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
Sogo Ishii can be a skilled filmmaker under the right conditions, but Gojoe tells the story of a warrior monk and his only rival, a scion of the Genji clan. The film-making has the main hallmarks of a low-budget production, including blurry fight scenes and clumsy montages (the kind you might find in an under-produced dorama). The monk Benkei informs his spiritual teacher that his destiny lies in defeating the mysterious spirit that guards Gojoe bridge at night, but he doesn't realize that this decision will bring him squarely into conflict with nearly every element of society at that time - but which could earn him enlightenment.
There's no absence of ambitiousness, however, in its depiction of the conflict between the holy and the worldly. Artsy flourishes in some of the photography and editing help to compensate for the loose film-making style.
A disappointment.


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


user
I basically picked up this movie because I had seen Kitano Takashi's brilliant remake of Zatoichi and was in the mood for another updated samurai tale which also starred Asano Tadanobu. These two movies are worlds apart. Zatoichi added humor and depth to its characters and subverted traditional samurai movie clichés. Gojoe goes off the deep end in the other direction.
First off, I hate movies that have other characters inform the audience what the main character is like instead of having the character develop over the course of the movie. "You cannot decide whether you are a monk or a warrior" says almost every character in Benkei's presence, yet this inner turmoil is barely conveyed within the character himself. Instead of character development, we get bloated, boring, gory battle scenes. Asano's character is undeveloped and even he looks like he is bored and doesn't know what he is doing there. I know that he usually looks distant and cool and that is part of Asano's appeal, but this movie doesn't serve him.
A lot of the camera movement is nauseating. There is a scene that goes on forever in which the camera spins around the main characters until my wife and I felt like vomiting. The ending is ridiculous and rather anti-climatic.
Its too bad that really good samurai movies aren't being made in Japan nowadays with this type of budget. The colors, scenery, and costumes were great, but the rest is just a loooong waste of time. I would rather see one of the kabuki versions of this myth.


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


user
**SPOILERS**This was an ugly movie, and I'm sorry that I watched it. Like Jan Kounen's Dobermann, it suffers mostly from poor editing--or lack of it. It is as if the director was so in love with his work that instead of cutting the movie down to a pace that kept your attention, he added all of the footage he had shot together. There are maybe two cool scenes in the entire movie. One of them is *SPOILER* when Benkei is petrified and the camera starts spinning around him. That was cool--but okay, we got it! Move on please! The camera won't stop spinning around this guy! There's maybe one or two more cool scenes that I forgot about in this flood of mediocrity, but the last duel scene IS NOT ONE OF THEM! It may be because unlike in the earlier sword-handling scenes, Shanao isn't masked--but just because the director couldn't find a stuntman who somewhat resembled Asano Tadanobu doesn't give him the right to go ahead and make up 80% of the sword fight with extreme close-ups of sword clashes! And all from the same angle, may I add. The director should learn from the American produced 1995 bullet-train ninja movie The Hunted! I personally saw the village raid scene as a tribute paid to the social activists of the previous generation who were confronted by the police in the violent demonstrations of their college years. The situation where innocence is oppressed by an authoritative and armed branch of the government unwilling to understand seems to be a message common in the Japanese media, due to the strong influence of socialists and communists who are a political minority. The movie versions of GTO and Salary Man Kintaro are two other recent examples *END SPOILER* I don't understand. I just don't understand why people who don't speak the language of the movie find praise worthy material in this. Maybe the worst was lost in the translation.
The ending of the movie--on which marketing played a lot, is a different interpretation of the legendary encounter between Shanao and Benkei. But that legend is not the most popular in Japanese folklore, and it is so detached from contemporary themes, that after 138 minutes of over played visual techniques, who cares how the director wants to re-interpret the story!? Director Sasaki Hirohisa of Crazy Lips said that there was an unpleasant trend among new Japanese directors to ignore Japanese audiences, and target their movies for foreign film festivals--in order to gain faster international fame. This works, although it doesn't make sense, because the point of an international movie fest is to introduce to the world what kind of movies are being made in other countries-what kind of movies people WATCH in those countries. Certainly not Gojoe and the like.


