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


user
I should put out an alert all over saying that the movie shouldn't be watched. It fails to a fitting tribute in such a magnificent manner that it is almost an insult to the memory of those brave men. The special effect were horrible, I hadn't expected the total failure on the part of the director to appreciate military technology. How can a machine gun which normally fires at the rate of 600 rounds per minute fire at 1/10th the speed? How can soldiers fall forward when a grenade explodes in front of them? How can people survive when there are artillery shells falling as close as 20 feet away? How come the artillery shells fall only on either side of the road and not the road itself?
Not only did this disrespect for the weaponry appall me, it was the cliched situations and the incongruity of the dialogues which had me screaming murder. There were the standard dialogues like Ye bhi kisi ka bhai hai, ise laath mat maro and Pakistan se jyaada musalmaan to Hindustaan me hai and LOC cross mat karo ye mera hukum hai. Stupid to say the least.
What Shobha De had written is true. The director worked without a script and it shows. There is no flow to the movie. There is no gradual progression from one battle to another. It is just one gunfight after the next with no connection to the overall scheme of the war. The explanatory scenes are awful. The chief of army staff looks unconvincing. To make matters worse the theatre people had indiscriminately cut footage to fit the four hour long movie into 3 hours.


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


user
I saw this movie with some Indian friends on Christmas Day. The quick summary of this movie is MUST AVOID. JP Dutta wrote, directed, produced and edited this movie and did none of these jobs well.
The movie tells the story of the attempt by Pakistan in 1999 to capture part of the disputed region of Kashmir from India. Supposedly based on fact, you get a hint from this movie of the difficulty the Indian army had in recapturing the area from the Pakistani troops - who occupied the high ground. But instead of telling what must have been a compelling and heroic story, all this movie does is make the Indian military look laughable and stupid, which I know is not true.
I watched this movie with an almost completely Indian audience, who were very patriotic and clearly wanted to like this movie, but also found themselves laughing at scenes that weren't meant to be funny.
The script was absolutely abysmal. It gave the impression that Mr Dutta knows nothing about how an army operates and was using bad war movies for reference. The result is a script that is brainless and repetitive.
The acting from most of the principals was not stellar, but considering the script they were given, I find it hard to criticise them too much. As for the supporting cast, all I can say is that I hope they were amateurs.
The editing was also pretty bad. It was pretty hard to follow what was going on for a lot of the time, and music would abruptly end at scene changes.
Good things: The cinematography was pretty good, although it was hurt a little by the fact that the movie didn't appear to be colour corrected (the colour balance often varied significantly within scenes). Also, the few songs that were in the movie were quite enjoyable - for the first half a dozen or so verses at least. Unfortunately they went on a LOT longer than they should have.
And the worst crime of all? This mess is FOUR HOURS LONG. There is enough here that a good editor could almost squeeze a good 1.5 - 2 hour movie out of what was shot. Sadly, a good editor was not working 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 movie was absolute torture. First of all, it's a whopping 4+ hours long! True, the Kargil war may have had several points that were captured and fought for, but every single one of those battles need not have been shown. So maybe this is a documentary, not a commercial film as advertised. Sure didn't seem like it, as enough background information was not given and there were some flaws. The battle sequences were so poorly executed. I am terribly disappointed from the man who gave well done sequences in Border. Each battle was the exact same as the previous. It was so predictable. (This might be a spoiler.) The whole army marches uphill, five or so soldiers curse five thousand times each (they also use the same cussword every time), one of the lead actors is shot, someone yells for a stretcher, the actor says, "No, don't get a stretcher. That will take 6 men from the battalion," and then an actor dies. That exact same thing happens over and over and over again. Oh, and the songs are so bad and so long. The cast of the movie is too big for its own good. Despite such a long movie, none of the characters were well developed. The actresses had the most miniscule roles. They all are dressed and portrayed to be the same. Two of them were weeping synchronized. It was so comical. They moved their hands and heads at the exact same time and then bit their dupatta together.
The list just goes on and on. I know I'm still forgetting something . Anyways, I think I have bashed the film enough that you get the picture.


