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
For those fans of Laurel and Hardy, the 1940s and beyond were a very sad time for the team. Their contracts with Hal Roach Studios had expired and now they were "free agents"--able to work for any studio who offered them a job. Unfortunately, Fox, RKO, MGM (without Roach) and even a French film company who hired the boys had absolutely no touch for their comedic talents. Plus, Stan and Ollie were a lot older and seeing these geriatric men taking pratfalls seemed sad, not particularly funny. Stan looked very ragged and Ollie's weight had ballooned up to the point where he could barely walk--and so it made me feel uncomfortable laughing at their very, very sedate antics.
In addition to their age, this particular film suffers because Fox Studios oddly cast them in a supporting role and created a parallel plot involving a young couple--something that reduced their time on screen AND turned them into insipid "hangers on" instead of just being themselves. A cute and cuddly Stan and Ollie is very foreign to the old Laurel and Hardy of the 20s and 30s--and just seemed awfully strange and suited them poorly.
Now even with their age, this COULD have been a decent movie if it had been given decent writing and if it appeared the studio cared--and it's quite obvious they were using the "B unit" here--with, at best, second class support. In particular, there are very few laughs and the last 10 minutes of the film is simply dreadful--relying exclusively on a sloppy rear-projected screen for the stupid chase scene--which might just rank as one of the worst of its kind in film history.
For mind-numbed zombie lovers of Laurel and Hardy, it's probably a film they will love. But, for lovers of the team who are willing to honestly evaluate this film relative to their amazing earlier films, it simply comes up wanting indeed. In fact, of all their full-length films pre-1940, I can't think of one I liked less than DANCING MASTERS. Unfortunately, of the post-1940 films, this might just be one of their better ones. Sadly, it got a lot worse--with wretched films like THE BIG NOISE and NOTHING BUT TROUBLE. I just wish the boys had just retired after SAPS AT SEA.
Finally, I wonder if all the generally positive reviews for this film on IMDb might reflect the reviewers' love of the team more than it's an indication that this is a good film? For an audience who are NOT already in love with the team, I don't know HOW this film will do anything but bore the audience--it certainly WON'T convince anyone that Laurel and Hardy were comedic geniuses. But even comedic geniuses need material worthy of their talents.


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


user
I suppose bad Laurel and Hardy is better than no Laurel and Hardy at all, but just barely. It's sad that the Fox films are the ones getting a big release on DVD, exposing people who may not be too familiar with L&H to their WORST stuff rather than their classic comedies.
Once again the boys are saddled with a dumb romantic plot about a guy who's invented an invisible ray. He's in love with the bosses' daughter, who hates him and prefers some slick guy. It's incredible to think the geniuses at Fox thought THIS is what L&H needed in their films.
Without their pancake makeup the boys look tired and old. The only scenes that work for them in this picture is when they try to sneak out of a bedroom window at night and the rather bizarre scene where Robert Mitchum, being a classic noir bad guy tries to sell Oliver Hardy "insurance" on Stan.
Otherwise, this script is just a mess. Forget this and see if you can find a copy of "A Chump at Oxford" or "Bohemian Girl" or "Sons of the Desert" instead.


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


user
As a big fan of David Mamet's films and plays, especially his first film House of Games that also starred Joe Mantegna, I was expecting great things from this film. Instead, I found myself annoyed by the film's superficiality and lack of credibility. Racial slurs are thrown about without any feeling or meaning behind them, in the hopes of setting up a racial tension that for me never materialized. Identity is totally reevaluated and men become "heroes" for no apparent reason. Because of his oaths taken as a cop, the lead character adamantly refuses to perform one relatively small action that would harm no one and could possibly save lives, and yet performs another action which is very violent and VERY illegal, but then still refuses the minor action. In addition, a highly unbelievable subplot involving a man who has killed his family is introduced just for the sake of a plot point that was all but advertised with skywriting, and the cop's reaction to that occurrence stretch credulity way beyond all reasonable limits. Needless to say, after expecting another exciting thriller from David Mamet, I was extremely disappointed to say the least. 3 out of 10.


