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
Having heard so much about the 1990s Cracker series without seeing any of them, I looked forward to this eagerly. Surely the combination of Jimmie McGovern and Robbie Coltrane could not go wrong. How wrong I was!
The polemics, backed by frequent, repetitive and violent flashbacks, were overpowering. The production tried to be super-modern, but the flashing boxes and even the childish font irritated. Robbie Coltrane sleep-walked through the two hours, coming up with unexplained and unlikely "insights", and the police were portrayed as one-dimensional bumbling idiots. As a result, the tension never built up and the next-to-final scene (no details for fear of spoilers) was as laughably bad a piece of TV drama as I have seen for a long time.
No, I don't want to see any more of these, but I will go back to the DVDs of the 1990s series to see if they match their reputation.


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


user
I enjoyed "American Movie", so I rented Chris Smith's first film, which I thought was a documentary too. In the first minute I saw that it wasn't, but I gave it a go.
What a dead end film. Being true-to-life hardly serves you if you're merely going to examine tediousness, esp. tediousness that we're already familar with.
I'm sorry, but will it come as a relevation to ANYONE that 1) a lot of jobs suck and 2) most of them are crappy, minimum wage jobs in the service sector??? I knew that before I saw the film. It didn't really provide an examination of that anyway, as while the film struggles to feel "real" (handheld camera, no music, etc.), what's going on hardly plays out as it would in the "real world."
Would an employer be so cheerful to Randy when he picks up his check, after Randy quit on him after 3 days when the guy said he expected him to stay 6 months?? Or the day after abandoning his job (and screwing up the machine he was working on), that everyone would be so easy on him??
A big problem is our "hero"(?), Randy. This guy is a loser. Not because he's stuck in these jobs, or has a crummy apartment, or looks like one. He's a dope. He doesn't pay attention or even really try at these jobs. He has zero personalty. If I had to hire someone, he wouldn't make it past the interview.
I'm looking forward to what Chris Smith does next, but guys, knock off the "this-is-an-important-film" stuff. "American Job" doesn't work.


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


user
I must say that I was disapointed with this film. I have never been a huge BNL fans, I find their songs kind of childish and obsessively nostalgic (this is me in grade 9, if i had a million dollars, shoe box of life etc). However, I have seen clips of their live show and I really like the improvisational and goofy nature of the show. I was hoping that this movie would highlight this which is, unfortunately, the most interesting part of the show because their music is well played yet somehow bland and not that compelling (there is a standup bass solo in the middle which was completely pointless and boring, despite how much Jim Creegan was digging himself). The film does not and shows only a few minutes of it (and you know they've had better moments, as in the Afgahnistan concert "Koffee Anan, he's the man in charge, my name's Steve Paige and I'm really large") .
BNL are kind of like when I went to Europe a few years ago and heard that godawfull "Blue" song by Effeil 99 or whatever every 2 minutes, I came back to Canada and then a month later that song was all over the place *again*, I nearly chewed off my own arm. BNL is like that, years ago I remember many a fond memory of sitting around campfires in Canada listening to people play "If I had a million dollars". BNL was a cult phenomenon in Canada, and much of their humour has a particular Canadian slant to it (Kraft Dinner is a staple for many students up here, and the name "Gordon" is quintessentially Canadian) a few years went by where they slipped into obscurity and I was somewhat gratefull. Then all of a sudden they become huge in States, and everyone down there thinks they are this brand new band (yeah, they're brand new, but they're all in their 30's!) while the rest of Canada is going "Oh geez, I thought those guys folded years ago, do I have to listen to 'million dollars' again?"
The concert footage is not bad, but I would have liked to have seen more of their stage routine, the shooting is not that great, and things like clips from their massive free show in Boston are glazed over much too quickly. The interviews are surprisingly dull for such a funny bunch of guys, I think they're all old and they have families and houses and stuff and have settled down a bit. There are times when they go into Spinal Tap type of material, where they deliver deadpan satire, then they break into laughs and giggles that kind of ruins it. The interviews with Moses Znaimer (a Canadian media mogule) and Terry David Mulligan (Music dude) are extremely pretentious and verge into Tap territory unintentionally.
This movie doesn't really document very much either, I mean, it's basically one show and at the start of the film, they are already huge and have a massive touring entourage, it's not like we see them rising from obscurity and "surprise" they are popular, it's a methodically planned out event, so in the end it's rather lifeless, kind of half live concert, half documentary, and not much of either.



