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
Welcome to movie 17 on the chilling classics 50 pack. Where we'll see, That's right. Another movie that makes absolutely no sense. Seriously, this movie had me so confused at the end, i thought i was rewatching "At Dawn they Sleep." The plot seems simple enough....well that is until 3 seconds into the movie where a girl supposedly killed a cat and then...um.. explodes? i have no idea what happened. and that was BEFORE THE TITLE SCREEN. That's really sad when i can't even tell what happened in the first 3 minutes.
Anyway it stars a photographer with a big mustache who finds this girl after dumping his other girlfriend on the way to take pictures of something somewhere. so we get there but not before somebody steals their jeep to drive it 200 feet out of the way towards a town. suspicious? nah. so they decide to stay at this deserted village with one old lady. and then blah blah stuff happens and blah blah talking. The guy with the mustache goes out in the fog for some reason even though the old lady tells him not to. He gets lost and then finds his way back.
Oh, i forgot to mention this is all after an incredibly pointless 20 minutes of them staying in the house of a guy who looks like that buggy eyed guy from casablanca. Then they leave. There's really no point to this scene. It's really just padding. if you cut it out no one would have noticed or cared.
But sadly, that was actually the best part of the movie. wait. let me rephrase that. REALLY sadly that was the best part of the movie. because the rest is so confusing that i had to look on IMDb to find out what happened. But of course no one else knows so i'm SOL.
Seriously, the last 30 minutes of the movie were some of the most mindscrewing moments i've ever seen on film. They dressed her up in a dress, he gets kidnapped, then released, he runs back to the house, then at the end the witches are in the house and it ends? seriously. i have hardly ever been so confused in a movie. i mean, as bad as movies such as "War of the Robots" are, at least they MAKE SENSE. this movie doesn't even make the ATTEMPT to be coherent. the ending was as confusing as the end of "At dawn they sleep" and the plot was much more boring. This movie gets a 1 just for its sheer "i have no idea what happened in this movie"ness. "Witches mountain" gets 1 confused movie watcher out of 10.


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


user
As someone else mentioned, it begins with a bizarre prologue about a little blond girl killing a cat. Then the main story: a photographer (Gaffari) and a writer (Shepard) meet by chance and take a trip into the mountains. First they spend the night at an inn where the slightly deaf landlord gets hollered at, with increasing irritation to the audience, by Gaffari. Once in the mountains they seek shelter again and are invited in by a kindly old lady who seems overly hospitable to strangers (Hansel and Gretel, anyone?) What happens next I will leave for the bold viewer to sort out because I most assuredly couldn't. Now, I like Eurohorror, and this woulda been better if only Artigot (writer AND director) had made some attempt at logical story telling. The backdrop (Pyrenees?) makes an excellent and intriguing location for mysterious and occult occurrences. The verdant peaks could easily obscure supernatural forces and those who command them. The photography is nice. Just wish the whole thing made sense. You can view this film at archive.org.


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


user
This engaging (which it shouldn't be) low-grade Spanish exploitation (quite tame I might add) looks good, but huh? Let me phrase that again 'huh?'. Actually the word 'huh?' would be going through your mind quite a lot. Nothing makes sense, nor does it try too. I just don't know if its complicatedly cryptic or just a convoluted muddle, but there's no denying how laconically uneventful, strange and wordy it feels.
Unrelated sequences tied (like that nasty opening involving a little girl, dead cat and fire) in to a sparse story involving photographer Mario (played by a chest-puffing John Caffari, who's mustache is a dead ringer for Nintendo's iconic Mario. What's the odds?) that ditches his girlfriend at home and encounters a young lady (a gorgeously fixating Patty Shepard) who he asks to come with him on an photography assignment, where at this remote mountain retreat they come across some hooded witches.
Look past the unhinged plot structure and wallow in what is simply a moody piece of atmospheric mechanisms and growing unease. Raul Artigot directs few jarringly unusual visuals and creepy passages, but for most part seems sporadically non-existent and unfocused just like his writing. Ramon Sempere's striking cinematography lenses the gracefully rich scenery as we take in the scenic views and let the time leisurely grind away. However there are certain areas where it was too dark to see what was going on. Fernando Garcia Morcillo's hauntingly bombastic and overwrought score blends terrifically with compulsively dense atmosphere created. The leads are capable, but there's also a sturdy bunch (the pick being Víctor Israel) of secondary performances.
Slow with little in the way of interest, but this dreamy set-up (that seems to go on and on) manages to keep you watching until its closing.