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


user
David Mamet is a very interesting and a very un-equal director. His first movie 'House of Games' was the one I liked best, and it set a series of films with characters whose perspective of life changes as they get into complicated situations, and so does the perspective of the viewer.
So is 'Homicide' which from the title tries to set the mind of the viewer to the usual crime drama. The principal characters are two cops, one Jewish and one Irish who deal with a racially charged area. The murder of an old Jewish shop owner who proves to be an ancient veteran of the Israeli Independence war triggers the Jewish identity in the mind and heart of the Jewish detective.
This is were the flaws of the film are the more obvious. The process of awakening is theatrical and hard to believe, the group of Jewish militants is operatic, and the way the detective eventually walks to the final violent confrontation is pathetic. The end of the film itself is Mamet-like smart, but disappoints from a human emotional perspective.
Joe Mantegna and William Macy give strong performances, but the flaws of the story are too evident to be easily compensated.


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


user
Very disappointing film. By the end I no longer cared for any of the characters. I did enjoy seeing Ving Rhames in a very small part, and William Macy was good as always, still not worth watching. It starts out strong and just keeps getting weaker and weaker. Insomniacs will like it as I am sure it will put them to sleep.


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 displayed more racial hatred of Jews by David Mamet than I have
have ever encountered in an American film. The sterotypes are so over the top that my ability to continue watching died. I was so disappointed at Joe
Mantegna calling a bunch of men ,sitting in a New York Jewish center cleaning weapons ,heros that common sense prevailed and I stopped. I am deeply
disturbed at the concept that Jews are not Americans and "different". I suggest that Mr. Mamet is one of the causes of hatred not a healer of same.


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


user
Pere is an idiot, but he is aware about it and acts in consequence. His life is totally boring and he doesn't know how to change it. When his last friend, Nicco, dies. He feels totally empty and he decides to go out to become drunk. When he is returning home, he crashes with a girl that puts advertisements. Although she ignores him, he fells in love and starts to follow her, obsessively. Well the beginning of the film is a bit slow, and can result boring for most people. However, as action begins, it is a little better (not much!, maybe, the best part is the 5 minutes of sex (almost 30 different scenes about it) that you can see in the middle of the movie; it is not good for the erothism, but for the funny and unexpected that is the scene. Probably it is the best of the film. Neither the actors nor the directing is good, and the results is a boring film that that can result funny for some people (not for me). All the film is based on absurd situations (idiot, as the film says), that have anything interesting. I like Ventura Pons, but I have to admit that this is not one of his best films (maybe his worst!), he knows to do it better.


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


user
Leave it to geniuses like Ventura Pons, the Spanish director, to convince the higher ups in his country to subsidize this misguided attempt of a film. The sad state of the film industry in that country is a product of trying to make a film out of such thin material. Most of the pictures that are made in Spain fall under two categories: those about the Spanish Civil War, that love to present past history as the writers deem fit. The other type of films show the viewer with a lot of gratuitous sex because the 'creators' don't have anything interest to say.
As the film opens we get to watch Pere's penis as he attempts to cut it off and place it in one of the platters at a party. Later on, Sandra will show all she has been given for the audience to admire. The story of Pere's attraction to Sandra, a married woman that seems to be happily married, is false from the start.
Our only interest in watching the film centered on an earlier, better made picture by Mr. Pons, "Amic/Amat", but alas, it has nothing to do with the mess we are punished to watch in this venture. As far as the comments submitted in IMDb, all the negative votes come from Spanish viewers, which speaks volumes coming from them!


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 actors do a convincing job playing the losers that parade across the screen, the fact that these characters are impossible to identify with had me looking at my watch a mere 20 minutes into the film (and more than once after that). The plot development is disjointed and slow, the verbal diarrhoea of the main character's only friend is practically insufferable, the base quality of most of the characters actions and the cavalier way in which they are treating is annoying.
It is typical of Ventura Pons to put forth crass psychologically handicapped characters. However, this faux sociological analysis is a big step down from CARICIAS or Caresses, where the characters maltreat and despise each other for well founded reasons that play out during that film. In AMOR IDIOTA we are forced to follow the meanderings of a truly subnormal intelligence as he stalks a severely depressed and detached woman. Supposedly this is due to his own depression but the script doesn't support that. I won't give away the rest of the story just in case there are any masochists out there Is he cured through his obsession or is the woman shocked out of her own depression through his unwavering attention? Even though I watched the whole thing I wasn't made to care even for a moment about either of them.
If you can sit through all this prejudice, ignorance, betrayal, BAD dialogue, flimsy philosophy, etc the camera-work was pretty good and seems to be something inspired by the DOGMA group. The makeup also seemed to aim at showing these players in a raw and gritty light as it is the worst I've seen Cayetana Guillen Cuervo in any of her movies (while in person she is actually attractive).
I suppose if the idea is that we should be forced to see the lower strata of society so we can be grateful we are not part of it then Pons has achieved his objective. The barrage of nearly identical sex scenes was a proper waste of film (if the actors had been filmed but once in blue green clothing the background behind them could have been changed in the special effects studio for a pittance). True that I heard much of the male audience squirm in their seats during this but an objective viewing proves that was not the real aim of those scenes.
Save yourselves and watch something else.