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 seriously one of the worst movies i have ever seen. i love Japanese movies, and i think another film by the same director, electric dragon 80,000 v, is a masterpiece. i really wanted to like this movie - asano is a terrific actor and the storyline was immensely appealing. but i couldn't find anything entertaining about it.
the movie takes forever for nothing to happen. and the effects the director used - like the constant percussion and the exorbitant use of slow motion - merely added to my growing annoyance at the fact that the plot was so mind-bogglingly slow and the actors were heinously overacting. a lot of the boredom was a result of extraneous additions that were completely unnecessary - like an hour spent on asano going around slicing buddha statues and proclaiming how he doesn't worship anything. this added nothing to the plot. a fellow Japanese film buff and i were both checking the time constantly. we couldn't believe this film was as terrible as it was. and the finale was awful. i thought the director would at least attempt to reward the viewer for managing to sit through this, but sadly i was mistaken.


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


user
The central theme in this movie seems to be confusion, as the relationships, setting, acting and social context all lead to the same place: confusion. Even Harvey Keitel appears to be out of his element, and lacks his usual impeccable clarity, direction and intensity. To make matters worse, his character's name is 'Che', and we are only told (directly, by the narrator) well into the film that he is not 'that' Che, just a guy named Che. The family relationships remain unclear until the end of the film, and once defined, the family is divided - the younger generation off to America. So cliché. Other reviews discuss how the movie depicts the impact of the revolution on a boy's family; however the political stance of the director is murky at best, and we are never quite sure who is responsible for what bloodshed. So they lost their property (acquired by gambling profits) - so what? Refusing to take a political stand, when making a movie about the Cuban revolution, is an odd and cowardly choice. Not to mention the movie was in English! Why are all these Cubans speaking English? No wonder they did not get permission to film in Cuba. And if family life is most important to look at here, it would be great if we could figure out who is who - we are 'introduced' to them all in the beginning - a cheap way out of making the relationships clear throughout the film! The acting was mostly shallow, wooden, and unbelievable, timing was off all around. The 'special' visual effects were confusing and distracting. References to American films - and the black character as Greek chorus - strictly gratuitous, intellectually ostentatious, and consistently out of place. I only watched the whole movie because I was waiting for clarity, or some point to it all. It never happened.


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


user
I am probably one of the few viewers who would not recommend this film. Thought visually stunning like all of Ang Lee's work (each still frame seems worthy of a print), I was really disappointed by the film's disjointed pace. It really was too long.
The story is set in Civil War era Missouri, and is about a young man (Roedel) who joins the feral forces of the Bushwackers, sort of renegade Confederate sympathizers who conduct geurilla type fighting with the Jayhawkers, their Union counterparts. He and his close friend, Jack Bull Chiles played by Skeet Ulrich, join the group after Chile's father is shot point-blank and his home is burned, presumably by Jayhawkers. The story follows Roedel's and Chiles' raiding adventures and their interactions with other victims of the war, including former slave who fights for the Bushwhackers (Daniel Holt played by Jeffery Wright), and a war widow played by Jewel.
It seemed that every time the film developed the story to an interesting point, it would turn to some other subplot and leave things undeveloped. For example, the agitation among Roedel's group caused by former slave Holt participating in the confederate cause is shown briefly through some conflict regarding propriety and protocol, and then dropped until later in the movie. A young villian/bully Bushwhacker hates Roedel and directs much angst and violence against him, but, we never know why. Some of the characters never seem to surface; I think that is because the movie embraces too many of them as well as taking on large amounts of history.
The historical detail was excellent. I loved looking at the housing, furniture, clothes, etc., and I thought the lead actors did a wonderful job of humanizing the characters, though they stumbled a bit with the dialog. Unless you really enjoy history or are a huge Ang Lee fan, though, take a pass on this one.