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


user
Can you say "All shock, no plot?" There were so many unexplored directions in this movie. There was no history about the room other than the deaths. *WHY* was it evil? What made it that way? Why an "hour" countdown? Then, there were the unexplored things hinted at; for example we *saw* a camera in the air vent, which he mentioned. But when he climbed up said vent, there was no camera.
How about the fact that all the ghosts looked "Digital", and things "winked out" before hitting the ground making a static noise? Hmmm... when you put all of *those* things together, it makes room 1408 look like a high-tech spook house. Except that there was no follow up on that.
Oh... by the way... electronics don't work in 1408. Well, except for the TV... the cell phone has no signal, but Wireless Internet works fine. How many incontinuities can you possibly add? I'm sorry, but this film was nothing but "shock after shock". It's all been done before. Reflections in the mirror. Things just out of site. Changing paintings. Bleeding walls. The "Oh, it was all just a dream... no it wasn't." And, if the room was "evil", why make our main character come to terms with his daughter's death, if it was going to keep him trapped there forever anyway? It just didn't make sense.
Additionally, there was no background information about "The first book" that he wrote. Just some vague information about the "dad was a jerk" and so forth. Speaking of dads, what was with the bit about his father? "You'll be in my place".
Overall, a truly HORRIBLE movie. It was 100% adrenalin shock factor, without any new or innovative effects, and certainly no back story, character development, etc.
My overall impression is that the entire movie was made on the "Cheap"; pretty much using one set and a couple of location shots, and was nothing but an effects film of recycled, cheesy, "seen-that-before" effects.


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


user
After spotting the high rating on IMDb, I decided to go see this movie. Beyond that high rating, I intentionally avoided reading any of the reviews. I wanted to go into the theater with a clean slate, without knowing the plot or having predetermined expectations.
Given my rating, you can see that I was disappointed. I enjoyed the development of the main character Mike Enslin. I also enjoyed how the hotel manager attempted to talk him out of entering the hotel room. By the time Enslin entered the room, I was ready for some scary stuff.
First chocolates appear on the pillow and the toilet paper is folded. Enslin reacts in a believable manner. He's freaked out. I'm encouraged and think to myself, this is going to be good. The people who made this movie understand that less is more.
But it's what happens next that was a big let down. The subtleness is quickly replaced by the predictable shotgun approach... Just blast the audience with every Hollywood scary trick in the book and hope that something works. Let's see, a clock radio that turns on by itself? Good, that's always scary. Objects that move around in the room? Good, you can't complain about that. Blood dripping from the walls and sink? Great. Ghosts that commit suicide? Good. Anything else? How about loud noises, shaking, fire, more shaking, messing up the room, more blood, etc etc. It's all good. And it's all been done before. Overstimulate our Attention Deficit Disordered audience with all kinds of stuff in quick succession, and they won't be able to look away.
Well, it didn't work for me. And you know what else? When I go see a horror movie in a theater, it's typical to hear several groups of girls in the audience yelling in fear at scary moments. But this movie had no scary moments. The audience was silent and disinterested. I felt no chill down my spine. Nothing. The Shining was 100x what this movie tries to be.
So who are all these people who are saying that it is one of the best horror movies ever? Friends of the director? Sorry, I just don't get it.


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


user
I don't see what everyone liked about this movie. The set-up was too long and talky, and when it was done, the main character remained as flat and opaque as he had been in the first scene. After the film finally got Cusack into the eponymous hotel room, I had to wonder, well, what's going to happen here for the next hour or so to keep me engaged. The answer: not much, just John Cusack having a long, drawn-out, mental breakdown.
Maybe if the Cusack character had more depth . . maybe if his freak-out were a more thorough reworking of his everyday life . . . maybe if the film had either better developed its half-baked themes about loss and faith or had not tacked them on in the first place . . . maybe if the film had made a choice to be either psychological horror or thrill-ride horror and had fully embraced one of these styles . . . I dunno. All I do know is that I saw this movie with two other horror buffs and none of us much liked it.
Except for the disquieting episode on the hotel ledge, the alarming crazy lady with the hammer, and the so-stupid-it-was-fun crypt keeper in the air duct, all three of which account for no more than five minutes of screen time, this film was a bore.
By the way, this story seems to steal ideas from The Shining and use them here to much less powerful effect. Is Stephen King now reduced to stealing ideas from himself?