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 fails to offer anything new to a genre that has traditionally shown the cross cultural love story underpinned by the politics mid 20th century / pre-WWII India, where the British and their modern ways are bad and the primitive but honest and true Indians are good. Surely such clichéd depictions of the British are rather passé now.
Apart from the drama that fuels the second part of the movie the narrative is predictable, the acting is pedestrian and two-dimensional, and the directing obvious and unimaginative.
The story really needed to be fleshed out and would certainly have benefited from another half an hour of screen time to give the characters and narrative more depth and give the viewer something to feel some investment in.
All in all, rather uninspiring. Oh and Linus Roache just cannot do tragedy - going cross-eyed with emotional pain just doesn't work for me!


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


user
Despite the mysteriously positive reviews and high rating, this is an awful movie. Awful enough, that l feel obligated to warn you how bad it is.
The movie is set in the final period of the Raj, during the time of India's fight for independence. What follows in the ridiculous plot just fills me with disbelief. What the characters do and how they behave just does not persuade me that the characters exist in that era.
For instance, would the young married Hindu housemaid from the local village have an affair with her married Englishman Master, knowing full well that discovery of the affair would likely mean utter social ostracization and shame if not mortal punishment? Unlikely, but still maybe. However, would the same young Hindu housemaid, in the conservative society of India of that era carry on like a half naked Britney Spears in heat, partake in hot outdoor sex during daylight in open view where they might be discovered at any moment? That is not only bloody unlikely, that is a retarded plot line.
Such idiocies combined with the poor acting, drove me to leave the cinema an hour into the movie, so i did not watch the second half of the movie. One could only hope the ending is of more intelligence than what i saw in the first half.


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


user
Let me start by saying how much I love the TV series. Despite the tragic nature of a middle-aged man seemingly unable to pursue his dreams because of his overbearing, manipulative father, it was incredibly light-hearted and fun to watch in practice. In my opinion, it is without doubt one of the greatest British sitcoms of all time. The TV series has my 10 out of 10 rating without reservation.
This movie spin-off on the other hand is a true tragedy in every sense of the word. Hardly any of the essence of the TV show is transferred successfully onto film. This movie has a very dreary, depressing tone that almost moved me to tears on several occasions. Seeing Harold being beaten up in a pub (and not in a comical way) is not my idea of comedy but is most definitely one reason why fans of the TV series will not like this movie. The movie was painfully unfunny except for the scene where Albert bathes in the sink and is seen by a neighbour.
The romance between Harold and Zita is completely out of tone and it makes me wonder whether the producers of this movie ever bothered to watch the TV series. In the TV series, Harold always went after respectable girls, not strippers.
Albert's reactions to the remarks made against him by Harold's girlfriends were absolutely priceless in the TV series. In the movie, Albert says virtually nothing when such an opportunity rises.
Most movie spin-offs of British sitcoms tend to be quite dull, with the notable exception of the ON THE BUSES films (which in some respects were actually better than the TV series itself!). But, STEPTOE AND SON has to rank right at the very bottom of the pile, even below GEORGE AND MILDRED.
My advice - skip this one and see the second spin-off, STEPTOE AND SON RIDE AGAIN instead. It has a much lighter tone, is more faithful to the TV series, and is actually very funny.