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


user
Okay.. this wasn't the worst movie I've ever seen, but I had heard lots of good things about it and I was sorely disappointed. I could see where the film makers were coming from and that they were trying to express the fact that the two sides in this battle weren't a whole lot different from one another, that the individuals were getting lost in the fighting, etc, etc. (well, that's my presumption, anyway =^_^=)
At any rate.. the movie kind of bored me. I've watched a lot of really long movies, but this one just seemed to drag on and on and on.. basically because I just couldn't bring myself to care for any of the characters. I just kept thinking.. who cares??? I also found the acting to be rather dead pan and the dialogue strained. I understand that this was the 1800s and all, but most of the conversations just seemed rather unnatural. No one seemed to have any emotion throughout most of the film except during melodramatic events.
The "romance" in the story didn't seem to be supported by anything other than "I'm a guy and you're a girl", which I don't consider much of a romance, and yet I felt I was being steered to the belief that these people were in love. Oh well.. I guess it's the whole "all this horror around us, we have each other to cling to" type thing, or whatever. I was also hoping for some sort of dynamic between the two best friends (who both initially seemed to have an interest in the girl) but that was just sort of dropped. Maybe avoiding a cliche love triangle. I don't know.
Oh well.. Daniel Holt was about the only character I really truly liked. And Sue Lee was all right. I didn't exactly dislike Jake, but he seemed a bit too... spineless, I guess. Jack Bull I did not care for at all. And I'm pretty sure you're *supposed* to hate just about everyone else, with the exception of the poor normal people who just get mowed down left and right. It was pretty graphic and had that whole "the horrors of war" thing down, but I've seen plenty of other movies with the same theme, done better. (I enjoyed The Patriot a lot, for instance, even if it was a bit emotionally manipulative) But, as I've already stated, I'm a cynic. What can I say? :)


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


user
I am sad that a period of history that is so fascinating and so rich in material for film can be made into a ho-hum event . Wm C Quantrill was barely shown in the film , probably the most intriquing figure of the period. Frank James was never mentioned, Cole Younger , ditto , and Bloody Bill Anderson , who would weep for his murdered sister every time he went into battle was completely absent in the script. Instead we were forced to watch fictitious characters that never developed into anyone we cared about. how sad. The costumes were wonderful however, as was the location shooting in Missouri. I hope Ang Lee will make another film from the period and try again, or some other film maker will look into the tremendous wealth of material to write a screen play on .


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 two and a quarter excruciating hours. Someone please tell me what the point was?
I mean, I understand the historical setting. It's supposed to be about a ragtag group of Confederate bushwhackers (terrorists?) on the Missouri-Kansas frontier, taking revenge against all northern sympathizers and abolitionists during the U.S. Civil War. But aside from gratuitous violence there wasn't really much of a point to this movie. Perhaps it was a political statement? That war is really nothing much more than gratuitous violence? If that was the point it was done quite well, but I don't think that was the point. I think the producers really thought they were making a worthwhile movie here, but as far as I was concerned there was a complete lack of any plot. It seemed like I was watching a paperback novel come to life, with the characters looking like what you would see on the covers of such novels.
This movie should be burned along with some of the towns this gang torched!


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


user
This was a new alltime low among westerns. The writing is excruciatingly bad, characters are impossible to emphasize with and are either disgusting or bland, the violence is appalling and technically not very convincingly executed. And Tobey Maguire shows us the flip side of his talent, sleepwalking through his part with those expressionless eyes and that raspy voice of his that here betrays only mannerism. 'Ride With the Devil' is among my five worst movie experiences ever, a western never to be surpassed in the negative respect.


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


user
Long on action and stunt work, but so short on character delineation and development that it failed to hold our interest. Not always easy to figure out which side a character is on and who's doing what to whom.


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


user
How does a Scotsman in a kilt make love in the bonny purple heather? Very,very carefully.Now I have the distinct advantage over many other of the reviewers in that I was born in Scotland.Far too many Americans take this simplistic nonsense seriously.It's a joke,people,"four legs good - two legs bad",as Orwell had it. Jessica Lange has an accent that the Wells - next - the - sea Amateur Dramatic Society's production of "Brigadoon" would turn down. Liam Neeson - apparently popular with the ladies - wears his kilt with all the authority of a man whose Great Grandmama once stepped off the train at Edinburgh Waverley. And the Auld Enemy?Where would the Scots be without them to hate and blame for everything?Messrs Roth,Cox and Hurt should be ashamed for indulging in such racist stereotyping. "Robin Hood - Prince of thieves" seems a masterpiece of historical accuracy in comparison.And at least Alan Rickman was funny.


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


user
Born, raised, and educated in Scotland, I was appalled at this disgusting portrayal of a man who was no more nor less than a cattle rustler. Worse yet, the thread of the entire movie was sex in one form or another, by implication or verbally. To view it, one would think that 18th century Scotland was populated by a bunch of sex perverts and homosexuals. Lange was a joke acting as the "young" mother at age 49 but Liam Neeson was even worse! Taking a "bath" in a Scottish loch is NOT commonplace as they portrayed him - but, it did give them yet another opportunity to demonstrate how sexually driven we were. Save your money and watch Pinnochio.


