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
OK, don't let my summary fool you. This movie SUCKS HARD. But the worst movie ever? This movie was terrible in ways people shouldn't have to rack their brains to describe. But it is in no way worse than Manos: the hands of fate, hobgobblins, horrors of spider island, or a small handful of movies. As a review the movie sucks, it's terrible. Don't see it with out MST or you may develop health problems. But there are worse movies.


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


user
Currently, this film is listed on IMDb as the 42nd worst film ever made--which is exactly why I rented it from NetFlix. However, I am saddened to report that the film, while bad, is no where near bad enough to merit being in the bottom 100 films ever made list. I have personally seen at least 100 films worse than this one. Hardly a glowing endorsement, but it just didn't meet the expected level of awfulness to be included on this infamous list.
The film begin with Stewart Moss and Marianne McAndrew on their belated honeymoon (by the way, they are married in real life as well). He's a doctor who is obsessed with bats and insists they go to a nearby cave. Once there, they behave very, very, very stupidly (hallmark of a bad film) and are soon bitten by a bat. According to this film, bats love to attack people and there are vampire bats in the US--both of which are not true at all.
Oddly, after being bitten, the man doesn't even bother going to the hospital!! The first thing on anyone's mind (especially a doctor) is to get medical help immediately, but not this boob. Soon, he's having seizures--yet he STILL isn't interested in seeking help! Again and again you keep thinking that this must be the stupidest couple in film history!!
After a while, he eventually goes to see a doctor and is sent to the hospital. But, by then it's too late and his attacks become more violent and he begins killing people to suck their blood. When it's totally obvious to everyone that the man is a crazed killing machine, the wife (who, like her husband, has a grapefruit for a brain) refuses to believe he's dangerous--even after he attacks people, steals an ambulance and runs a police car off the road!!
Now most of the time Moss is going through these episodes, his eyes roll back and he looks like a normal person. Oddly, however, a couple times he develops bat-like hands and towards the end they used some nice prosthetics on him to make him look quite bat-like. Had this been really cheesy, the film would have merited a 1.
In the very end, in a twist that hardly made any sense at all, the wife inexplicably turned into a crazed bat lady and had a swarm of bats kill the evil sheriff. How all this was arranged was a mystery as was Moss' and McAndrew's belief that this film would somehow help their careers--though they both have had reasonably long careers on TV playing bit roles since 1974.
Overall, very dumb. The plot is silly and makes no sense and strongly relies on people acting way too dumb to be real. Not a good film at all, but not among the worst films of all time either.
NOTE: For some reason, IMDb shows the graphic for the three DVD set for IT'S ALIVE and it's two sequels of the web page for THE BAT PEOPLE. While THE BAT PEOPLE has been seen with the title "It's Alive", the two movies are not at all related. It's easy to understand the mistake--especially since they both came out in 1974, but the movie I just reviewed starred Stewart Moss and Marianne McAndrew and the other film starred John Ryan and Sharon Farrell.


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


user
I didn't think this was as absolutely horrible as some people apparently do. It passes as one of those cheesy horror movies you might waste time with in the middle of the night when you can't sleep, although admittedly it's no better quality than that. It's true that the acting isn't great - I thought Marianne McAndrew as Cathy Beck, for example, came across as completely passionless - but the main problem is that several aspects of the plot didn't really make sense to me. The Becks are on a trip described by John (Stewart Moss) as part work and partly the honeymoon they never had (now that's romantic!) The work part has something to do with touring caves, which in itself sounds strange (how does being part of a tour group through a cave relate to anyone's work?) but it gets stranger when we find out that he's a doctor doing research in the area of preventative medicine (huh? That connection completely lost me.) Bitten by a bat while he's in the cave, he begins to transform into what I guess was supposed to be a human-bat hybrid (although when we finally see him in makeup he looks a lot more like an ape-man of some sort) and a killing spree starts. Here's another problem. The first killing is a nurse in a hospital. At first, everyone thinks her death was an accident. The second murder is of a young girl, who is described as having her throat ripped out. The sheriff (Michael Pataki) then tells us that her death was similar to the nurse's (meaning throat ripped out? - How could anyone think that was an accident?) And what's with the sheriff? He seems pretty no-nonsense until the scene in Cathy's hotel room when he takes a swig of liquor and then almost rapes her, after which everything seems to go back to normal. It's saddled with an ending that left almost everything unresolved, and also with one of the most irritating theme songs I've ever heard in a movie. Even for all that, there was something here that kept me watching. Sometimes pure cheesiness can get you through an hour and a half. Pretty bad, yeah - but not as awful as some people say.