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


user
"Women? They're all scrubbers...!"
No, not a good translation; not at all! This lags behind the previous year's "Dad's Army", entirely missing the special, small-screen magic of the seminal television sitcom original, and failing to play interestingly at all with the big screen... you could just about say that this film well represents a Britain entering decline, and more precisely even than that, a *British film industry* entering decline. And that is hardly a recommendation, is it? To be an exemplar of saddening folly...
All that remains after the subtlety of the TV original has been surgically stripped away, by Cliff Owen, Galton and Simpson are: endless, dilapidated musical cues, yawn, from the Ron Grainer theme... bolstered sentimentality (that shoddy, thick-eared ending... how much bolder does the second Steptoe film seem in comparison) an increased seediness - with director and writers seemingly detaching themselves completely - fully applicable to something like the 'misbegotten monstrosity' (yours truly on this site) from 1973, "The Mutations". There is a strangely botched, cut-adrift tone about the scene where Harold is beaten up in a rugby club, that I partly hate and recoil it (so far, as a friend intimated, from the mood of the TV series...), but this at least seems an original slant, and emblematic of tensions just rising to the boil in the Britain of 1972... There is, however, an implied prostitute, aye of a 'heart-of-gold' who turns loose woman-traitor 'pon poor auld 'Arold - and beyond-caricature writing of the 'class' element; not to mention, surprisingly misjudged performances from the usually redoubtable leads. Brambell and Corbett collude with the script, and indeed fail to cure it of an essential ham. What would Anthony Aloysius Hancock have made of it all...? I will merely concede that a few moments just about work - chiefly those where G & S play things a little more carefully and B & C touch tenderer nerves - and it is not on the whole an unwatchable affair.
But, and oh, how this pains me to say it: it is tiresome, boring, both wilfully detached from reality and what made the TV series great, and also fully in tune with the lazy, tawdry, misogynist 'fuck it, that'll do...' actuality of much of what was allowed to pass for mainstream film-making in the Britain of the time.


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


user
Truly a disgusting, vile film, with only a small amount of real humour.
The character of the father in particular is vulgar in the extreme (intentionally so, obviously), and portrayed in the most pathetic, seedy manner.
My wife and I found this film horribly upsetting, with absolutely no redeeming features at all. Frankly, I wish I had never seen it.
I consider this British effort to be a sick and gross embarrassment.
Those who enjoyed this film have an ability I totally lack: that of rejoicing in a display of deep depravity and squalor.
The producers should be ashamed of themselves.


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 can be judged from three viewpoints: as history, as a profile of Amin, as a fictional thriller.
It fails as history, it mentions in passing the coup that threw out Obote, the expulsion of the Asians, and has the Entebbe hi-jack as background, but not in any chronologically consistent time frame.
As a profile of Amin it may have been interesting, because Forest Whitaker is incredibly good, and if this was a better film, he would get an Oscar. (He got it - which proves the Oscar voters don't watch the films they vote on.) It ignores relevant historical episodes in the novel, which observed Amin and the history of Uganda from the point of view of the doctor. It tells instead the fictitious story of the Scots doctor and his impossible love life from the point of view of Amin. But the story told is the one incident that Amin was probably innocent of.
As a fictional thriller, there is no plot to hold it together. The beginning is taut - it takes cinematic liberties with the novel, but sets up the story. The character of the doctor is well-defined, but becomes lost in the second half of the film which suffers as a result.
Why the doctor decides to stay in Kampala is badly explained - seduced by power? Why he befriends no-one is strange. The character of the friend in the novel has been lost because the Scotsman has the affair instead of the black doctor - a ludicrous entanglement which does not seem even faintly believable, but allows the writers of the film to show the ferocity of Amin close at hand. The Man called Horse bit at the end is risible.
Finally in 1971, Uganda drove on the left, not right, the number plates were three letters and two or three numbers - and where are the Equator tusks?!
In short - if you've never heard of Amin, you may want to spend two hours watching this film to appreciate Forest Whitaker's acting, but the last hour will bore you to confusion. If you know Uganda or have read the book - don't see the film - it will only depress you. And if you want to know why the doctor was so foolhardy - he wasn't.


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


user
Forest Whitaker's performance is all the more impressive for making it almost worthwhile to sit through this dreck. "Historical fiction" does not justify changing history. The absurdity begins from the ground up with the imaginary lead character played by James McAvoy. To create a fictional observer for the purpose of giving the reader a point of connection in the book is regrettable, regrettable that white people can't just read a book without a white protagonist to connect to, but at least he was placed in a somewhat passive role. Making up a fake historical actor and crediting this fiction with exposing Amin to the world is irresponsible, lazy and stupid. Not making the actions of this creation believable or even sane is just criminal, and has opened the door for movies like the one they're planning to make with Leonardo DiCaprio as a heroic Enron whistleblower who NEVER EXISTED. The logic of the world does not apply in this film where some Scottish kid thinks its okay to sleep with the wife of a murderous dictator. It doesn't apply where the wife of the dictator desires to sleep with some stupid scrawny irresponsible white boy. For that matter EVERYBODY is lined up to sleep with this scrawny, irresponsible, arrogant white boy, he even has Gillian Anderson licking her comely chops.
Let me declare, I do not like James McAvoy. I'm not sure what it is about him, but I thought his Mr. Tumnus in Narnia was creepy and pervy. I think that Kerry Washington would never look twice at him so I can't believe that the wife of a powerful dangerous man like Amin would risk and lose her life for him. I don't believe him as a Doctor, and I just don't see the appeal. His character seems to have far more arrogance than would make sense, and trying to make him look like a badass in shooting the cow was just...there's that word again...absurd. Think about it, you are watching all of these characters bend themselves into knots in order to accommodate this unbelievable main character and there never was such a guy.
Gillian Anderson looks incredible and sounds more British than most Brits. Whitaker gives a great expansive magnetic performance, and highlighted, with his incomprehensible pre-Oscar speeches, just how much he was acting. It's a shame the film around him had no reason to exist.