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


user
I thought I read somewhere that this was the last Monogram production, but whether that's true or not it doesn't matter, because if it wasn't, then it should have been. It's a deadly dull affair starring John Carradine with some gray in his hair to make himself appear like an older scientist who is experimenting with the aid of his young apprentice (Robert Shayne) in bringing the dead back to life. Every time their subjects are revived, they seem to have a whitish face like marble as they are lying strapped to the laboratory table (big deal). Carradine manages to restore his faithful dog to life after it's dead, and the mutt gains an unusual ability to walk through walls in a ghostlike fashion (wooooooooohhhh). That's about all she wrote.
For an ultra-cheap Monogram quickie, this thing at least actually utilizes a more fancy-schmancy lab setup than is usually allotted. The funniest running joke in the movie is that the "older" doctor Carradine constantly refers to his "young" assistant Shayne as "m'boy" when, in fact, Carradine was actually 40 and Shayne was 45 when they made this!


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


user
A scientist (John Carradine--sadly) finds out how to bring the dead back to life. However they come back with faces of marble. Eventually this all leads to disaster.
Boring, totally predictable 1940s outing. This scared me silly when I was a kid but just bores me now. I had to struggle to stay awake! With one exception, the acting is horrible. Such expressionless boring actors! Hopeless.
There are some good things about this: Carradine, despite the script, actually gives a very good performance. And there are a few mildly creepy moments involving a ghost of a Great Dane walking through walls. There's also one of the worst-looking knockouts in cinema history. Still, none of this is fun enough to sit through this. Avoid.


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 has the habit of going to Blockbuster and choosing movies no-one has ever heard anything about. Admittedly, at times, it has led to some fun discoveries. Often times, the best that can be said is they definitely run an hour and a half.
She brought home "Advice From A Caterpillar." She was excited because the box said it was funny. Lucky for us, the propaganda on the boxes never lie.
This movie was an exercise in patience. This is one of those movies where, unless you are a pretentious and shallow person who likes watching movies about yourself, you will hate every character in the movie. Until the introduction of the one nice character. Which the lead annoying pretentious character will fall in love with and act in such a way that, in the real world, would drive anyone away.
MILD SPOILERS FROM HERE ON
So a bunch of emotionally vapid, stuck-up, pretentious artists swear off love and find success in their careers. Then, they meet a nice, intelligent, emotionally mature and loving character (an almost perfect guy). We then watch the woman, the annoyingly pretentious artist (in her 30's?) freak out as she falls in love. So she tries to flee from the nice, intelligent, emotionally mature man and stay with the married man with whom she's been having great but empty sex. She is rude to the man and does everything in her power to drive him away. In the real world, she would have been quite successful. I certainly wanted to flee from her and I wasn't even in a relationship with her!
Although its nice that the man 'fought for his love', I never wanted her to have him. (Nor did my girlfriend) She didn't deserve him. And, why I wonder, did the director think that the 'almost perfect guy' should be punished by having to win a relationship with her? When the artist was asking the 'almost perfect guy' to leave, we were screaming for him to leave too. There's a problem with a movie when the heroine of the film is so annoying, childish and stupid that you want her to fail.
Beyond that, let me say that Andy Dick made me laugh a few times even though his character was also pretentious to the point of annoyance. Regarding the other characters, they were well acted, morally bankrupt and annoying characters.
It is a comedy and I can say I did laugh a few times in the film. Unfortunately, not much laughing happened until the last 10 minutes or so. But by the time I had those laughs, I had been praying for the movie to end for far too long. I needed to get these vapid characters out of my life.
If you want to watch people you hate struggle with a love for people they don't deserve, then this is the movie for you.


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


user
This film concerns purportedly non-establishment types (aesthetically and sexually) who apparently cannot resist basic romantic needs. Although some excellent players take part, including Jon Tenney, Timothy Olyphant, and Cynthia Nixon, they are grounded by a puerile script which relies nearly totally upon clever dialogue; which isn't. Nixon's role possesses the best lines, but she often homes in on them too quickly, a timing flaw which must be saddled upon the director. The grotesque climax utilizes every available cliche, spent or not, and fittingly ends this drab attempt at comedy.


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


user
Why? Why did they make this movie? If Timothy Olyphant wasn't shirtless in it several times, there would be ABSOLUTELY no reason to watch this movie, ever. Um...Plot? Nope. Well-defined characters? nope. The only time I laughed was when my boyfriend made fun of the whole she-bang. P.S. Andy Dick? Nope.