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


user
"The Bat People" is a really bad film that deserved the MST3K treatment just as well like that other film "The Creeping Terror."
In it, we are in some sort of mountainous terrain full of bats. We see many things happen, like bats flying out and attacking and stuff, station wagon chases, mishaps at the emergency room, and much more! All this, plus the cheesy mediocrity of the 1970s (hey, think "Mitchell" here!), making "The Bat People" actually one of the very best of the last "Mystery Science Theater 3000" episodes made in the series! Moviewise, it's awful. It should be avoided like the plague, unless Tom Servo and Crow are watching with you.
"The Bat People" - more like "The Bad People!!!!!" LOL
1/10 of course!!!!!


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 that shoots scenes of a scenic caverns tour.
Remember no one from this movie except for Michael Pataki who dished out extreme pain as JC in "Five the Hard Way". He's the really annoying sheriff who I did applaud when he practices nightstick on our rabid doctor. Probably the most laughs you will have is with Dr. Beck's epileptic seizures out of nowhere. Could Mrs. Beck be anymore wooden? Seriously, if you took a 4 foot branch, stuck it in a hot tub, you wouldn't be able to notice a difference. The dread and suspense is looking over at the clock wondering when the credits will roll.
Watch it as a late night movie, MSTified, but don't go out of your way.


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


user
(spoilers)Wow, this is a bad one. I did a double take when watching an old Star Trek episode the other day-it was the one where everyone gets infected with that space sickness and then go a bit nuts-and there was Stewart Moss, a.k.a the unlikable 'hero' of It Lives by Night! He played the first crewmember infected, who dies from terminal depression. All I could think was that he'd watched his own movie too many times, that's what caused the depression. This movie is full of truly unlikable people. There is no redeeming character in the film, not one. It's very hard to feel bad about Dr. Beck's turning into a bat(or whatever he actually turned into), because you just don't like him. And you don't like his shrill, bony wife, or the nasty sleazy Sgt. Ward, or Dr. Mustache Love...So why would you invest any time or energy in this movie? Where there is no empathy with the characters, there is no reason to bother caring about it. Not to mention the horrible cinematography, which made it look like they'd filmed the movie through urine, and the five cent bat special effects, many of which appeared to be pieces of paper thrown into a fan to simulate hordes of bats flying. Not the worst film I've ever seen on MST3K, but down there in the bottom ranks, definitely.


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


user
Painful to watch, and not entirely for empathy with the struggles of the characters. Two of the main characters, Cynthia the mother and Monica the acknowledged daughter, spend the great bulk of the film pathetically mewling and bitterly bitching respectively. Their characters are so firmly established that their redemption into tolerable personalities after a quick family catharsis is unbelievable. It wasn't worth the wait. I wish a worthy pitch for honesty among families was less of a headache to view.


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


user
Time is precious. This film isn't. I must learn to ignore critics who rave about small films like Fargo and this complete waste of time.
The theater was packed and everyone left with the same reaction: Is this the film the critics are raving about? What a piece of crap!
The hook of this film is the upwardly mobile black daughter seeking out and finding her white trash family. Get it?
The acting is superb.
The production (lighting, sets, editing, sound) is about 2 steps above a 60 minutes story. The characters are shallow and unintelligent. I was insulted by the fact that these people could not figure out about each other what was blatantly obvious to the audience; the audience was murmuring to the movie screen what the characters should say next.
I have had more fun doing the laundry.


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


user
At least among those movies with 100 votes or more. Nominated for best screenplay written directly for the screen? Brenda Blethyn nominated for best actress in a leading role?? Nominated for best picture?? I always disagree with many of the Oscar picks, but this movie might very well be the worst movie of all time to be honored by the Academy. The writing and acting were both horrible. Blethyn's perfomance in particular was one of the worst I've ever seen, and probably the most over-rated acting performance of all time. Awful movie, not worthy of the big screen and not worthy of any cable or television channel that has ever played it, including HBO(where I saw it). I am only thankful I didn't actually pay to see one of the most over-rated movies of all time.


