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
First off, I'm not here to dog this movie. I find it totally enjoyable in spite of the poor production quality. The acting herein is about as abominable as the monster stalking them, although the monster itself is quite well done...impressively well done, at that. He actually looks kind of other-worldly, like an alien family on vacation landed in the Himalayas and while dad was out taking a ... attending to nature's call, Spot got loose and they just didn't have time to hunt him down. That, or he's the Caucasian brother of the Wishmaster. I haven't decided which.
Actually, this seems to have been filmed somewhere in snow country, yes, but more likely Canada somewhere than China anywhere. The trees and vistas say Canada to me, and it's okay that the set area never takes on the look or feel of uber-coldness one might expect to find in the Himalayas of China. It's a Sci-Fi Channel movie, so we can forgive the lack of location.
Further, apparently (as we have just established) Sci-Fi directors do not travel often, as they are not aware that commercial planes fly above weather like what is featured herein and the subsequent crash actually would not have happened. But as I said, it's a Sci-Fi Channel movie so we must forgive a few things.
The movie is pretty graphic at times, and rotates between "Alive" about the Donner Party, "Predator" about the alien in the woods, and any bad wushu movie where they fly about on wires. The Yeti apparently can leap about like Spiderman...or Super Mario...remember? "Run faster! Jump higher! Live longer!"
Also, the Yeti has missed his teddy bear. He's searched high and low for it, but cannot seem to make a cadaver work. Poor Yeti! You can't help but feel sorry for it. It has survived and evolved thousands of years only to succumb to severe teddy bear loss. He's missed his bear. Or maybe it wants to mate, but that thought is BANISHED! Do ya hear me? Well, it does seem to be an unmated male. REBANISHED!
And it's superhuman. Well, it's not human...it's super-Yeti! But then again, what's normal-Yeti? I don't know, but he has a definite Michael Meyers quality that is completely unsettling. And he's got this fabulous way of cleaning his fur. FABulous Dahlink! It's spotlessly white at times when it SO shouldn't be. He's fastidiously superhu-...super-Yeti.
All in all? This was a lot of fun to watch, has some great kills and a few honest plot elements. In spite of the horribly gravel-like production style, this is actually quite entertaining. I can't help wondering if they're planning on another one?
It rates a 6.0/10 on the M4TV Scale.
It rates a 4.4/10 on the Movie Scale from...
the Fiend :.


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


user
Having watched this movie on the SciFi channel, I can only conclude that this film was made by a bunch of amateurs who have never seen a movie in their lives. The film is an endless sequence of bizarre occurrences, or "delights" as the friend reading over my shoulder is telling me. The plot isn't really worth commenting as, but basically a plane carrying football players crashes into Yeti territory. Before the movie is over, we are treated to yetis ripping hearts out, yetis waddling in an effort to run before jumping 50 meters, yetis ripping a man's legs off and beating him with them, a woman killing a rabbit at 30 meters with a javelin, a yeti surviving several bullets and being set on fire with no apparent harm, a yeti dangling off a cliff by holding to a man's shoe, yet then jumps off, and a whole collection of further, bizarre occurrences. Basically, if you aren't staying up on a Saturday for the expressed purpose of watching the worst of SciFi channel original movies, avoid this film like the plague. Or as my friend reading over my shoulder says: "It's the best movie I have ever seen." To which the friend on my right says: "Only battle techno music could have made 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
I had the misfortune to watch this rubbish on Sky Cinema Max in a cold winter night. I am not a big fan of horror movies, because most of them are just trash. This one is even worse: it is one of the dumbest pieces of crap i've ever seen in my whole life. Horror movie? Yes, there are horrible things in this: the acting, the script and the special effects - Gosh, i laughed at this ludicrous attempt to make a flick for 90 minutes. Actually, had it been a comic movie i would've given it a 5. Don't you even think about renting this unless you want to mock at the producers.
Vote: 2 out of 10 - didn't vote one because it made me laugh all 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
Cameron Diaz is a woman who is married to a judge, played by Harvey Keitel, whose life is fine until an ex shows up and things get a little complicated.. While I was watching this movie there were several times i asked myself why I was doing so..because the movie is so ridiculous and blah and poorly scripted without any believability. Nor does the audience really car what happens..Even the lovely Cameron can't save this one on a scale of one to ten..2


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


user
Turgid dialogue, feeble characterization - Harvey Keitel a judge? He plays more like an off-duty hitman - and a tension-free plot conspire to make one of the unfunniest films of all time. You feel sorry for the cast as they try to extract comedy from a dire and lifeless script. Avoid!