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


user
Not a movie, but a lip synched collection of performances from acts that were part of the British Invasion, that followed the dynamic entrance of the Beatles to the music world. Some of these acts did not make a big splash on this side of the pond, but a lot of them did. Featured are: Herman's Hermits, Billy J. Kramer and the Dakotas, Peter and Gordon, Honeycombs, Nashville Teens, Animals, and of course,the Beatles.
It is so much fun watching these young acts before they honed and polished their acts.


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


user
Ostensibly a film that predicts the coming trends in British popular music, it's wrong on so many fronts that it's laughable. Tommy Quickly? The Honeycombs? The movie DOES include a song by the Spencer Davis group, two by the Animals, and one tacked on live film of the Beatles doing their live version of Twist and Shout (all 1:20). But all in all, an awkward display of British music circa 1964. Oh, and Herman's Hermits.


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


user
Russell Hopton acted in many films until his death in 1945. He only directed 2 and "Black Gold" was one, (the other was also from 1936). Frankie Darro had a sometimes abrasive screen presence but in this he was playing a good kid. He was obviously quite popular on the "quickie" circuit - he made so many films. In this one he plays the son of an old oil rigger who is convinced that he will strike oil very soon.
J.C. Anderson (Berton Churchill) is trying to convince the old man to sell up as he knows there is going to be oil struck at any moment. A geologist, Henry, comes on the scene and helps "Fishtail's" dad. He also convinces "Fishtail" to go to school regularly. Henry has his eye on Cynthia, the pretty teacher. This was Gloria Shea's last film - she had begun her career as Olive Shea in "Glorifying the American Girl" (1929). "Fishtail's" dad is killed when the rig is sabotaged and Henry is determined to bring Anderson and his cronies to justice. When Henry is kidnapped Anderson tries to persuade "Fishtail" to sell his oil lease. It all ends well with oil being struck and "Fishtail" going to Military school.
It is okay for a rainy day.


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 terrible to say the least. I was hoping for a lot better after seeing "High School Musical". The whole entire movie was a complete rip off of "The Simple Life", only it wasn't a reality show.
The acting was not good at all. Amanda Michalka had her moments, when she wasn't that terrible. On the other hand Alyson Michalka was bad all the way through. Chris Gallinger, who played the love interest of Amanda was playing a french guy, but had an awful accent. One good thing about this movie was the completely adorable Michael Trevino, who played Alyson's love interest. Just something to keep in mind, if this movie had been aired before "High School Musical" it probably would not have seemed as bad. But it was no comparison.
Overall I give it a 2.


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 truly awful. After seeing the advertisement for it, i thought it could have its charms ... but it didn't.The girls cannot act, and they cannot sing either. The soundtrack to this movie is full of their songs, and its not a pretty sight, Terrible story line, unbelievable plot, its one of Disney's worst movies by FAR!. Ally is not a bad actress on "Phil of the Future", so i don't know what happened in "Cow Belles". And her sister, AJ, seems to be just hitching a ride on her sisters "fame", and she displays no talent what so ever.
At the end of the movie the girls do finally learn some cliché morals, but this is to late to rescue this train wreck movie.
Awful


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 kind of reminds me of A Mary-Kate and Ashley movie-only worse. Just the rich sisters kind of thing I think even though Alysons more the actress, in this movie Amanda michalka was okay sometimes but Alysons acting stunk. i think that after high-school musical they needed to come up with somethihng better and this definitely wasn't it. The story line wasn't that great and I think they should have gotten two other people to play Taylor and Courtney. I'm not a big Alyson Michalka fan and this movie didn't make me like her any better. i think they should definitely sick to singing and only watch this movie if you have nothing better to do (which sadly I didn't)


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


user
I watched this movie really late last night and usually if it's late then I'm pretty forgiving of movies. Although I tried, I just could not stand this movie at all, it kept getting worse and worse as the movie went on. Although I know it's suppose to be a comedy but I didn't find it very funny. It was also an especially unrealistic, and jaded portrayal of rural life. In case this is what any of you think country life is like, it's definitely not. I do have to agree that some of the guy cast members were cute, but the french guy was really fake. I do have to agree that it tried to have a good lesson in the story, but overall my recommendation is that no one over 8 watch it, it's just too annoying.