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


user
Despite the excellent cast, this is an unremarkable film, especially from the aviation perspective. It may be somewhat better than the egregious "von Richthofen and Brown" but not by much. "Blue Max" remains the best of a small market over the last 35 years while "Darling Lilli" is fun if not taken seriously. It's interesting to speculate what ILM could do with Zeppelins and Gothas in a new, high-quality WW I aero 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 had been looking forward to seeing Dreamgirls for quite a while...what with all it's raving reviews, nominations and media attention. And I must say, the first quarter of the movie was good! It really portrayed the black music scene back then. However, as the movie wore on, me and my whole family were bored out of our wits. The singing just kept coming, one after the other. I mean seriously, just one more music number and it would have broke even with RENT.
Furthermore, I noticed hardly any character development in any of the characters; I just didn't care what happened to them! Even when Eddie Murphy's character died of a drug overdose, I knew I should have been sad, but I just couldn't feel any emotion for that character. The characters were given a flimsy background about singing in their childhood and whatnot, but there personalities were not revealed enough to draw me in.
Finally, the conflict was simply not significant enough to make the viewer care, which goes along with the lack of character development. This movie reminded me of a copy-cat movie based on Ray, Chicago, and Rent (Ray and Chicago were wonderful movies in my opinion). Overall I think this movie would best suit someone who doesn't really care about an overall story, yet would enjoy two hours of entertaining and fun singing performances.


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


user
Yes there are great performances here. Unfortunately, they happen in the context of a movie that doesn't seem to have a clue what it's doing. During the first 45-60 minutes of this all the music takes place as realistic performance. Suddenly, about an hour in, the characters who, until this point, had always spoken to each other, suddenly start singing to each other. To further confuse things, a little further in, out of nowhere, they actually do about 15 minutes of sung-through dialog, then seem to drop that idea and move on to other things, such as a number that begins in a jazz club with a drummer and two electric guitars suddenly turning into a fully orchestrated piece with a massive unseen string section. On top of all this inconsistency in how the music is used, is the composers' clear inability to actually write music in the style that is supposedly being portrayed. While the first couple of pieces do sort of mimic the 1950s Motown sound, the rest of the film is just (bad) Broadway show music. Then there's the pure silliness of snippets of a group doing a bad Jackson family imitation and Eddie Murphy morphing from Little Richard to James Brown to Lionel Richie. When he started channeling Stevie Wonder I couldn't help laughing out loud. This was clearly one of those films that make me appreciate how little time I have on earth and resent that I wasted two hours of it watching 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 anticipated the release of the film as much as any fan of the Broadway play. I waited and read reviews for months about the award winning performances. I mean with the star power of Eddie Murphy, Jamie Foxx, Beyonce Knowles, Danny Glover... the movie couldn't be less than 4 out of 4 stars, right? WRONG! I was definitely disappointed by the finished product. The film did not match up to the publicity hype it was given and the only saving graces were Eddie Murphy, Anika Noni Rose and Jennifer Hudson.
Eddie Murphy's James Brownesque performance rescues the movie just when it hits its multiple lulls and Jennifer Hudson's performance compels you to pay attention each time she's on screen. Her performance of "And I Am Telling You" was the only time that I felt the hype was deserved. You cringed as she begged her no good man to let her stay in the group and in his life. As many reviewers have stated, she steals the movie from the more experienced actors and deserves all the accolades she's receiving for this performance. Anika Noni Rose was also a strong presence with a great voice and comedic talent.
Jamie Foxx and Beyonce Knowles, on the other hand, cruised through their performances. Foxx's acting skills for this film seemed to predate his extraordinary "Ray" performance and Beyonce Knowles was on an extended fashion photo shoot or video taping, posing and shimmying her way through the movie. Her performance wasn't strong enough to make you care about her character at any point in the film.
The movie was too hyped, 30 minutes and 1 song (Beyonce's "heartfelt" solo to Jamie Foxx) too long.
DH -- Vancouver, WA


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


user
It makes sense to me that this film is getting raves from Hollywood because oftentimes in Hollywood it's all just a popularity contest. It also makes sense when you think that people who are liking the film may just be reacting to the countless songs being spit out at you rather than story content. Yet, this film is overrated and overblown. Eddie Murphy looks just ridiculous. No way do Jeniffer Hudson and Beyonce Knowles give the Oscar rated performance so many have raved over BEFORE the film was even out. I can't even believe that Condon is being set up to be nominated for a Directing Oscar when all he did was put together an album. Glitz does not replace a nothing storyline. A bunch of songs does not a movie make.


