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
James Bishop (Matt Stasi) goes to a `mental illness facility' for a medical residence assignment with Dr. McCort (Bruce Paynes). There, he realizes that many interns are being killed by `The Ripper', who takes their souls to the devil, in a cult promoted by Dr. McCort. This story is so absurd and imbecile that it is impossible to write a summary. The dialogs are so ridiculous, specially when the character of Helen, the blonde fiancé of James Bishop arrives in the asylum, that it is almost unbelievable that a writer has had the courage to include them in a screenplay. And what about the return of James to the hospital to bring the files of the dead patients? And the cast, composed of ham actors and actresses? Honestly, I do not know what or who is the worst in this film: the screenplay, the director or the cast. The correct answer certainly is all of them. I saw this flick on cable television, and I am astonished how can a producer spend money in such a garbage. This horror movie becomes very funny considering the absurd of the plot. My vote is three.
Title (Brazil): `Demônio' (`Devil')


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


user
I just watched this movie. In one word: sucky! The story is bad, the acting is, if possible, even worse. The movie has one or two nice moments, but thats it and having those two small good moments, doesn't make up for anything in between, before or after those moments. A montrocity of a movie, not even worth watching on tv...


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 seemed like it was going to be better than it ended up being. The cinematography is good, the acting seemed solid, the dialogue wasn't too stiff... but then about twenty minutes in there's this long scene with a Doctor who you know is actually a patient at the asylum pretending to be a Doctor - and it just goes south from there.
On top of that, the demon is about the silliest looking hellspawn since the Godzilla-looking thing in Curse of the Demon. There's also some odd demon worshippers who wear masks that look like the exploding teens from the beginning of Logan's Run.
In the end, the cinematography couldn't save this movie. Despite some pretty solid performances by the actors, the story just doesn't go anywhere. I think "Hellbored" would have been a better title for this.


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


user
If there was some weird inversed Oscar Academy awards festival this flick would win it all. It has all the gods, excellent plot, extreme special effects coupled with extremely good acting skills and of course in every role there is a celebrity superstar. Well, this could be the scenario if the world was inversed, but it's not. Instead it's the worst horror flick ever made, not only bad actors that seem to read the scripts from a teleprinter with bad dyslexia, but also extremely low on special effects. For example the devil costume (which by the way is a must-see), is something of the most hilarious I've ever seen. Whenever I saw that red-black so called monster on screen I couldn't hold my laugh back. And to top of things it looked like the funny creature was transported by a conveyor-belt.
Do not do the same mistake as I did. Checking IMDB seeing that the movie was released in 2003, had less than five votes and thinking: -"Well, it's worth a shot, can't be that bad".
Yes it could.
I'm not even going to waste more words on this movie.


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


user
This had to be one of the most god awful wrestlemanias ever and is only saved by 2 matches. The hardcore match between Edge and Mick Foley, also Vince Mcmahon against Shaun Michaels. The main event between Cena and Triple H was a complete washout and to be honest I nearly fell asleep it was so actionless, the casket match was not worthy of having the Undertaker appear in it and the match between the Boogie Man and Booker T was a complete joke. If you are really a big fan of the WWE and have missed the early days of the WWF and the Wrestlemanias 17 and 19 you'll probably love this. But I found that this Wrestlemania left a lot to be desired.


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


user
Pretty crazy whodunit featuring an all black cast trying to figure out who murdered the philandering trumpet player who was just about to go to Hollywood to Make It Big. Was it his wife? His Girlfriend? His Would-Be-Girlfriend? Her Father? His Butler? The newspaper guy? Who knows? And who cares? The result of this is just a little underwhelming, and the actors here don't really get me in a mood to care one way or another finding out. Why snake venom as a weapon? Who knows? Who cares? The music in this is alright, but there's little of it, and most of it is pretty "let's get this over with" This isn't worthy of your time. There are better all-black casted movies out there.


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


user
Beautifully photographed and ably acted, generally, but the writing is very slipshod. There are scenes of such unbelievability that there is no joy in the watching. The fact that the young lover has a twin brother, for instance, is so contrived that I groaned out loud. And the "emotion-light bulb connection" seems gimmicky, too.
I don't know, though. If you have a few glasses of wine and feel like relaxing with something pretty to look at with a few flaccid comedic scenes, this is a pretty good movie. No major effort on the part of the viewer required. But Italian film, especially Italian comedy, is usually much, much better than this.