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


user
How Disney can you get? Preppy rich girls act like idiots, buy a bunch of stuff, and get taught a lesson. Is Disney trying to send a lesson to itself? That maybe while buying everything it should maybe still be human? Whatever the psycho-analysis, this movie sucked.
The girls want a rich party for their rich lives. But then money disappears and they have to use their riches to get the milk plant (yes, milk) going to employ the workers. They keep it afloat until daddy comes home. And the man at the beginning, who appears to be the one that takes the money, is the one. But the ending is dumb. Webcam in the Cayman Islands? Huh? Not worth my time ever again.
But it is better than Howl's Moving Castle. "D-"


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


user
Aldolpho (Steve Buscemi), an aspiring film maker, lives in a battered NYC apartment and relies on his mother to help make the rent. He has a beautiful neighbor named Angelica (Jennifer Beals)who may or may not be married but who Aldolpho would love to star in his movie. When Al unexpectedly gets a financial promise of funding for his film from a strange man named Joe, he thinks he's got it made. That is, until Joe takes Al along on an adventure to steal a Porsche for part of the financial backing. Will the film be made before Aldolpho is completely without a moral backbone? And, will Angelica star in the film? This is, in this viewer's opinion, an awful movie. The script is abysmal, with a plot that wanders willy nilly. Beals practically snarls all of her lines and Buscemi, though likable, is nondescript. There is a good deal of distasteful material and unsavory characters to boot. Finally, the production values are very poor, too, making the film look second rate at all times. If you have time on your hands, it is still a good idea not to take a chance with this movie. But, if you are the proverbial glutton for punishment, go ahead and watch the darn thing. Beals does look beautiful, after all.


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


user
A terrible movie as everyone has said. What made me laugh was the cameo appearance by Scott McNealy, giving an award to one of the murdered programmers in front of a wall of SUN logos. McNealy is the CEO of SUN Microsystem, a company that practically defines itself by its hatred of Microsoft. They have been instrumental in filing antitrust complaints against Microsoft. So, were they silly enough to think this bad movie would add fuel to that fire?
There's no public record I see of SUN's involvement, but clearly the makers of this movie know Scott McNealy. An interesting mystery.


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


user
It was interesting to see how accurate the writing was on the geek buzz words, yet very naive on the corporate world. The Justice Department would catch more of the big corp giants if they did such naive things to win. The real corporate world is much more subtle and interesting, yet every bit as sinister. I seriously doubt ANY corp would actually kill someone directly; even the mod is more indirect these days. In the real world, they do kill people with nicotine, pollution, additives, poisons, etc. This movie must have been developed by some garage geeks, I think, and the studios didn't know the difference. They just wanted something to capitalize on the Microsoft antitrust case in the news.


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


user
AntiTrust could have been a great vehicle for Rachael Leigh Cook, but the director cut out her best scenes. In the scenes that she are in, she is just a zombie. She is involved in a sub-plot that is simular to a sub-plot in "Get Carter", but she handles the sub-plot better in "Get Carter".(I blame the director) The director's homage to Hitchcock was corny. (It's the scene were Ryan Philippe's charactor realizes he may not be able to trust Tim Robbin's charactor, at least I think it's a homage to Hitchcock. The DVD shows the scenes that were cut out. I think the director should have trust his instincts and not listen to the test audiences.


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


user
Obvious attack on Microsoft made by people who don't appear to understand intellectual property or market economies generally.
Loony liberal tim robbins plays a painfully obvious caricature of bill gates, and is a cartoonish corporate villain ordering murders right and left.
While microsoft may engage in some anticompetitive activity at times, it's unlikely they actually murder people. Therefore, the film is over the top and ridiculous from the beginning.
The "deeper" point is apparently that major tech innovations should be free to the public, and not subject to intellectual property laws. However, this ignores the fact that most major innovations would never have been developed if not for the market incentives (and rewards) provided by intellectual property.
It's one thing to be opposed to anti-competitive conduct -- that's common sense. It's quite another to be opposed to market competition in the first place, which is what the film's mantra ("knowledge belongs to mankind") represents.
Yet another example of Hollywood being completely out of touch with reality.


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


user
One more of extremely unprofessional movies about computer programmers.
Looks authors of that movie don't know real specific of programmers world.
20 top programmers in the world, program which have own satellites (for what?), program which using satellite freq., somebody kill somebody to steal the codes (why?) and much more of stupid moments at this movie.
Peoples who not programmers not will see something awful at that movie, because not professionals on this. But peoples will see not real things.
Programmers will find that movie odd and awful - because lots of moments inside movie is not RELATED real life (why movie not scifi in this case?).