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 longer than the Ten Commandments, All Lord of the Rings and the Matrix Trilogy combined. My oh My, what a nightmare. This is the single biggest over-hype of 2006. THere is not a moment that is not scripted and clichéd. Movie Musicals can be done brilliantly and bring genuine excitement to the viewer. Dreamgirls takes the route of Chinese Water Torture, in the form of endless music montages, shoddy acting, and poor directing choices (Seriously, Mr. Condon, did you HAVE to do the old Billboard countdown shots? It's at #58! No wait, look its rising up the charts and here is the passing Billboard notice to show you again....and again....and again)


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


user
Yeah. Pretty sure I saw this movie years ago when it was about the Supremes.
Another recycled storyline glitzed up Hollywood-style, borrowing scripts from better making-it-in-the-music-industry films.
Nothing original here.
More make-up, glammier costumes and choreography = more money for the questionably "talented" Beyonce draw.
If you like the throwback style, you should appreciate actual groups who struggled (without having digitized voices and a Hollywood empire).
Beyonce's involvement makes this hypocritical garbage.


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 DreamGirls yesterday, and I was REALLY underimpressed. Despite all the Oscar buzz, this is nothing special. Anyone who was really impressed by this film has never bothered to see any of the true movie musical classics. Except for Eddie Murphy's great musical and dramatic performance, Dreamgirls is just a glorified TV movie with no style or flair. Just a bunch of amateurs singing AT each other!
Now, the first half hour was good, but I was irritated at how Eddie Murphy's terrific raveup performances were truncated and interrupted by montages. Those were easily the best songs and best performances in the film. And the "rise to the top" portion of the film was the only part of the film that had a consistent point of view or any momentum. The remaining hour and 45 minutes was a formless, rambling mess that was neither realistic nor fantastic enough to be interesting. It was also visually dull and included too many sound-alike tunes.
Condon didn't try to turn any of the tunes into big show pieces as I'd expected they would. Each number in the 2nd half was just one closeup after another of people "singing" AT each other. And the way they shot Hudson's big "love me" number was criminal! Condon just shot her stomping around the stage--no drama at all! God it sucked!
AND note to all involved--that "sing-talking dialog" stuff might work on stage, but it DOES NOT WORK IN MOVIES (see embarrassing failures of Evita and Phantom). All that "I'll teeeell youuuu something Efff-ieeee!" crap should have been left on the editing room floor. Those aren't "songs."
Again, the film--except for Eddie Murphy's amazing performance--was nothing more than a glorified TV movie. There must have been megabucks behind the PR work for this film! I wonder how much money was spent to give it that pre-release "one to beat" Oscar buzz? As a whole this film was, except for Eddie, NOWHERE NEAR an Oscar caliber movie! (except for Eddie) I'd rank it right up there with Grease 2. BIG disappointment, especially after all the (very expen$I've) hype!


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


user
We expected something great when we went to see this bomb. It is basically a Broadway play put on film. The music is plain terrible. There isn't one memorable song in the movie -- heard any hits from this movie? You won't because there aren't any. Some of the musical numbers go on so long that I got up to go to the restroom and get some pop corn and it was still going when I got back! If they were good songs well -- but they suck. The pace is slow, terrible character development. The lead was praised for her singing but sounded like she screamed every song -- it was almost impossible to stand. This movie has NOTHING to offer anyone but die-hard Broadway enthusiasts. This is without a doubt the most over rated movie I've seen in my entire life. A complete waist of time and money. There is nothing memorable about this movie except Danny Glover -- who wasn't on screen enough and whose character wasn't developed enough. Rent the video and you'll agree -- this movie was an expensive, over produced, polished dog do.


