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
The Angry Red Planet (Quickie Review)
Like "The Man From Planet X," this is a bizarre science fiction tale culled from an era where fantasy and science fiction were still damn near the same thing. Meaning, we have some highly laughable special effects and rampant pseudo-science masquerading as science fiction. And yes, it's another "classic" released in a high quality transfer with a crisp picture and sharp sound--by Midnite Movies.
So, the main reason to watch this film? Oh, it's definitely the whole time our space crew is on Mars. (What, you thought "Angry Red Planet" referred to Neptune?) Prior to that is some rather poor quality space crew boarding a space ship, inside of which they smoke and toss around sexist chauvinistic banter aimed at the "puny female" member of the crew. It'd be somewhat offensive by today's standards if it weren't so damn funny. But Mars is the real reason we're watching this thing. The film is generally black and white, but Mars, well Mars is screaming bloody red. It's filmed in this bizarre red plasticy sheen giving the angry red planet quite an interesting look of overexposed redness. It's really quite a sightas are the (ha ha) aliens viewers are to witness. The best being the "ratbatspidercrab." You think that's a joke? That's what they call it in the movie! It's a gigantic chimera (small puppet) of a thing combining traits of rats, bats, spiders, and crabs. It bounds along all puppety and scares the sh*t out of our "heroic crew." There are other weird, and poorly imagined, aliens to be seen, but that one takes the cake. Eventually, after their harrowing experience on Mars, the sexist crew boards their "ship" and returns to whatever planet it was they came from.
This ain't for everyone. Science Fiction film buffs & curiosity seekers, and some general film buffs. Fans of Mystery Science Theater 3000 will have a field day with this one (if they never got to it on the show).
2/10 Modern score, 6/10 Nostalgia score, 4/10 overall.
(www.ResidentHazard.com)


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


user
PLEASE TAKE A MINUTE TO READ MY ENTIRE REVIEW. I AM NOT KNOCKING THE FILM ITSELF - ONLY THE DVD VERSIONS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE.
***
I really wanted to give this film even two stars. I mean how could it possibly rank a mere 1 out of 10!?!
Here's how: An epic film adaptation of Tolstoy's novel "War and Peace" with historically accurate battle scenes, courtesy of the Red Army, and an extremely faithful, scene-for-scene adaptation of the novel would be difficult but worth sitting through for seven hours - if that's what you were seeing.
The trouble is you can't see that film - anywhere as far as I know.
I am attempting to watch the RusCiCo DVD version - widely considered the best version available since it's letter boxed and restores the scenes that were cut from other DVD releases.
But, it is one of the worst film prints I've ever seen transfered to DVD. The picture is muddy and inconsistent, often strobing. It's almost tolerable if you crank your brightness, color and picture levels up to maximum.... but the problem doesn't end there.
The sound is also way inconsistent, blaringly loud in parts, virtually inaudible in others.
And as for languages, it's a HUGE problem for English speakers - the dubbed option has some good actors, and some really terrible ones whose performance grates, and parts of the film just aren't dubbed at all, slipping back into Russian and even French randomly.
The subtitled option isn't much better. The subtitles don't appear below the image, but right over it - obscuring some of the beauty (or what's left of it) in the scenery. Furthermore, the subtitles are often a poor translation (a shame given that the script took pains to hew so close to Tolstoy's actual words), and the subtitles too seem to just drop out in parts.
So, even if you max out the color, brightness and picture settings, and turn the volume way up, and choose subtitled *and* English dubbed, you're still going to get a film that's annoying to watch and listen to.
Can it's content overcome that? It might have been able to, but at seven hours - who can stand it for that long?
Maybe someday, someone will come along and restore this - and maybe then I will see a masterpiece - but for now, I just can't give more than one star to something I've only been able to stand watching about the first 12% of.


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 not a commentary on the actual movie, but on the RUSCICO DVD release for North America. I don't know if there have been different releases and updates, but the disks we rented had a 2000 copyright on them, if that means anything. Anyway, the sound mixing on these DVD's was absolutely horrible. The levels often yo-yo-ed up and down; when the scene cut to a battlefield panorama, the orchestral track would thunder so loudly that I didn't know which would blow out first -- my eardrums or my speakers. When it was time for dialog, the volume would usually drop to something barely audible. Occasionally, the orchestra and Foley-work would stay loud while the dialog was superimposed at a much lesser level. My wife and I found that the only way we could watch this movie at all from these DVD's was if one of us kept a hand on the remote to continuously modulate the volume. And, like another user has already commented, when we selected English audio the dialog kept switching back and forth between Russian and English; and occasionally when the characters spoke in French on the native track the dubbing was in Russian, so you're SOL if you understand neither. Ultimately, we gave up watching after the first disk. Before you fork out $50+ for this movie on DVD for your own library, I'd heartily recommend getting your hands on a rental copy to see whether you can really enjoy this epic flick when burdened by such bad sound, particularly if you've never read the book and really want to understand the storyline.