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 a long build-up with no climax. People whom refer to the swordfight in the end as great must either be out of their minds, or have none. Way too often this movie got soft. I am not saying that soft movies are bad. But no matter how fond you are of sugar it should have no space on a T-bone steak. This movie was supposed to be about vengeance for crimes committed against a culture, but it ended up being a petty bar-brawl. And there was only one of them who actually knew what a sword was; Tim Roth's character (and yes, he plays him well). Rob Roy was a weak "hero" with no knowledge of how to use a sword, and the way he "won" was a disgrace. As a drama this movie had it's periods, but the best performance in it has to go the nature of Scotland. This is one tad breath short of being termed as "soap" in my book.


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


user
I have to say the first I watched this film was about 6 years ago, and I actually enjoyed it then. I bought the DVD recently, and upon a second viewing I wondered why I liked it. The acting was awful, and as usual we have the stereo-typical clansmen in their fake costumes. The acting was awful at best. Tim Roth did an OK job as did Liam Neeson, but I've no idea what Jessica Lange was thinking.
The plot line was good, but the execution was just poor. I'm tired of seeing Scotland portrayed like this in the films. Braveheart was even worse though, which is this films only saving grace. But seriously, people didn't speak like that in those days, why do all the actors have to have Glaswegian accents? Just another film to try and capture the essence of already tired and annoying stereotypes. I notice the only people on here who say this film is good are the Americans, and to be honest I can see why they'd like it, I know they have an infatuation for men in Kilts. However, if you are thinking of buying the DVD, I'd say spend your money on something else, like a better film.


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


user
Here is one of those movies spoiled by the studio's insistence on a happy ending. Conflicts which have stretched out for years are settled in a few minutes. It would have been far more interesting to inject a tone of ambiguity. The talented Barbara Stanwyck is undone by a sudden metamorphosis from independent and assertive woman to a compliant female of the kind she has put down all her life. Brent, as usual, is well over his head and then there is the ludicrous situation of Gig Young playing a character named Gig Young. Someone mentions "Gig Young" and then who appears but Gig Young, the actor! Worth seeing though far below what it could have been.


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


user
Spoiler alert  although I think this one was spoiled coming out of the can It's hard to even imagine that a film with these stars, from this studio, made at this time period, could be so awful, but it is. It is the film's biggest flaw by far that it just doesn't make any damn sense.
Rich widower American aristocrat Penn Gaylord leaves his small daughter "in charge" and goes off to World War I where he is killed. Then we flash forward to present day (1942) and total confusion. The three sisters are in court where they are said to have spent the last twenty years, and some jerk named Barclay is trying to take their home away from them. This is just the beginning of an endless series of unanswered questions that comprises the script, more holes in it than The Warren Report. What happened to the Gaylord fortune? If the will is worth half a billion, why has the family home gone from an opulent palace to the house on The Munsters? Who the devil is this Barclay clown? And why is he able to take someone's home away from them? The questions just pile on top of more questions.
The usually affable and charming George Brent is playing Barclay, who is inexplicably a total sod tromping all over everyone, taking whatever the heck he wants no matter who it belongs to and without a twinge of guilt; yet no one besides Fiona (Barbara Stanwick) seems to particularly dislike this cretin. Why? None of these questions are ever answered. We instead just follow Fiona's life from one train wreck to another, the evil Barclay takes away her home, her fortune, and even her child. What does she do? Shoot him? Set him on fire? No, too logical. In a completely improbably wrap-up, this woman, who's only prior romantic involvement with Barclay was, save for the technicality of marriage, rape, suddenly decides mid-sentence (literally) that she does not hate him, she loves him. And they're going to live happily ever after. All of a sudden for no reason in the world, this early female role model of independence and authority is transformed into the usual helpless ankle-twisting twit more commonly found in films of this era. Yeah, sure, steal everything in the world that belongs to me and I'll fall in love with you. On what planet does that happen? I can only guess the reason I never heard of this film before I happened to catch it on Turner is that it was as lost on contemporary audiences as it is today.