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


user
'1408' is the latest hodge podge of cheap scare tactics. The kind that might make date-movie styled horror fans occasionally jump in their seat and scream in your ear, but disappoint audiences searching for a little depth and direction.
John Cusak plays a writer who's made a career of writing books describing his experiences of staying in rumored haunted hotels. Despite assurances by patrons and owners that ghosts roam the halls, there is little to make him a real believer in the paranormal. When he learns of the history of Room 1408 at the Overlook Hotel--no wait, I mean, Dolphin Hotel in New York City--he decides it would make the perfect closing chapter to his latest book. But, Samuel L. Jackson, playing the hotel owner, strongly attempts to dissuade his guest with narration of the atrocities that have occurred in theat room since the hotel's opening many years ago. The story is simple and we, as possible skeptics, must sit through Jackson's lengthy foreshadowing ramble.
In other words: be afraid! Be very afraid!
Of course, it would be easy to convince audiences that they've just paid to see an edge-of-the-seat thriller if it didn't take so long to build up to this point. And also, if what followed was a lot more than cheap "boos" that become so frequent and arbitrary that eventually, you might soon expect them. The temperature in the room changes automatically. The walls drip with blood. The fearless writer can't open the door, etc. And after nearly an hour and a half of delivering these to audiences promised big thrills, you might sit and hope that at least you can be wowed by the ending. With suspicions of dream sequences and other derivative time-wasters, even that fails to quell our doubts that before the movie is over, we might finally have something to make the movie a little less than completely forgettable.
Despite grand performances (as always) by Cusak, who essentially is the entire film, most everyone else of note is wasted (i.e. Samuel L. Jackson) in insignificant minor roles. The true mystery here is how this movie received such a high viewer rating. Ballot-stuffing ghosts?


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 a huge, huge fan of John Cusack, Samuel L. Jackson, and Tony Shalhoub. I'm slightly less fond of Stephen King, but I like some of his work.
This said, I should have LOVED 1408.
***POSSIBLE SPOILERS AFTER THIS POINT****
I walked in eager. I walked out disappointed.
This is not the fault of the actors. Shalhoub and Jackson both have very small roles because the premise of the movie puts Cusack in the "guy in a locked room" scenario.
This wasn't a BAD movie, but I can't call it a good one either. It was a muddied mess that had moments of "ouch, that's just WRONG," combined with moments of "ouch, that's just painful," and moments of "oh, now THAT'S just unfortunate" with very little continuity-connectivity between them. Eislin's father shows up once, and there's no seeming connection to the rest of Mike's personal life that we see displayed while he tries to survive the room.
A previous commenter described the Olin/Enslin argument as worth watching, and I very much agree. But other than that, aside from some clever musical cues (the room almost playfully torments Enslin a little bit, and gives him one chance to get out before upping the ante...at which point it gives him the one-hour countdown clock and the titular line from the Carpenters "We've Only Just Begun.") it's mostly "stuff jumps out at you when you least expect it!" type horror that was fun when I was fourteen, and surrounded by friends my age, clutching each other in the summer while Jason stalked Camp Crystal Lake.
The rest of the movie was "let's make him relive some of his most painful experiences" mindgaming, with "let's animate the paintings in creepy ways" cliché cheesiness.
******END SPOILERS*****
I expected better from this movie with Stephen King's name attached to it, as well as the actors I mentioned above.
We never find out the origin of the evil. We never get to see the evil defeated, though we can presume maybe it was defeated.
And the ending was just a jarring "What?!" moment.
Wait for it to come on cable. I wouldn't have minded paying for it as a matinée, but I'm feeling a bit shortchanged for having paid opening night prices for it.


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


user
This movie was exactly what I expected, not great, but also not that bad either. In my opinion PG13 movies aren't scary enough so that's why I already knew I was going to be bored throughout the entire film. Sure there were scary things going on in the hotel room, but nothing we all haven't already seen. I guess I didn't like it because I thought there were too many twists and turns happening; it got old and repetitive. I also didn't understand if all the things Cusack was experiencing in the room was real or not. There is no explanation for any of the events that occurred. The movie just drags on and when it finally does come to an end you want it to keep going because you are still waiting around for someone to tell you what the whole movie was about. What I did like was the special effects. Other than that there wasn't much enjoyment from it. Maybe its just me but I thought this was below average.