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 probably not giving this movie a fair shake, as I was unable to watch all of it. Perhaps if I'd seen it in a theater, in its original presentation, I might have appreciated it, but it's far too slow-moving for me.
I read the book some 25 years ago and the details of the plot have faded from memory. This did not help the film, as it's something less than vivid and clear in its presentation of events.
This is really four linked films, or a film in four parts, and was, I believe, intended to be seen over four nights in a theatrical presentation. I found Part I to be enjoyable enough, but it was all I could do to sit through Part II, which drags interminably. Reading Tolstoy's philosophizing is one thing. If you get a good translation or can read it in the original, his brilliant writing far outweighs any issues one might have with the pace of the story. On film, however, it's hard to reproduce without being ponderous.
I have other issues with the parts of the film that I saw. It's very splashy, with a lot of hey-ma-look-at-this camera work that calls attention to itself, instead of serving to advance the story.
Clearly, I'm missing something, but I just couldn't summon the enthusiasm to crank up parts III and IV.


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


user
While Bondarchuk was by no means a young man when he was commissioned to work on this project, he was still a novice director with only a single pictures, a successful adaptation of a short WWII story, to his name. Bondarchuk of course had already been an established acting star for a decade but thespian skills mean little behind the camera, and as a director he was woefully unprepared to undertake a production of such scale. And it shows through muddled shot compositions especially apparent in group scenes, often unfortunate camera positions, performances of wildly varying quality for the director was apparently so overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude of the task actors were apparently left to their own devices, awkward voiceovers that sound like radio broadcast announcements.
Vidor's "War and Peace" was probably the main reason that prompted the Soviet government to spare no expense on this production. The USSR release of the Vidor's picture made quite a splash. Certainly, Bondarchuk wanted to emulate the greatest strength of the Hollywood film and find his own Audrey. His final choice, Lyudmila Savelyeva, a big-eyed sprightly dark-haired thing indeed somewhat resembles Hepburn. Unfortunately she was a Kirov ballet dancer without neither acting experience nor talent, so unsurprisingly the most kind word that I can find to describe her performance is "awful".
Though it might be expected that Soviet actors, speaking the same language as Tolstoy's characters, would have better understanding of them than foreigners but this War and Peace often proves that not to be the case. The revolutionary upheaval swept away the thin upper layer of Russian cultural soil, that the world of War and Peace grown out of, so a good share of these big name Soviet actors involved in this production often look as clueless as Americans performing Shakespeare ( I don't mean of course that American actors can't possibly play Shakespeare credibly, but you'll know what I mean if you witnessed American members of the cast in Branagh's adaptations). Of the three main characters only Bondarchuk's Pierre is commendable, but even he was too old for the part and feels out of place in the early going.


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


user
Filmed in a documentary style, but you can pretty well tell participants had been coached. A recently divorced wannabe film maker(Myles Berkowitz)sees a chance to liven up his love life and step into the movie biz at the same time. He intends to make a documentary piece about finding love by filming twenty dates including ramifications. The comedy is spotty at best; the rest is mishap after mishap. Also taking part are Richard Arlook, Robert McKee and the enticing Elisabeth Wagner. Trying for credibility the fetching Tia Carrere is talked into a cameo. This will suffice as a handbook on how NOT to get a satisfactory date.


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


user
The movie is pretty funny and involving for about four dates, then it becomes a blatant commercial for some guy you (and even his "friends") really can't stand. It is a pretty interesting concept; film dates on a quest to find true love in modern LA. The problem is that it feels incredibly (and badly) scripted at times and blatantly self-promoting. It is difficult to care about and be drawn into any of the characters because the writer/actor is so egotistical, uncool, untrue, and simply unlikeable. You end up feeling sorry for his dates.