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


user
When I'd seen the name of this movie, I'd always thought it was a musical. Like "The Harvey Girls." It's not. It's a pudding that overcooked, hit the kitchen ceiling, and was pried off and cobbled together. No music and not a period piece but thoroughly improbable.
It starts with patriarch James Woods telling the eldest of his three daughters, a small child who grows to be Barbara Stanwyck, that she must maintain the family name and home.
We thus think it is going to be a historical intergenerational tale. And it is, for a brief time. Then it turns into the story of cold-hearted Stanwyck's fight against lawyer George Brent. Why is she so dead set against him? Well, why else? As we learn in a strange flashback sequence narrated by Stanwyck, she had once thought she could inherit some money (for her sisters as well as herself, of course) by marrying. She hit on someone she took to be a country bumpkin, who was in fact budding lawyer Brent.
Lest anyone think the child they had, a young man of eight or so at the time of the main plot, is -- well, you know ... They had a hasty marriage and during the very short time they were together, he was conceived.
One of her sisters is in love with a painter named Gig Young, who is played by Gig Young. The other sister tries to take him away. Etc., etc.
It is a shrill, unengaging mess -- well enough acted but without a shred of logic or plausibility.


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 you can get much worse then this. Put together bad actors, fake limbs, and three stupid stories and what do you get? This B-rate pointless excuse for a movie.
The first story immediately shows the bad video quality and the acting is just really pathetic, especially when you bring in the 25 year old posing as a grandma with the usually grandma bun over the ears bit. Plus, the man is OK, but the woman is rather ugly. "You look great!" NOT! The werewolf in this one was the best one out of all three I'd say, but its still not impressive since it was all bad costume. The face on the woman later was decent enough for halloween but not for a werewolf movie.
The more stories you go through the worse it gets. There are two lesbians in this next one who are completely retarded its ridiculous. The whole "I want to be a werewolf, too" "How could you do this to me?!" Was silly to say. You asked for it now get over it! The werewolf will not even be spoken of...its a rat!
The third one has no point...almost forty five minutes of running and boring narration make up this story and the whole switch thing still didn't make it interesting. Boring!
Music, Yes, bad...who couldn't even hear some parts it was stupid. Animals effects were either rat or pig-like which was stupid. They couldn't use lion sounds? Guess not, GOOD movies use that. Well, i =f you enjoy B-rates this is good for you. I got this movie since I'm a hardcore werewolf fan and i'll buy ANY werewolf movie and watch it more then once, but thats just me. If you prefer Good ones, don't waste your money. I beg YOU!


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


user
From the blocky digitised footage to the acting that makes Keanu "I'm so wooden I could be a Plank me" Reeves look like an Oscar winner this film bites (pun not intended). The best thing about it is the box of eRATicate in the 2nd segment (which out of the three seemed to be the strongest piece in terms of storyline and 'twist'). Wish I'd spent the £3.99 it cost me on something else, like erm.... Natural Born Killers: Directors Cut. If you do buy this, you're really in for a disappointment, do yourself a favour and avoid it like the plague. If you're looking for something amateurish and with actors that are more wooden than a 2x4 then go ahead. However if you want some quality werewolf action look elsewhere, like Dog Soldiers, Wolfen, Romasanta:The werewolf Hunt.


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


user
I won't spend a lot of time nor energy on this comment. I just want to add it because all the comments were so positive I felt like I just had to let people know that not everyone is so thrilled, let alone intellectually provoked by this attempt at creating a captivating philosophical cinematic enigma. Some scenes seemed promising, playing with visual dimensions, but couldn't hold up the rest. I felt like I was stoned for the first time again, having semi-philosophical conversations with fellow adolescents.
What a futile attempt to raise Dutch cinema to new heights. I'd rather watch Jesus is een Palestijn, without all the pretentions and with straight forward humor, also raising questions about life and the realities we create for ourselves.
Gert de Graff is not Jean-Luc Godard or Tarkovsky and appearantly never will be.


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


user
Although properly warned I actually sat down to watch this movie. In part because I usually give every movie an even break, and because I thought that a single movie couldn't be that bad. I stand corrected. Not even George Kennedy, Barry Bostwick or Ben Stein could save this turkey from sinking like a ton of bricks. Only once during this humor forsaken travesty of a spoof did I laugh. Namely during the Simon says scene. The other jokes are either poorly carried out or simply plain unfunny. And some of them you actually see coming a mile away. This movie just hasn't got what it takes to be a good parody like Airplane! (I+II), Naked Gun (I+II+III), or Scary Movie. They all had A. funny gags, B. good dialog and most important of all C. unforgettable quotes. Men In White has got D. none of the above. To call this movie bad would be a gross understatement. AVOID THIS MOVIE ANYWAY YOU CAN! CONSIDER YOURSELVES WARNED!


