work" they take him to normal hospital where is some nuclear toxic what they are going to use on this man BECAUSE they could kill him, no they can't shoot him no! .. and argh, I guess thats enough to tell, I promise there is 100 more weird things in this movie.
Well if you want good laughs watch this one. Gosh.


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


user
This film is a massive Yawn proving that Americans haven't got the hang of farce. Even when it has already been written for them! The original film "Hodet Over Vannet" is a witty comedy of errors that I would rate 8/10. It isn't just about a linguistic translation, but certain absurd chains of events are skipped entirely, robbing the film of its original clever farcical nature and turning it into a cheap "oops there go my trousers" style of farce.


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


user
Story starts slow and nothing funny happens for a while. All the action is in the end, but you won't have to laugh because the movie is funny, but because the story is pathetic.
The funniest part is when Harvey 'I'm not Paranoia' Keitel really loses it and the judge starts a massacre. Oscars for this guy!


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 was billed as a comedy and a mystery. It fails badly at both. The only mystery here is why would anybody make such a poorly constructed movie. The only comedy is the laugh I got when I saw how high the readers here ranked it. Could there be two movies with the same name? The movie I saw starred a girl with pretty blue eyes and a plot that wasn't there.



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


user
Don't waste 90 minutes of your time on "Fast Food, Fast Women." It's annoyingly episodic script with three story lines patched together is laughably bad due to predictable writing, horrific acting, and even bad music. I found the anorexic main character upsetting to watch every time she was on screen. SHE needs the fast food.
Spend the 90 minutes you'd devote to this turkey doing something more exciting...like trimming your toenails. You'd have more entertainment value.
The only redeeming thing about this film is Louise Lasser, but she deserves much better than this tired script. It's as impotent as the elder guy she courts in the movie.
VIEWER BEWARE!


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 the worst movies I have ever seen! I saw it at the Toronto film festival and totally regret wasting my time. Completely unwatchable with no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
Steer clear.


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


user
My girlfriend and I were stunned by how bad this film was. After 15 minutes we would have called it quits except we were too curious to see if the film could possibly redeem itself. It didn't.
I can't understand the praise given to this film. The writing was downright awful and delivered by some of the worst acting I have seen in a very long time.
One thing that especially annoyed me about this film was that often when people were talking to each other there was an unnatural pause between lines. I understand using a pause to create a feeling of awkwardness (like in Happiness). This was not that type of pause -- it was just simply bad directing. This film might actually be much better with subtitles, and maybe the overseas market is the best one for this film, because then the innane dialogue and bad acting wouldn't be noticed as much.
I generally like these types of small quirky films (The Real Blonde, Walking and Talking, Lovely and Amazing), but this one failed on so many levels that I consider it one of the very worst films I have sat through in the last few years.


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


user
This kid is rather bad, but in no way do they make him the type that outsmarts adults and can foil experienced thieves at every turn. No, he is not so much a brat, as he is a kid with severe emotional problems. A nice couple looking to adopt get rather suckered into adopting him and while the husband is a bit more willing to give this kid a chance the mother is not. Through in a bizarre Michael Richards character and the always annoying Gilbert Gottfried and you have yourself a rather bad movie with a few laughs in it here and there. I actually prefer the sequel to this film as I like the fact they brought Amy Yasbeck back as a different more likable character as there are one to many characters in this film that are thoroughly unlikable as it is. Even the kid is rather annoying at first in this one, and they kind of chill him out in the sequel too. The plot is simple enough though as the prospective parents go to adopt this kid that they think is great by the way the orphanage is throwing a party as they depart, they soon realize they have themselves a little hellion. Add to that this little hellion getting into contact with a convict of some sort. Not sure about this character, at first I thought it was supposed to be his real father or something. Not all that good, but I will pick this ahead of that Culkin kid any day of the week.