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


user
Director Spike Lee is famous for making films pointing out racism. In many of films, such "Do The Right Thing," most of the white people are all brutal racists. In this movie, interracial marriage is the subject, with racism once again being the entire issue.
What Lee does, however, is once again demonstrate his bigotry against Christianity. It's amazing the double standards that exist in the film world. If Lee or anyone else ever produced this kind of bias against another group he would be vilified, but Christians? Hey, it's "open season" on them.
Ossie Davis, a reverend in this film, shoots his son and then puts the smoldering gun down on top of his Bible. They zoom in on that for another closeup just in case you missed it. Hey, folks, here's another Bible reader and look what he''s like! Lee does this sort of thing in just about every movie he makes.
He shows the same hatred when dealing with race relations. Who could argue with portraying racism as an evil thing? However, Lee perpetuates it in this film as he has in his other films. His obvious bitterness toward white people doesn't help the situation. It only adds fuel to the fire.
Hey, Spike: start "doing the right thing" and leave your prejudices in the closet. Better yet, "get over it."
This is too bad because the subject matter could have made for a thought- provoking film if it had been done with objectivity and intelligence.


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


user
I'm not sure why Spike Lee made this train wreck of a movie and conned poor Stevie Wonder into eternally pairing his beautiful music with this theatrical mess. I also resent the way he uses profanity as a part of the normal prose of professional Blacks. The abuse of his hold on ethnic movie goers is a shame. Scenes which seem to be contrived out the blue and have nothing to do with the theme or sub themes, play as if some college kid wrote this. I especially detest the ludicrous scene where the two leads are playfully sparring for no reason at all and the cops come and rough up Snipes. The overacting of the leads makes one feel as if Spike has no respect for his viewers or he has no clue what a movie is all about. The final scene appears to be thrown in to justify the use of a sledge hammer to tack a point in. This movie also supports the myth that all people of culture use the F-word in casual conversation. I am hoping he will realize that the rest of his movies are in the same pool as this one where he is not growing as a film maker. I think his union with Scorcesee in Clockers was a wise move. He should stick to making documentaries like the Four Little Colored Girls. Shock movies do not an Oscar make.


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


user
Jungle Fever is too highly stylized, stereotyped, and comes across as essentially dishonest. Wesley Snipes was wrong for the lead and there was no chemistry between him and Annabella Sciorra. Even though there's plenty of talent in this movie, it's mostly wasted because the parts are reduced to little more than decorative cameos. Also, instead of simply showing racism for the ugly and stupid thing it is, Spike Lee chooses to wave it around like a flag in a most whining and irritating manner. I made it through most of the film but I couldn't quite finish it, and that, for me, rarely happens.


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


user
Who in their right mind plays a lyrical song at the same time they are portraying an emotional scene between two people? When Flipper confronts his wronged wife in the dressing room, the song sung with lyrical content is as loud as the dialog, so one can hear neither, diluting any emotional impact the scene may have had. The scenes of Annabella getting beaten by her father with his fists, a lamp and then a belt was so cartoonish as to be absurd. This entire movie is a cartoon, the rampant prejudice against whites is literally astounding. The discussion by the black women after flipper's wife finds out he has cheated on her with a white woman - as if it were a discussion by an oxford debating team, is ridiculous. The rampant racism might be possible to endure, but the soundtrack and the sound mixing during this 'movie' is too much. It was a technically poorly made movie. There is no understanding of the basic craft of movie making, the sound track, the editing and the desperate attempt of great actors trying to keep this movie afloat. I actually felt sorry for Anthony Quinn, wondering why he had accepted a role in this flick - his appearance in this is painful. This is the first movie I have seen by this director and it will be my last.


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


user
In short:
Spike Lee clearly has a lot on his mind. He's thinking about racism color-ism, media and hegemony, consumerism and capitalism, religion, sexism, 'hetero-sexism', politics of the drug war etc etc...
That level of consciousness on is own is great. I think it is a blessing that more and more people are choosing to critically examine fundamental aspects of our daily lives; the silent and invisible forces that govern our societies. However, just because Lee is making contentious films does not make him a good film-maker.
What comes across in "Jungle Fever" is a superficial understanding of these socio-political forces. This is largely the result of two main failures:
firstly, Lee is simply trying too hard. He seems to be desperately trying to accommodate every political/social statement he can think of into the 90mins. And as such, the end result seems confused and irresolute as he allows himself no time to develop characters that can fully embody the ideas he hopes to present. And so he exhausts stereotypes and we are left with rushed testimonies and very loaded dialogs. The end result is very staged and unrealistic.
Secondly, by attempting to make statements about such a wide variety of societal functions, he appears to have no concrete or original interpretation of the social/political issues presented. What comes across is a puddle of regurgitated non-sense. You feel that he bought an elementary level sociology text book and spewed out all 500 pages.
These are highly problematic features because the artistry of film is sacrificed and the work is transformed into a loudspeaker for the voice of the voice of the filmmaker. He is unable to distance himself from the work, and allow it to speak for itself.
It functions neither as a piece of art nor a sound political argument.
Although I still do appreciate Lee bringing up these important issues, I must say:
Two thumbs down.