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 there wasn't really anything in this movie that grabbed me really. It wasn't a bad movie, just another movie where I said "Well, that wasn't anything special" after I'd seen it. There was probably drama and stuff, but it simply didn't grab me, but more seamed semi-dull. As I said in the headline it seamed very cheap in a way. The quality of the film itself (the images) seamed like a low quality and reminded me more of some cheap made for TV-movie than a well respected English film-maker. The camera angles and shots were very amateur like in my opinion. Didn't really have any close up shots or similar effects to produce interesting scenes. I haven't seen many English films and the ones I've seen didn't really impress me more than this and they seamed kind of similar done with the camera work, colors and such. "Game" tried to be more cool, hip & smart (see my review of "Lola Rennt" about this if you wish), but didn't succeed for me either. Overall just a little indifferent movie that wasn't anything special (at best, I'm afraid) and basically unfortunately over two hours wasted.


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


user
Well, EYEboy, I must say that it pleases me to no end when someone singles me out and tries to make fun of me, especially when it is someone who seems as intelligent as you do. My favorite part of your post was "But no big bang-bang good-guy bad-guy here, kimosabe. Me suggest you stick to movie with lotsa bang bang."
Well said! I do like action movies, especially if they are well done, but I also like movies that don't have a whole lot of action, as long as THEY are well done. I'm sorry, but Secret's and Lies does not fit into that category and is simply a very bad movie. I really don't see very many non-American films, so maybe I was spoiled, and didn't realize how bad foreign films really were when I saw Secrets and Lies. Perhaps if I judge foreign movies by a different standard I could some day see how Secrets and Lies could possibly be one of the highest rated movies on the IMDB. Hmm... If true, that is very scary.
Jeremy Barger bits@midohio.net(new e-mail)


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


user
"Horrible People" ought to be the subtitle of this horrible film. If you want to see ordinary people doing ordinary things, then look out of your window at real life. But if you want to see unpleasant people doing dull things, you'll have to watch this horrible film by Mike Leigh. The characters talk at length, but never actually manage to communicate with each other. Why not? Presumably because Leigh things that all of us are as ineffective and pathetic as his actors, and he wants to film real life. But we're not, and he failed.


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 a lot of movies...this is the first one I ever walked out of the theater on. Don't even bother renting it. This is about as boring a soap opera as one can see...at least you don't have to pay to watch a soap opera, though.


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 the most horrible movie watching experience i have ever had to endure, and what is worse is the fact that i had to watch it, and didn't have the opportunity to stop it because it was for school! Admittedly, the storyline was decent...but i found the acting terrible! The exception was Marianne Jean-Baptiste, i thought her performance was wonderful. She was the only highlight, without her, i doubt i would have been able to bear watching the film. Every time i hear somebody say "daarling" i cringe! i nearly attacked a customer the other day because they said "it". It made me remember one of the worst one and a half hours of my life!
(i apologise if this has offended anybody, i am only expressing my opinion)


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


user
... mainly because Ju-on 2 boasts an outrageous FORTY minutes' worth of material literally taken straight out of the first Ju-on - and when you consider that the sequel only runs for 76 minutes, that leaves you with 36 original minutes' worth of film. Ho-hum. I found that deeply irritating - as if viewers simply wouldn't remember the same stuff! - not to mention dull, having to watch it all over again.
OK, that complaint aside, the byline for Ju-on 2 was that it was supposed to explain a lot of the unanswered questions from the first movie, which frankly, over 36 minutes, simply doesn't go far enough to making any kind of sense of the original's highly convoluted storyline.
There are, however, some really nice new horror sequences which show how good the film might have been, had it had some time to develop; and some of the questions raised by the original - some, but not all - are answered.
So in conclusion - if you loved the first original movie and want to see some further developments on the story, go for it - but just remember to keep your remote control to hand with your finger on the fast-forward button for forty minutes.


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


user
POPEYE AND BIG FOOT **; POPEYE'S ENGINE COMPANY **; GETTING POPEYE'S GOAT **1/2
I used to lap these up as a kid but, catching an episode of the series comprising three cartoons back-to-back now i.e. several years later (they preceded the theatrical screening of the pirate yarn RAIDERS OF THE SEVEN SEAS [1953]), I can see how they don't hold up all that well! The character of Popeye isn't exactly sympathetic to begin with, Olive Oyl distinctly overbearing and Bluto's antics failed to elicit much interest either  in short, the scripts were alarmingly thin, fairly awful and generally unfunny to boot. They're strictly juvenile fare, yet I doubt today's kids would even have the patience to stick with them!; furthermore, the animation style is unattractive.
Taking each short per se, I guess they improved from one to the other: after the initial shock, one adapted to its mediocre quality as it were, so that the third cartoon easily results in being the most enjoyable of the lot  Popeye is entrusted with a mascot army goat whose immense appetite causes him no end of mischief (hardly original, I know, but always an amusing ploy). One interesting element here was that the shorts were bookended with Popeye delivering moralistic bits of wisdom to the kids in the audience.