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


user
The next time you are at a party and someone asks, "The other day I heard the expression 'Author's will'. Does anyone know what it means?" Tell them to sit through 'Head Above Water'. The only way Diaz could possibly have survived this movie was by means of this literary device commonly used by bad writers. There are some comic scenes and you will have a few laughs. However the film does not stand up to the most minor logical analysis. Why does Keitel tie Diaz's hand in front of her instead of behind? Why so she can do the chainsaw gag of course. For me the best part of this movie was that I saw it on a cable channel instead of spending four bucks at the video shop.


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


user
Have I ever seen a film more shockingly inept? I can think of plenty that equal this one, but none which manage to outdo it. The cast are all horrible stereotypes lumbered with flat dialogue. I am ashamed for all of the people involved in making this. Each one wears an expression of fear not generated by the plot, but by the realisation that this project could easily nix their career. Even the many charms of Ms. Diaz don't provide an adequate reason to subject yourself to this. Avoid, it's obviously a style of film that Americans haven't really got a grasp of. Watch the final result if you must, and you'll see what I'm talking about, but DON'T say I didn't warn you...


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


user
It was a Sunday night and I was waiting for the advertised movie on TV. They said it was a comedy! The movie started, 10 minutes passed, after that 30 minutes and I didn't laugh not even once. The fact is that the movie ended and I didn't get even on echance to laugh. PLEASE, someone tickle me, I lost 90 minutes for nothing.


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


user
Jude Law gives his all in this beautifully filmed vampire flick which offers little else of value. Completely lacking in eroticism, excitement, or leading ladies with appeal. One decent fight, a few moments of mild suspense. And a one-note plot.
The movie waxes philisophic in a series of conversations between Law's character and a dogged homicide detective, well played by Timothy Spall. But despite their best efforts, both actors are staked to the cross of the film's banality.
With a lesser actor in the lead role -- and without the benefit of Oliver Curtis's cinematography -- Crocodiles would blend into the sea of low-budget vampire quickies.


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 looked as if it might be good at the beginning, but never fleshed out to it's expectations. The director is talented and has some good camera angles and artistic ideas (typical of the Asian directors), but doesn't know how to create or tell a good story to go along with it. The story was fragmented and seemed to go off in all sorts of different directions throughout the film, never finding a solid, explainable, interesting angle. Basically, the movie never fit the explanation on the press releases. The acting was very good, however. All the actors gave good performances, and Jude Law was outstanding as he is always is. It is too bad he chose to do such a weak film.


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


user
Absolutely fantastic.
Now, before a legion of cinema purists choke on their lattés, allow me to elaborate. Much as I enjoyed it, this is quite simply one of the worst films I have ever seen and is certainly the worst film I've seen at the cinema (an impressive claim, as I remember seeing Daredevil on the big screen). The two leads (Daniel Gillies and Elisha Cuthbert) were unconvincing at best and downright awful at worst. Of course, they weren't helped by a script that had as much emotional depth as a Daphne & Celeste single and characterisation that was about as convincing as the OJ defence. The plot (to stretch the term slightly) was thin to non-existent and the 'gore' scenes, whilst undoubtedly brutal, were irrelevant and laughably formulaic. What plot there is revolves around a twenty-something model (Cuthbert) who is abducted, imprisoned and subjected to various visceral tortures, both psychological and physical. The torture scenes feel like disconnected set pieces and the emphasis was laid squarely upon shocking rather than scaring the audience. Whilst there really are very, very few positives to draw from this film, its redeeming features are the very flaws that make it such a dreadful film. I have never heard a more vocal audience in a cinema. Within twenty minutes, the entire cinema was in stitches and remained that way throughout. For my part I came out flushed with laughter, buoyed by a film that had ascended to the pinnacle of appalling film-making. Whichever way you look at it, this is truly a cinematic achievement and a blueprint for future directorial wannabes detailing minutely how not to make a film.
P.S. I omitted to mention that I managed to get in to the film free...so I can afford to laugh about it. I was still tempted to ask for my money back...it really was THAT bad.


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


user
The only reason I give it a 2 is that filmography is so stylized these days such that it has at least something to comment on.
This film is asinine. It's like so many other 21st century grind house fodder. The gore is gratuitous and simply revolting. I didn't care about any of the characters, but I did care that some cretin bothered to pen this crap: I'd complain about the money I spent, but my date and I wisely left after 40 minutes and went to an adjoining theater to watch the adventurous and entertaining "Live Free or Die Hard," which probably got a much higher rating from me simply because I endured the utter poop of "Captivity" for 40 minutes.