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


user
I went to a screening of this movie and while it had a couple moments that made me laugh, it had some very major flaws. It first of all presents itself to be the humorous exploits of a real-life divorcee trying to find love in LA. What it morphs into is a depressing, narcissistic, and unfunny romp through the history of the film director's love life and professional life. Jokes wear thin quickly and you find yourself suddenly not caring how this man's dates progress. The ridiculousness is that the director simultaneously presents himself as an extremely annoying and heavily flawed character and then expects us to be concerned.


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


user
....ripoff of a dozen better films. Particularly Steven Martin's "LA Story", which at least had the grace to be obviously fictional even though it starred his then-girlfriend playing his girlfriend in the film.
Yes, naive boys and girls, "20 Dates" IS a mockumentary, although I am not absolutely certain that was Myles Berkowitz's intent when he started. My impression is that he started the project semi-seriously, then quickly realized that it would be pathetic and not funny unless he made the situations more and more ridiculous. As a result, the whole thing has an uneasy, cheap and insincere feeling about it.
As someone smartly pointed out, the film has two of the "dates" suing and putting restraining orders on Myles and yet they appear in the film, which would be impossible as it would require a consent form. It also appears to me that the majority of women who appear as "the dates" are professional actresses (albiet not famous ones, excepting Tina Carrere) -- they are simply too obviously pretty, polished, thin and comfortable in front of the camera to be average civilians.
Mr. Berkowitz makes a classic error in only casting this kind of very pretty thin actress, instead of utilizing a variety of believable women, which might have made the premise (even in a mockumentary) more believable and funnier. He also skates over what is probably his real-world problem, and which is that both the movie character and the real world Myles Berkowitz appear to be functionally unemployed (his real life IMDb credits are practically non-existent, excepting this film). Even in the world of the movie, his ex-wife divorced him for never being employed. I think the viewer (let alone Mr. Berkowitz's real life dates) are deserving of an explanation of he manages to live in one of the most expensive urban environments in the US, in a luxury apartment, driving a fancy car and eating out at pricey restaurants when he doesn't seen to have any source of income whatsoever. (Is he drug dealer? Living off his rich parents? No clue!)
You can get away with most anything in a film, if the jokes are really funny. "20 Dates" is painfully, embarrassingly UN-funny. Mr. Berkowitz's idea of a joke is to have his character, while on restaurant dates, announce to his companions how the food served is likely to give him either diarrhea or constipation -- the WORST kind of childish potty humor.
It is not very surprising to discover that Mr. Berkowitz never made a film before "20 Dates" and in the last 8 years, has not made a single film, appeared as an actor in anyone else's film OR had a writing or producing credit of any kind. My gut instinct tells me that this film was not financed by "Elie" (the gangster money man who appears off-camera) but more likely by Mr. Berkowitz's affluent parents, or perhaps represents a shocking abuse of credit cards. Whichever it was, we can all rest easy that we are unlikely to have to see Myles Berkowitz or any of his creative efforts EVER AGAIN. Hallelujah!!!


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 not a boring movie, the audience might stay on its chair fascinated by this selfish character, Miles Berkowitz, both film-maker and actor here. The storyline is simple : after a divorce and ten years of a hollywoodian non-career, the author plays is quest for love in front of the camera. The first question is about how true is all that : what is written, what came by chance ? Both answers, "yes" or "no" portrays M.Berkowitz as a low average human beeing. If you look for a self-fiction about love like this one, I recommand you to read some independant comic books : Chester Brown, Joe Matt...
Beside of this, I felt quite disappointed to hear so much against my country, France. I know american people usually say that the french are arrogant (that might be true then), etc., and for sure the french (and the whole world) have lots of griefs against america, but why so much hate ? Don't think I couldn't like this movie only because of that anyhow.


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


user
The film attempts to be a mockumentary--shot in the documentary form but with many obviously scripted parts--but fails in not providing the audience with any characters with which to create the illusion of the mockumentary. Also, the film purports to be about finding real love in Los Angeles, but is nothing more than an uninteresting look at an amateur filmmaker trying to make his first "big movie."


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


user
I would rather have 20 root canals than go through this film again. The Prince of Annoying, Myles Berkowitz, has wasted nearly two hours of my life with this piece of cynical pseudo-cool. The only amusing thing in this whole mess is Mr. Samaha's obnoxious off camera patter about tits and ass. Berkowitz takes a great concept and grinds it into the dust. It is choppy and badly done, in an apparent effort to make it seem edgy or funny. It is neither. I seldom feel that a movie was a waste of film (or tape), but this one qualifies for that distinction. If a date suggests seeing this film, run.