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


user
This movie is all flash and no soul. The actors put a lot of passion into the numbers, but these numbers often didn't connect with the film and felt like stand-alone music videos. And no effort was made to make the numbers sound as if they were happening right there in front of you, every single one sounds like its coming from a studio, essentially sucking all the life from the songs. Off the stage the performances were all dull and unrealized, especially Hudson, who essentially plays the same angry, "strong" (she's stubborn and selfish) black woman we've seen before. There was absolutely no depth to her character, nor any of the other female leads. Though I think the movie wants us to believe that Hudson's character faces hardship because of her weight, it is really her own refusal to do what's best for the team that lands her in trouble, making the end of the film totally meaningless. Hudson's Academy Award is a joke, there was no justification. When she sang, she put forth emotion (though it was often misplaced, but this was the writer/director's fault), but when she was just acting, she did nothing to flesh out an already underwritten character. Eddie Murphy's character is the only one with an arc, and he did a fine job, but still not Oscar worthy. The only actor who really brought something to the roll was Danny Glover, who took a small, relatively unimportant character and made something real out of it. There is nothing here to sink your teeth into, no drama or heart, or even laughs. The placement of the musical numbers was so bad that at times the movie almost seemed to be making fun of musicals instead of being one; the number when Hudson is arguing with the other girls is so long-winded if it had been any longer it could pass for a Family Guy skit. The movie has no idea what it's about, and I felt insulted by the last few minutes. It's a big, boring waste of time, and really is the worst film I saw in '06, and nothing last year was really stellar to begin with.


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


user
Eddie Murphy for best supporting actor??? What an insult to Alan Arkin and Djimon Hounsou.
Jamie Foxx (who can act) walks through this film like a zombie.
Beyonce ??? That was acting???
This movie pales in comparison to CHICAGO or just about any other recent musical.
If it were not for the great singing and performance of Jennifer Hudson I would have given this a ZERO.
And no I never saw the stage play so I am not making the typical Broadway vs. Hollywood rap.


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


user
Wow, this is very unusual in one regard: usually the first movie in a long string of sequels is the best of the bunch. People are surprised when a sequel is actually better. With Tarzan, I thought this movie was the worst of the bunch, or at least the first six which comprise my Tarzan Collection DVD package. I will gladly watch the sequels multiple times but I am through sitting through this turkey, thanks to several characters.
Well, let's start with the good news first:
THE GOOD - Plenty of action with a lot of wild animals on display, even if they are just stock footage. You see lion attacks, crocodiles, hippos, panthers, you name it, and you see several of the different tribes of all kinds, including pygmies (called "dwarfs" in the movie.) Since this movie was made almost 75 years ago, I can't knock any of the realism because they didn't have it in the movies that long ago. They do the best they can so you put up with actors talking in front of fake backgrounds. However, Weissmuller did a lot of action scenes and was in great shape. He and O'Sullivan make a well-built handsome couple, if there ever was one in those Golden Years of cinema.
The film has historical value (with so many sequels) in that it shows how Tarzan acquired Jane and his beginnings of learning the English language.
The BAD - From the moment "Jane Parker" is taken by Tarzan almost every scene with her is Maureen O'Sullivan in hysterics, shrieking and screaming scene after scene. It's enough to give you a headache and it ruins the film. Thankfully, she calmed down in the sequels, but not in this movie. The movie also does no favors for "The Great White Hunter" image as C. Aubrey Smith, playing Jane's father, and Neil Hamilton, as "Harry Holt," the safari guide, shoot at every animal within sight, whether the beasts is threatening or not. These people are kill- happy, particularly Smith. On another note, it's too bad there isn't anything in here explaining how Tarzan got to be in the jungle in the first place. There is no history of him in here or footage of his growing up. He's just there when Jane and the group get to a certain point in Africa.


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 stupid "quaint African natives" travelogue footage with our badly-superimposed principals acting as narrators, to the horrible fake ears which transform docile Indian elephants into African elephants, to the utter lack of any logic at all, to Maureen O'Sullivan's incessant whining of "Tarzan! Tarzan!", there is nothing about this movie which deserves classic status.
4/10


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


user
A memorable line from a short lived show. After viewing the episode where that line was introduced my fraternity intramural flag football team started using the line to break our huddles on offense. Instead of Ready / Break, our quarter back said FOOTBALL and the rest of the squad responded YOU BET! A fun way to break the huddle that had our opponents scratching their heads as very few of them had watched the show. Using this line added a unique element to our season that I'll never forget. We had our best season during my time in college that year and in a small way it was due to the fun that we had using this line. The show was pretty much a stinker but it lives on in the memories of the 1977 Pi Kappa Phi intramural flag football squad at West Virginia Tech.