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


user
I'll keep this short; thanks to Greg for helping me to put this succinctly: Captivity is about a guy who drugs a girl's drink, imprisons and tortures her, then poses as a captive to have sex with her. That is the single twist and punchline of the film. It's torture as slow motion date rape. And, it's not even a good movie. It's not so bad it's good; it's just bad.
It should also be mentioned that among critics, there is a "spoiler code" that they dare not break, even though some were tempted to on this one because it is so vile. Why NO ONE had the cojones to step up and say, "this is garbage, and this is why," is beyond me.
Don't give your money to these poop-peddlers.


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


user
When thinking about Captivity many words come to mind. Among them are: uninteresting, unentertaining, unsuspensful, unsexy, unfathomable, and unwatchable.
I used to hate those movies from the mid to late nineties that were basically ripoffs of Scream but these new Saw knockoffs are beginning to make those films look like classics. They still pander to the same demographic that those other movies were so successful at doing, but now they add a new level of degeneracy that make the twelve to fourteen year old girls they're aimed at feel like they're hardcore AND hip.
This movie is a load of boring crap! What the hell has happened to Larry Cohen? His name hasn't been attached to anything good since 1993! Even so, I was still surprised to see that he had anything to do with something THIS bad! Was anyone surprised when the movie's love interest turned out to be one of the psychopaths? Did anyone not know it when they first saw him? Only someone who has never before in his or her life, ever seen another movie!


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


user
It's one of those dramas that's so bad that it almost hits the point of being very funny, the script is absolutely dire, direction appalling, lighting purely armature, the only thing letting it down from a true so bad it's good feel is that the sound design is only quite bad; it adds no suspense to the story although trying hard, but doesn't at least destroy any speeches. There's continuity problems of seasons of out door shots throughout. And finally last but not least the acting is appalling. For a professional production it very much has the feel of a university media project you have to feel sorry for the sorry for anyone who had to put their names to this.


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


user
Frankly I'm rather incensed that on the basis of the dazzling reviews attributed to Steven Smith I wasted nearly two hours on his debut offering. Have they all been written by his pals? The action clunks along, the music is irritating and over used, the script is simply dire and the actors (with the exception of the gardener) mediocre at best. I do think we should support the efforts of a young filmmaker but saying it's brilliant when it's not will surely only encourage him to make the same mistakes again i.e. continuing to write his own scripts and using the same actors for another venture. Yes, it's his first film, low budget etc. - I get it, but it's also out there for members of the public to purchase and it's just not up to scratch.


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


user
Happened upon a copy of this. Not mine and if I had spent my own money on this I'd be finding those responsible and demanding it back! All I can say is this would be a terrible student film. Any understanding of the medium of film is absent. Acting is god awful, the story would have been rejected from the original Twilight Zone series as unoriginal and lame, and the change in tone of the lead character's reaction to the 'ghost' is laughable.
I can only agree that the 'glowing' reviews of this film are from friends and family. I'm afraid it's not even entertainingly bad.
Amateur in the extreme!
Avoid! Avoid! Avoid!


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


user
I'm basing this on my observations of one episode I saw last night (9/27/06). I don't think I'll be watching again. The acting was totally wooden, the plot completely predictable, the ending totally unrealistic -- I mean who would believe a 30 million dollar judgment for the death of a recovering drug addict with terminal cancer? The lead actor (Victor Garber) seemed so uncomfortable, almost embarrassed in his role -- perhaps he realized how bad the writing was!! I fully realize that the drama offered this season is pretty poor, but they can surely find better writers. Maybe they are outsourcing the writing to India or China!! I'll bet we won't be seeing this one next season!


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


user
To be honest i had heard this was pretty bad before i decided to watch it, but i'm never one to let others influence my viewings, in fact i'm more likely to watch something out of defiance!. Bullwhip had one thing going for me before the viewing anyway, the fact that Rhonda Fleming and those gorgeous eyes was in it had me interested right away. The picture isn't very good, and is in fact very morally dubious, all the characters are corrupt and shifty in one way shape or form, all motivated by greed or egocentric victories, this is all well and good if the surrounding film can do justice to a bunch of despicable people and create a taut climax shuddering picture. Sadly it doesn't, and as the finale fills your eyes with sugar you can't help shouting out that you have been cheated into watching a pretty bad film, nobody in the cast come out with any credit, with lead man Guy Madison painfully wooden in the extreme.
Not even the lovely Rhonda can make me recommend this to anyone, 3/10