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


user
With no affinity towards any type of filmmaking, and a healthy appreciation of documentaries, I can honestly say I was angry at myself for bothering to sit through the entire length of "20 Dates". I won't waste your time with the plot, you may read other reviews. I will say though that Berkowitz's hyper, Woody Allen-style narration was extremely annoying. You either wished he'd lay off the coffee or ingest some tranquilizers. And it's potentially apparent to Berkowitz himself that this film was a bad idea, as parts of it details his trials to finance the documentary. Forgive me for disguising insults as compliments, but I'll give credit to Berkowitz for having the skills to convince some idiot to finance this horrid piece of ****. I appreciate the boundaries & intentions of the film here, but even when regarding the standards Berkowitz sets for himself, he fires off and misses on all levels. In closing, I'm sure many of these female companions were not at ease going on a date with a twitchy wanna-be filmmaker, and therefore I question the film's sense of authenticity. Hey Myles, I loved your film the first time I saw it... when it appeared as an episode of Seinfeld or was a film directed by Woody Allen or Kevin Smith.


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


user
No likeable characters (the lead is a combination of the WORST of Woody Allen/Paul Provensa/Reiser) and the contrived scenes (did anyone REALLY think thiat kid on the rollerblades was NOT going to knock the guy down?) were just sickeningly bad.



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


user
However, the ladies of all ages will lap it up, no doubt; at least the opposite sex understand what it is to be a mother, and most of us men try to fathom out what it is to be a father. Whether changing nappies is not at all my favourite occupation and trying to get those bottled baby-foodstuffs into errant toothless mouths must rank very high on household duties preferably left to its mother, has absolutely nothing to do with the matter.
Some good interpretations here, and a good story idea; the handling of the matter, limited to rather scanty TV-production concepts, gives the film a rather over-mellowy taste with not much new to offer. An insipid way of delivering the goods, and in the end the outcome is so forseeable during the last 20 minutes or so, even my wife dozed off, and I was jumping up to the computer to get the on-line scoring in the Barcelona-Deportivo match, hoping the away team would do something rather good. They did. This film did not.
Better by far is Mike Leigh's magnificent "Secrets and Lies" (qv) which touches on the same subject matter, but with Brenda Blethyn playing a far superior part.


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


user
Sean Bean is great, as are the photography, locations and costumes. However, the plot is somewhat muddled, and the conclusion flat. The plot has been SUBSTANTIALLY altered from Cornwell's novel, and not to the better. Unfortunately, this adventure is much better read than watched. Sharpe was too narrowly drawn here, in contrast with his literary alter ego, who seems more intelligent and determined despite his apprehension in his new role as an officer promoted from the ranks. I really enjoyed the brief scene in which Sharpe is tripped by a "real" officer, and after a quick pause and piercing stare, pushes the surprised and cowed officer right back. It sets the tone for his later trials as a commanding officer.
Rating: "4" 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
This is a rip off of the old Frankenstein premise. An acclaimed scientist is killed in a freakish accident and his father, a noted brain surgeon saves the brain. It is then put into a robotic body of his own design. His brother, an electrical genius, gives the 'colossus' impetus to transfer thoughts into motion. The whole project goes bad, when the creation goes berserk.
Special effects are undeveloped. The script is lacking. And it is humorous that this is not scary a bit. Well, very small kids will think this is good. If you are wide awake at three in the morning and this comes on....night, night.
The lead characters are played by Otto Kruger, John Baragrey and Ross Martin. Ed Wolff played the 'Colossus'.


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


user
You know this is gonna be a cheesy movie when:
1. It was made it the 50's 2. It's in black and white. 3. It has no name actors! 4. Screaming makes up for the lack of special effects!
Well not to be outdone - this movie brilliantly incorporated all four of the above elements to turn this into a true cinematic blunder.
Okay - shhhhh but I am gonna discuss special effects here - or lack of them -
Did you catch the underwater scenes? It looks like it was poorly filmed through an aquarium - note the cape flapping in the breeze.
And the repeated re-use of Stock Footage, (exterior house shots, the bridges scenes -- great enhanced the K-R-A-F-Tiness of this film - not since "PLAN 9" - have I seen such creative usage of stock footage.
And hey where there was a lack of special effects - not to worry - screaming DOES take the place of special effects in this movie as well. Yes this movie even cleverly used that old hack trick.
Grab the popcorn - set your brain on stun (several fermented beverages DEFINITELY helps), sit back, and wonder: why the heck did they put this on film again?
Wayno