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


user
In modern day Eastern Europe life is hard and for young women prostitution is one of the only career options and one taken, reluctantly, by Melania. She attracts the attentions of an American, Seymour, who becomes obsessed with her, paying more and more money for time with her until he eventually wants to buy her outright. She has two pimps with differring emotional attachments to her and she is generally passed around like some piece of baggage with no feelings of her own. However, we are in "modern art-house cinema" territory, so conventions like narrative structure, lighting the subject so it can be seen, camera techniques that add to rather than distract from the action and a vaguely consistent plot can all be abandoned. Much of the time I had no idea what was supposed to be happening and very rarely did I care. People began leaving the screening almost before the last latecomers had arrived and I don't think I've ever seen so many people walk out.
Images are important to the director - characters slowly emerge from or disappear into a dark screen, we get long lingering shots of nothing in particular and one sex scene takes place in infra-red. In fact for such an unconventional film the sex scenes were remarkably ordinary; missionary positions between naked people in bed abounded and there were no drugs or related weirdness. But perhaps these days being ordinary is unconventional.
On the whole, almost entirely without merit.



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


user
As a veteran of many, many pretentious French films I thought I'd taken the worst the industry had to offer and was able to stomach anything. But not this. Pointless, relentless, violent, unpleasant, meaningless ... The film has nothing to offer and is random hatred and aggression dressed up as pretentious art. Avoid at all costs.


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


user
Another of my delves into the bargain bin, this movie gave me exactly what I expected - a load of trashy horror complete with screaming ladies.
It all started so well - I liked the little intro with the "newsreel" about the young couple being exposed to a nuclear blast, and was totally absorbed right up until the first person caught fire...
From then onwards the film descended into outright silliness, and at times became almost embarrassing to watch. When the heroine turned out to have been afflicted with the same condition as the main character (the ability to light one's own farts without the aid of a match) it seemed almost as if someone had thrown the idea in at the last moment ("that'll be good!" you can almost hear them say...) As for the almost psychic link between the main character and the nuclear power plant, well...
The movie came across as cheap tat - if you pay more than £1.50 for it you've been done.


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


user
This a fascinatingly awful movie. It make so little sense that it starts to make a kind of weird internal logic of its own. Well, it would if it didn't keep darting off up side-alleys until eventually floundering under the weight of its own indecisiveness. The movie can't make up its mind whether it is a straight forward 'Man Turns Into Monster' flick (like all those 1950s 'THE INCREDIBLE insert verb ING MAN' movies), or a ghastly big business conspiracy theory movie, or a mystical afterlife contact story, or... or what? Take your pick. It's just a mess. Grotesquely over the top and firing off in all directions, leaving loose ends flapping all over the place. It was as if Tobe Hooper had been taking David Lynch pills. Unfortunately he didn't take enough.


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


user
how can a director that makes such great films as poltergeist and the texas chainsaw massacre make such rubbish as this? i got this film off a friend and he didnt want it back its so bad. how this can be classed as horror i will never know.
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
Poor Tobe Hopper. He directed an all time horror classic "Texas Chaimsaw Massacre". Since then everything he's done has been horrible. This is probably the worst...and that's saying a lot. It's about a man (Brad Dourif) who has the ability to make things (and people) catch fire...or something like that. Hardly an original idea (anyone remember "Firestarter"?) It's a real mess...literally EVERYTHING is done wrong! Pathetic acting (even Dourif!), asinine script, loust production values, crappy special effects...everything is BAD!!!!! A must miss...not even good for laughs.


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


user
Jeux d'enfants or how the film was wrongly translated into English Love me if You Dare is a film made by stupid people and about stupid people. I just don't know how I could expect something worth a look from a film with such plot: Two stupid ignorant kids make a bet that each of them will do something (certainly extremely idiotic) to prove to each other (wtf?) that they are "cool dudes". I know that i exaggerated some aspects but that is what the entire film is about. They grow older...and instead of realizing that they are just a couple of alienated weirdos continue to perform their crazy things, thinking that they are great people.
One could expect such a film from Hollywood, but France? It is even more offensive to watch the film from the country which created Amelie a couple of years ago, which, btw, the film tries to look like but is far, extremely far away from.
Avoid. Avoid. Avoid.