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


user
The first scene in 'Problem Child' has a baby peeing into a nun's face. For this movie, that's witty. A nasty, mean-spirited 'comedy', it's inept on so many levels it beggars belief. John Ritter is the kind father who adopts the child from Hell, and kudos to him for maintaining his dignity in the surrounding onslaught of one-note, annoying performances and puerile humour. And what the hell's Jack Warden doing in this mess? Slackly directed by Dennis Dugan and obnoxious in its attempts to turn on the sentimentality when it's done with the crudity, the movie is made so badly it's quite a bizarre experience. But never mind all that. The lowlight of the whole thing is Michael Oliver, the most repulsive and unlikeable kid actor ever to hit the screen  believe me, you will want to smack him right in the mouth.


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


user
I remember watching this movie several times as a very young kid, and there were parts of it (many in fact) that I did not understand. I think I have seen it once as an adult, and I then understood those parts. The only problem with viewing it as an adult was that it was not entertaining to me at all. So what kind of movie is this? Is it a "kids movie"? Not hardly. It contains language and subject matter not suitable for kids. Is it a hyperbole of what every parent feels like they are going through with their own children? Maybe, but then why wouldn't it focus more on John Ritter's character instead of Junior? When a film has a 7-year-old as its main character, in order to do well with it's audience, it should be a movie for the seven and under crowd, otherwise people older than that will have no way to relate (even 8-year-olds wouldn't want to see a movie about a kid who is whole year younger than them). I'm pretty sure this film did not do well in the box office, and the reason has to be because it was unable to find a niche in the market.


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


user
I have to admit I've caught this one a few times on the USA Network. There's just something about the, well, sheer stupidity of this flick which makes me want to watch it whenever it's on. Yes, you're right about the sub-par acting, the plot which only an seven year old could like, etc. But I can't help feeling sympathetic toward some of the actors. Then again, a few of these actors signed up for the even more atrocious sequel.


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


user
"Problem Child" is one of the goofiest movies ever made. It's not the worst (though some people will disagree with me on that), but it's not the best either. It's about a devilish 7-year-old boy who wrecks comic havoc on a childless couple (John Ritter, Amy Yasbeck) who foolishly adopts him. This film is too silly and unbelievable because I don't buy for one second that a child could act as unrurly as the kid does in this film. It's asinine and preposterous although I did laugh several times throughout (I really don't know why). But I can't recommend this film. I know I'm being too kind to it. If there is one positive thing about "Problem Child" is that it's better than the sequel which was just awful.
** (out of four)


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


user
PROBLEM CHILD is one of the worst movies I have seen in the last decade! This is a bad movie about a savage boy adopted by two parents, but he gets into trouble later. That Junior can drive Grandpa's car. He can scare people with a bear. He can put a room on fire! It is a bad movie as much as BATTLEFIELD EARTH. A sequel is an even worse fate. Rent CHICKEN RUN instead.
*1/2 out of **** I give it.


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


user
I can't for the life of me remember why--I must have had a free ticket or something--but I saw this movie in the theater when it was released. I don't remember who I went with, which theater I was in, or even which city. All I remember was how offended I was at this travesty someone dared to call a film, and how half the people in the theater walked out before the movie was over. Unfortunately I stuck it out to end, which I still consider to be one of the worst mistakes of my life thus far. My offense became pure horror when just before the closing credits the smarmy demon child sticks his head out from behind a sign and says "Look for Problem Child 2, coming soon!" That was hands-down THE most terrifying moment ever recorded on film.
The plot, if I recall correctly, involved John Ritter and perhaps his wife (Lord, how I've tried without success to block this film out of my mind) adopting a "problem child." Maybe they think they can reform him, or something. I really don't know. If that was their intent, they fail miserably because from first frame to last this child remains the brattiest, rudest, most horrid demon-spawn ever to hit the big screen. Forget Damian, forget Rosemary's Baby. This kid takes the cake. The only difference is, we are supposed to feel sorry for him because he's a "problem child." However, this is impossible since this child is quite likely the most unsympathetic character ever portrayed. You want to kill him through the entire film, and when (SPOILER, like anyone cares) John Ritter decides to keep the vile hell-child you will be yelling "Send him back!" in shocked disgust (like several of the people at the theater where I saw it did).
This is only the second movie I have given a "1" to on the IMDb. The other was Superman IV, and by God I couldn't tell you which was worse. John Ritter had a quote in TV Guide about the time that Problem Child 3, which he was not in, came out. He said something like "The only way I would do another [Problem Child] sequel is if they dragged my dead body back to perform." Amen to that!
I would rather watch a 24-hour marathon of Police Academy sequels than see even twenty minutes of Problem Child again. 1/10, only because I can't give it a negative score, which is what it really deserves. Someone burn the original negatives of this film, please!