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


user
I sort of accidentally ended up watching this movie. I'm still not sure if I regret it or not. I felt like I was watching the film made by that group of film school students that didn't quite make the cut. It plays up every Hollywood cliché imaginable, all the while flogging us with the 'corporations are the ultimate evil' message. Subtlety this movie does not know. As far as that goes, it even manages to provide it's own spoilers.
The story appears to be a computer nerd's fantasy world come true. The lead character is an attractive teenage boy with a girlfriend, yet is a programming genius and apparent hacker (I think), among many other nerd-fantasy-come-true elements that you'll have to see for yourself.
As well, I should've known it would be a z-movie when I saw Ned Bellamy... he tends to be a good tip-off.
Can't recommend this one, I'm afraid.


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


user
Antitrust falls right into that category of films that aspire to make some great point while being uplifting yet falls completely flat. I don't hate the film, but it is missing key elements, such as suspense. There have been other attempts to make an engaging film about computers, such as Hackers and The Net. They all fall short. The improbable ending of both The Net and Antirust seem to be nearly identical. These movie endings suffer from one huge error in perception: People in the PC business having this over-indulgent self ego that assumes the general population lives it's life waiting to hear the latest news about PC's and software. I have worked for many companies and industries, and they all seem to suffer from an expanded view of their own self-importance, as does this film.
The way they introduced plot lines was pathetic. Showing Milo, who is deathly allergic to Sesame Seeds, almost ingest one from a restaurant breadbasket crossed the line of stupidity. Only his 'girlfriend' prevented him from sure death. This makes one wonder how Milo could have survived as long as he did, braving the perils of Big Mac buns and Sesame Seed breadsticks, as they cloak themselves as, well.... Sesame Seed breadsticks and Big Mac buns.
Antitrust also doesn't provide much suspense. The patterned and predictable plot twists are easily figured out long before they are revealed (come on, was anyone REALLY stunned when Yee Jee Tso was killed?), thereby destroying any real shock value. And here again we have yet another film/story where at the end, the bad guys are chasing the good guys to 'get the disk'. We need to have a moratorium on this Simple Simon plot line for about 20 years. Still, I pressed on. Maybe the ending would be the payoff, but no. The completely ridiculous ending where we have the head of company security, another supposed evil guy, turn around and be the good guy that enables Milo to bring down N.U.R.V CEO Gary Winston was laughable. And of course, the news coverage of the arrest of Gary Winston is more fevered than when Hinckley or Oswald was brought into custody. Gary Winston, played by Tim Robbins, is a cardboard cutout of the same character Robbins played in Arlington Road. But that fits perfectly here in Antitrust, which should be called 'Anticlimactic' or 'Anti-Original'.
In the years to come, this film will likely be banished, to be shown only on your local third rate UHF channel.


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


user
After seeing the trailer of this film in the cinema, i thought that it was an original concept for a thriller, setting it in the competitive world of computer companies. The all star cast was another message that this film would probably be good. But when i didn't go to watch it in it's first week of release then it disappeared by week 2 i feared something was a miss. Patiently i waited for it's DVD release, then bought it rushing home for an enjoyable evening's viewing. The anticipation on the way home was far better than the film. For a start the direction is appalling. There's no thought gone into it at all and the director just makes up a part for himself, so he can appear in the film. I wouldn't be rushing out to employ him in the future. Secondly the lead role is completely miscast as Ryan Phillipe. Phillipe normally the cool character as in Cruel Intentions and Way of the Gun but in this he's supposed to be a bumbling hero which he attempts to portray by slipping when he's running and having geeky friends, but he just doesn't look right. The female stars, Rachel Leigh Cook and Clare Forlani don't feature enough but when they do neither of the performances are close to their bests. The only highlight of the film is Tim Robbins in a role that could have been made for him and it's his fiery temper and mysterious ways that drag the film along. The final point is that this film is another one which fills the trailer with scenes you don't see in the film and instead feature only in the deleted scenes section of the DVD. Causing even more disappointment as although some of these scenes are crude they do fill in important gaps in the story.