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 disliked this movie....mainly because of the main characters! They are both immature, selfish, and self-centered people. They hurt EVERYBODY around them playing their silly game. The visual effects were good but what good are they if there are no characters that you connect with or a story line that is interesting. Am I supposed to be happy when these two psycho people FINALLY consummate their love for each other?
After watching this movie I was thinking "This is supposed be the #1 smash from France?"........
*spoiler*
As for the end: GOOD RIDDANCE! They both deserve each other!



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


user
Who could possibly sympathize with these two obnoxious protagonists? What's intended to be a light, frothy comedy about neighbor children who can't give up their childhood game of dare even as they age well into adulhood, comes off more as an exercise in cruelty and petulant self-indulgence. As children, the pair are unbearably precocious; as adults they're intolerably immature. It's a bad combination.


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


user
This movie is just boring.
It tries to copy some effects borrowed to a creative director like Jeunet in "Amélie Poulain", but it is too much. The dialogs are pretty bad, some of the worst I have ever heard, Guillaume Canet is not convincing (I have almost never found him very convincing), his father in the movie plays very badly, the story is dumb, the ending is... stupid.
I think I have not dislike a movie so much since "le pacte des loups" (brotherhood of the wolf) from Christophe Gans (and I watch / see about 80-100 movies a year), but at least that movie had some action and lots of good actors.
I had never commented here (only rated), and when I saw the rating and the comments, I thought I had to write something down.
I guess we won't have problems to sell the DVD we were offered : not such a bad movie in our (large) collection !!!
I am open minded (I watch SF, westerns, drama, comedies, silents, horror, fantasy... movies !), but this movie was so boring that I felt like I had lost one 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
Ummm, please forgive me, but weren't more than half the characters missing? In the original novel, Valjean is a man imprisoned for 19 years for stealing a loaf of bread and then attempting several times to escape. He breaks parole and is pursued relentlessly by the police inspector Javert. Along the way there are MANY characters that weren't in this version. Some worth mentioning would be Fantine, Cosette, M & Mme. Thenardier, Eponine, Marius, Gavroche, and Enjolras. The only character with the same name is Javert. I was confused and frustrated throughout the whole movie, trying to see how it was in any way connected to Victor Hugo's epic novel.


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


user
A pretty obvious thriller-by-numbers, in which the only possible twist turns out to be a hiding to nothing. I was watching principally for the English-language performance by Isabelle Huppert. It wasn't great, but then it was a strange role. I wouldn't be surprised if half her contribution turned out to have been left on the cutting-room floor along with several last minute script re-writes.
The acting is the least appealing thing about this film. Steve Guttenburg looks like he's trying to flesh out his role with the charm that everyone's told him he has. There's a sensationally stupid sequence in which it's suggested that his sexual prowess will be able to help treat PTSD. It's an uninteresting performance. Elizabeth McGovern is more of a draw with genuine charm and character but it's small consolation. 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
This is, without doubt, one of the worst films I've ever seen...
The plot is so full of holes, the story is like a bad remake of a bad suspense movie and the actors sound like were reading directly from the manuscript for the first time. Worst of all is Steve Guttenberg. He plays his character like he was in "Police Academy" - the same foolish womanizer - and that's not suited for a leading man in what should have been a thriller.
It's really hard to believe that Hanson would make "L.A. Confidential" ten years later...
Avoid this like the plague...


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


user
This program is really overrated. A detective like Danny Pino's hot-headed character would have been transferred to the "rubber gun squad" years ago. The whole squad is made up of sanctimonious egomaniacs who judge people whose actions go back decades by the standards of 2007. Every Vietnam veteran character they've ever had has turned out to be the killer, unless it was another Vietnam veteran. There has only been one black murderer, and he was put up to it by his white boss. The only Hispanic killer was a "race traitor" who killed another Hispanic to frame a Hispanic street kid for a crime that (naturally) two rich white kids committed. What a bunch of propaganda. Hey,screenwriters: minorities and poor people commit murder too. Only on this show are most murderers upper-class whites.
What's more, the arrests of people in their 70s, 80s, and 90s for crimes they committed 50-60 years ago are a joke. No real-life DA will push for murder one because it means the state will be stuck with their humongous medical bills until they finally kick. The state would be doing their families and insurance companies a favor. The prosecutor will just plead them to involuntary manslaughter and they won't serve a day. The only really old criminals who go to prison are either organized crime figures or ex-Nazis, whose high-profile convictions boost DA's careers.