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


user
People who actually liked Problem Child (1990) need to have their heads examined. Who would take the idea of watching a malevolent little boy wreak havoc on others and deem it funny? The movie is not funny, ever, in any way, beginning to end. It wants to be a cartoon, but the writers don't realize that slapstick isn't funny when people get attacked by bears, or hit with baseball bats. It may be funny in cartoons, but not in a motion picture.
The film's young hero is Junior (Michael Oliver) who, since he was a baby, has been placed at the front doors of foster parents for adoption. The families reject him, because Junior tends to give them a hard time.
He is then thrown into an orphanage, where he terrorizes the nuns, and writes pen pal letters to the convicted Bow-Tie Killer (Michael Richards). He is soon adopted by Ben and Flo Healy (the late John Ritter and his wife, Amy Yasbeck), who are dying to have a child, in order to be just like every other parent in their neighborhood.
Junior becomes a member of the Healy household, and "Little" Ben takes an interest in him, despite the fact that he destroys a camping trip by luring a bear onto the site, or throws a cat at his father "Big" Ben (Jack Warden), a bigoted politician.
I think that we're supposed to care for Junior so that we can root for him when he gets his revenge on people. His new mother, Flo, is a bitch, his grandfather is completely selfish, and one little girl--who despises adopted kids--is such a spoiled brat.
But what Junior does to get the last laughs isn't funny- -it's mean, cruel, and sometimes life-threatening.
And what is the film's message? That kids should resolve problems with violence and vandalism? That they should seek friendship by writing to convicted killers? They definitely don't what it's like to be a bad kid. Junior isn't a one--he's just a sadistic, little twerp. There used to be a time when it was bad for kids to beat up others. Now, everybody's laughing when Junior beats up kids with a baseball bat.
It's a shame that this movie has been marketed as a "family comedy." What's worse is that Problem Child is rated PG. What was the MPAA thinking when they saw this? There's a lot of profanity and mean-spirited pranks here, that one may wonder about the dividing between the PG and the PG-13.
Kids will enjoy this, but parents will be shocked at what is being depicted on screen. And to most people, Problem Child will be considered a "guilty pleasure" classic; a film that someone will shamefacedly admit to liking, even though the prevailing opinion, as put forth by more serious viewers, is that the movie is a piece of crap.


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


user
I joined this site to see what comments people would make about this absolute disaster of a film. I wasn't drawn in for even a second. The characters were all one-dimensional. They threw every topic they could think of hoping something would stick. I would bet (and hope) that everyone involved in Teachers looks back with embarrassment. There are some great actors here but you would never know it. Thank God it didn't destroy Morgan Freeman's or Judd Hirsh's or Nick Nolte's or Laura Dern's careers. There was no vision, no labor of love here, only a horrible effort gone wrong. BTW I don't think the writer ever set foot in a real school.


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


user
As an ex-teacher(!) I must confess to cringing through many scenes - 'though I continued to watch to the end. I wonder why?! (Boredom, perhaps?) :-)
The initial opening scenes struck me as incredibly mish-mashed and unfocussed. The plot, too, although there were some good ideas - the plight of a relief teacher, for example - were not concentrated enough in any one direction for 3-D development.
Not one of Mr Nolte's finer moments. As to young Mr Macchio, does he speak that way in *every* movie?
Plot and acting complaints aside, the hair-styles alone were a nostalgic (if nauseating) trip.