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 got off to an interesting start. Down the road however, the story gets convoluted with a poor illustration of ancient black magic rituals. The male lead was very good , even though he gets the worst end of the stick in the climax. In comparison, this is "Boomerang" meets "Extremities".



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 got off to an interesting start. Down the road however, the story gets convoluted with a poor illustration of ancient black magic rituals. The male lead was very good , even though he gets the worst end of the stick in the climax. In comparison, this is "Boomerang" meets "Extremities".


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 typical Steele novel production in that two people who have undergone some sort of tragedy manage to get together despite the odds. I wouldn't call this a spoiler because anyone who has read a Steele novel knows how they ALL end. If you don't want to know much about the plot, don't keep reading.
Gilbert's character, Ophelia, is a woman of French decent who has lost her husband and son in an accident. Gilbert needs to stop doing films where she is required to have an accent because she, otherwise a good actress, cannot realistically pull off any kind of accent. Brad Johnson, also an excellent actor, is Matt, who is recovering from a rather nasty divorce. He is gentle, convincing and compelling in this role.
The two meet on the beach through her daughter, Pip, and initially, Ophelia accuses Matt of being a child molester just because he talked art with the kid. All of them become friends after this episode and then the couple falls in love.
The chemistry between the two leads is not great, even though the talent of these two people is not, in my opinion, a question. They did the best they could with a predictable plot and a script that borders on stereotypical. Two people meet, tragedy, bigger tragedy, a secret is revealed, another tragedy, and then they get together. I wish there was more to it than that, but there it is in a nutshell.
I wanted mindless entertainment, and I got it with this. In regard to the genre of romantic films, this one fails to be memorable. "A Secret Affair" with Janine Turner is far superior (not a Steele book), as are some of Steele's earlier books turned into film.


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


user
As I said, the book was pretty good and this might have been a good movie if Melissa Gilbert hadn't been so horrible and unbelievable in the lead roll. What kind of accent was that suppose to be anyway? It sounded the same as her horrible Russian accent in another movie that I have seen her in. Every time she opened her mouth I cringed. It took 3 tries before I was able to watch the entire movie. Brad Johnson was good as the other lead.
I really liked the beach location scenes. They added some much needed brightness to take your mind off of Melissa Gilberts depressing portrayal. I think they could have used San Francisco views more to their advantage though. It looked like the night scenes were actually SF, but I could be wrong. I don't recall the character in the book being this depressing.
Please keep Melissa Gilbert out of any future movies that require an accent!


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


user
Like all the Taviani Brothers films, this one looks great, but it is rotten to the core with false romanticism, and coincidences heap upon each other in some facsimile of a "story". In actuality, this is really just a sentimentally cheap tear jerker posing as an intellectually distinguished art film.


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


user
Even by 1942 standards of movie-making the setup which HER CARDBOARD LOVER presents was dated to the extreme. The machinations of one half of a pair (of husband/wife, ex-husband/ex-wife) to get the other back at the threat of marriage to another, divorce, or an eventual separation by means of jealousy, humiliation, or other schemes had been done much better in classics such as HIS GIRL Friday and THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. Both of these movies features women with a strong, indomitable screen presence and who played independent, proto-feminist characters. In both movies, both women were estranged/divorced from their (witty) first husbands and set to marry colorless men who were their exact opposite, and both would be bamboozled into rejecting their soon-to-be husbands and re-igniting their passion for each other.
The plot in HER CARDBOARD LOVER switches the gender: here, it's Norma Shearer in the Cary Grant role out, this time, to ward off an ex-boyfriend (George Sanders) by means of hiring Robert Taylor to pose as her gigolo. The problem is, Shearer is much too old to be playing a role more suited to an actress in her mid-to-late twenties; Sanders is about as involved as a piece of furniture for the most -- any man who would be in love with his fiancée, on seeing a strange man come out of her bathroom as happens here, would knock the lights out of him and cause a huge scene. Not here. And Robert Taylor plays his part as if he were trying to channel Cary Grant half the time, not in speech inflections but in overall essence.
But the worst part of it is Shearer herself. For an actress used to parts which gave her a sense of intellectual sexiness and dramatic presence, playing Consuelo Craydon seems to put her into throes of complete over-acting, over-emoting, and over-gesturing which, while still a part of her style of acting and more appropriate ten years earlier, makes her look like an extremely mannered performer wrenching the joke out of a situation like water from a fairly dry sponge. It only fuels the fires that tell the theory which gives Irving Thalberg the maker of her career and chooser of (most of her) roles; why she passed on roles such as Charlotte Vale and Mrs. Miniver on mega-hits NOW VOYAGER and MRS. MINIVER is a mystery, but then again, most accounts also state that by this time she had just burnt out from acting, that she'd had lost interest in the whole thing altogether and it's no secret that anyone who has experienced this sort of thing has essentially lost focus and can't wait until retirement or the end of a contract is near to leave as soon as possible. Such could be the case here. She seems lost, she seems tired, she seems ill at ease, going through autopilot instead of living the part. After this film she would make no more, but would be responsible of discovering Janet Leigh who would come into her own as a screen star during the late 40s and into the 60s.