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


user
I hate this programme: not only is the very concept ludicrous, but it tries so hard to be feasible (something that was left out of similar "I confess" ending programmes like, Muder: She Wrote).
Sigh. Why is it that the writers can't ever be intelligent enough in this programme to come up with evidence that would stick and win a decision in court?
Come on: after X-amount of years of the cases being unsolved, why must EVERY SUSPECT, EVERY EPISODE *CONFESS* (damn it!) to a murder which would otherwise go unsolved?
I bet all police wish that criminals were this good sportsmen: "Aw, shucks, officer, you're a bright one - I guess if you've uncovered enough to convince yourself I did it, I may as well admit to it and make it easier for you in court. What can I say? It's a fair cop."
Absolute dog s**t and an insult to those of us with with enough brains to even have heard of I.Q.


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 time I watched Cold Case was after it had run for about a year on Danish television. At the time it came to the TV it nearly drowned in 4 or 5 other American crime shows aired roughly the same time.
I saw it and I was bored to death. The substandard actors with the self righteous faces and morals were a pain in the behind. The entire premise that so much money was given a team of investigators to solve murders dating back 10-20-30 or even 60 years seems so unlikely.
The time is also a factor as they only have 50-60 min to tell the story which means that they get a break through just in the nick of time to solve the case and bring justice to surviving family members, if they are still alive. This combined with the "personal" problems and relations of the investigators which there HAS to be time for leaves the show a complete lackluster.
I give it a 2-star rating because of the music i the end which is really the only reason for watching it....which you then of course won't do as that is TOO lame a reason for watching this crap.


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 one of the most wildly distorted portrayals of history. Horribly inaccurate, this movie does nothing to honor the hundreds of thousands of Dutch, British, Chinese, American and indigenous enslaved laborers that the sadistic Japanese killed and tortured to death. The bridge was to be built "over the bodies of the white man" as stated by the head Japanese engineer. It is disgusting that such unspeakable horrors committed by the Japanese captors is the source of a movie, where the bridge itself, isn't even close to accurate to the actual bridge. The actual bridge was built of steel and concrete, not wood. What of the survivors who are still alive today? They hate the movie and all that it is supposed to represent. Their friends were starved, tortured, and murdered by cruel sadists. Those that didn't die of dysantry, starvation, or disease are deeply hurt by the movie that makes such light of their dark times.


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


user
A response to previous comments made by residents of the region where this motion picture was lensed: One person suggested that the closing and destruction of the Ocean View Amusement Park led to a downturn in the surrounding neighborhoods. This is simply not true. Prior to the construction of Interstate 64, which bypasses the Ocean View area, the primary route for traffic went through the heart of Ocean View. Once the interstate was completed, Ocean View rapidly became a ghost town with businesses closing up and an increase in crime. This led to a huge reduction in revenues for the park, which also faced new competition from nearby Busch Gardens in Williamsburg. Meanwhile, in the past few years, the City of Norfolk has done a remarkable job of fostering redevelopment so that the area has become a sought-after location for construction of high-end housing.
It has also been said that the destruction footage of the roller coaster was used in the film "Rollercoaster". This is also untrue. Footage was shot of two coaster cars careening off the ride for that film, but the actual explosions and collapse are exclusive to "Death of Ocean View Park".
As to the film itself, the storyline of a "supernatural" force in the water adjacent to the park was certainly silly, but somewhat typical for B-grade movies of the time. With the cast involved, there should be no surprise that the scenery was gnawed in almost every scene by the primary actors. I don't believe this film was intended to be another "Citizen Kane"; I believe Playboy was experimenting with a new non-nude format to determine if this was an area for the company to expand into (apparently not!). A strange force in the water causing strange events in an old amusement park probably sounded good at the conference table, but proved unmanageable in execution. The roller coaster and the rest of the park was destined for the wrecking ball anyway; "let's come up with a weird way to justify an explosive demise!".
For the casual movie viewer, this would be a "see once and forget about it" film (except for Diana Canova fans); but for the thousands of people who live in the region and have fond memories of the park, this movie is like a "walk down memory lane" for footage of the park as well as old footage of downtown Norfolk, the first "Harborfest", and Old Dominion University. Even a limited release of this film on DVD would be welcome.