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 walked out of very few movies before they end, but I couldn't finish this piece of garbage. This was the biggest load of racism trying to pass as legitimate film since "Birth of a Nation". The characters were little more than cardboard cutouts. I don't see how any actor would want their name associated with this film. Lee must have better things to do that put out garbage like this. I know that I and anyone with a brain have better things to do.... like watching paint dry. I wish that someone would make a film about interracial relationships that dealt with the topic realistically. There is a lot more depth to this subject the shallow ranting of a bitter director like Lee.


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 refer to Malice as a film noir I am not likening it to such masterpieces as Sunset Boulevard, Double Indemnity or The Maltese Falcon, nor am I comparing director Becker to Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick, Stanley Kramer or Luis Bunuel. I am merely registering a protest against the darkness that pervades this movie from start to finish, to the extent that most of the time you simply cannot make out what is going on. I can understand darkness in night scenes but this movie was dark even in broad daylight, for what reason I am at loss to understand. As it is, however, it wouldn't have made much difference if director Becker had filmed it in total darkness.


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


user
Flat, ordinary thriller about a conniving woman who deceives all those she supposedly loves in order to boost her bank account. Nicole Kidman plays the deceptive Tracey, married to the doting Andy (Bill Pullman). When an old school friend of Andy's named Jed Hill (Alec Baldwin) turns up as the resident surgeon, trouble is not far behind him.
Script fails in that it does not carefully develop the promising premise into an effective, tantalising thriller, and the severe lack of character motivation, background and development leaves the whole show reaching. None of the cast are able to generate interest in their shallow characters, especially Bill Pullman, whose own inexplicably curious Andy is impossible to believe.
Poor director Harold Becker is left trying to resurrect an impossibly dead project, and is unable to make entertainment from any of it. By the time the 'secret' of the plot is revealed, you just won't care.
At least the cinematography has Massachusetts looking good. Also stars George C. Scott, Peter Gallagher and Josef Sommer.
Sunday, February 25, 1996 - T.V.


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 a few years back on the BBC i sat thru it. How? i don't know,this is way up there in the "so bad it'Good " charts Kidman ,Baldwin,and Pullman must cringe when they see it now.I think Woody Allen would have worked wonders with the outlandish plot, and Baldwin's part could have been played with gusto by Leslie Nelson.it was on again tonight i tried to watch it again but life's too short. the few minutes i watched was for the lovely Nicole she was so hot around 93, has Baldwin ever made a good movie? Pullman played his stock in trade "nice but dim" character the F-word coming out of his mouth when the lady from "frasier" miscast ed as a detective accuses him of murder sounds so wrong. stay well away.


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


user
Irene Dunne finished her illustrious career with this so-so movie. She should have gone out with a bang, being the classy actress she was, not in this unmemorable, almost unknown film.
This lightweight comedy is okay, but nothing special. The first half of it is far better as it gets pretty stupid in the second half. Maybe Irene could see the handwriting on the wall and quit. Even her high-pitched voice got a bit annoying in here. Rumor has it she was not happy with this film. One can see why.
The story reminded me of a 1950s television sitcom. Speaking of that, I thought David Nelson from the Ozzie & Harriet TV show was in this movie but it turned out to be a very young Richard Crenna. He looked and sounded just like Nelson.
Overall, so-so at best and a sub-par ending for a great actress.


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


user
For the love of god please don't see this movie! Its a waste of time, the plot is predictable, as are the romantic scenes. Trying to build too much with very little, this film and its evil predictable villain is just lame. The characters aren't developed, and most of the film is padded out with shots of Rome, which is much more interesting than the actual film. To top all of that, the acting is a disgrace. I know everyone tries to find their niche, but this is truly a disaster. I can't believe that someone actually paid however many millions of pounds to put this film on screen. Don't waste money or time on this film, go see your grandma or something worthwhile instead.


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


user
This movie really has no beginning or end. And it's really VERY unbelievable. Mary-K and Ashley are supposed to be interns working in a mailing room for an Italian fashion company. But, for some reason, they're put up in a 5-star hotel (conveniently located across the street from the Coliseum), and all of the other interns they work with are just as abnormally model-looking as they are. One thing that I found obvious in this movie is the way that one of the twins DOESN'T end up with the guy. I guess they tried to twist their usual plot a bit. Nice try.