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


user
Hanna-Barbera sucks the life out of another famous property. The violence is watered down, the stories are formulaic, the animation is bad, the music is obnoxious and repetitive, and frankly, the show just isn't funny.
At the time, H-B put every one of its series through the same clichéd situations, regardless if it fit the world of the cartoon or not. Thus, Popeye and Bluto appear in a recurring segment as cavemen ("Hey! Popeye is popular, and the Flinstones are popular. Put 'em together, and you can't miss!"). Also, in an apparent ripoff of "Private Benjamin," Olive Oyl and the Goon have a regular segment that features them as new army recruits. Seriously! Why?
Adding to the annoyance factor are the public service announcements in every episode (standard practice at the time for cartoons, but still annoying). Popeye lectures his nephews on crossing the street safely, recycling, and - are you ready for this? - the dangers of smoking! (I swear I'm not making that up.)
The only charm remaining from the original cartoons is that Jack Mercer, the voice of Popeye from the early days, continues the role here.
Worth checking out once just to get a new appreciation for the old Fleischer shorts. Otherwise, avoid at all costs.


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


user
Another great movie by Costa-Gavras. It's a great presentation of the situation is Latin America and the US involvement in Latin American politics. The facts might or might not be accurate but it is a fact that the US was deeply involved in coups and support of Latin American dictatorships.
Despite this though the spirit of the movie follows the typical leftist/communist propaganda of the Cold War era. Costa-Gavras is a well-known communist sympathizer and his movies are always biased. For example he presents the US actions as brutal and inhumane, while representing Tupamaros' extremist activities as something positive.
As it turned out it was a blessing for Uruguay and the rest of the Latin America that the US got involved. Europe is filled with poor East European prostitutes. I never heard of poor Uruguayan or Chilean girls prostituting themselves en masse as it happens in most East European countries. The US was fighting a dirty war and god bless us all the monster of Soviet Communism was defeated. It is unfortunate the US had to do what it did in Latin America (and elsewhere) but sometimes you need to play dirty. This is not an idealistic world as Costa-Gavras and Matamoros like to believe. Had Matamoros come to power in Uruguay, we would've had another Ukraine in Latin America.
All in all this movie follows corrupt and bankrupt leftist ideology of times past and tries to pass it as idealistic and morally correct.


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


user
I think Phillip Kaufman read the cliff's Notes version of the Kundera novel and then set about making this film. Okay, of course it won't have the punch of the original. Kundera's novels are great because of his manipulation of the narrative concept, his ability to step in and out of stories he constructs. This film does not even try! The one dream sequence of Tereza's, so vital to the atmosphere of the book, is reworked and makes no sense whatsoever. Also, and this is perhaps a lesser point, Daniel Day-Lewis looks a lot like Ben Stiller in this (I know it's not really a valid complaint, but hey). A perfect example of the Hollywood-izing of otherwise fine literature.


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


user
After reading the book, which had a lot of meaning for me, the movie didn't give me any of the feeling which the book conveyed. This makes me wonder if Kaufman even liked this book for he successfully made it into something else.Either that or he is simply bad. Most importantly where is the lightness?! From the very first scene, music drownes out most of the dialogue and feeling, and this continues right through the movie. I think the makers thought that by having upbeat music playing right through the movie, this would make the story feel light- however they have completely failed here. Instead the music manages to give everything that 'movie feel', in a way dramatising events so that we linger on them, so that everything actually feels heavy.
Another example of the how this adaptation fails is by embellishing the story line making it more dramatic. In the movie we see Franz passing Tomas on the street, who is on his way to see Sabina. The introduction of this chance meeting/passing, which im sure didn't happen in the book, gives Tomas' story more significance than it does make it light.
There are many other examples where the continuity of the story has been changed, imo for the worst, however this might have been done because the book simply doesn't convert well into a movie, such is Kundera's style. This makes we wonder if all the generous reviewers on this site were writing with their book AND movie experience in mind rather than writing about just the film. A film which is as long as it is uncompelling. For those who haven't read the book yet I recommend just reading that. For those who have, I have to say you will just be wasting your time and probably end up here writing similar stay-clear warnings.