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


user
Songwriter Robert Taylor (as Terry) is "dizzy, slap-happy" and can't see straight over otherworldly Norma Shearer (as Consuelo). "She makes the sun shine, even when it's raining," Mr. Taylor explains. But, Mr. Taylor gets a lump in his throat whenever he gets near Ms. Shearer. Finally, at the Palm Beach casino Shearer frequents, Taylor proclaims "I love you!" Shearer brushes him off, as she is engaged to George Sanders (as Tony). However, to settle a gambling debt, Shearer hires Taylor to pose as "Her Cardboard Lover", to make Mr. Sanders jealous.
This film's title invites the obvious and appropriate three-word review: "Her Cardboard Movie". It is most notable as the last film appearance for Shearer, one of the biggest stars in the world from "He Who Gets Slapped" (1924, playing another Consuelo) to "The Women" (1939). To be fair, this was likely the kind of Shearer film MGM believed audiences wanted to see. However, the part is unflattering.
Plucked and powered, Taylor and Shearer were better off in "The Escape" (1940). If Shearer had continued, she might have become a better actress than "leading lady"; apparently, she was no longer interested, and certainly didn't need the money. Taylor has a great scene, reciting Christina Rossetti's "When I am Dead, My Dearest" while threatening to jump from Shearer's balcony, as directed by George Cukor.
**** Her Cardboard Lover (6/42) George Cukor ~ Norma Shearer, Robert Taylor, George Sanders


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


user
In this forgettable trifle, the 40-ish Norma Shearer plays a fluttery, girlish socialite in Monte Carlo, caught in a tussle between George Sanders and Robert Taylor. It would be tempting to blame this movie's failure on the dull, talky script, or director George Cukor, who never seems interested in livening up the film's generally comatose state. Mostly, though, it's the fault of Shearer herself, who desperately wanted to keep playing "young" parts as long as she could get away with it. Inadvertently, this makes "Her Cardboard Lover" a bizarre monument to an aging woman's vanity.


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


user
"Her Cardboard Lover" is Norma Shearer's last movie. She quit the movies and, I think, joined the Board of Directors at MGM. That was a good move on her part. "Her Cardboard Lover" was talky and boring in parts. It was obvious there were only a handful of actors with speaking parts so they had a lot of dialogue to speak to keep this turkey afloat.
The story was a good idea about a wealthy woman (Norma Shearer) hiring a man (Robert Taylor) to make her playboy fiancee (George Sanders)jealous. I am surprised that the director, George Cukor, did not cut many of the talky scenes between Ms. Shearer and Mr. Taylor. Mr. Cukor served Ms. Shearer well in "The Women" but not in this movie.
The best performance in the movie was given by Robert Taylor. During Mr. Taylor's career, he was given his best comedy roles in this movie and "When Ladies Meet" in 1941. In 1942, he gave his best comedy performance in "Her Cardboard Lover" and, up to then, his best dramatic performance in "Johnny Eager." He had a busy year. I think of all the actors at MGM, Mr. Taylor worked with all the major and minor actresses on the lot. Also, MGM gave Mr. Taylor all types of movies to make - most of them were successful. That is why MGM kept him for 25 years.
Mr. George Sanders was very good as a socialite heel. He played a similar role eight years later in "All About Eve" for which he won an Oscar for a supporting role. As for Ms. Shearer, this was one of her worst performances, she was not funny and too dramatic for this comedy. It is strange that she made a great comedy in 1939, "The Women", and gave her best performance. It was obvious that she was too old looking for her younger leading men in "Her Cardboard Lover." Also, it didn't help that some of her clothes were awful.
Too bad she and Mr. Taylor did not make another dramatic movie like their last movie together, the superb "Escape". The same comments about this movie can be said of another movie, "Personal Property" that Mr. Taylor made in 1937 with Jean Harlow. It was too talky, boring, and the actress looked old. Ms. Harlow looked ill throughout the movie and nobody in Hollywood noticed to tell her to see a doctor, so in 1937, she died at age 26. What a waste! She was becoming a good actress and getting better roles.