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 sucks. Ridiculous "school" athmosphere, unbelievable students that are very bad and behave like criminals but then later after the "good teacher" Nick Nolte taught them they became as good and as quiet as kittens.
If this works for you, it doesn't for me. 0 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
Though I never like to be the sort of person who negates another's personal taste; if you like something, that's fine. But, this movie was horrible and there is no way around it. I don't like Ani Difranco too much, but she's a great guitarist and songwriter, that I can admit. But I can't admit to there being any redeeming qualities to this film. Many people way that it is an accurate portrayal of issues that high school students face. Maybe, but everything is portrayed too far-fetched. There seems to be an attempt at a "Naked Gun" - esque kind of comedy, but the timing is off; there is too much space between each actors line, as if they're holding for laughter (there wasn't any). Whoever wrote the script was all over the place. They tried to cram as many controversial issues together in one film, almost never fully developing any of them (especially the girl getting impregnated by a teacher). I did not laugh once throughout this entire movie. I was too insulted by this attempt at humor and satire to do anything but roll my eyes at the screen.


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


user
WARNING! SMALL PLOT DETAILS REVEALED!
I can find virtually nothing positive to say about this film. It is written so badly that every character is a caricature, yet it seems to take itself seriously. It is poorly cast, especially Ralph Macchio (all baby-faced, 5-foot-nothing of him) as a streetwise tough. Plot elements are all drawn in black and white, with every situation almost immediately escalating to some extreme climax.
Most egregious of all (PLOT ELEMENT ABOUT TO BE REVEALED) it has perhaps the most gratuitous and contrived nude scene in the history of semi-serious film. One can just imagine the filmmakers saying, "We need JoBeth to shed her top...hmmm...I've got it!...early in the film, let's give Nick some ridiculous dialogue about baring yourself in the hallways...then JoBeth can use that line on him later and REALLY bare herself in the hallway...yeah, that's the ticket!"
I will give the producers credit for tackling a weighty subject in 1984, one that proved all too weighty in the late 90's with events like Columbine. However, the execution is dreadful. This film could have been a dark comedy in the vein of "Heathers", a campy political statement like "Network" or a serious examination like "Brubaker". Instead, it tries to be all of these things -- and ends up being none of these things. "Teachers" get an F.


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


user
In a recent biography of Alec Guinness I couldn't find too much about To Paris With Love. I'm sure Guinness did the film to get a free trip to Paris out of it. The film has no other reason for existence.
Paris of course is nicely photographed with that wonderful opening of Guinness and his son driving down the Champs Elysee with the Arc De Triomphe in the background. Unfortunately it goes downhill from there.
There is just no chemistry at all between Guinness and the young girl who he has a brief fling with in Paris. According to the recent biography of Guinness by Piers Paul Read, Guinness positively disliked the girl, found her conduct unprofessional. As to what Odile Vernois thought of her co-star, no record is available. They have as much chemistry as two neutered cats.
Guinness does have a good moment in the film which was straight from one of his Ealing comedies as he climbs a tree trying to retrieve a badminton shuttlecock. But I wouldn't wait through the film for it.
At least Alec got a trip to Paris out of the deal.


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


user
I love Alec Guinness. And that's saying a lot after this film. Actually, he is not bad in it. He just seems to stand aside, be urbane and his usual delightful self, but invest nada. It is obvious the girl he is matched with is a featherweight, even as an inexperienced young French girl. Sir Alec wouldn't have chosen her when he was young and very obviously isn't too happy about it now.
The interesting character is the brooding brother of the odd "Suzanne", another twit. "Donald" aspires to be a French Heathcliffe and I waited in vain for the source of his mystery. What deep dark secret was he hiding behind that forehead? Was he in love with the father's mistress? Why did he jerk Suzanne's hair when she plotted to bring the disparate parts of this turkey together on the country estate? Or perhaps he had simply had enough of her obnoxious acting.
The film would have been charming with Guiness and the "older woman" reminiscing and seeing Paris together. THAT would have been a great story! Two lovely experienced people in a beautiful city after the destruction of World War II. Why didn't somebody come up with that? I suggest watching Alec Guiness in "The Card", a little known but worthwhile film.