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


user
This film is so bad, it made me want to vomit. Poorly produced, a complete laugh free zone. Why in the name of god would you spoof a movie which to a degree is a spoof (and a damn funny one at that) as it stands? The sets are laughable, the effects so bad that they aren't even laughable, and the acting farcical. It is a complete mystery why you would even consider watching this lump of garbage. National Lampoon once made Animal House, which people still consider to be completely and utterly hilarious. Now they've been relegated to making TV movies like this lump of ****. Name your expletive, and it could be accurately used to describe this film.


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


user
I wished I'd taped MEN IN WHITE so I could watch it again
" What ? You mean you really enjoyed it Theo ? "
No I mean I could watch it again to see if it was as retarded , stupid and as embarrassingly unfunny as I can remember it
A lot of people have claimed it was made for children . May I suggest it was also made by children ? because the whole structure of the script lacks any type of discipline on the part of the producers and writers and much of set pieces seem to have been included because it seemed like a good idea at the time
The cast don't help but I genuinely started to feel sorry for them . Honestly you can believe that during filming the cast had to lie to their families that they were filming a hard core porn film such was their embarrassment at having to appear in something as dismal as this . To give you an idea of how bad the acting is every time BAYWATCH babe Donna D'Ericco disappeared from the narrative I waited patiently for her to reappear then seconds later I forgot she was in the movie . Got that ? A star from BAYWATCH appears and seconds later you forget they're in the movie . This tells you all you need to know about the standard of MEN IN WHITE
Fair enough it's trying to be a live action cartoon similar to THE GOODIES ( Although THE DISMALS would be a better adjective for this movie ) , though perhaps the movie deserves some credit for never descending to toilet humour , but considering this is a kids movie ( This didn't stop ITV broadcasting it at 11 pm ) then there should be no near the knuckle humour in it anyway


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


user
If you see this turkey listed in your TV guide, AVOID IT LIKE THE PLAGUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A steaming great pile of fetid dingoes kidneys doesn't begin to describe how bad this movie is! There is only one funny scene (the memory eraser scene) but even that rates only .001 on the laughometer (out of 1000). Whoever wrote this turkey should be banned from writing another movie for their entire lives.


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


user
Well, not yet, at least.
It's not listed in the worst 100...
So let's all team up, and put it in it's rightful place.
This is truly a bad movie. (And I liked Ishtar!) ;)


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


user
If you really, truly want to waste two hours of your life, do the following:
1) Look through the TV listings. 2) Find the movie 'Men in White'. 3) When 'Men in White' comes on, sit and watch.
And that's it. After sitting through two hours of bad puns, dreadful (and not that funny) movie references, and experiencing something with possibly the lowest production values ever made in recent history, you will have wasted two hours of your life, and wonder exactly why.
Why did I do this? I was stupid enough to think that this film might actually be some good. It wasn't.
But, on the other hand, if you're old enough to remember Power Rangers, you might spot some familiar faces during the film. Presumably to save on production costs, Saban (who also make Power Rangers), decided to liberally sprinkle old monster costumes from everyone's favourite tacky toy-spawning franchise throughout the film. I spotted quite a few old monsters from episodes I saw from when I was a kid, so I guess it could at least be said it has some nostalgia value.
But, if you want to see actual Power Rangers monsters, go watch Power Rangers itself. It's much better than this piece of garbage. (And that's saying something!)


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


user
I may have seen worse films than this, but I if I have, I don't remember. Or possibly blocked them out. Who knows,if I was to undergo hypnotherapy, I may remember them, along, maybe, with been abducted by aliens as a child, or other traumas. If so, I would happily exchange those memories for the ones I have of watching this film.
I should give the film some credit: It did produce an emotional response. I actually started to become angry at scenes that spoofed other films and TV programs, that this travesty was dirtying them by association. I am terrified that I may be unable to watch films like Dr Strangelove again without this film flitting across my minds eye.


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 on a weekend afternoon as there was simply nothing else on, it would have been more entertaining to chew off my feet and probably less painful. I urge anyone to watch this just to see how turgidly awful a movie can be, surely it was deliberate. I cringed at every futile attempt at humour carried out in such a childish, unrehearsed, badly executed way that it was beyond belief. This is the movie that makes Spiceworld look like Goodfellas, think I am exaggerating? Well give it airtime and think again. Dreadful, utterly dreadful. If this wasn't a prank then the director and anyone else responsible for this should be removed and promptly shot after being forced to watch this film again.