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


user
No ,I'm not kidding. If they ever propose a movie idea, they should be kicked out of the studio. I'm serious. Their movies are exactly the same in every one, and they only consist of traveling to foreign locations, having a problem which they easily resolve, hoping to be popular, and getting new boyfriends. Think about it. If you have ever seen a movie starring them with a different plot, contact me and tell me its name. These "movies" are poor excuses to be on TV and go to other countries. There is a reason that the movies never go to theaters. I'm sure that when they were really young and made some O.K. movies, some studio boss bought all their rights for 15 years, or something, so that now that they're, what, 17, they can make movies in other countries whenever they want using the studio's money. Let me advise you, STAY AWAY FROM MARY-KATE AND ASHLEY! IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD!


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


user
OK, this has got 2 be one of the worst excuses 4 a movie that i have ever had the misfortune of watching. Like all other Olsen twins movies with the possible exception of new york minute , this film had no story, gaping plot holes,disgustingly putrid acting and bad filming even!!!!!!!!! in case you haven't guessed yet I HATE MARY KATE AND ASHLEY!!!!!! The only reason i watched this was because i was really bored and nothing else was on. I wonder if the twins will EVER stop making the same stereotypical movies where they have an unbelievably stupid adventure in an exotic location and save the day meanwhile getting the help of two cute guys who drool over them immediately. The least they could would be to have a guy 4 1 of them or have them both falling 4 the same guy. The plot in this story was so imbecilic and just plain dumb. even a toddler could see the flaws in it.Maybe they should split up and start making films individually or maybe films with a different kind of story. Anyone who liked this movie was no offense-either really stupid, really artificial or has not seen any really good movie. or maybe they are really smart and just have bad cinematic choices. either way i would not recommend this movie to my worst nemesis for a good movie experience.. the only thing it is good 4 is some rib splitting laughter at the pathetic attempts to be cool. if you watch for laughs it's hilarious. basically i give it 0 or less.


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


user
When In Rome is a definite improvement on Getting There. Getting There I found too predictable, contrived and slow, and to this day I still consider it as the Olsen twins' worst. However, while When In Rome isn't a terrible movie, it's not a great one either. If I had to sum it up in one word, I would say passable. It is good fun for teenagers, but I think adults won't find much to go on.
When In Rome does have its good points. Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen are actually quite decent actresses, certainly very pretty as well. I will admit when I was 10 or so, I really liked them, and in general I kind of like them still. And I have enjoyed some of their movies like Passport To Paris and New York Minute. Back on target, both girls don't do that bad a job, in fact they are very appealing. Plus their outfits are to die for, and the scenery of Rome is absolutely breathtaking. The soundtrack ain't half bad either.
However, where the film is brought down is in the plot and the script. The script is on the most part clichéd and has hints of deja vu. The plot, like most of the Mary Kate and Ashley movies, is very predictable, and anyone familiar with any other of the Olsen twins' work, will find some rather unoriginal elements to it. Most of the characters are cardboard thin, and you don't learn very much about them, and sometimes the pace is uneven. Sadly, the breathtaking scenery is spoilt by rather slapdash camera work, that looked rushed constantly.
All in all, does have its good points, and certainly watchable. However, for my taste, it is harmless and predictable teenage fluff. 4/10 Bethany Cox


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


user
Identical twin sisters Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen climbed to fame in sitcoms like "Two of a Kind", I had never seen them in anything before, but I had an idea of what to expect, but it was much worse. Basically the Hunter sisters Charli (Mary-Kate) and Leila (Ashley) are in Rome for a Summer Intern Program, but not long after starting their jobs they are immediately fired for a series of mishaps. But the man who owns the company they are working in, Derek Hammond (Julian Stone), gives them their jobs back, and they they do slowly prove themselves useful assets, and talented (fashion) artists, and help stop a mean man taking over the company. Also starring Leslie Danon as Jami, Derek Lee Nixon as Ryan, Ilenia Lazzarin as Dari, Archie Kao as Nobu, Valentina Mattolini as Heidi, Michelangelo Tommaso as Paolo and Matt Patresi as Enrico Tortoni. You can tell that this film was made to go straight to video, the camera-work is completely mismatched, and it doesn't help when you want to admire the sights of Rome. In fact the background is the only good thing to watch, the twin sisters are two of the most annoying celebrities around, I knew before watching that they weren't going to interest me in any way (their not even that pretty), this is awful gush of rubbish film. Pretty poor!