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


user
Five minutes into this movie you realize that you have seen it all before. It is BOILER ROOM. It is THE FIRM. And it is THE DEVILS ADVOCATE. And there are NO new elements here. Except for the all-to-clear Bill Gates-allegory. Conpsiracies are always good stuff for movie-making, but why does it have to be so extreme ? Boiler room is a good movie, because it - for a while at least - seems realistic. In Antitrust everything is wrong. How realistic is it for example that your boss pay an impostor to be your girlfriend in order to make you work harder and control you ? I'd give it 1, but the soundtrack is OK, so 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
My friends and I rented that movie last night and we had one of the greatest laughs in awhile. The movie is not supposed to be funny at all, but it is just so ridiculous and it lacks any realism whatsoever. First, Phillippe (I forget what his character is called and I don't really care) uses his regular employee ID to go through all the top-security terminals. Not only is that pathetic but it gets topped when his enormous efforts culminate in his finding the so-scary Lego-room, which hosts the super computers. This is plain funny. The tense mood that we are supposed to experience is completely spoilt by the childish looking room. The ending, like all else, is very very very cheesy, especially when the bad guy's lawyer shows up 'right on time'. Anyway, this movie is a good laugh. If you need something to make fun of, definitely see it.


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


user
The best thing about this movie was, uh, well, I can't think of anything. This was bad. The script was especially bad. The technical concepts were bad. The "suspenseful" plot was bad. The dialog was bad. Avoid at all costs. Do not rent. Do not watch. You'll be sorry.


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


user
Very businesslike authority with little responsibility and only a desire to keep his/her name clean - check. A veteran cop that has bad relationship with his family - check. Mafia guys that while criminals, want to do something good vigilante style - check. A sociopath and loyal mafia guy not hesitant to kill people to make an example - check. Cops' methods being less effective than the mafia guy's brutal yet very effective methods - check. A corrupt cop tying the authority, the criminals and the police together - check.
Slow motion and/or jerky frame rates for showing what the actor's reaction can't - check. A serial killer whose background is explained in far too much detail, esp. using childhood abuse as the reason for everything - check. A child spree killer that is very, very non-menacing - check. Foreshadowing of the veteran cop's moral values not being what the killer deserves in the movie's and the majority of characters' opinion - check. Morally ambiguous and predictable ending thanks to the foreshadowing and the good veteran cop's coming to terms he should submit to the vigilante attitude of the majority of the characters - check.
Recently saw this on TV and decided to endure it because it had Dennis Hopper in it and I could not sleep - check. Realized that was a mistake and should just have stared at the ceiling - check.


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


user
The movie had a good concept, but the execution just didn't live up to it.
What is this concept? Well, story-wise, it's "Dirty Harry" meets "M". A child killer has begun terrorizing a city. The lead detectives (Dennis Hopper and Frederic Forest) have never dealt with a serial killer before. The Mayor and the Police Chief, in desperation, secretly hire the local mob to speed things up...to go places and do things that the police wouldn't be able to in order to bring an end to this mess as soon as possible.
To be fair, this film DOES genuinely have some good things to offer.
Besides the concept, I liked the look of the killer's hideout. Norman Bates has his basement. This guy has an eerie sewer. In some of the shots, the light bounces off the water and creates rippling reflections on the walls; often giving these scenes a creepy, dreamlike quality.
The acting was good too. Dennis Hopper is one of those actors who gets better with age.
Once you get past that, however, it more-or-less goes downhill.
The film is paced way too fast. The actual investigation process from both teams feels very rushed as opposed to feeling intricate and fascinating. This could have been fixed in two ways: either make the film longer or cut out some of the many subplots. Either of these would have allowed the crew to devote more time to the actual mystery.
For an example of how bad this is, one of the crucial clues that helps them zero in on just the right suspect is this: at one point in his life, the suspect went to a pet shop...That's right...I'm being totally serious here. It's like they went from point A (the first clue) to point Z (the suspect) and skipped over all the "in-between" steps.
Then there's the characters. The only ones I actually liked were two pick-pockets you meet about half-way through the movie. Considering that they're minor characters, I'd call that a bad sign.
Finally, there's the mob angle. This is the one that gets me the most because THIS is why I coughed up the $3 to buy the DVD in the first place. I mean, what a hook! There's been an absolute glut of serial killer flicks in the last 10-15 years. The mob angle was a gimmick that COULD have helped it rise above the rest..., but it didn't.
I figured the gangsters's methods would be brutal, but fun and thrilling at the same time; kind of like a vigilante movie or something...maybe they'd even throw in some heist movie elements too. We ARE talking about criminals, after all. Instead, we're given some of the most repulsive protagonists committed to celluloid. The detectives question witnesses. What does the mob do? They interrogate and kill them. It's not even like these witnesses are really even that bad either. I actually found the criminals less likable than the killer they're hunting.
Unless the good points I mentioned are enough to get your interest, I'd say give this one a miss. Maybe some day, they'll reuse the same story idea and do it RIGHT. I hope so. I hate to see such a good concept go to waste.