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


user
Uta Hagen's "Respect for Acting" is the standard textbook in many college theater courses. In the book, Hagen presents two fundamentally different approaches to developing a character as an actor: the Presentational approach, and the Representational approach. In the Presentational approach, the actor focuses on realizing the character as honestly as possible, by introducing emotional elements from the actor's own life. In the Representational approach, the actor tries to present the effect of an emotion, through a high degree of control of movement and sound.
The Representational approach to acting was still partially in vogue when this Hamlet was made. British theater has a long history of this style of acting, and Olivier could be said to be the ultimate king of the Representational school.
Time has not been kind to this school of acting, or to this movie. Nearly every working actor today uses a Presentational approach. To the modern eye, Olivier's highly enunciated, stylized delivery is stodgy, stiff and stilted. Instead of creating an internally conflicted Hamlet, Olivier made a declaiming, self-important bullhorn out of the melancholy Dane -- an acting style that would have carried well to the backs of the larger London theaters, but is far too starchy to carry off a modern Hamlet.
And so the movie creaks along ungainfully today. Olivier's tendency to e-nun-ci-ate makes some of Hamlet's lines unintentionally funny: "In-stead, you must ac-quire and be-get a tem-purr-ance that may give it... Smooth-ness!" Instead of crying at meeting his father's ghost (as any proper actor could), bright fill lights in Olivier's pupils give us that impression.
Eileen Herlie is the only other actor of note in this Hamlet, putting in a good essay at the Queen, despite the painfully obvious age differences (he was 41; she was 26). The other actors in this movie have no chance to get anything else of significance done, given Olivier's tendency to want to keep! the camera! on him! at all! times!
Sixty years later, you feel the insecurity of the Shakespearean stage actor who lacked the confidence to portray a breakable, flawed Hamlet, and instead elected to portray a sort of Elizabethan bullhorn. Final analysis: "I would have such a fellow whipped for o'er-doing Termagant; it out-herods Herod: pray you, avoid it."


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


user
Amelia and Michael are a married couple that are cheating on each other. Amelia has a long-time lover in the hospital and Michael hires a prostitute that doesn't satisfy him. The two smolder with their infidelity but manage to connect to each other in the end.
There's not a whole lot to this particular short. The direction is straight-forward and dramatic, which is good, the acting is sincere, but the story leaves a little bit to be desired. Why, exactly, do we care about these two people? It's a little hard to see how this story sticks out from any other infidelity story except that it's much more pared down and doesn't search for meaning in it (a welcoming change of pace if anything).
I don't know, it's possible I don't connect to these stories because I've never experienced them. But I have noticed that the blocking in these narratives are typically the same, i.e., a couple talking together while avoiding eye-contact by pretending to be immersed in magazines, etc. The nice things about short films is that they provide a bit more room for trying something different, and I'd like to see a different take.
--PolarisDiB


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


user
MY BROTHER TOM
Aspect ratio: 1.85:1
Sound format: Dolby Digital
Following an episode of sexual abuse at the hands of a trusted neighbor, young Jessica (Jenna Harrison) forms a relationship with a strange boy (Ben Whishaw) she meets in the woods. Unfortunately, Whishaw has secrets of his own, no less troubling and far more dangerous...
Dour drama, sparked by brave performances by Harrison and Whishaw, in which two kindred spirits immerse themselves in a mutual love of nature after being traumatized by their experiences in the 'real world'. Unfortunately, their friendship unravels as harsh reality begins to intrude, leading to an inevitable tragedy. Directed by Dom Rotheroe and photographed in digital video format, the movie looks ragged in places (too many awkward close-ups and sloppy hand-held camera moves) and takes a while to find its feet, but the dramatic pay-off is quietly rewarding.


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


user
Cheap and manipulative. This film has no heart.
It's also got dire dialogue, unconvincing characters and a preposterous, or rather non-existent, story. It just lurches from bad to worse in a cynical effort to wrench some kind of emotion from an insincere and unengaging hysterion-afest!
And the HEDGEHOG!!!!How many cheap shots can a film take? The hedgehog, by the way, gave the most convincing and watchable performance in this ninety-minute cringe-athon.
If you have considered watching this film, don't. I'm sorry but I cannot find a single redeeming feature to this movie. It scores a big, fat ZERO with me. Strictly for sub-Dogma knicker-wetters. Yawneroony!
Still, if you liked Dancing In The Dark...