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 was dull, the girls were sickening and the supposed Italian male lead had clearly never heard an Italian accent.Someone said the boys were cute in this film but it just seemed to be filled with mediocre people. There were literally no redeeming features about this film.
I think this is a graveyard for actors that will never work again, with the unfortunate exception of the Olsen twins who seem to fascinate people for no discernible reason.
I hope the Olsen twins find something out of the limelight to keep them away from the entertainment business. They have no place in it.


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


user
1st watched 12/7/2002 - 3 out of 10(Dir-Steve Purcell): Typical Mary Kate & Ashley fare with a few more kisses. It looks to me like the girls are getting pretty tired of this stuff and it will be interesting what happens to them if they ever decide to split up and go there own ways. In this episode of their adventures they are interns in Rome for a `fashion' designer who puts them right into the mailroom to learn what working hard is all about(I guess..). Besides the typical flirtations with boys there is nothing much else except the Rome scenario until about ¾ way into the movie when it's finally revealed why they are getting fired, then re-hired, then fired again, then re-hired again. This is definetly made by people who don't understand the corporate world and it shows in their interpretation of it. Maybe the real world will be their next adventure(if there is one.). Even my kids didn't seem to care for this boring `adventure' in the make-believe. Let's see they probably only have a couple of years till their legal adults. We'll see what happens then.


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


user
I do agree with everything Calamine has said! And I don't always agree with people, but what Calamine has said is very true, it is time for the girls to move on to better roles. I would like to see them succeed very much as they were a very inspirational pair growing up and I would like to see them grow as people, actresses and in their career as well as their personal life. So producers, please give the girls a chance to develop something that goes off the tangent a bit, move them into a new direction that recognises them individually and their talents in many facets. This movie that is being commented is not too bad, but as I have seen further on in their movies, their movies stay the same of typical plot and typography. When In Rome is good for audiences of younger generation but the adults who were kids when the twins were babies want to follow the twins in their successes and so hence I think we adults would like to see them make movies of different kinds, maybe some that are like the sixth sense, the hour, chocolat, that sort of movie - not saying to have just serious movies for them, humour ones too yes, but rather see them in different roles to what they have been playing in their more recent movies like this one and New York Minute. (Note: I am from Australia so excuse my weird spelling like reognise with the s instead of z)


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


user
Acting was weak, but in a horror flick, I can live with that if the story is good. It wasn't. The initial event was an clumsy and obvious ploy to exploit most people's adoration of kids. OK, fine. Fast forward to the "place in the country" where they will recover emotionally. I like the revelation of the ghosts. OK, cool--this will be a supernatural kinda horror story, with rotting things partly in our world partly in...where ever. Then the action starts pulling like a three headed dog in a flurry of cats and birds--Is there an evil force trying to attack them directly? Is there an evil force trying to attack them INdirectly--make people do awful things they wouldn't really do? Oh, wait, no, maybe the whole REGION is some kind of psychic echo chamber where ambient discord can reverberate into murder? OK, hold on--maybe it's really just one little mentally tangled "Delbert"-style redneck boy who misses his Mommy and is on some kind of spree like a K-Tel Norman Bates knock off? Oh, yeah--extra points off: the only Black character seems to be the grandson of an "Our Gang" pullman porter. The actor plays it as straight as he can given the crummy dialogue, but the fact is, his purpose is "Y'all done betta get outa heah, Boss!" At least they wrote him smart enough to GTF outta there. The bit with the little girl being silenced and pulled away was definitely creepy, as was the chick in the shower. Those were just two of quite a few really delicious tidbits in this movie. The problem is that they are combined in disharmonious ways, like a bite of steak, a bite of chocolate and a bite of a Gummi bear. Each is great on it's own, but mixed up? Bleah! Such potential. Wasted.