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


user
This is a well-worn story about a man who marries to escape the hangman's noose, then sets about "taming" his reluctant bride. It manages to be sexist and racist at exactly the same time. We never find out, for example, why a woman who won the respect of an Indian warrior is completely unable to fight back against her erstwhile husband. Or why the members of her team are so eager to get a "real man" in the saddle when she seems to have been taking care of things just fine on her own. This only made sense in fifties Hollywood.
There's a really stupid scene where she horsewhips him and he actually catches the whip--the second time--then yanks her off her horse. Never mind that the first time probably would have lost him an eye, which would make it pretty hard to grab that whip! Then, he prevails in a fight against her Indian bodyguard where he spends the first two thirds of it getting beaten to a pulp. That's some second wind. Later, he successfully negotiates with some bloodthirsty Indians (as they all are in these flicks) after they reject her now she's his "squaw". Never mind that he has zero diplomatic skills and she's been negotiating with them for years. And the way he keeps rejecting her attempts to seduce him just to keep her keen and keep her from getting a hold on him--yeah, right. Like the women are just throwing themselves at him all the way down the trail.
Finally, neither of the leads is convincing in their roles. Madison is just a jerk who gets unrealistically lucky. Fleming flips her hair and scowls a lot, but is totally unconvincing as a fiery tomboy. The only reason you'd root for her is because you want to see Madison get tied to a runaway horse and dragged over a cliff before the film's end. The way that Madison tames Fleming is so predictable and has so few obstacles that it will irritate the heck out of you if you see women as anything but blow-up dolls. Even if you do see them as dolls, the total lack of suspense will bore you.
Total waste of time. Even the scenery's kinda dull. Give this one a big miss.


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


user
"Don't bother to watch this film" would be better advice, if you like Marilyn Monroe in her other roles. This was a huge disappointment considering the great cast, not just Marilyn.
The story was just nothing, certainly nothing like described on the VHS box, of course. There simply was no suspense, precious little excitement and too many dull spots, most of them trying to show why "Nellie" (Monroe) was so messed up. This was not a good role for Monroe, even though I didn't need to see this character to know she could act. "Some Like It Hot" alone was good enough evidence for me. But this role just didn't fit her and it's no surprise it wasn't one of her more popular films.
It's also too bad a film had the waste of the talents of actors like Richard Widmark, Anne Bancroft, Elisha Cook Jr., Jeanne Cagney, Donna Cocoran and others.
Summary: it's not entertaining and entertainment is the name of the game.


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


user
Now I'll be the first to admit it when I say something that may be blasphemous or unfair, so I would like to apologize in advance for my ranting about how much I disliked this movie.
That about sums it up too. I disliked this movie. To be more specific, I disliked the concept of this movie. The cinematography was good. The mood was nice. And the acting was satisfactory.
However, the story is fatuous, unacurate and misleading. It is also offensive.
I am a quarter Cree Indian, and for some reason I feel insulted, on a personal level, by the nature of Whitaker's character. First of all, he's a black guy. And this isn't a racist remark, I swear. The thought of a White, Hispanic or even Native American swinging a katana on a rooftop offends everything that the katana represents. The katana represents the soul of a Samurai, imbibed with the souls of his ancestors who guide and protect the Samurai. For Ghost Dog to use his guns instead of the Katana is also an insult to the blade and the souls inside, and where the heck did he get a Katana anyway? It must be one of those replicas, which insults the Samurai caste even more.
Also, Ghost Dog showed no honor. Near the end of the movie, he shoots a bodyguard in the back through a window and then assassinates a man by shooting him in the face through a faucet drain. Not only is this a cowards way to kill an enemy, it's more like a ninjas way; silent assassins; a group that samurais deny exists, but hates none-the-less.
Then he tries to kill his boss, when he finds out his boss is a baddie. You know what a true Samurai does when he learns his master is proven bad or dishonorable? He kills himself, to prove that he would rather die then lower himself to the level of his doggish master.
Everything about the character was a giant contradiction to the real code that all Samurai adhere to: Bushido.
So, we have great cinematography, good ambiance and so-so acting encompassing a satiricle plot and premise, (which unfortunately is the most important aspect of it) , making it an unsatisfactory overall film, and an insult to everything a honorable bushi(samurai) holds dear.
2.5/10 Bleah