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


user
Unless you are geeky film student who has to see everything, this film will not only be a waste of your time and money and a huge disappointment, but it will also make you angry beyond belief.
There might be a story worth telling somewhere inside, but Hopkins decided to hide it and encode under so many incessant chaotic layers of apparently random audio video microcuts, making the viewer's patience run thin after a very short while.
Why would someone like Hopkins choose such a heavy, most difficult and highly unstable project as his first script, first score and third film can by anyones guess. Maybe he played with it in his mind for such a long time until it became unrecognizable as what it became, not even for himself. The result proves that he has by far not enough experience or skill to achieve the desired result.
Even the weirdest Carpenter and Lynch films, to name just two uncoventional filmmakers, had 90% more coherence, 95% less characters and 99% more story flow.
Sir Anthony you aimed for the stars, but unfortunately missed by a couple of light years. Please stick to acting, in that department you are a unequaled giant and nobody should ask more from you, not even yourself!


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


user
A confused mess from start to finish. Like they used to say about the Beatles'songs, there was a secret message if you played the LP backward. If one had the patience to watch this films scenes from finish to start, you'd come away with the same degree of disappointment.
Apart from all of this psychedelic hodge podge of flashbacks and false starts, the clearest characters were the movie backers, out for revenge if the movie didn't get sorted. There was nothing to like about these two either. Overacting, shouting and threats were delivered in comic book fashion. I think one dimensional was an overstatement.
Okay, so maybe the artsy types are rolling their eyes reveling in the fact that unlike them, we plebeians just didn't get it. Well I'm afraid there was nothing to get. And the two cardinal sins of any bad movie carried from start to finish. A non-existent and pathetic story line if you want to call it that, and by far the worst, not a single character you cared about in the least.


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


user
Why did I waste 1.5 hours of my life watching this? Why was this film even made? Why am I even commenting on this film?
One reviewer said this film took patience to watch and it was n't for everybody. I cannot figure out who this movie is for. maybe after dropping a hit of acid, SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE could watch this and make some sense out of it. It is incoherent, it isn't experimental, it's plain and simple garbage. The film follows no plot line whatsoever, just when you think you have something, well.....you don't.
I think the ending brought some finality to the film (no pun intended), the viewer gets a glimpse of what might have been going on. I don't think I put a spoiler in here, not that it would matter. This film is another must miss in the world of filmdom.


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


user
What Hopkins does succeed at with this effort as writer and director is giving us a sense that we know absolutely no one in the film. However, perhaps therein lies the problem. His movie has a lot of ambition and his intentions were obviously complex and drawn from very deep within, but it's so impersonal. There are no characters. We never know who anyone is, thus there is no investment on our part.
It could be about a screenwriter intermingle with his own characters. Is it? Maybe. By that I don't mean that Slipstream is ambiguous; I mean that there is no telling. Hopkins's film is an experiment. On the face of it, one could make the case that it is about a would-be screenwriter, who at the very moment of his meeting with fate, realizes that life is hit and miss, and/or success is blind chance, as he is hurled into a "slipstream" of collisions between points in time, dreams, thoughts, and reality. Nevertheless, it is so unremittingly cerebral that it leaves no room for any hint of emotion, even to the tiny, quite rudimentary extent of allowing us a connection with its characters.
I didn't think the nippy and flamboyant school of shaky, machine-gun-speed camera-work and editing disengaged me, but reflecting upon the film I am beginning to realize that it had a lot to do with it. There are so many movies of the past decade in which the cuts or camera movement have sound effects as well as other atmosphere-deteriorating technical doodads. I suppose in this case it was justified in that its purpose was to compose the impressionistic responsiveness of dreams. However, I knew barely anything about Slipstream when watching it, and I came out the same way. And I just do not care, because Hopkins made no effort to make us care. There are interactive movies, and there are movies that sit in a rocking chair and knit, unaware of your presence. Slipstream is the latter.