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


user
30 seconds into the opening credits, I had this feeling that this was going to be a bad movie, but I didn't know just how bad. Then the actor playing the evil Nazi scientist opens his mouth and my friend and I decide that in order to survive this movie, we'll have to turn the volume down, make up our own dialogue and double the speed on the DVD. But that didn't help. About half way through we turned it off. Now, I've lived through some very bad movies before, both with and without the aide of "Mystery Science Theater 3000" and "Svengoolie," but there are just some movies which I doubt even the Bots can save. The biggest part of the movie that bothered me the most was that the people hypnotized into believing they're zombies had rotting green skin. I guess they were all hypnotized into death, then hypnotized into rotting themselves. Stick to the real B-movie cult classics like "Plan Nine From Outer Space."


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


user
When the employees of a theater find an old reel of film, they decide to show it at the midnight screening of Night of the Living Dead, assuming it's an old preview reel. Unfortunately, it's actually an old Nazi mind control experiment that turns the audience into a horde of mindless shuffling zombies.
I can't understand the hate for this movie. It is a low budget independent production with a lot of camp, but it doesn't deserve a "1.1" here on IMDb. It is just so much fun. It is obvious that the filmmakers have a reasonable knowledge and love of old horror movies, and they have created an entertaining tribute to them sprinkled with references and homages to a variety of them. It has the feel of such things as Night of the Living Dead (in many ways, very similar), Evil Dead 2 and Army of Darkness, and various others.
I liked the explanation of how the zombies, though really just hypnotized into thinking they are zombies, actually come to have the physical attributes of the living dead-unbelievable, perhaps, but I appreciate the effort by the writers to explain it. The gore effects were decent for the budget, the acting was all right, and the story was entertaining.
I liked it.


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


user
This wasn't what i wanted to see. I bought this on DVD and under the movie i found myself irritated and turned off the movie for a moment.
Heres what i didn't like:
1 They were shooting at the father
2 The tribes was really annoying
3 the dinosaurs (mostly)looked to faked
4 The bad scientist well he was annoying
5 The picture quality on the DVD was really bad
What i DID like:
1 The music by Jerry Goldsmith. This music is really great. I have the bootleg soundtrack from this movie. Sadly the sound quality is not good, but its OK for its time.
2 The first time we see the dinosaurs they inspire a sort of awe.
3 Baby is kinda cute when he is in the water and is playing
4 That funny scene with the tent.
5 The children who sees this film would hopefully learn that evil always loses.


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


user
... and I actually gave it a ZERO on my personal 1-10 scale. I have been attending movies since 1952 and have seen well over 1000 in the theater (I don't rate movies that I see only on TV). This is the ONLY movie I have ever rated ZERO.
My wife and I took our four children (then aged 15, 11, 8 and 6) and even the kids thought it was terrible. In fact, it was my daughter (now 26) who alerted me to this site (amazed that the movie was getting an overall rating of 4+).
The animation of the dinosaurs looked amateurish at the time (and is even worse in retrospect), the acting (particularly by Sean Young) is atrocious and the story line is simply silly.



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


user
I saw the movie as a child when it was released in the theater and it was so bad that it became the makings of a family joke. If the ranking had a zero, this movie would get it. The dinosaurs were awful. The storyline was ridiculous. The acting really doesn't qualify to be called acting. The only reason I even remember the name of the movie so well is because my family still talks about how BAD it really was.


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


user
Okay, if you have a couple hours to waste, or if you just really hate your life, I would say watch this movie. If anything it's good for a few laughs. Not only do you have obese, topless natives, but also special effects so bad they are probably outlawed in most states. Seriuosly, the rating of 'PG' is pretty humorous too, once you see the Native Porn Extravaganza. I wouldn't give this movie to my retarded nephew. You couldn't even show this to Iraqi prisoners without violating the Geneva Convention. The plot is sketchy, and cliché, and dumb, and stupid. The acting is horrible, and the ending is so painful to watch I actually began pouring salt into my eye just to take my mind off of the idiocy filling my TV screen.


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


user
For those who are too young to know this or for those who have forgotten, the Disney company went almost down the tubes by the end of the 1980s. People were NOT seeing their movies anymore and the company was not producing the usual wholesome material....at least no what people expected. A major problem: profanity.
Yes, the idiots running the Disney movies during that decade would produce films with swear words - including the Lord's name in vain, if you can believe that - interspersed in these "family films." In fact that happens twice here in the first 20 minutes!
This movie, in addition to the language problems, has a nasty tone to it, too, which made it unlikeable almost right from the beginning. Thankfully, Disney woke up and has produced a lot of great material since these decadent '80s movies. ("Touchstone" is Disney, just under another name.)