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


user
What boob at MGM thought it would be a good idea to place the studly Clark Gable in the role of a Salvation Army worker?? Ironically enough, another handsome future star, Cary Grant, also played a Salvation Army guy just two years later in the highly overrated SHE DONE HIM WRONG. I guess in hindsight it's pretty easy to see the folly of these roles, but I still wonder WHO thought that Salvation Army guys are "HOT" and who could look at these dashing men and see them as realistic representations of the parts they played. A long time ago, I used to work for a sister organization of the Salvation Army (the Volunteers of America) and I NEVER saw any studly guys working there (and that includes me, unfortunately). Maybe I should have gotten a job with the Salvation Army instead!
So, for the extremely curious, this is a good film to look out for, but for everyone else, it's poor writing, sloppy dialog and annoying moralizing make for a very slow film.


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


user
What's written on the poster is: "At birth he was given 6 years to live... At 34 he takes the journey of a lifetime." Ami is an American-born Israeli who was diagnosed with Muscular Dystrophy disease at the age of one. At age of 34, after the love toward his 22 years old care-giver didn't go well, he decided to come to the US to face the doctor who said that he would have only 6 years to live. He wanted to show the doctor that he is still alive, and weights 39 pounds. Why? Your guess is as good as mine, even I have seen this film.
Obviously it's courageous to live when all he can move is his left index finger, but why does he have so much anger toward the doctor who diagnosed his disease 34 years ago? His doctor just told his mom that based on the medical history, people with his disease won't live long. What's the point of him showing up at old doctor's door for? Why is tracking down this old doctor in the US is a journey of his lifetime? There are so many things we might be interested in Ami's life: how can he make those animations with the movement of only one finger? How can he go through daily lives while totally depending on others? How did he out lived his doctor's prediction? How does he deal emotionally when other people look at him like looking at a strange creature? The movie told us none of that. Instead, the filmmaker got a van and set up a trip to let Ami to show up at his old doctor's door in order to show him that he is still alive. I thought it was a joke.


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


user
There are three movies with this animation style that I fondly remember from my youth. This movie, "The Last Unicorn," "Flight of Dragons" and "The Hobbit." I own copies of both "Dragons" and "The Hobbit" (both excellent) and I hadn't seen "The Last Unicorn" in more than a decade. That was until today and now I wish I hadn't. What bothered me the most was the script. It was incredibly choppy and often inane. Things would happen for no reason and other things would happen without explanation. We're not just talking about little things here either; we're talking about key plot points! The story itself isn't that great to begin with, but it could have worked had the script been decent. Not even close. On top of that the music was awful! I know that music in movies such as these rarely have what one would call classic pieces, but the music in this movie made me want to knock myself unconscious with a bowling ball. This was one of those films that I was going to show to my kids some day, but it just got cut. I don't think I could ever sit through that crap fest again. Disappointed is putting it mildly.


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


user
I loved "The Curse of Frankenstein" so much that I rushed out to get "Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed" to see Cushing at it again...even if it was without Chistopher Lee this time. To my great disappointment, this movie not only does without Lee, but it does without Frankenstein's Monster altogether! Was it a case of "If we can't get Lee, we won't have a monster at all"? Why would they do that? The monster is half the fun of the whole thing!! This film is dedicated solely to the study of Baron Frankenstein and his quest to finish experiments he had begun in brain transplants before ending up in an asylum. I found the script extremely weak, with the need to suspend disbelief forced upon the audience a little too much. I'm willing to suspend a fair amount, but this movie got fairly ridiculous, which took me out of the film rather than immersing me in it.
Peter Cushing, though, is absolutely brilliant playing pure evil in this film. For being one of the most beloved actors and notoriously sweet men, he sure could play menacing and malevolent extremely well. The supporting cast is competent, but has little to do, even the young doctor and his fiancée blackmailed into helping Frankenstein. A bumbling police chief is introduced, along with his put-upon sidekick, to generate some comic relief, then they are completely dropped from the movie! Why? We are led to believe that the police chief will be the main nemesis of the Baron, then we are led to believe it will be the young doctor, and then it ends up being the victim of Frankenstein's brain transplant experiment. There was no tension, we weren't invested in the "creature", and the ending was left so ambiguous as to leave one unsatisfied because it is so clear they are setting up another sequel.
Also, there are virtually no "horror" elements. Yes, there is a beheading in the beginning (off-camera), and we are treated to the sounds of Cushing cutting the tops of two men's skulls off (again, off camera), and there is the most unsettling and thoroughly unnecessary rape scene (90% of which is, again, off-camera). I understand that there is a love of "letting the audience imagine it all, for their imaginations are far worse than what we can show", but come on, if you're not going to give us a Monster, then at least let us SEE the few "horrific" elements you do choose to include. Showing us a skeleton in the lab lit with a green light is just not scary.
On top of a weak script, I thought the directing was mostly flat. There were a couple of nice shots, but otherwise no excitement, atmosphere, or suspense was generated. The same director did "Curse" back in 1958 and I thought it was brilliantly directed...guess he was as uninspired by this film as I was.
The movie gets a 4 out of 10 from me strictly for Peter Cushing's powerful, nuanced performance...beyond that, I found little in this movie worth recommending. Instead, my suggestion is to watch "The Curse of Frankenstein" and see a truly great Hammer horror film.