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


user
Given the chance to write, direct and star in my own movie, I would probably choose something about robot women with guns. Anthony Hopkins, however, decided to make possibly the strangest movie anyone has ever seen. "Slipstream" is a movie that is so strange that even David Lynch would probably look at the person next to him and say 'What's going on?'.
This is a movie where, in one scene, a man crosses the road towards a yellow car facing to the right which suddenly changes into a pink car facing to the left. This is a movie where two characters have a conversation interspersed with shots of random people laughing and insects climbing up walls. This is a movie where a man starts talking about "Invasion Of The Bodysnatchers" only for the actor of that particular movie to suddenly show up as himself (and then disappear into thin air).
This is a movie that decides to throw the need for a coherent plot straight out of the window and use fifteen different edits whilst doing so, as well as changing from black and white to colour for seemingly no reason at all.
I must, however, commend Mr Hopkins for his choice of actors in this movie (some of whom portray multiple characters). All of those involved throw themselves into their roles, even if they probably have no idea what they're actually doing. My favourite here was Christian Slater's thug in a hat who was impressively menacing whilst babbling nonsense and singing the American national anthem.
Anthony Hopkins has been quoted saying that he did this movie as a joke and that's possibly the best way to sum up "Slipstream". It's a joke on the audience. You'll watch it from beginning to end, trying to understand what is going on and hoping that the answer will come, only to discover that the answer never actually does. What the punchline to this particular joke is, only Anthony Hopkins will ever know.
I mentioned David Lynch earlier and I'm a big fan of that particular director. I would guess that Anthony Hopkins shares my love for the likes of "Twin Peaks", "Blue Velvet" and "Lost Highway". However, "Slipstream" isn't as satisfying as any of the movies of Lynch despite imitating many of his techniques (although I was surprised to discover that nobody talks backwards in "Slipstream"). It's far too chaotic and random - as another reviewer here pointed out, it's the movie version of Alzheimer's disease. No doubt there are a small number out there who are able to watch this and draw something from it. Unfortunately for the rest of us, "Slipstream" quickly becomes an annoying and confusing experience that was only made due to Hopkins' involvement.
Watch at your own risk.


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 once again, one of those movies that someone thinks or tries to make others think that they understood it. Anyone who tries to make any sense of this is a MORON! My advise would be to take TWO not one but TWO hits of very strong acid and at least you'll get a visual thrill out of it!! Although at the end you may kill yourself for wasting your acid!!!! Being that this comment requires 10 lines of info, let me write something for those of you that will try to defend the movie. Unintelligble. Garbage. Schitzoid. Waste of talent. Movie is ice, with paper on destination with ringing clouds, on a sunny dive in the pudding.... Sounds like lion in a red light with seeing hair. Now explain that to me!!!!


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


user
Look, I'm sorry if half the world takes offense at this, but life is confusing enough. I don't need to watch it that way. I dig Anthony Hopkins, big time. I even watched Fracture, and I knew that would be a steaming pile of Quentin. But this thing is not well shot, and it's not daring--even if it is artsy. Well-produced films have reasons for cuts and fast edits, not this "oh, but it's a realistic interpretation" excuse. This thing'll make your head hurt. It's the fastest moving picture ever to take you nowhere at all. I still love AH, and I'll always give him another chance, but if you aren't made of time to watch bad ideas on screen, skip this.


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


user
What a muddled mess. I saw this with a friend a while ago and we both consider ourselves open-minded to the many wonders of cinema, but this sure isn't one of them.
While there very well could be some good ideas/concepts and there are certainly some good performances (under the circumstances), it is all buried under random nonsense. Sir Anthony draws way too heavily from the same gene pool as Natural Born Killers, U Turn and similar films as far as the editing is concerned, or maybe he watched himself in Nixon for inspiration. Say what you want about David Lynch, but at least he more often than not has a method to the madness.
His quote of stating that he made the film as a joke says it all. It's not worth your money, bandwidth or time.


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 seen bad movies before, but this one takes the "Worst Movie of a Lifetime" award by far !! Anthony Hopkins has to be completely mentally ill to have his name attached to this one - anywhere ! I will never see another movie with him in it, directing it, etc., etc. ! I can't believe the other actors & actresses that I liked, (in this picture), that stooped so low to be a part of this disaster ! There must be some great drugs out there ! For anyone to not be embarrassed to be a part of such a film, is beyond me ! Save your money on this one ! HUGE FLOP from beginning to end ! Shame on you Mr. Hopkins ! Also, shame on Christian Slater ! I can't believe you put your reputations on the line for this one !