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


user
This film is quite boring. There are snippets of naked flesh tossed around in a lame attempt to keep the viewer awake but they don't succeed.
The best thing about the movie is Lena Olin--she does a masterful job handling her character, but Day-Lewis garbles most of his lines.
Kaufman clearly had no idea how to film this. The incongruities in bouncing between domestic household/marriage issues and political crises are badly matched. Character attitudes change without explanation throughout. Badly disjointed.


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


user
Seriously, Why do American and Frech actors pretending to be Czechs need to speak perfect English with a fake Russian accent? I am a man, so i enjoyed the gratuitous nudity--but a soft porn flick would have more of that, and at least wouldn't pretend it's artistic.
All the political statements where painfully didactic- has the director heard of subtlety? The acting was also woody and melodramatic, and the comic relief was never funny. The characters were very shallow, and I just couldn't identify with them at all.
The bit where I did laugh was when they cut the actors into archival footage of the demonstrations in Prague - and they were black and white and then sepia to match the footage-just ludicrous.
I read many of Kundera's short stories (not The Unbearable Lightness of Being), and there are good things about his style of writing (although his themes are one big male fantasy)-and I have to say, the film did NOT convey any of the goodness of Kunderas style.


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


user
Harsh, yes, but I call 'em like I see 'em.
I saw this in the late 80's, and it was truly one of the most awful, boring films I've ever forced myself to watch.
Yes, the cinematography is lovely. The Czech settings are truly stunning. The political backdrop is enticing, but unlike similar "historically set" stories (e.g. _Dr. Zhivago_ (qv)), this one failed to make the politics relevant to the story, or even interesting.
Sure, Olin and Binoche are beautiful. But this film manages to make even "erotic" scenes plodding and slow. I'm all for romance, but this movie was so boring, I started hoping the Russians would shoot them all and put an end to my misery.
I'm sure if I'd read the book, the story would have made a bit more sense. However, life's too short to expend any more time on this one.


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


user
yeah cheap shot i know, but this movie is a great example of how a collection of signifiers of 'deepness' (political turmoil, love/lust) can be combined haphazardly to great critical acclaim (see also 'american beauty'). kaufman's movie plods along with gratuitous sex scenes interspersed with often painful dialog sequences (in one scene i counted three different 'generic European' accents affected by the actors) and displays of state might run amok, yet fails to tie them together into the coherent meditation kundera offered. and in its over-long three hours it manages almost completely to gloss over franz,the missing fourth piece in the love triangle that lies at the heart of the plot, and in this manner sacrifices the novel's central mechanism of displaying the spectrum of emotions and of power relations that obtain in love affairs. it also fails to even include token screen time for tomas' son, used in the novel to exemplify some of the political points kundera was making in the novel. combined with the overweening soundtrack, these flaws make this movie's three hours unbearably weighty in tone yet light in content.


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 possibly one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I don't care what the critics say, it's bad. I think the problem is with Kundera's novel. It's not that it's unfilmable; it's just that like 99% of his work, it's pretentious and overdrawn. He seems to be enamored with himself,his characters come off as navel-gazing, and his novels as a whole are misogynistic. I have read many of his works (even his Socialist Realist poetry. That was truly awful) -- I just don't understand what the fuss is about. Characteristics (like the self-absorption) in his novels make for infuriating reading. In a movie, all the things that I dislike about Kundera were magnified. Maybe I just missed something, but I don't think so. On a side note, I cannot believe that this is a Criterion Collection DVD. No way is this movie THAT essential.


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


user
Oh, I heard so much good about this movie. Went to see it with my best friend (she's female, I'm male). Now please allow me a divergent opinion from the mainstream. After the first couple of dozen "take off your clothes," we both felt a very strange combination of silliness and boredom. We laughed (at it, not with it), we dozed (and would have been better off staying in bed), we were convinced we had spent money in vain. And we had. The plot was incoherent, and the characters were a group of people about whom it was impossible to care. A waste of money, a waste of celluloid. This movie doesn't even deserve one out of ten votes, but that's the lowest available. I'm not sure why this movie has the reputation that it does of being excellent; I don't recommend it to anyone who has even a modicum of taste or intelligence.