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 think this movie was rated correctly. I took my copy and blacked out the PG rating and wrote down R. I would NOT recommend this for anyone under 17 or 18, whatever the R limit is.
Why? It contains a scene in the jungle with several topless Indian women. I don't know about you, but that's not something for little children to be watching. True, it might be the traditional "clothing style" of the African (?) Indians, but... I think partial nudity should give a movie an R rating.
I haven't seen the movie recently, but I guess otherwise, it was alright.


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


user
A really bad sequel. Part 1 had a lot of funny moments - part 2 is just bad (in a boring way) and obviously made to squeeze money out of the fans.
Shame on you, Otto Waalkes!
The only slightly amusing moment in the film is Helge Schneider who apparently seems to be pis*ed about the other characters. It's quite easy to identify with him...
The screenplay is sloppy/non-existent. The director should do everyone a favor and quit his job immediately. The acting is worse than a 2nd grade school play.
Technically the movie is awful as well, but who can blame the cinematographer/sound guys who had to work with such an untalented director?


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


user
I agree with most of the other guys. A waste of photons and valuable time.
Nearly no joke is worth the paper is was written on. The only highlight from my pov is Olli Dittrich as Pinocchio. ("Egal, ich muss eh Waldsterben") This reminds of old times with RTL Samstag Nacht. It is hard to describe the performances of the actors, since most of them don't even seem to have a good time during production and just "do their thing". Camera is OK, plot is laughable, I think you would be ashamed even if you discuss this with lots of beers.
Apart from this I yawned all the time, wondered about how a script like this could even be considered for production and waited for the end.
My 9 year old son was pleased, but then he is pleased by so little at this age :-)
Anyway, a 1 point rating here nearly is 1 point too much...


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


user
Despite what a lot of other people thought about the first movie, I really liked it. This one however. How to sum it up in one word?: This movie is (and here comes the word): CRAP!
But let's look at it part by part: Here is the plot: Finally the old queen has been removed from her castle, but her successor: Snow white has problems of another sort: The Court-Jester, Father of her son, has gone astray, as the super, Spliss, goes to the extreme, to battle his gray hair and sells the royal offspring for some blond and full hair. In her desperation Snow white seeks the help of Bubi (Otto Walkees),who must first find his other six dwarf companions and then try to find the royal offspring or at least try to find the name of Rumpelstiltskin.
The whole plot seems to have been written on a weekend, where the writers were very drunk but were just under pressure from the studio to write the screenplay.
Yes, there are some good jokes. Even for fans of the first part, or for fans of any of the other actors, it's really not worth buying the the DVD. Believe me.
The only thing, that at least kind of saves the movie from complete oblivion, are the performances of some of the actors. That's why I gave the move 3/10. Sadly, the script is so bad that none of the actors or all of them combined can make up for the bad story.
For example, at one point, they even cross over in our reality, and sadly.. they don't do anything funny while being here.
Still, a lot of great actors in this movie: Otto Waalkes, Ralf Schmitz, Martin Schneider, Nina Hagen, Cosma Shiva Hagen, (Especially funny): Rüdiger Hoffmann as the mirror, Helge Schneider and many more but sadly all these comedians aren't able to bring this really bad script to life.
Maybe it is a treat for some hardcore fans but for regular movie goers or by now DVD Renters or buyers it's not worth the money.
I even regret renting the movie.


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 a lot of highly talented filmmakers/actors in Germany now. None of them are associated with this "movie".
Why in the world do producers actually invest money in something like this this? You could have made 10 good films with the budget of this garbage! It's not entertaining to have seven grown men running around as dwarfs, pretending to be funny. What IS funny though is that the film's producer (who happens to be the oldest guy of the bunch) is playing the YOUNGEST dwarf.
The film is filled with moments that scream for captions saying "You're supposed to laugh now!". It's hard to believe that this crap's supposed to be a comedy.
Many people actually stood up and left the cinema 30 minutes into the movie. I should have done the same instead of wasting my time...
Pain!