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


user
I actually had quite high hopes going into this movie, so I took what was given with a grain of salt and hoped for the best. About 1/3 of the way through the film I simply had to give up, quite simply the movie is a mish-mash of stuff happening for no apparent reason and it's all disconnected. I love movies that make you think, but this movie was just a bunch of ideas thrown together and never really connected.
Don't think it's David Lynch-esquire as some would have you believe, it is nowhere near that realm other than some trippy visuals. Saying it's artsy to disguise the fact there's no apparent plot or story is just a manner or justifying why you wasted the 1.5 hours in the film. The acting was good, but that cannot save lack of story. I do agree with the one comment posted previously... "it's like being in some other person's head... while they're on drugs," in other words nothing makes sense.


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


user
This movie was a disappointment. I was looking forward to seeing a good movie. I am the type of person who starts a movie and doesn't turn it off until the end, but I was forcing myself not to turn it off.
Theonly reason why I didn't turn it off was because I am a huge Christian Slater fan and I wanted to see him act in it. I was really speechless after I finished watching the movie.
This movie was one of the worst movies that I have seen in my life. Thank you Christian Slater for putting some humor into it. If you hadn't been in this movie I would of been bored out of my mind.
I also agree that Anthony Hopkins needs to stick to acting. By the time the movie was over I didn't even get the plot. I was both confused and annoyed.


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


user
I rented this movie on the merits of what the trailer showed, and of course Sir Anthony Hopkins.
If Jackson Pollack teamed up with David Lynch, and Timothy Leary to make a movie, this would be the end result. I don't think I've seen a movie like it that made an LSD trip look like an episode of Sesame Street.
It's a bunch of set pieces where the characters flash in and out of reality, or various realities, and the film doesn't culminate into anything until the last 5 minutes, where all of a sudden it makes sense. I wrote a scathing review on my movie review blog that essentially gives everything away, and I won't do that here. It's a well acted piece of cinema, and the soundtrack was written by Sir Anthony Hopkins, and let me say this, if there's one redeeming feature to this film, it's the music. It fits perfectly. Some of the dialogue is unbelievably good, and unbelievably bad all at the same time.
I enjoyed parts of this movie, I truly did, and once you get to the end of it, you'll actually figure out what's truly going on. It's unfortunate that you have to wade through 2 hours of crazy to get to a salient point, which minimizes the effect of the entire movie.
I give it a 3 out of 10 for the simple fact that the real problem with this film isn't the acting, it's everything.


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


user
I love Anthony Hopkins as an actor so I was very interested to see how he would do as a writer/director. I could not have been more disappointed by this move. The movie was so disjointed and the cinematography was so over done to the point I wanted to pull the plug out of the wall. The actors were very good but it was such a waste of talent. Not all actors are cut out to be writers or directors and clearly Mr. Hopkins falls into this category. Of all the movies I have ever seen in my 50 years, this is absolutely the worst movie ever. Please do us all a favor Mr. Hopkins and stick to acting, which you are excellent at, and leave the writing and directing to those who are talented in those areas. If I could give this movie a rating less than one I certainly would.


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


user
Oh dear... as an Englishman, and a small part Welsh, a fan of Anthony Hopkins' work in the industry..... to date, I am truly disappointed.
You see I am a nobody, who hoped for better. So my comments are as 'straw in the wind'. But, that's the point isn't it? - I have no axe to grind on the commercial value of a work. I, a full member of the great unwashed, go to see a movie to be transported to another place. To yes, suspend belief for a brief period. But not to enter a state of total disbelief.
Had this been by an unknown author and director, I would guess that this 'production' would have been castigated into oblivion. Unfortunately, its not, and I was left wide eyed and confused. Having seen some of the rave reviews given this work I am faintly worried....
Perhaps its that I try, without prejudice, to view each movie on its own merits. Regardless of author, director, studio or even the notoriety of the content.
My advice, as many before me: Don't Write and Direct the same production. It is fraught with danger. Movies need to be moderated to retain a semblance of credibility.
As they say in school reports "Could and can do 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 wasn't entirely sure what to expect from a Comedy, Drama, Fantasy, Sci-Fi genre, but, given the actors involved I thought I'd give it a spin. The tone of the film felt awkward, going through patches of each of the genres but never quite felt balanced, so eventually I gave up trying, and concentrated on the cinematography and individual performances, which I thought were good on the whole, considering each character had little depth because of the nature of the story (won't give anything away here). I have to say it felt a LOT longer than its 96 minute runtime, and not in a good way. In the end I was looking for closure, some measure of satisfaction but it didn't turn out to be the clever or ingenious piece I had hoped it would be. I think Tony mistakenly thought what he did do at the end of the film gave us that... but it was a tragic mistake to try and validate the previous 95 minutes with the ill-conceived conclusion. Ultimately I feel cheated. IMO it would have been better to let it stand without the "ending" as a piece of Art... just. Or... I may have missed the point completely :)