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


user
Spoilers
Well, the one line summary says it all. Melville´s "Le samurai" is the original and there are elements of "Leon". And they are better - much better!
In the "Samurai" Alain Delon is a lonely warrior / professional killer who keeps a bird in cage and is stealing cars for his jobs (with so much suspense in these scenes!). Even the end is exactly the same: the samurai seeks death in dignity and is getting shot with an empty gun in his hand. The world has changed he realizes and there is no place for the samurai in it.
Delon is not killing so many people like the Ghost dog. But I guess Jarmusch liked "Leon" very much or even "Desperado" by Rodriguez. So he added this, too. And let me guess: the girl will become a professional like Ghost dog (like Natalie Portman in "Leon")?
So what was Jarmusch thinking after all? Where is the unique, the original thought in this movie?
I can´t see the point in making carbon (celluloid) copies.
A 4/10 rating by Macaulay Connor


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


user
I remembered the title so well. To me, it was a Flora Robson movie with Olivier and Vivien Leigh in supporting roles. And it had Vincent Massey's voice from behind whiskers. Well Flora Robson was great. Her next signature, for me, would be "55 Days at Peking". The same role but with different sumptuous gowns. And the same voice. As for the Armada, it was a subtext. I like black-and-white films. Was everything done in Elizbethan times at night? It was talky and difficult to fathom, at times. I couldn't tell which was the love interest. Was it the Spaniard or was it Vivien Leigh? And I do not believe that Elizabeth I would have been the brilliant strategist to recommend that fire ships be sent against the Armada. Apparently it worked for the Empire, but not for the script. This might have been more accurate, historically, but Bette Davis had more engaging scripts. And I missed daylight!


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


user
Other than the great cinematography by the marvelous James Wong Howe in the battle scenes, this film is a true stinker.
This is the second film that I've seen in recent days directed by Alexander Korda. The first was Charles Laughton's "Rembrandt." It was so lousy that I shut it off. This one I'm afraid is not very much better.
Flora Robson is as ugly as ever as Queen Elizabeth. Perhaps, her performance as the virgin Queen was good for 1937 standards but when you compare it to that of a Helen Mirren, it is absolutely no match. In robotic fashion, Robson states her lines. Her battle message to the English troops is so lackluster in spirit.
Even a dashing Laurence Olivier can't save this utter piece of boredom.
Future wife Vivien Leigh is in a supporting role here and she doesn't really convey anything here. To think, that Scarlett was 2 years later!
It's a shame that history with the Spanish Armada is made out to be so boring in 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
First of all, this film can be divided into three segments. A promising opening, with the ambushing of some cavalry by the Cheyenne. This is followed by what can only be described as a long boring middle section, with the totally miscast Candice Bergen and "Soldier Blue" traveling together to reach the safety of an Army garrison. Miss Bergen spews forth inappropriate four letter words every time she opens her mouth, and looks like she just walked out of a 1970s Jack Nicholson movie. I mean she maintains zero interest, with zero believability. The third and final section involves the totally gratuitous slaughter of an Indian village. This is so obviously overdone to lay on the anti-war propaganda, that it comes across as simply long, outrageous, and contrived. Not recommended. - MERK................................ Jacobe (comment above) Here's an idea. Why don't you actually watch the movie you are commenting on, instead of chirping your liberal nonsense. This is not a political site, it is for reviewing films. - MERK


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


user
Soldier Blue is a movie with pretensions: pretensions to be some sort of profound statement on man's inhumanity to man, on the white man's exploitation of and brutality towards indigenous peoples; a biting, unflinching and sardonic commentary on the horrors of Vietnam. Well, sorry, but it fails miserably to be any of those things. What Soldier Blue actually is is pernicious, trite, badly made, dishonest rubbish.
Another reviewer here hit the nail on the head in saying that it appears to be a hybrid of two entirely different movies. What it is basically is a lame, clichéd, poorly acted "odd couple" romance - Strauss and Bergen overcoming their prejudices about the other's lifestyle and falling in love (ah, bless) - bookended by two sickening massacres which wouldn't have been out of place in a Lucio Fulci splatter flick.
There is no excuse for the repulsive, prurient, gore-drenched climax, in which cute little native American children are variously shot, sliced, dismembered and impaled in loving and graphic close-up, and large-breasted native American women are molested, raped and strung up - no excuse, that is, except box office. (The massacre itself, whilst repulsive in its misplaced intention, is very badly staged and shot; a bunch of actors lying around with bright red paint smeared on them, intercut with a few special-effects sequences of beheading/dismemberment - dismemberments, incidentally, which utilised real amputees in their filming. Now that's what I call exploitation.)
Forget all the pap you've heard (including the ludicrous commentaries that begin and end the movie) about this being a "protest", an indictment of American brutality towards the native peoples. This film doesn't give a stuff about the plight of the Cheyenne; had it done so it would have featured some involving native American characters, would have led us to get to know and to care about the nameless, faceless innocents who get slaughtered at the climax. Instead what we get is the silly white bread romance of Bergen and Strauss (lousy actors both, in this at least), with plenty of blood, guts and severed heads thrown in to attract the curious.
Which is a terrible shame, because there is a movie to be made about the Sand Creek massacre, about all of the real life massacres the US (and Britain, and all so-called "civilised" nations) have participated in over the centuries (Iraq?). this just isn't that movie.