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


user
Oh, man! This thing scared the heck out of me when I first watched it... and I was SIXTEEN!!!
That creepy animated Barbie is scary as hell! I want to stop talking about her now.


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 big disappointment for me. I think this is the worst Mastroianni-movie ever made. Cosmatos tries too hard to make this movie a masterpiece and that makes this movie a typical "art"-movie. I give 4/10 for this movie.


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


user
very badly made film, the action/violence scenes are ridiculous.
1 point for the presence of Burton and Mastroianni + 1 point for the real tragic event of the massacre of the innocent italians: 2/10.


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


user
This does give away some of the plot, by the way. A Charlie Brown Christmas is one of those timeless classics that teach you the value Christmas and just enjoying the holiday. This, however, does not. It tries to capture the emotion of A Charlie Brown Christmas, there even is another Christmas play, but fails with lackluster and easy jokes. Charlie Brown is no longer wondering about the spirit of Christmas but is instead wants to buy a present for Peggy Jean ($25 gloves...what?). His sister Sally is the most annoying character in the movie. Here is one of her jokes: Sally wants to write a letter to Santa, but doesn't know how to spell Charlie (for some reason he needs to be in her letter) so instead decides to name him Sam, because she knows how to spell Sam. Also, Sally plays an angel in the play with one word to day: "Hark!" She instead says hockey stick (har har). If Sally saying hark 12 times (all oddly sounding exactly the same) doesn't kill you, nothing will. Peppermint Patty and Marcy are a large focal point, but that hardly makes it better. Marcy is funny with her responses to Patty, but Patty is another story. She sounds like a boy (which doesn't dispel the rumors) and gets mad when she has to be the sheep in the play (terrible baas and all). Apparently she is the sheep every year, and is worried she will forget her lines (lines she doesn't have). She is so worried she mentions it twice, one right after the other, and gets the same response. I'm assuming she must have short term memory loss, or something. Lucy and Linus are more welcome (although Linus still has annoying advice), but hardly amount to much air time. I'm sure Schroeder isn't even in this one. All in all, it tries to be a parasite to the original, but compromised the message for a few quick laughs.


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 noticed that "Hamish Macbeth" was being broadcast in the United States, I was thrilled. I then had the misfortune to watch the darn thing. I adore M. C. Beaton's books about the wonderful Scottish Constable. The characters in the book are entertaining and very well-written. The powers that be who are responsible for this mish-mash apparently have never have read one of Beaton's books. Only the name "Hamish Macbeth" has anything to do with the series. Besides the lack of familiar characters, I find the whole show offensively loud. It seems that the actors feel they must shout their lines and scream at each other. If you love M. C. Beaton's adorable Hamish Macbeth don't waste your time on this rubbish.


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 see this film based on the review by Siskel and Ebert; not only did I get duped, but I took some friends along, and had to spend the rest of the day profusely apologizing for making them sit through this pointless crap. After this, I never went to see a movie based solely on Siskel & Ebert's advice.


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 amazed how many comments on this show are about how "real" it is. Maybe I'm not part of the same universe because if Veronica Mars is anything, it's over the top in a big way.
The acting is chewing the scenery with enthusiasm and the plots have holes you could drive a truck through. That's not what I call real.
It is so earnest in its desire to be "relevant" that it only shows how cut-off from reality Rob Thomas and his staff are.
Overall, I found it to be at best a snooze-fest and at worst more than a little annoying. Kristen Bell looks like she could be a good actress, but it's hard to tell with the over-the-top style of the whole show.