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


user
Grieving couple move to a cabin on a mountain after the loss of their daughter, discovering that there may be ghosts haunting the place, restless spirits of past occupants who committed suicide. Julie Pyke(Cheri Christian)blames husband Allen(Greg Thompson)for the horrible death of their daughter due to leaving the door unlocked and the marriage has deteriorated because of it. Julie remains in a zombie state, eliciting next to no emotion, remote and numb, only photographing a nearby abandoned prison, finding a startling image of a ghoul girl clinging to the bars of a cell. Though Allen doesn't see anything out of the ordinary, Julie continues to take pictures and we can recognize that something isn't quite right. A local handyman, Jim Payne(Scott Hodges), a rather distant fellow who harbors a secret becomes a dangerous threat when it is revealed that his dead mother might have something to do with the haunts occurring to the Pykes. Meanwhile the neighbors who sold the Pykes the cabin find themselves victims as well, alcoholic Mr Booth's abuse to his wife coming back to haunt him. Allen will conduct an investigation into the history of his cabin, attempting to unravel the mystery about the place.
Plenty of ghosts moving about in the background in this somber supernatural tale with practically every character miserable. Cheri Christian remains so vacuous and lost, it's incredibly hard to connect with her despite the fact that you understand her plight. The acting, as is often mentioned, remains frustrating because none of the characters exactly are easy to latch on to. I guess it's supposed to be this way, under their circumstances, but the trouble I had was never being able to properly embrace the Pykes due to their constant state of aloofness. Cheri comes off as cold and detached, as I figure a mother would tend to be when you lose a child in such a way, but the icy nature left me pleading inside to embrace her which I just never could. I think the right performers, even if the characters are going through an emotional turmoil, can grab the hearts of their viewers, if a humanity reaches out to us..in this movie's case, the leads are unable to do so, for whatever reason. It could've been me, I don't know. I wanted to care for them, but nothing in the characters tugged on my heart strings. Anyway, as the film continues, Allen slowly uncovers certain truths and must defend himself against his wife who has convinced herself that their daughter is among them and she won't lose her little girl again. Jim, the unstable neighbor who believes that to stop the hauntings plaguing the area he must kill the Pykes, becomes a vital threat. The ghosts remain a central part of the movie, their presence, particularly Jim's mother, established throughout, off in the distance. The finale reveals all of them as Allen must find help for his wife while trying to thwart Jim's mission. I had a hard time getting into this one due to my unease with the leads and their characters.


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


user
Give me my money back! Give me my life back! Give me a bit of credit. This movie was vomit worthy. Useless and time consuming. What a waste of energy and totally pointless. Okay I understand the premise and the idea sound but, give us a break! Next time just give me the money and let me spend it. Lost child, mothers remorse, blamed husband! Cliché yes~! Get a life! Sorry but this movie was a total waste of my time, my money and my being. I would rather watch eggs cook! No real explanation to why this happened. Prison? Why? Loss? obvious but Why? Acting deserves a What am I doing here Oscar and the cinematography a Am I just doing this for a Wage? How much did this movie make? Well this silly fool hired a copy. Enough said


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


user
Okay. Look- I've seen LOTS and I do mean LOTS of these types of films. You know, the ones where the DVD cover just look SO good and scaarrryyy that you just cant WAIT to see it? Well, I got GOT again. And I'm getting' pretty tired of it. But I digress. It's pretty simple. It sucked(I know, rather juvenile) but it did. AndI SO agree with the other poster that if we had to sit through the boring thing, why oh WHY did the lead actress have to be so unnattractive?Distractingly so if I may add. And the scowl she used convey unresolved pain/grief over the death of her daughter did little help. I mean, Jesus.. Oh, but the crawling-on-her-back-demon thingee was pretty neat...


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


user
I'm writing this because I somehow felt being led to believe Dark Remains was a good movie. Whilst it's not the worst I've seen, it certainly isn't good.
A Weak script, weak actors, and weak directing. Even if they can't afford big name cast, would it be too much to ask for a more attractive lead actress? It was painful to watch a plain actress through out the film with her dull performance. The story was a cliché and poorly scripted. The special effects were minimal. The "suspense" tricks employed repetitively here were hard to swallow.
To be fair, Dark Remains is no worse than quite some of the Masters of Horrors' episodes. But not quite on par with quality movies yet. Dark Remains is only recommended for the hardcore horror fans who don't want to miss any movie in the genre, even if it's a poorly made one. As for anyone else, time should be spent on something more valuable - which should be extremely easy.


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 have ever seen a movie by Brian Avenet-Bradley and compares it to the feedbacks it gets on IMDb, you know that most of the comments and votes are faked. TRUST ME: you will be bored! People of the production team write their feedback themselves (sometimes they even admit it). But that's not enough: They also click constantly "no" whenever there is a negative comment on the movie. That's why negative critics are always placed behind the hyped ones.
The movie itself is bad, bad, bad: bad acting, bad lighting, bad script, bad ending. Believe me now! If not, you will believe me later!
Brian Avenet-Bradley might be quite a good business man. Otherwise it cannot be explained that he finds people who still finance his movies. (Okay, they are cheap, but nevertheless.) But as a creative person, he is a complete failure.


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 the weakest of the series, not much of a plot and a rather odd-looking Wallace. But it's still pretty good, considering. A sign of greater things to come!
6/10


assistant
0