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


user
If utterly facile, regressive, self-indulgent, anti-establishment, anti-civilisation juvenilia appeals to you, then this is the ideal film. Very poorly scripted, with often inaudible dialogue and infuriatingly tiresome hand-held camera throughout, this is a film that presents the world in appealingly simplistic, Manichean terms: all adults (especially teachers, parents, priests and doctors) are insensitive and bumbling at best, and predatory monsters at worst. The only escape from the horrors of civilisation as a whole is plenty of primal screaming (yawn) and infantile regression (literally) in a primitive cave-like space in the woods, with utopia taking the form of a rave party - again, in the woods (naturally...). Displays all the weaknesses of a first film, and plenty more besides.


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


user
I made a special effort to see this movie and was totally disappointed with the outcome. On paper, the script seems hopeful, and the choice of actors leaves one with hopes - I liked Pacino in Scent of a Woman and have seen Anny Duperrey and Marthe Keller in several French and other films of the 70s/80s. But I had forgotten how important a part dialogues can play in a film, and in this film they are absolute ..... trash ! The filming locations were also attractive but the hopeless, pretentious and forced dialogues pulled the whole thing down to sub zero level. In addition to that, I am pretty allergic to the world of motor racing and find no interest in this sport. Even the inelegant dialogues in "Love Story" were better than the ones in this film (and that's saying something !!). I was really expecting better from this film and was very disappointed to have been let down so much.


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


user
The entire thing is very beautiful to look at..the European location shooting was a good idea. The lead actors are attractive. The score is servicable.
BUT THEN THEY SPOKE! And the non-plot developed! And it was all downhill from there. Pacino is sleepwalking and Keller keeps talking about how bored she is..hello, dear, you're not alone. When he does a Mae West imitation, you might have to hide your face, its that painful to watch.
I can't imagine how either actor or director Sydney Pollack got involved with this, or a better question, why it ended up stinking so bad?
Since death is represented in almost every scene, one way or another, maybe you're supposed to have low enjoyment here. Maybe its supposed to feel as empty and cold as death. But I still can't recommend it.


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


user
From beginning to end, this is the most emotionally overwrought movie about NOTHING I have ever seen. The characterizations and interactions between the title character and Marthe Kller's character are pure torture. The racetrack as metaphor gimmick is so overplayed that it borders on cliche, yet director Pollack treats every hairpin turn as if it were something profoundly important.
Maybe there's some value for a MSFT3000 re-playing of some of the scenes, such as Pacino getting in touch with his inner female, for goof value. But, even such accidental humor is hard to find in this total turkey.


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 must watch a good movie soon, because it seems every other entry or so is something that I despise. However my history speaks, I must not tell a lie. Bobby Deerfield and everything about it sucks big green banana peels. I never thought that I would see a film thud as thunderously as this one did. Al Pacino isn't acting in this film: he's posing. There are many, many scenes of his character, who is a race car driver, just staring at the camera. He's perfectly awful. Marthe Keller is just as bad. These two are supposed to be in a love affair, and there is simply no chemistry whatsoever. Sydney Pollack directed this film? There's no trace of the genius behind Tootsie here. Is this the same man I cheered for in Eyes Wide Shut? I can hardly believe it. Save yourself a horrible movie experience. Run, don't walk, away from Bobby Deerfield.


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


user
Just emailed a friend who's in film school about this flick. Something to avoid when making a film - characters blabbering senseless, overwrought, convoluted monologues on screen that are ultimately trite and unconvincing. If the film is an attempt at social realism, these verbal barrages are so over-the-top that they actually draw attention to the film constructed as film and effectively neutralize that intent. Is it the acting, or the script that is bad, or both?
The protagonist is also highly unbelievable for social realism - ravenously consuming canonical English literature and the bible while high or hungover and able to produce such profoundly sophomoric soliloquies while intoxicated? And how is such an unattractive, unwashed and verbally noxious character able to bed most of the women he meets within minutes of encountering them? (I had to applaud when one chick finally threw him out onto the street, despite his whining and self-pitying banter).
The viewer encounters pretentious references to Ancient Greek literature, Nostradamus and the Book of Revelations. The impending doom of mankind, in the form of bar codes imprinted on our foreheads or right hands in spooky biblical fashion, is presented to a character who is oh-so-cleverly exposed in his role as a guardian of empty space.
This flick is over-scripted and over the top - a melodrama clumsily infused with pedestrian "philosophy" about the meaning of mankind, life, etc. It is trite, overwrought and tedious.
There are some very fine English films available with content similar to this film. "Nil by Mouth" is an excellent, far more interesting excursion into the lives of individuals in a similar social milieu. Ditto for "In the Warzone." And although the comparison is not even warranted, check out anything by Peter Greenaway, who far more deftly handles dialogue, wit and absurd characters and situations.