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


user
The biggest mystery of Veronica Mars is not one that she had to tackle on screen.
Rather, the mystery is why this perennial ratings disappointment is still on the air. This week marked a nadir for Veronica Mars: it ranked 146 out of 146 shows in the big 6 (soon to be Big 5). Yes, you read right. Veronica Mars was beaten by every show of the now-defunct WB and every show on UPN. It was beat by all the shows on Fox and of course by all the shows on ABC, CBS and NBC.
Now, the hip hypesters are going to say: but this was a re-run. But everything on TV that week was pretty much a re-run! It boggles the mind why CW would choose this proved ratings disappointment as one of the few shows it saved from UPN.
Clearly something is going on behind the scenes. Favors are being exchanged and influence peddled.
Sorry to be so cynical, but what other explanation is there? The "Veronica Mars has potential" line is clearly dead now that it's had two years to establish itself and failed to do so.
Maybe it's Joel Silver's influence and clout, but frankly, I am at a loss why anyone would choose to spend their clout on a bad show that no audience is watching.
A great mystery and a very inauspicious debut for CW.


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


user
Last week, I took a look at the weekly Nielsen ratings, and there was Veronica Mars, supposedly "the best show you're not watching".
Well, they're right that you're not watching it. It aired twice and was ranked 147 and 145 out of 147.
Translation: this is the lowest-rated show on any nationally broadcast network... and deservedly so. I tried to watch it a couple of times because of all the press coverage hyping it as a "great" show, a "realistic look" at life and all such nonsense. The reality was otherwise. Veronica Mars is a bore. It's as unrealistic as it gets, and it richly deserves to be canceled.
The only Mystery is why CW felt compelled to put on its inaugural schedule the lowest-rated show in memory, after two years of continued commercial and artistic failure.


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


user
I was so disappointed by this show. After hearing and reading all the hoopla about it, how it was a "ground breaking show" and all sorts of wild promises if quality, I tried to watch it.
What a letdown!! The acting was way forced and exaggerated. The story made very little sense. As for any hint of the vaunted "look into teenagers' lives", I could only see a paltry attempt that had as much reality to it as a reality show.
Some are wondering why there are so many negative comments about this show. The reason is that it's really not all that good and beating the drums over quality on this show only serves to attract attention to how poorly made it is.


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


user
I give this movie a ONE, for it is truly an awful movie. Sound track of the DVD is so bad, it actually hurts my ear. But the vision, no matter how disjointed, does show something really fancy in the Italian society. I will not go into detail what actually was so shocking , but the various incidents are absolutely abnormal. So for the kink value, i give it one.Otherwise, the video, photography, acting of the adults actors /actresses are simply substandard, a practical jock to people who love foreign movies.Roberto, the main character, has full spectrum of emotions but exaggerated to the point of being unbelievable.however, the children in the movie are mostly 3/4 years old, and they are genuine and the movie provides glimpse of the Italian life..


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


user
Awful! Absolutely awful! No plot, no point, no end. It looks like the director turned the camera on and then the whole crew went to lunch. Every day. I'm trying to GIVE this video away but no one will take it. I'm giving it a 2 instead of a 1 because I like Benigni. Roger, I'm going to have to say thumbs down 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
I like silent films, but this was a little too moronic. As much as I wish I could say that it was worth the hour I stood up I can't. I don't think any version of the movie even comes close to the book. And don't try it out on kids, they might freak. And the lady who played Pollyanna, how old was she? 38? I know the labor laws were different back then... BUT COME ON PEOPLE.


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


user
I could not, for the life of me, follow, figure out or understand the story. As the plot advances it too stays incomprehensible. I'm going to guess and say that there was a preproduction story/plot problem that never got sorted out. The producers could never separate the many details that the novel, or any novel, has the time and space to create from the other idea, which was to make a movie about a serial killer and the killer's pursuit by the police. They ended up with too many things happening in a proscribed feature film time limit. Too bad really because they had a solid cast, a director who knows how to move things around and excellent cinematography. In fact, a well made movie that one could enjoy and relax with for a couple of hours.


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


user
When we were in junior high school, some of us boys would occasionally set off stinkbombs. It was considered funny then. But the producers, directors and cast of "Semana Santa" ("Angel of Death" in the DVD section of your local video rental) are adults and they are STILL setting them off.
Like the previous reviewer who wondered if the cast were anxious to get off the set and home, I doubt more than one take was done for any of the scenes.
Mira Sorvino, hot in "Mighty Aphrodite" and other top-rated films, seems to have undersold herself to this project. Her acting is non-existent, confined mostly to wistful stares that are supposed to indicate how "sensitive" she is to the plight of the film's various victims.
But let me warn you--do not be the next victim! Step away from the DVD if you find it on the shelf. Tbere are not many good leg shots of Mira (the only high points I could find in the film) and the supporting cast is of inferior quality, delivering a mishmash of badly-done dialogue with embarrassing "Spanish" accents worthy of the best high school theatrical production.