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 kinda let me down. It seemed a lot like the movie Jaws when the Hopper was telling the Mayor to close parks was like when Roy Shider was telling the Mayor to close the beaches. They both said no way its summer! But the box says Hopper has to get into the mind of a killer and think like one. But he really doesn't do anything too interesting or exciting. I'm not even a little convinced he and his partner have any experience doing police work when they are in the office wondering how they are gonna solve this case. They just say lets do police work and we'll solve it. And whats up with all the old men with pool cues. I didn't even begin to believe that they were mob bosses. And then the guy who was doubting the guy the mob picked to handle finding the killer. With his hundred dollar haircut and that he thinks his Di@k is the size of a schoolbus. Come on what cruddy lines. I thought he was gonna hit him with a baseball bat like in the other movies. I got this movie used and wouldn't buy it new. I suggest you skip this movie. Oh and it was funny seeing the microphone above the scene where hopper is going out to get coffee.


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


user
Maybe I've seen one too many crime flick, or maybe I don't take the right drugs.
This was the most cliché ridden, plot deficient, plot-absurd, just plain stupid movie I have seen in a long time.
As for the direction, it looks like it took less time to show this than it did to put it together.
In fact it looks like to made it straight to video before it was completed.
It's a bad rip off of "M" the classic Fritz Lang film starring Peter Lorre. You'd be SO much better off renting that instead.


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


user
The plot is about the death of little children. Hopper is the one who has to investigate the killings. During the movie it appears that he has some troubles with his daughter. In the end the serial killer get caught. That's it. But before you find out who dunnit, you have to see some terrible acting by all of the actors. It is unbelievable how bad these actors are, including Hopper. I could go on like this but that to much of a waste of my time. Just don't watch the movie. I've warned you.


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


user
the lowest score possible is one star? that's a shame. really, i'm going to lobby IMDb for a "zero stars" option. to give this film even a single star is giving WAY too much. am i the only one who noticed the microphones dangling over hopper's head at the station? and the acting, or should i say the lack thereof? apparently talent wasn't a factor when the casting director came to town. my little sister's elementary school talent show provides greater range and depth of emotion. and those fake irish accents were like nails on a chalk board. the only thing that could have made this movie worse would have been...oh, wait, no,no, it's already as bad as it can get.


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


user
The thing that stands out in my mind in this film (sadly) is the introduction, where John Berlin (Andy Garcia) is driving into town. You see his Mercedes pass on a winding road through a forest that looks like its loaded with Redwood trees. It's quite beautiful.
As to Andy Garcia playing a character with the last name of Berlin, well...Andy is just too hispanic/Latin for it to be passable. Maybe a caucasian father married his Spanish mother for this story? Who knows. But I can tell you that when you put him in a town of farm folks and hicks, he stands out like a sore thumb, especially with his accent that flares up when he gets angry. Yeah, I know, big deal right? He's still a good actor.
The title concerns a serial killer who nicknames his victims Jennifer. All of the victims are blind and he dismembers them. The killer has taken a hiatus but suddenly resurfaces when a blind witness (don't ask) appears, Helena Robertson (Uma Thurman). Thurman does a good job of playing a blind person, to my surprise. When I saw Lance Henriksen playing Sgt. Freddy Ross I got worried. Henriksen's played in some pretty strange films, especially of late. I still can't forget him in the bloodbath movie, Pumpkinhead.
Berlin movies into a small town from L.A. as a detective. He begins investigating the Jennifer murders after finding body parts in the local landfill. His brilliance in discovering one of the victims was blind seemed far-fetched. So did the irony of *SPOILER* Freddy's murder, with the recording and name similarities. I got very confused as to the logic of how there came to be eight "Jennifers". And the motive of the killer as simply deranged didn't pack much of a punch. In retrospect, this film is probably more true to life in showing an unsuspecting individual as capable of murder simply because they became a little wacko over time or maybe were born looney toons.
John Malkovich does a stupendous job in his interrogation of Garcia! Albeit no cop would legally be allowed to press someone that hard and egg them on without rightfully get knocked out. As to the ending, it is a bit of a surprise, but is highly arguable, much like Sgt. Ross' murder. The killer chooses to walk after his running victim, opting instead to frolick I guess.
And there are so many opportunities he has in killing her that it's ridiculous. I won't ruin the very end because despite it's shakiness, it's a good surprise. Afterward though, you'll probably say, as I did, "boy was she lucky!" 4/10