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 frequently said that movies can never equal the original book. Well, in this case, not only the movie is not "as good" as the book, but is an insult to the book. I'd rather see Milan Kundera's novel turned on fire than into this "something," which the director probably calls "adaptation."
All the beautiful philosophy that asks "is it better to carry a heavy load on your shoulders, or cope with the unbearable lightness of being?" is put aside, and instead, all the movie deals with is Daniel Day Lewis' (I cannot say Tomas) sexual adventures with his dumb wife, his mistress, and his other mistresses. François Truffaut already said it: bad directors make bad movies. Don't waste your time and money. Read the book instead, it's really worth it.


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


user
Bonfires of the Vanities is a film drenched in flop sweat. I can recall no film that has tried so hard to be so unrelentingly outrageous, provocative and important, yet failed so consistently across the board. It is like a stand up comic who's not getting laughs, but can't leave the stage. The harder the film tries, the louder each attempt at a laugh results in a resounding thud. The desperation the film displays is so glaring it almost rouses pity for all those involved.
The film achieves laugh-out-loud status only twice. Once is in the sight of Geraldo Rivera playing an obnoxious, arrogant and amoral TV tabloid journalist -- which is funny only because he apparently doesn't realize he is playing himself. The other scene that deserves to be laughed at is the film's final "big moment," wherein the judge played by Morgan Freeman delivers the sanctimonious lecture about what morality is ("it's what your mama taught ya!"). The pomposity of the moment is insulting to the point of being absurd.
Yet, one must admit it is a noble effort. It does have a good, if poorly cast, band of actors, who try to make characters out of cardboard thin caricatures. The film looks professionally made and the little cinematic flourishes that director Brian DePalma just loves are apparent, if not particularly effective. But the film, which apparently wishes to be a commentary on modern morals and ethics, never arises above the level of cartoon. Satire requires style. Farce requires energy. Even sitcom requires timing. But the best Bonfires can muster is desperation. In the end, you don't want to laugh, you just want to turn away.


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


user
This was a great book and the possibilities for a truly great film were definitely there. But the casting decisions completely wrecked the movie. Hanks is a great actor to be sure, but lacks the smarmy, morally ambivalent characteristics needed for the lead role. Jeff Daniels would have been my choice.
Putting Melanie Griffiths in, for eye candy reasons, is understandable, but again, she did not portray the depth or ambivalence, so need to pull this off.
This movie is a great example of how every decision, even those early on in the movie production can make or break a file.


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 one of the most atrocious rewrites I've ever viewed. If they want to make a movie with a lousy story, they should refrain from giving it a title of a fine book. There is hardly a relation between Wolfe's book and this movie other than the title. I don't mind changes if they help a story flow on screen. At least the changes shouldn't hurt the final product. The last scene in the movie is painfully unconvincing. The actors are miscast. The director and/or screen writer obviously could not decide whether to make a lame comedy or preach an unconvincing sermon.
If you've seen this movie and disliked it, try the book. If you've seen this movie and liked it, read the book.


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


user
Regarded by many critics as one of the biggest stinkers of all time (certainly the biggest stinker of director Brian De Palma's career).
Sherman McCoy (Tom Hanks) is a smug rich boy whose life goes to pieces when he and his lover Maria Ruskin (Melanie Griffith) are involved in a hit-and-run. His story is chronicled by another smug guy, reporter Peter Fallow (Bruce Willis).
Well, as I said in my summary...
What is this movie supposed to be? It seems to combine comedy, drama, and satire, but it sure doesn't add up to much. It's undermined by unimaginably loathsome, one-dimensional characters who you'd never want to have the displeasure of meeting in real life.
I'm no big fan of the novel (I started reading it once, but couldn't finish it because it wasn't to my liking) but it's obvious to me that those who did / do enjoy the novel consider this film to be a complete travesty.
I've never seen so many talented actors strive to hard to give a below-average movie some semblance of quality and fail. What a waste.
The problems start with casting nice guy Tom Hanks in a role that is clearly supposed to be UNsympathetic. And the role of Peter Fallow in the novel was that of a Brit. Bruce Willis is badly, BADLY miscast in the role. What was the thinking there.
Alas, not even Morgan Freeman can escape the film with his dignity intact, being obliged to deliver a lame, heavy-handed lecture on 'decency' after the climax.
This movie ends up turning into an absurd farce.
I liked the assemblage of talent; for that I will give it four out of ten, but I'm sure some people will say a MUCH better movie could have been made from the source material.


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


user
Most book adaptations are bad but this film left out key parts of the storyline and changed the description and some characters. They rewired the storyline and combined scenes and changed the order. They added ridiculous things into it that never happened in the book and would never happen.
If i hadn't read the book beforehand it would have been an incredibly dull film, it didn't make you care about the characters, like them or dislike them. It turns the characters into jokes.
Awful.
Ridiculous.
Waste of two hours of my life.