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


user
Words fail me. This film was extremely difficult to watch and in hindsight I really wish I hadn't done it. Although I attempted to sit through it until the end credits I have to admit I couldn't last for more than hour, so my opinion could be unfair. However, this film would require the most impressive final third in the history of film-making in order for it to be given a review which is anything but vicious.
Please do not watch any part of this film.


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' has to be the biggest pile of steaming C*^p I have ever
seen, What more can I say than BAD, BAD, BAD, BAD, BAD, BAD. There is NOTHING to save this 'movie' and I pray that they NEVER even talk about making a sequel. If you are thinking about watching this then you should know that the storyline is that two garbage men get dragged into saving the earth. Movies like Men in Black has been torn to shreds and put back together to make this 'Comedy' but have TOTALLY failed. Please avoid this movie, (save yourself).


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


user
You should know that I am the type of person that watches even the worst of movies to the finish, often out of sheer morbid curiosity. I even watched Leprechaun to the end before giving in to the temptation of tearing out my eyes and stamping on them. You should also know that this movie was in my VCR for less than half an hour before I made a frantic leap for the stop button and dashed back the rental store just to put as much distance between me and it as possible.


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


user
A friend of mine enjoys watching the worst films he can possibly find, and I have a good laugh watching them with him.
I have told him if he puts this one on again I will be forced to give him a good kicking.
He knows I am serious!



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


user
Why did I waste my time with this movie? There was not a single funny joke or line throughout. The slapstick wasn't even mildly funny. I mean really, an out of control vacuum sucking pipe? Why has the National Lampoon's name been attached to this movie? Even Christmas Vacation was better than this (I actually thought that film was very funny).
AVOID 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
I only lasted 15mins before self preservation jerked me out of the empty eyed drooling stupor that this film effortlessly induced and propelled me screaming back to the video shop armed for bear.
To say the film was bad would be a missed opportunity to use words interspersed with characters from the top keys on my keyboard (just to keep these comments clean).
One to be avoided.



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


user
it got switched off before the opening credits had even finished appearing. The first joke was just so appallingly lame and dreadfully acted that it had to go. You shouldn't really decide to watch this based on my review or not. I saw so little of it I shouldn't even really be commenting but suddenly it all became clear why the video shop guy was sniggering at us paying money to see it.
Couldn't they have just made Earnest does Dallas?


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


user
In the title I write that the story is ludicrous. below I'll elaborate and tell you why it, in my humble opinion, ruins this movie.
Gere and Danes are doing their jobs, and while it's not their best work, it's quite OK. The rest of the cast, though, is doing a really poor job. Mind you, this is not entirely the actors fault. The problem is that Gere and Danes are the only ones that have characters that have even the slightest room in the movie to really give any depth. All other characters have either too little room in the movie to create any depth, or the character is such a cliché that it doesn't matter how hard the actors try.
The director has a bit of a Se7en complex, but looking merely at the direction, I think he does an OK job.
But the story. This is the kind of script that is bad in two ways. First of all it's a bad movie script. The characters are shallow (except for Gere's and Danes' characters), the villains are clichés and the actions of the characters is totally unbelievable. Besides this, the writers must have an agenda where they want to bring back our views and ethics a hundred years. It's the kind of movie that are saying that some criminals are still criminals, regardless of the fact that they have paid the price the society has given them. It's also the kind of movie that says, albeit only between the lines, that every form of sexual deviance should be punished without trial, judge or jury. And of course, according to the movie, everything that is not sex in the missionary position by a married couple is a sexual deviance.
So, if you're going to film school and need an example of a bad script, or if you're writing scripts yourself and want an ego boost. See it. For everyone else, I recommend another movie.