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


user
This is a thriller with a good concept, good acting, good photography and good intentions all around, but which is confused and disjointed in execution.
Garcia stars as John Berlin, an L.A. forensic detective who has moved to a small California town at the behest of a friend of his on the force there. He soon becomes involved in the investigation of an unsolved murder which leads to his theorizing about the existence of a serial killer whom no one else believes in. The known victim is theorized to be blind, which leads to a romance with a blind girl - believed to be a witness - at a nearby school for the blind.
Despite a basically intriguing story there were too many quantum leaps and plot holes in this movie where I found myself wondering, 'how the hell did we wind up here?' or 'how did we find this out?' I found it confusing and disjointed, despite the good acting, etc. John Malkovich has a small part toward the end as an F.B.I. investigator out to get Berlin.
Not recommended.


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


user
This one is bad. A really bad and boring crime movie that has nothing out of the ordinary in it. A series of crimes, the killer that you do not see throughout the whole movie, the classic investigations. And also the classic tale about a cop who figures out what's going on and isn't believed by anyone, so he has to fight by himself to reveal the truth. Not too much in this one. Vote: 4 out of 10.


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


user
Let me start out by saying I can enjoy just about any bad Italian horror movie or jungle exploitation flick from the 1970's. Seriously. This one was downright awful.
There are way too many elements that Martino tries to inject and none of them work (except for the croc-gone-wild thing) very well at all. There are some ignorant Westerners, of course, who set up a resort in the jungle somewhere. I don't even remember where it takes place...how sad is that... Basically, people come to the resort to see this native tribe and its' ceremonies but eventually they upset the 'Alligator God' of the river who then proceeds to go on a rampage, killing said vacationers and some tribesmen as well. Sounds good, yeah? Well, don't get your hopes up. There is minimal violence until the end, the special effects are so bad it was like a kindergarten class performed them and the love story thrown in is laughable.
There is seriously a few scenes where it appears they set up a camera underwater in a pool and threw a toy alligator, like a dart, into the water and that is supposed to be the gator attacking. I'm not kidding. In another wonderfully crafted special effect, a Matchbox van is targeted by the incredible sinking plastic gator, who all of a sudden is five times the size of a van. (A few minutes ago, he was only big enough to eat a human, but now he dwarfs a full-size cargo van...) It is really pathetic. The only other flick I can think of where the effects were so bad I was pulled out of the story was Bruno Mattei's masterpiece, "Rats," what with the plastic rats on the conveyor belt and all who COULDN'T be terrified.
Normally I'd say anything Sergio Martino was a solid must-see but this one is a must-pass. Waste of time and definitely not worth buying for the $15+ sticker price from No Shame. This one is a SHAME.
2 out of 10, kids.


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 I want to say that this film is worthy of more than the four stars I rated it. I gave it four stars because for me this 86 minute movie always seems like 2 and a half hours and is not engaging enough to sit through it all. However, "The Big Alligator River" (the title my DVD calls it) is better than your average nature strikes back movie.
A tourist resort in the jungles of Southeast Asia is just opening and employs the natives while trying to manipulate the wildlife around. Mother Nature seeking revenge comes in the form of the god Kroona, a giant Alligator. But the creature isn't the only thing the tourists and the main characters (a photographer and the resort staff) have to worry about, the natives are getting rubbed the wrong way too.
This movie is a pretty well-done adventure/horror story with a good musical score and direction. But the alligator itself, the main attraction of the movie, is obviously fake looking. Some of the close-ups of its jaws are good but that should be all we need to see. Some of the underwater far-away shots make it painfully obvious that what we are really dealing with is an alligator squeaky-toy you can probably get at a zoo souvenir shop. But the natives are believable, if not authentic.
Probably not the movie that will give you non-stop thrills, if any, but shot and produced well enough to be given good mention. And like a lot of creature movies, this one ends with an extremely high body count. It also has lots of good jungle scenery. Acting is below par though, but who was expecting it to be better, eh?
Much, much better than its recent American counterpart "Primeival" but nothing to be compared with "Jaws". But remember it may not be engaging at a few points.


assistant
0