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


user
As someone who has both read the novel and seen the film, I have a different take on why the film was such a flop. First, any comparisons between novel and film are purely superficial. They are two different animals.
The novel is probably intended as a satire, but it arrives as a cross between tragedy and polemic instead. Any comedic elements such as those which later formed the stylistic basis of the film version are merely incidental to the author's uniformly cynical thrust. And lest the omnipresent white suit of the author fool you into thinking this is another Mark Twain, think again. A more apt literary precedent would be the spectre of Ambrose Bierce in a top hat and tails. Tom Wolfe is equal parts clown and hack, more celebrity than author, always looking for new grist for his self-absorbed mill.
It is therefore no wonder that the excellent production skills and direction lavished on the making of the film were doomed from the start. Unlike true satire, which translates very well into film, polemics are grounded not in universally accessible observations on some form or other of human behavior, but in a single-minded attack on specific people -- whether real or fictional straw men -- who have somehow earned the wrath of the writer. Any effort to create a successful filmed story or narrative from such a beginning must have a clean start, free of the writer's influence or interference.
Having said that, I too find fault with the casting. It is not merely that incompetents like Bruce Willis and Melanie Griffith fail to measure up, but that real talents like Tom Hanks, F. Murray Abraham, and Morgan Freeman are either totally wasted or given roles that are mere caricatures.
There is enough topical material here for a truly great film satire, but it fails to come even close.


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


user
Based on Tom Wolfe's satirical novel that was praised by all (i have not read it yet) Tom Hanks stars as a wall streeter who accidentally kills a black boy while lost in a bad part of NYC Willis stars as the reporter who starts Hanks on his downward spiral.. The characters are very thin and there seems to be no empathy for anyone in this movie and for a comedy or a satire there arent a lot of laughs either..Melanie Griffith had her breasts done during filming so a fun thing to do is to see if her boobs change size during different parts of the film..This will keep your mind off other things like the lack of script or humor.. On a scale of one to ten..3


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


user
Tom Wolfe's sprawling, brilliantly observed satiric novel of life among New York snobbery gets a glossy look here but is nevertheless not well served. The film suffers not merely from the miscasting of everyman Tom Hanks as an uncaring Yuppie, Kewpie-doll Melanie Griffith as a manipulative southern belle and Bruce Willis (?!) as the darling of New York's literati. The most serious miscasting was in the director's chair. Robert Altman might have breathed life into these unlikeable characters and made them interesting, but Brian De Palma, for all of his visual sophistication, has never had an eye for the nuances of the human experience. The resulting film looks good but seems blah toward its subject of dehumanization in favor of status. Honestly, if a satire does not make the viewer angry, what is the point?


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


user
I don't know what it is about Donald Sutherland's acting style, or vocal style, but he always seems to be acting from behind a massive wad of soggy Kleenex. He's just...I don't know, THICK? Somnambulistic? On meds? Weird.
That said, I just saw the flick again for the first time since its original release, and frankly, I don't remember it ending anything LIKE that. A bad ending, too, because nothing gets tied off. What about the dead husband? The annoying child (and was the kid dubbed?)? The Scotland Yard and military pursuers? I would have liked something wrapping things up and giving some dramatic closure to it all, not just the big panoramic pull-away.
And what woman sleeps with the man she knows just killed her husband? Even if she was trying to allay Needle's suspicions to protect her kid, she could always have had a headache. That last encounter made me feel way too itchy and uncomfortable...


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


user
To make a good movie you either need excellent actors or an excellent director. You need at least one of the two. In this Eye of the Needle we have none.
I don't even remember the name of the director. He mustn't have done much in his career. I like very much Donald Sutherland but he absolutely cannot be the main actor in a movie. He falls short. Sutherland is excellent in a movie when he appears for not more than 15 minutes. I would say for instance that Sutherland was excellent in JFK of Oliver Stone when he talked to Kevin Costner on the bench of a park for 10 minutes non-stop without even taking a breath. Wonderful. But Sutherland being the principal actor in a movie is no good.
Kate Nelligan? She is probably good for TV series. The DVD is awful. Terrible colors. Terrible light. I couldn't even appreciate the scenery of Storm Island for how lousy the photography was.
This Ken Follett story was good but it's a pity they turned it into an uninteresting movie.