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


user
This movie was a complete waste of time.
I viewed this movie with a group of cinematic enthusiasts, who have varied taste in movies yet always a keen eye for a work of "genius" (as one of my fellow commenters on this site had the gall to label this steaming pile); not one of them found a single redeeming quality. We ended the movie with a rousing chorus of expletives I will not reprint here.
I can only guess that the positive reviews provided here were written by Sir Anthony Hopkins, himself. Afterall, as one of those reviewers will tell you, he financed the film himself  because no one else in Hollywood or anywhere else in the world, for that matter, would risk a single penny or their good name in association with this film. Don't let the semi-famous actors who appear in the film lure you into its clutches  as Christian Slater admits in the special features "making of" he signed on to the film without reading the script or knowing any details (a folly I am sure he will never repeat).
I pity the hapless individual who stumbles into this quagmire of self-indulgence written, directed, produced, and financed by a man who is too famous to admit to himself that not everything he creates is a masterpiece (and if you don't believe me please google "Anthony Hopkins" AND art).


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


user
Okay...so i've seen a lot of really odd/unusual movies in my day. Fear and loathing in Las Vegas comes to mind when I think of that. Well not anymore...from here on out, whenever someone asks me, "hey, what's the most unusual movie you've ever seen?" Slipstream is what i'll say! And I do not mean "unusual" in a good way.
From the very beginning of the movie, it was obvious that this was going to be one of those "trippy camera effect" movies. By that I mean, little things like flashing images on the screen, rewinding and fast-forwarding people's words and scenes, messing with the color on the screen, flash forwards and flash backs constantly...then you have the actual acting itself. People randomly get violent, shoot things/people, say the weirdest things that just don't make much, if any sense.
The movie is about a writer who starts to intermingle real life with the book he's writing and for a lack of a better way to explain it, you basically see this "trip" he goes on throughout the movie. The thing is, Johnny Depp went on a similar trip in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas but the only difference is that his trip was entertaining to watch, not painful! Honestly, I had a real hard time even finishing Slipstream. It kind of hurt my brain a bit.
I can see some film buff making a claim as to this movie having certain cinematic nuances that make it not only unique but add to the feeling of dementia...blah, blah, blah. Point is, this movie hurts your brain when you watch it....it makes very little sense, it takes all of your concentration to even remotely try and understand what is going on and even at the end, the only thing you can be happy about is that it's over...and you can say you actually sat through it! So in closing, if you want to see a movie that will have you saying "what the heck" over and over again both out loud and in your head, go ahead and waste an hour and 30 minutes and check this out.
Mr Hopkins, while I applaud you as an actor and commend your choice to take a stab at directing....please, do not ever make a movie like this again. Next time, try something that relies a little more on great storytelling than camera techniques that tend to leave the viewer with a headache.


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


user
What seemed as a good premise for a movie...unfortunately it fails to deliver on nearly every level. Very hard to follow at the start of the movie I actually found myself fighting the urge to turn it off the biggest problem from a visual aspect is the fact that the camera work is simply over the top with so many "arty" splicings and semi-subliminal cuts throughout the movie that actually distracts you from the from the overall story. It really tries too hard to immerse you in the moment and build to a suspenseful ending but the movie just has so many half conceived characters and non relevant script it just leaves you feeling disappointed and confused as to why they tried to go so deep with it.


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


user
Yep, the topic is a straight quote from the movie and I think it's pretty accurate. I was so bored to dead with this pointless effort. All the flashes etc. making no sense after first 20 minutes is just bad film making + If you are epileptic, you would have died at least five times already. Of course all the David Lynch fans would raise a flag for this kind of turkey to be "the best film ever made" because it doesn't make any sense AND when it doesn't make any sense it's got to be art, and art movie is always good. Right? I say WRONG. This kind of artificial art grab is just a pathetic way to try to show that you're a good film maker. Anthony Hopkins as a excellent actor should just stay acting.


assistant
0