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


user
Johnny and Jeremy are vampires of sorts. Minus the fangs, of course. They're dark, bitter creatures with nothing better to do than to spread their own misery. Through their charms (namely a sharp tongue and a fat wallet, respectively) they seduce desperate souls, who they proceed to torment and victimize. That's more or less the basis of this black comedy, as I understand it.
It's not a blend of black humor that I can easily subscribe to, partly because it bothers me to imagine the audience rooting for the sleazy, main character. I did enjoy, however, the sound and the melody of the rapid-fire (and supposedly very witty) remarks. I was very impressed by the cast's strong acting, particularly David Thelis's; only the character of Jeremy seemed too bi-dimensional. The photography and the music, both dramatic and somber, work very well together.
What really turns me off about "Naked" (and the main reason I'd never recommend it to anyone) is the way it repeatedly seems to present misogyny as a valid way to vent one's angst. In other words, in a world that sucks so bad, what difference does it make if one inflicts some pain on girls, right? To suggest (as some have on this website) that Johnny is not so unkind a person because he's not as rough on girls as Jeremy, seems completely absurd to me. They're both terrible, nasty people. And they're particularly keen on hurting women every single time they get a chance. One could argue that Johnny eventually gets what he deserves, as if his bad karma suddenly swung straight back and bit him in the ass. But still, his and Jeremy's sadistic behavior are treated to a certain degree as a laughing matter. And I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that most people who absolutely love this movie also find that aspect of the film darkly comical.


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


user
Had the original casting idea been kept (hunting Rutger, not Ice-T), this movie might have worked. Sadly, racism had to come into the picture (literally) and mess it up. The predominantly black production staff couldn't allow the antagonist be black, so they swapped Rutger's and Ice-T's roles. This was only the start of the downward spiral of this film. Ernest Dickerson's news-room approach to 'directing' only verified that this was another affirmative-action job assignment. Master shot, close up, close up. Gads, 'Who's Line Is It Anyway' even uses more creative camera work. Eric's rewrite of 'The Most Dangerous Game' is at least an attempt at modernizing the classic tale, but fails to give us any motivations for why the characters are doing this. We are never given the reasons, other than "no one will miss these people", why the leader (re-written as Rutger) does these things. Aside from a heart-felt performance by John McGinley, and a fair job by Charles Dutton, do not bother with this one. One small bit of trivia, there was a real drunk-driving accident during filming that injured F.Murray Abraham, and resulted in the death of the intoxicated young driver that caused the accident.


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 could have been so much better with a script rewrite. Not that I expect a great deal of plausibility in movies, but you'd think that even the homeless and urban-dwelling Jack Mason would question why a group of experienced hunters would want to hire him as a hunting guide. And upon reaching the hunting grounds, poor Ice-T plays his part as if he is actually going to lead these men through woods he's never seen before.
And how does Jack Mason find Thomas Burns back in Seattle?
I'm assuming this movie was based on Richard Connell's short story "The Most Dangerous Game." A few years ago I showed this movie to a class of 9th grade students after they read the story. I reedited the movie, cutting out all the pointless scenes and all the profanity. It ended up being 43 minutes long.


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


user
Ice-T stars as Mason a homeless African-American who finds himself hunted by wealthy hunters (Rutger Hauer,Gary Busey,Charles S. Dutton, F.Murray Abraham,William McNamara and John C. McGinley) however Mason proves to be much harder prey then the usual targets in this ridiculous and slow paced actioner which takes too long setting up actionscenes and then totally botching them.


assistant
0