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


user
The movie lacks credence with the helicopters which didn't exist until the 1950s. But no woman would do what was done here, even a woman before the women's movement of the 60s and 70s. About the only portion of the movie that you could believe in was that Germany would want to know where the landing would be. Ignore for the moment that the British had captured all the spies but even if they had not, they wouldn't have let one roam around like this just to reassure the Germans that the landing would be at Calais. It isn't one major thing that makes the movie not work. It is the culmination of all the things wrong that makes the movie fail. Bad directing, bad scripts, no attempt at authenticity (at all) all combine to just make the movie fall flat. Generally speaking spies should fade into the woodwork. The suspense comes in with the spy wondering if the information they have is valid or not and worrying about being detected. On this one that game was over from the start. This spy was doing anything but spying. Your only chance at getting something that has some credibility and instills some suspense may be to read the book.


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


user
When I had first heard of "Solar Crisis" then got a load of the cast, I wondered why I had never heard of a movie with such a big cast before. Then I saw it.
Now I know.
For a movie that encompasses outer space, the sun, vast deserts and sprawling metropolises, this is an awfully cramped and claustrophobic feature; it feels like everyone is hunkered close together so the camera won't have to pull too far back.
And the effects, while good, are pretty underwhelming; we're talking about the imminent destruction of the planet Earth if a team of scientists and soldiers cannot deflect a deadly solar flare. But other than shouting, sweating and a red glow about everything, there's no real feel of emergency.
Don't get me started about the cast. What Heston, Palance, Matheson, Boyle, et al are doing in this movie without even bothering to act with any feel for the material is anyone's guess. Makes you wonder who else's condos aren't paid for in Hollywood....
And as far as the end goes.... Well, let's just say it's tense and intriguing but it's too little too late in an effort like this. If it had kept up that kind of pace all through the film, maybe I would have heard of "Solar Crisis" sooner.
Two stars. Mostly for lost opportunities and bad career moves.
I wonder how Alan Smithee keeps his job doing junk like this?


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


user
Oh the hilarity! Oh the joy! Another film that is so bad it's good! Or, so I thought. In actual fact, this one misses the "so bad its good" phase and goes, sadly, straight to the "could have been so bad its good, but they screwed it up and made it plain bad".
For a start its way too long. Cut half an hour and it might have been more endurable. Then put in such ludicrous plots as "the man who is sabotaging the mission to save the Earth, because he has all the food stockpiled and he'll be rich if the mission fails!". Duh!. Or the "talking bomb" plot device last seen in Dark Star. Guess what....just like in Dark Star, the bomb has a malfunction.....hmmmm. Add in a dash of "we can't act our way out of a kindergarten play" and you have Solar Crisis in a nutshell.
Light relief is to be had in the form of Jack Palance (or Jack Pants, as we called him in this flick), whose sole purpose in the film is to drive a kid around the desert and telephone the kid's dad to come pick him up....eventually. Between driving and phoning, Jack dispenses pointless drivel and leers and cackles a lot, but contributes little to the story, such as it is. In short, he's the best bit of the movie.
My award for "The Most Ironic Line Delivered Straight-Faced" goes to Charlton Heston, who, when meeting his eldest son for the first time in ages, comments that his son looks a little "out of shape" whilst he himself is standing there with his gut bulging over his waistband and in dire need of a Captain Kirk Corset.
Also amusing is the bad guy's top henchman, who has a bright white hairstyle that kept making me think of Andy Warhol, for some reason.
Apart from these hilarities, there's little to recommend this movie. The ending is a sequence copied from (but mercifully shorter than) the end sequence from 2001.
Tips for enjoying this movie more, if you are foolish enough to watch it, like I did:
1. Any time the bomb speaks, imagine it's called Tarquin (Trust me, it works!)
2. Whenever Chuck Heston is on screen and about to speak, pre-empt him by reciting a line from Planet of the Apes such as "Get your filthy paws off me!" or similar.
3. Whenever the female lead is looking stressed (this is most of the time) keep hoping against hope that she's having an aneurism and will die soon.
4. During the interminable "the ship's broke again" scenes, keep hoping the tech/engineer guys will spout a Scotty-ism like "You cannae change the laws of physics!" or some such crap.
Other than that, do what it takes to get you through this one. I dozed off half way through and woke to realise I hadn't missed anything, nor had the plot (laughable though it is) advanced any. So don't worry about tuning out for a few, you won't miss anything.


assistant
0