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


user
**Spoilers contained**
I'd heard from various sources that this film was controversial and that the ending in particular was horrific. What I didn't expect was the complete change in tack with about twenty minutes to go. What starts off as a typical cowboy/indian western suddenly descends into a very dull romantic 'comedy' about Honus (Soldier Blue of the title played by Peter Strauss) and Cresta (Candice Bergen) who escape an onslaught of the cavalry by the Cheyenne. The majority of the film then focuses on these two mismatched people hence the romantic comedy bit. Donald Pleasance then turns up and abducts them both for no real apparent reason. They then escape and both turn up (separately) at the cavalry base on the eve of an attack on the Cheyenne base. As Cresta used to be married to one of the Cheyenne chiefs she escapes the cavalry base and joins up with them. So far so ordinary. Then comes the ending. After enduring well over an hour of poor acting involving a cliched will they/won't they get together storyline, the movie then transforms into over the top exploitation involving among other things a decapitation and a child being shot in the back of the head. Similarities can be drawn with the Wild Bunch at this point of the film but the Wild Bunch kept the same tone throughout and didn't resort to extreme gratuitous violence. In some ways, Soldier Blue reminds me of Frank Perry's Last Summer which also completely changed tack for a shock ending. I didn't hate Soldier Blue nor find the ending particularly disturbing but just found it to be pretty dull with an unnecessarily violent ending. If you want to see a film with a truly disturbing slaughter of the innocents, I would recommend Elem Klimov's Come and See.


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


user
A badly-acted two-character comedy-drama abruptly transmogrifies into a weren't-we-awful-to-the-Indians polemic, with lousy special effects, exploitative use of nudity, and ugly violence. It's as sincere as a politician's handshake, as obvious as a car salesman's pitch, one of the worst movies in the history of the universe. Absolute and utter dreck.


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


user
STRANGER THAN FICTION angered me so much, I signed up on IMDb just to write this review. STRANGER THAN FICTION is a surprisingly complex, touching and thought-provoking movie until the very end. Once you suspend multiple lapses of logic (why didn't Will Ferrell hear Emma Thompson's voice 10 years ago when she fist started writing her book? "The phone rang. The phone rang again." How could she not know it's him calling? etc.), the movie challenges one's thoughts about mortality, fate, and sacrifice.
The brief history of literary themes provided by Dustin Hoffman should especially entertain former English majors. And Maggie Gyllenhaal is always a pleasure, even though Will Ferrell might just as easily be an ax murderer as a bumbling soul. Her quick trust of him is a mighty big leap of faith.
Ah, but the ending. Until the very end, I would have given 9 out of 10 stars to this movie. The movie as a metaphor for life's journey, as a tribute to the notion of 'writing true,' as a reminder that great literature is either comedy or tragedy, but not both, is outstanding. The entire movie leads the viewer to understand and accept the moment of Will Ferrell's fate. And no matter how endearing a character he may have become, we know full well why we will accept the ending. The last act occurs, the screen goes white, the credits roll. A profound and powerful end to an almost perfect film. An end that would have been debated for weeks.
NO!!!!!!!!!! No credits rolled. Say it isn't so. Say Hollywood didn't tack on another 10 minutes of crap that completely undermined the integrity and heart of the movie. Dustin Hoffman got it right when he said, "It's no longer a masterpiece; it's OK." An apt review of the movie. Except to me, it wasn't even OK. I was so offended about the betrayal of 'writing true,' about the decision to pander the film that I actually burst into angry tears explaining this on the ride home from the movie. I don't often cry. I could care less about most movies, but I am still angry about this one.
My questions for Zack Helm, the writer, are this: did the original movie end when the screen went white? And were you forced by the vapid movie powers-that-be to tack on an ending unfaithful to the core of the movie? Or did you tack that maudlin ending on yourself? I've read you're brilliant. I hope your original script ended the movie the first time.
I know Zack Helm will never see this review, and I've been unable to find a contact for him to ask myself. But, please, movie-goers, am I the only one who feels this way about STRANGER THAN FICTION? One good thing came from me seeing this movie: I doubly admire LOST IN TRANSLATION now.