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


user
I saw this movie for a number of reasons the main being Mira Sorvino. With her on the cast it couldn't be so bad. And it even seemed like it had some mystery and Olivier Martinez was her boyfriend at the time and he was pretty good in `Unfaithful'. The story is set in Spain so it could be an exotic entertaining movie with one of my favorite actresses.
If you're thinking about the same thing let me warn you: this is a truly awful, uninteresting, boring movie. The only adjective that comes to mind is pathetic.
The story is contrived with sub-plots that add nothing to the narrative. They try to build a slasher/thriller with a look at fascism in Spain but fail horribly. The twists have no credibility and the so-called investigation leads nowhere.
The characters are paper-thin! I didn't care about anyone. More than that they're irritating and pretty hateful people.
The acting is atrocious. Mira what is wrong with you? Why Mira? You're an oscar winner! Keep some dignity! Her character was weak but that is no excuse for such an awful performance. She seems to be sleepwalking all movie long. Come to think of it, I actually think I saw her eyes slowly closing in some scenes. I used to think this woman was sexy. Well she isn't here. If you want to look at some skin try Romi and Michelle because there's nothing to see here. And that accent? My god...
Olivier Martinez is even worst. It's too painful to remember his performance to describe it here. Im sorry but I can´t. Ive suffered enough with this garbage.
This whole movie is depressing! It's so bad in every way it's a wonder how it was even made. A lousy team to produce a lousy script and make some money over the actor's name. Don't fall for it.
Avoid it!



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


user
It was agonizingly bad movie. It will eat your heart out while you watch it. I beg you: don't watch this movie! You will hate you losing 1,5 hours of your lifetime! It's not as some movies that are so bad that you can watch those and enjoy... this movie is boring as... there is nothing as boring as this movie. You will hate yourself after watching this movie till the end. And you will hate yourself that you didn't listen to me.
I hate myself. I tortured myself and I did watch this movie to the end. Now excuse me, I will shot myself. I have seen all.
Please. Read this very carefully. Don't watch this film.
Please!


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


user
I agree with the previous comment, what a disappointment. Rented it thinking it was going to be a good movie since Mira and Olivier where in it. I was surprised by their performance, expected more since they're good actors.
Thought it was a slow beginning but it got worse. I even laughed at some bad stunts!! when is supposed to be a mystery movie. You can even guess who is the killer beforehand!!!
For real what happened??
Sorry to say but don't even bother you'll waste time and money.
Boring!!!


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


user
This may actually be the worst movie that I have ever scene. Incoherent would be a compliment. Even the end made no sense but it was a tremendous relief that it was finally over. I watched it with a kind of fatalistic fascination to see if it could continue to deteriorate and it did. By the end of this mess I was sorry any of the characters survived and I wasn't feeling too charitable about the actors either.If you want to watch a train wreck, I recommend hanging out at a train station. Even waiting on a deserted train platform beats this mess. Apparently I haven't vented enough to fill up my prescribed ten lines so, at the risk of redundancy, I will say it one more time. This movie is a zero and it would be less if I had a word for an even lower rating. How about minus zero?


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


user
"Semana Santa" or "Angel Of Death" is a very weak movie. Mira Sorvino plays a detective who is trying to find a killer who shoots arrows in people. Mira has an Italian accent which falters from time to time. Couldn't she just speak English? All the other characters have a forced Mexican\English accent which is distracting. The dialogue is very bad and the delivery of it is wooden. The cinematography looks nice, but that's not enough to save this tripe. THIS NEXT PART OF THIS REVIEW DOES CONTAIN SPOILERS!!!!
During the climax it looks like the villain is going to get away, but then he comes back down stairs to get shot and do a cool stunt down the railing. That just shows this script has no originality whatsoever. AVOID!


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


user
with all the European studios involved in this one, you would think you'd at least get some pretty photography; but the local color is kept to a minimum.
Irritation #1 is Mira Sorvino using a Russian accent in order to play a Spanish cop - WTF? The story is hopelessly confused. There's a supposed romantic back story that is intentionally confused - is she or isn't she a lesbian? - serving no purpose whatsoever. The cops in the movie are the most stupid to have graced a serial killer film in a long time. There seems to be some message about the mid-'30s Spanish Civil War But since pretty much everybody involved in that is dead, one doesn't see the point in it.
Despite the bull-fighting backdrop of part of the narrative (which part? who can tell), you never even get a good look at a bull fight. Earnest Hemingway would have punched the director in the nose - with my blessings.