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


user
Before seeing this movie, I was expecting a fictional drama based loosely on ideas from the book; instead, it's the book, interrupted with dramatic scenes illustrating the different "illnesses." That didn't bother me much, but it hindered my enjoyment of the film. One story or even two or three long stories with excerpts from the book interspersed through the movie would have been preferable, in my opinion. If you're going to base a movie on a psychology text, you've got to find a more interesting (and preferably accurate) text than this one. The film drags during parts where it's little more than a video encyclopedia of 19th century sexual psychology and would be utterly intolerable if it weren't sexual in nature (because "sex = interesting" for most of us, even me). Luckily, there are several stories with actual character development that pull us in.
But, disappointingly, Krafft-Ebing's theories of sexuality went unchallenged, for the most part. I was hoping it would use stories to show how the imperfections of his archaic view of psychology which is still held by many to this day.
So, in the end, what do you have? A detailed catalog of a few fetishes and orientations, with some mildly interesting stories showing the trials and tribulations of a few "sexual deviants" before they are cured. For most of the film, the film moves with the crawling speed (and mood) of a wake. And, as an obviously low budget film, the cinematography and acting are not exactly top tier. Although I *was* pleased with the music, costume and interior design.
I felt this film's subject was right up my alley, and I still feel it's a below average film. It deserves a 3/10; a 4/10 if I were feeling extremely generous. I can't imagine anyone enjoying this if they didn't already have an interest in sexual fetishism.


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 three comments to make about this film, which I discovered hanging out forlornly in a lower shelf at Blockbuster. First off, it is interesting to see the approaches film makers take in trying to film essentially unfilmable works. Some have, as Kubrick did with "Lolita", gotten the original author to write a screenplay that is something like the original work. Of course that can't happen here; Kraft-Ebing is long dead. Some have used the premises of the original work as a launch point to go in a completely new, unrelated direction (the recent adaptation of "Tristram Shandy" comes to mind here). You can dumb it down - the film of "Slaughterhouse Five" is to my mind an example of that. Or you can simply take the format of the original and try to render it in cinematic vignettes. That would be the approach of Woody Allen's "Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex", and, arguably, this film. Upon consideration, it is probably the only thing one can do with a scholarly work like "Psychopathia Sexualis". The potential loss is that whatever cumulative point the original work had is obscured or destroyed. And so it is here.
Point two is the cinematic style. Some would call it an "homage" to Murnau, Pabst, Carl Dreyer, etc., but I think it more crude than that. Its far too heavy handed and self-conscious to be effective for long. It is eventually just annoying.
Point three is perhaps a less intellectual observation. How did the people responsible for this manage to make a film about wild sexual deviations and perversion that is so incredibly boring? I found the film impossible to pay attention to, and anyone who is not automatically drawn to depictions of sexual deviance will find it so as well. I don't want to be completely uncharitable and say the film is pointless, but I have to say that whatever point the film makers had is rather obscured by the nature of the source material, the overt copying of filmic styles, and the stubborn refusal to engage the audience on an emotional level (possibly for fear of being accused of titillation).
The film is a dubious exercise from the start and doesn't really work for me, I'm sorry to 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 gave this a four purely out of its historical context. It was considered lost for many years until it popped up out of the blue on Showtime in the early nineties.
Moe is the straight man and Larry and Curly act as a duo. Spade Cooley has a couple of numbers. I guess it had something to do with working on a ranch. I'm not quite sure because the plot was so minimal nothing really sticks in my memory. I vaguely remember it being a western musical comedy. Even the Stooge's seem to be going through the motions. Overall there's nothing much really to recommend here.
If you're not a Stooge fan then don't bother. If you are a Stooge fan, then stick with the shorts.


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


user
The Three Stooges in a feature length western comedy-musical? Perhaps "Rockin' in the Rockies" was meant to combine the Stooges comedy short with the western musical, in a matinée; if so, this was a pleasant way to break up a Saturday afternoon. Jay Kirby (as Rusty) is a handsome young hero; and, Mary Beth Hughes (as the blonde June) and Gladys Blake (as the brunette Betty) are pretty women. The Hoosier Hotshots are a harmonious group; their songs are quite tuneful; however, this is the 1940s, not the 1950s, so the film doesn't exactly "rock". There are a few laughs; but the Stooges' brand of humor is more subdued than usual. The talking horse is also underutilized.
**** Rockin' in the Rockies (4/17/45) Vernon Keays ~ Moe Howard, Larry Fine, Curly Howard, Mary Beth Hughes


assistant
0