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 the first of the dwarf-Movies and sometimes I had little fun watching it. There are many famous TV/Comedyactors appearing in the first part and presented, in fantasy costumes, typical little episodes of their Stand-Up-Program and exactly that is the problem the second movie has to struggle with. Everything was already there....nothing new to obtain. You're familiar with most of the often boring and dumb "jokes" and you always feel like their goal was to put in every Comedylooser of the last decade who wants to get back on stage. There's nothing important about the story: typical fairy-tale story of Rumpelstiltskin, without any importance. I expected something like that but that's nothing I could complain about. I'm actually complaining about the lazy story writers who had an entire background story; their only business was to get many jokes and parodies inside but they didn't get it anyway. This crap is except the great appearance of Helge Schneider a total waste of time and money.(if you don't like him then remove 2 points of my evaluation) If you like to save your money and get bad jokes then watch the crap that's broad casted every Friday evening on SAT1 or RTL for free. I'm sure you will recognize some "laugthers" I saw last night in cinema.


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


user
I guess I have still enough brain left to NOT find this movie funny. -Great comedians - but a very poor movie! The "best" performance still did NINA HAGEN
TRIVIA: Did you realize that it the "real world" scenes (in Hamburg) the cars are almost ONLY new BMWs ??
I guess I have still enough brain left to NOT find this movie funny. -Great comedians - but a very poor movie! The "best" performance still did NINA HAGEN
TRIVIA: Did you realize that it the "real world" scenes (in Hamburg) the cars are almost ONLY new BMWs ??


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


user
WARNING! Don't even consider watching this film in any form. It's not even worth downloading from the internet. Every bit of porn has more substance than this wasted piece of celluloid. The so-called filmmakers apparently have absolutely no idea how to make a film. They couldn't tell a good joke to save their lives. It's an insult to any human being. If you're looking for a fun-filled movie - go look somewhere else.
Let's hope this Mr. Unterwaldt (the "Jr." being a good indication for his obvious inexperience and intellectual infancy) dies a slow/painful death and NEVER makes a film again.
In fact, it's even a waste of time to WRITE ANYTHING about this crap, that's why I'll stop right now and rather watch 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
Otto Preminger directs this light as a feather story. Bohemian Jean Seberg and her equally bohemian widower father David Niven holiday in the South of France with nutty Mylène Demongeot. Things are fine until family friend Deborah Kerr shows up. Nivens, a degenerate womanizer, finds the conquest of Kerr too hard to resist. That's fine with Seberg, as long as Niven loves her and leaves her (as he's done with all the women in his past...including Demongeot). When it appears as though she's becoming second banana in Niven's life, Seberg exact revenge on Kerr. Preminger tells the story in flashbacks from Seberg's perspective and cleverly combines black and white with sunnier color scenes. The cinematography by Georges Périnal is stunning. The film features some of Preminger's least heavy-handed direction, although he rarely allows any close-ups, which makes it difficult to make out what the actors are really feeling. Arthur Laurents wrote the script and it's full of acidic dialog and funny scenes (mostly involving bird-brained Demongeot). Seberg acquits herself fairly well, but Niven is at his least appealing...and he shows no chemistry with either Seberg or Kerr. Preminger really mis-steps with that casting. It's a role that seems tailor made for someone closer to Charles Boyer. With Geoffrey Horne as Seberg's would-be suitor and Martita Hunt as his daffy mother. Juliette Gréco, playing herself, sings the title song in a Paris nightclub. The great titles are by Preminger regular Saul Bass.


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


user
The over-heated plot of "Bonjour tristesse" is taken from a juvenile first novel by Francoise Sagan, which became a best-seller, though God knows why. For teenagers wanting to get rid of a potential step-parent it may have a certain appeal. Don't be taken in by the fact that David Niven plays the playboy father and Deborah Kerr the step-mother-in- prospect. Unfortunately, too much rests on the frail shoulders of Jean Seberg. She's beautiful and easily fulfills the image of a spoiled teenager. The problem is that she can strike poses but she can't act. Anyone who saw her as Joan of Arc in Otto Preminger's St. Joan -- Seberg's first film -- knows she was incapable at 19 of carrying a film. This movie, also by Preminger, fulfills the "promise" of the first. It was her second movie; she was now 20. What was Preminger thinking? That Niven and Kerr could compensate for Seberg's lack of acting capacity? Not a chance? Seberg's character is at the center of the story and, pretty though she is, convincing though she may be physically as a 17 year old, she can't meet the emotional demands of the role. I don't know if she ever became a successful actress in her short life because she did not have an impact on my consciousness in her later pictures. But anyone who thinks this film is better than mediocre needs a taste check. In spite of Niven and Kerr, this remains a juvenile story executed in juvenile fashion by a beautiful young girl who badly needed acting lessons.