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


user
I seems in the beginning a interesting film, a Spanish thriller in a interesting nowadays Madrid, but it isn`t none of that, is actually a film only interesting for future films directors learning about what not to do making a film, it can`t be worse in others words, even the presence of a oscar winner ( Mira Sorvino ) isn`t enough to justify the $ 3.00 dollars expended to see this film , the acting is horrendous and it seems the actors were just waiting to finish the daily shots to go home, it lead to nowhere and is boring, weak and bad, don`t expend time or money on this film.


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


user
This movie sucks big time. It reminded me of the movie Resurrection (Christopher Lambert), which i also found extremely boring. And "Semana Santa" is in every way an even poorer movie.
Only fine one in the cast doing something for this movie is Alida Valli. Alida is one of the grand old ladies in european movie history. I loved her maniacal looks in "Suspiria" and "inferno" (Dario Argento). I will not spend more time dealing with this movie. I will say another good thing about this movie...use it if you want to fall asleep very quickly...


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 aka "the four hundred blows" is a mistranslation.Faire les 400 coups" means"to live a wild life. As a French,I'm stunned when I see the popularity of this good ,but by no means outstanding film. 1.It's not the first film of the "nouvelle vague" move;check Agnes Varda's "la pointe courte",(1956)Alain Resnais's "Hiroshima mon amour"(1958),Claude Chabrol's "le beau serge"(1958) are anterior .Historically,"les 400 coups " comes after. 2.The "nouvelle vague" was sometimes ponderous and hard on their predecessors:Overnight,Julien Duvivier,Henri-George Clouzot,Claude Autant-Lara ,Yves allégret and a lot of others were doomed to oblivion.THis selfishness and this contempt is typically "nouvelle vague".You 've never heard (or read) the great generation of the thirties (Renoir,Carné,Grémillon,Duvivier already,Feyder) laugh at ,say,Maurice Tourneur or Max Linder.So,thanks to Truffaut and co,some people will never discover some gems of the French fifties or forties(Duvuvier's "sous le ciel de Paris",Autant-Lara's "douce",Yves Allégret's "une si jolie petite plage " and "manèges").THe novelle vague clique went as far as saying that William Wyler,Georges Stevens and Fred Zinemann were worthless! 3."Les 400 coups " is technically rather disappointing:it's very academic ,the story is as linear as it can be,the teachers are caricatures,and the mother Claire Maurier delivers such memorable lines as (you've got to be a French circa 1960 to understand how ridiculous it is): Well ,your father 's got only his brevet (junior school diploma)and,as for me ,I've got only my high school diploma!You've got to know,that circa 1960,hardly 10%of the pupils had the HSD in France! Antoine Doinel should have been proud of his mother after all!She wants him to have diplomas,who can blame her? 4.Compared to the innovations of "Hiroshima mon amour",which features a brand new form,and a new "fragmented " content,"les 400 coups " pales into significance.Truffaut will master a new form only with the highly superior "Jules and Jim", helped by the incomparable Jeanne Moreau. 5.The interpretation is rather stiff;Jean-Pierre Léaud ,arguably listenable when dubbed in English ,is still decent,but he will soon degenerate into the most affected of his generation. 6.The topic=stolen childhood had better days,before (Julien Duvivier's "Poil de carotte" ,Luis Bunuel's "los olvidados") and will have after (Maurice Pialat's "l'enfance nue",Kenneth Loach's "Kes") I do not want to demean Truffaut,his movie is not bad,but,frankly,French movie buffs,prefer "Jules and Jim" "l'enfant sauvage" (a film honest ,true and commercially uncompromizing to a fault)"l'argent de poche"(as academic as "400 coups" but much more funny)or his nice Hitchcock pastiche "vivement dimanche".



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


user
This is the sort of thing that only now thrills the film eggheads. After all, Feierstein's Flex Crush will have you know that Real Men don't watch anything by Truffaut.
It might have been interesting if Truffaut had anything to -say- here. The camera-as-voyeur motif was nothing new. Have we all forgotten De Sica's "Bicycle Thief"? Or anything by Hitchcock?
So all we get is the extended metaphor of the juvenile as Truffaut, who spends all his free time 'screwing up his eyes' at the movies, who wrecks schoolroom discipline, gets accused of plagiarism(the many petty thefts), and ultimately escapes societal confines to make 'his own movie'. Sorry...been there, done that too many times for this to matter.


assistant
0