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


user
A horribly pointless and, worse, boring film. Stranger Than Fiction has nothing new to say about anything, no characters beyond the most unimaginative stereotypes, and relies on a clunky central concept that is neither particularly original nor dealt with in a vaguely innovative way.
Will Ferrell is totally wasted in what he presumably hoped to be his answer to Jim Carey's Truman Show, and substitutes his usual shouting routine (admittedly very funny if you discount Talledega Nights) for, well, pretty much nothing.
Emma Thompson is no more than mildly irritating (that some reviews I've read here are talking her up for an Oscar nomination is laughable) whilst Maggie Gyllenhaal does a passable job with a very weak script that allows nothing beyond establishing her character as a former law student who dropped out of Harvard to become a baker because she liked making people happy. Please. That she ended up falling for Ferrell's 'character' is utterly ludicrous.
Marc Forster's attempts to jazz up the film using computer graphics only serve to highlight the uninspired the material he has to work with.
I had the choice of either going to watch The Prestige for the third time or seeing this. I wish I'd opted for The Prestige.


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


user
Dick Foran and Peggy Moran, who were so good together in THE MUMMY'S HAND, return for this very minor Universal Horror offering. But this time, instead of having Wallace Ford as the comedic sidekick "Babe," we get Fuzzy Knight substituting as a silly buddy named "Stuff". But the results are nowhere near as charming, and the scare level is virtually nil.
Dick is a businessman who gets the idea of spearheading a treasure hunt on a remote island inside a spooky old castle. Peggy is one of the gang who comes along for the ride. But there is a tall and skinny John Carradine lookalike in a black cape and big hat known as "The Phantom" who crashes the party in pursuit of the buried fortune himself.
This "phantom" is not very mysterious, and no effort is made to even try and keep his rather average guy face in the shadows to create any tension or spookiness. It's always nice to see perky Moran, but otherwise you can chalk this up as one of Universal's instantly forgettable misfires.


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


user
A lot of people seemed to have liked the film, so I feel somewhat bad giving it a bad review. But after sitting through 96 minutes of it, I feel I have to do so. Where the heck is the plot in this film?! I must have missed it, I was waiting for the storyline to unfold and nothing happened. Sure the ending was "somewhat shocking" but they didn't build up to it. I forgot who was who half of the time, so they didn't really develop the characters. The acting was so-so, most of the time it was believable, but I was able to see through it most of the time. So... without giving anything away, I must say that unless you like the actors in the film, there is no real reason to watch this movie. I could be mistaken, but I just didn't understand why there was so little, or too much of the film. I can't decide which one that would be, so I say judge for yourselves. I don't even know if renting it would be a good idea, the cost and all...
Plot: 0/10 Characters: 1/10 Acting: 2/10 Overall: 3/10 I feel like that's too high really, I am staying with my vote up at the top.


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


user
They must issue this plot outline to all wannabe filmmakers arriving at the Hollywood bus station. They then fill in the blanks and set their story in whatever hick town or urban ghetto from which they just arrived. You know exactly what this movie is about from the opening shot, four young boys playing in grainy slow motion, accompanied by voice over narration. Next stop after the bus station must be to buy stock footage of four young boys playing in grainy slow motion. Once they're grown, it's easy to spot the writer/director among the four. He's the quiet, contemplative, long-haired one who is never seen without his composition book tucked in his pants. This means that his superb writing talent will be his ticket from Hickville to Hollywood. Only there's no writing, or directing talent on display here. And if you still can't figure out which one he is, here's a hint: The auteur and his character have the same middle name. It took over an hour to figure out that these twenty-something men were supposed to still be in high school. What looked like a prison was apparently a high school, the warden turned out to be the principal. Once more, the poor, misunderstood rebel can pound everyone in the movie into the pavement, murder and pillage, but is powerless to stand up to his alcoholic father. How about hitting back, kid, like you do everyone else? Numerous fist fight scenes for no apparent purpose. Howlingly bad dialogue. Many scenes badly out of focus. Cartoon characters keep popping up as bit players and extras, drawing unintentional laughs from the premiere audience. Overacting in the extreme. And if you don't quite get the self-important speeches, or the slow-motion scenes, just listen to the overbearing music. It will clue you in and what you're supposed to feel. Poor Marisa Ryan must be racking up lots of frequent flier mileage as she travels around the country working in these amateur regional films. The biggest sin is that the audience is supposed to feel sympathy for kids who gun down old ladies, run over puppies chained to a tree, rob and steal, all the while complaining about their sad, sorry lives. But if only we could get out of this hick town and go to college. Yeah, that's the ticket. Why is it that every twenty-something filmmaker believes that his life so far is so important, so interesting, that the world can't wait to see it onscreen? If this movie is as autobiographical as it seems, then the auteur better be looking over his shoulder for policemen bearing fugitive warrants.