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


user
Bonjour Tristesse covers similar ground as 'The Member of the Wedding.' to wit, a possessive daughter tries to prevent a relationship from forming between a beloved family member and an interloper. While critics love 'Member of the Wedding,' I find Julie Harris to be a jumbo-drag and an adenoidal, scenery-chomping thespian in everything she's been in. This portrays irritating, rich idiots as in Last Year at Marienbad, but this time it's a travelogue.
In this Preminger movie sequences develop, but characters do not. For the first 30 minutes he's content to blur the father-daughter relationship between Seberg and Niven, making uncomfortable sexual readings possible. Once the conflict is introduced, Seberg can't deliver the depth the part requires. Kerr pulls rank and turns the film into 'Endless Love.' Seberg's vacuous narration, is like something out of Strange Interlude - it is not good. I really wish someone other than Niven was in his role. He spends so much time normalizing orthodox British behavior in all his movies, he never gets around to the character.
In the most memorable sequence, an evening out dancing becomes a free-for-all in a harbor. Bertolucci steals the entire scene for his empty exercise, 'The Conformist.' Kerr is on board to clasp her hands and portray another major pain (as in Black Narcissus, Night of the Iguana, King and I, Heaven Knows Mr. Allyson, Tea and Sympathy, etc. etc.). Really, Kerr was a horrible actress. I wish every movie with her could end with a fatal car crash, or even better, start with one.
People uncomfortable with ambiguity should avoid this.


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 shallow hedonism and/or social commentary wrapped in a tragic tale about a jealous young woman's scheme to drive apart her father and his fiancée. Is it incest or just a view through the eyes of a daughter with an Electra complex? Who cares? All of the characters, except for Anne (Deborah Kerr) are vacuous and vile. Seberg is poor (I agree with the "boys with breasts" comment of an earlier review). The plot plodded. This predictable material was sufficient for about 30 minutes of film that unfortunately was stretched over an hour and a half! If you want to see great gowns and jewels on the Riviera, I recommend "To Catch a Thief" - in which you will get the added bonuses of an entertaining story and likable characters.
I like for films to entertain me. I personally don't really care where a film is set. Whatever the time or place, I want a good story - comedy or drama. I also want to see some enjoyable characters. It doesn't hurt if I can relate to them. Poor Deborah Kerr gives a typically good performance, and so does David Niven in a despicable role.
The "2" rating is solely for Kerr and Niven, and for the cinematography - the rich color scenes and the murky, foreboding black and white scenes. Unfortunately, all the great cinematography in the world cannot salvage a poor story with un-enjoyable characters. A sow's ear is still a sow's ear. Consequently watching this mess was a serious waste of my time.


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


user
In one respect, it's like 'The Wizard of Oz,' with Paris in black-and-white and the Riviera in color. But it's supposedly about possessive love, destructiveness and moral decadence, while actually being about designer gowns, shots of the Riveria, lots of big expensive cars, and music-and dancing interludes that suggest Vincente Minnelli on one of his off-days. Watchable, but a remarkable example of desperate, dark plot material and glitzy style heading in opposite directions. (Was this the model for 'The Talented Mister Ripley? Does anyone sense an affinity between Jean Seberg and Matt Damon?)


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


user
Greenaway's films pose as clever, erudite and innovative. Yet his style and grammar originate and remind viewers of films made in the World War 1 era of film-making: the frame composition, use of mid-shot, the static camera. It may be well to rub against mainstream movies with this style but it is not new. Perhaps like that other "innovator", TS Eliot, he draws more from the past than in looking forward as an authentic innovator would or could.
Yet Greenaway's biggest failing is that he cannot write. His dialog and even plot structure is mechanical and logical but without the vitality of another dramatic logician, Brecht. Where this weakness is most apparent is in his humor, which is poised and logical, so the joke is dead before it's delivered. The result is tedium: if it's not funny, it has failed: ask a stand-up comedian to justify their act if the audience doesn't respond. Perhaps the well-read director could learn something from Freud on humor.
Finally, like Woody Allen, Greenaway has manipulated his actors over the years to work like clones. They speak the lines with a bored, smug air like narcissistic adolescents.
This film, despite its design and lighting, is meretricious.


assistant
0