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


user
Although THE FLOCK has some pretty good acting by veteran Richard Gere, and some okay shots that might harken some back to THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS days, the movie stretches credibility to the breaking point and destroys itself against a plot that really leads nowhere.
The film is about Erroll Babbage (Gere) who works for the department of safety and is preparing to retire. His office thrusts upon him his replacement, Allison Lowry (Claire Danes, STARDUST), who quickly discovers that Babbage is obsessed with his job. And that job ain't very fun. He monitors hundreds of sexual offenders who are on parole in his jurisdiction. Allison goes with Erroll on many calls to check up on his "flock" of offenders and learns that he is in desperate need of retirement. But Erroll is good at his job even if his methods aren't. He taunts sexual predators and even has physical conflicts with them. Erroll justifies his actions by bringing up these deviants' pasts. It is this "good justification" that challenges the audience on some level, letting us see how brutal Erroll is and yet how out-of-touch he's become (by being too close to his job).
When a teenage girl goes missing in Erroll's "area", he immediate leaps to the conclusion that she was abducted by one of his flock. But how could he know? Is Erroll that good at his job? Allison challenges him and Erroll pushes back. Their battles become as fierce as Erroll's need to find this missing girl.
Although the set-up for the story was okay, it didn't have any umpf! I will give credit to Richard Gere, however, who plays the Erroll character very well. Battling retirement. Worried about everyone who's near his flock. Disgusted with those he's responsible for overseeing. Disgusted with himself for having to do some of things he does. Quite a change in character portrayal for Gere. But beyond him there's not much else. Some of the sets are okay (dark and dangerous) but there are so many other problems as to be laughable.
I'll be the first to admit that suspending disbelief is a requirement whenever watching films. But that suspension has limits. The biggest push against those limits is the destruction of EXTREMELY vital crime scenes. Someone as meticulous as Erroll would KNOW that moving a body would be a huge no-no. Or trampling through a crime scene. Or moving evidence. It went beyond and hurt the film to no end.
The other damaging part of this film is that we never get into Clair Danes' character, Allison. She's almost dropped by the wayside at the end of the film and we're never privy to what her intension might be: Will she stay or leave? Will she end up like Erroll if she does stay? This isn't a horrible film as it does touch on some uncomfortable moral ground, but the story as a whole needed to be tightened up.


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 the movie "The Flock" because of the casting of Gere and Danes and because the story synopsis sounded interesting. This was one of the WORST movies I've seen in a long while (and I've seen some turkeys.) I've never posted online before but this movie was so awful I had to do so. I suppose the problems begin begin with the script which was so amateurish it's unbelievable. The story makes zero sense and the dialogue is so trite it's nauseating. Poor Gere, he deserves so much better. As for the Gere/Danes on screen matchup, because of the horrible writing, one doesn't believe either character for a single minute. I'll bet Gere wishes he could buy back the negative, were such a thing possible. It's a shame to see talent wasted so badly, not to mention I wish I could get my 2 hours back. (I know what you're thinking. How do I really feel?)


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 saw this film yesterday.
My girlfriend wanted to see it only because of Richard Gere.
I feel I wasted my time and money and told my girlfriend it's the last time we go to see a film just because a certain actor/actress is in it. I hope she learned the lesson because I had trouble keeping her in her seat. As of me, since I paid already, I wanted to see the end at least, just in the hope something good would turn up, but I didn't hold my breath, and luckily so cause I would have been a victim of the film just the same.
This is not a black and white film, it's a black and black one. The main character (Richard Gere) is almost as bad as his registrants, and all sex offenders are portrayed as unredeemable hard core criminals and the bad ones among them were really very very bad. Speak of a cliché and the exploitation of a typical US phobia.
Richard Gere's acting was good as usual but the blond girl that's supposed to replace him was wishy washy at best. Totally unconvincing for the job.
The film tries to exploit a popular theme and gives it a cheap, dramatic, and sensational turn that just is unreal. They just use sex offenders as an excuse to indulge in cheap violent acts of murders, vigilante beating, rape and torture - something that almost seems gratuitous. They even have a wolf attacking people in the film - how low can you get.
I gather the film won't come out in the USA and will go straight to DVD. That's were it should have stayed in other countries too, but because it's Hollywood and Richard Gere they just had to show it. Believe me, without Gere, the film is not even worth a B-series movie.


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


user
The Flock is not really a movie. It's a wannabe movie, with wannabe actors. Not including Richard Gere, he gave an excellent performance, but when only one of the actors truly gives himself to his character, and the rest of the cast is just acting... the result is pathetic, just like this movie. You see, the idea of acting is to hide the fact that you're acting. What the hell was Claire Dains doing in this one?! She's the most inappropriate actress for this character. In 99.9% of the movie she looked extremely out of place, out of everything!! The only thing she was doing was asking stupid questions, like " do you really think so?? " , and making silly faces. I was embarrassed by her acting, seriously, and I used to like her... She's the romantic movie type, I don't know who picked her among all the actresses out there.... LOL, and seeing Avril Lavigne?! this really made me laugh.. Anyway.. If you want to get the feeling of throwing up, this movie will do the job for you!!! I wish I could vote -5..


assistant
0