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


user
Except for acknowledging some nice cinematography, I can hardly say anything positive about this movie. The single real issue is the protagonist's dilemma whether to remain with his childhood friends in the world of misery or to leave them and take up his own life. Abundant "emotionally powerful" scenes do not go with this plot and, because of bad acting, they also fail to create the intended atmosphere. The director only manages to introduce Anthony's dilemma and eventually brings an easy solution. The characters do not seem to evolve, although it is difficult to speak of any characters... perhaps except for Sonny. Beside him, actors do not get to play much and when some of them have to, they come off as self-indulging amateurs. I wonder what ruined the movie more: the superficial script, throwing away all the potential of the plot, or the bad acting, disturbing any appeal that might be left.


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


user
Totally ridiculous. If you know anything about poker, you will find it absolutely appalling but also entertaining because it is so clueless. The nerd who made this movie is obviously very religious and knows slightly about the game of poker, but I doubt he's ever played above 3-6. (I think he also knows nothing of golf.) Where to start. I've seen better productions in the Intro to Film class I took freshmen year of film school. The actors to watch in this movie are Queen Momma, Scotty Nguyen, and the loser who can never win at poker. Everyone else is as wooden as they come, like bad porn actors.
*Spoiler* The man the movie starts with in the opening sequence is the only reason the film got made. He is a railbird who doesn't play poker and never has a line of dialogue, but the actor is the man who obviously paid for the movie. I can't think of a more useless waste of money than this man shelling out for this pointless production. It's fitting that he had such a useless role.
There's very little poker in this movie. Most of the time is spent on useless side characters whose plots aren't resolved in the slightest. Queen Momma does have a show-stealing scene where she throws her loser boyfriend through a window and tries to shoot his brains out. Also the nameless Arabs in the convenience store also give brilliant performances when they debate whether to beat up or kill an older lady who robs them. Their subtle performances are easily among the film's highlights. It makes you wonder why they bothered getting all these white people to play the leads.
In conclusion, complete nonsense. Plan 9 from Outer Space has slightly more coherency. If you play poker though you might want to have a laugh. Also if you're Christian you might enjoy some of the heavy-handed religious conversation that pepper the movie like pointless pepper. I hate movies made by religious people. Especially ones who think they know something about things they know nothing about. It's sad that Jennifer Harman and Scotty Nguyen got involved in this travesty as I can't help but think less of them. They must be envious of Johnny Chan for getting in Rounders.


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 poker enthusiast I was looking forward to seeing this movie - Especially as it had Scotty Nyugen in it.
Basically, Scotty Nyugens short spots in this film are all it has going for it.
The characters are unlikeable and annoying, the soundtrack is awful and the plot, well, there isn't one.
I honestly got a headache and found myself reading the barcode number on the DVD box after twenty minutes I was THAT bored. Its actually ashame that Nyugen was in this movie as otherwise I wouldn't have wasted $16 buying it off Ebay.
Take it from me - AVOID like 7 2 offsuit!!! Dire. :(


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


user
The writer/director of this film obviously doesn't know anything about film. I think the DP on this project was tied up and replaced with a monkey, because every seen was either too dark or had the hotter hot spots than the sun.
The story was awful, the characters were very one dimensional. For someone to have said that this film was made for poker fans and not film fans, that someone is kidding their self (it was probably the writer/director). No poker fan in this world likes this movie. Even your money man hates this project. To go into a casino and play a few hands doesn't give you the experience to write about poker. Keep your day job. And if it's playing poker, then you must be hurt'n.


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


user
This 30 minute documentary Buñuel made in the early 1930's about one of Spain's poorest regions is, in my opinion, one of his weakest films. First, let's admit that 70 years later, Spain is much richer than it was then (and when I say this, I fully admit that wealth can bring problems of its own, like excessive individualism and consumerism, though all in all wealth it's a far better condition than the extreme poverty portrayed here). And if poverty receded in Spain it was not exactly with the sort of socialism that Buñuel favored, but with Western European style capitalism. But one of the most shocking things about the movie is this: in one scene, the narrator chides that in school, children are taught the value of Pi. Teaching math to poor people, the horror!. Buñuel shortsightedness is at its most glaring here, not realizing that it is access to the latest knowledge and technology what will help the poor overcome their situation. What is he proposing? That children are taught exactly what at school? Doesn't Buñuel understand that it is the lack of modern technology that has made them poor in comparison with other people?


assistant
0