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
Disowned by Richard C. Sarafian, this disaster stunk up Japanese theaters before coming to the States and going immediately to video, where it was not seen again until the Turner networks needed something other than infomercials to fill their 3am-6am time slots and found this tape at the bottom of their bin. The Smithee name is supposed to be used when the studio hacks the movie so badly that the director no longer wants his name attached to it. But I'm afraid that Sarafian can not blame the studio entirely on this one. The actors, mostly recent graduates of "Overacting 101", deliver one cornball line after another. The plot is convoluted. The special effects are unimpressive. The parts that aren't laughable are just plain boring. The script or the book must have been good - why else would Palance, Matheson, Boyle, or Heston agree to appear in this dud? But something went horribly wrong from the page to the screen. Summary: Avoid. Not even bad enough to be so-bad-it's-good.


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 one of those late night "It's there" I saw it things. Sometimes they are great. This one was awful, but it really shouldn't have been.
The movie had a really good cast. How can you fail when you have Charlsten Heston and Jack Pallance? We're talking Oscar winner turf here. It had good special effects. It even had some really good tits! And I mean nicely shown, full breast with full nipple and at one point even some beaver. But it didn't compensate for the one missing ingredient - a story! The plot was ludicrous. I don't mean the "solar crisis" sun exploding stuff, but that was bad enough. It was the rest of the stuff - the oh so stupid and totally predictable evil corporation stuff. Man that just STANK! No amount of good acting or cool space ships or fight scenes could get around that one.
I have seen the same cast members be incredibly good. I have seen wonderful science fiction movies that had miniscule casts and budgets. All the difference is in the writing.


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


user
One of the requirements of science fiction, at least before it starts to become satire, is that it be somewhat plausible. I would think that an anti-matter bomb would do considerably more damage than for what it was intended. But I'll leave that to the physicists who might have seen Solar Crisis.
It is a crisis the earth is facing because solar flares are getting totally out of hand. They're getting close to Earth, so much so that it's become unseasonably hot, as if the entire Earth were Death Valley. The answer is an anti-matter bomb which a space ship will have to take to the sun and explode it there. That will divert the flares off in say the direction of say Mercury providing it's not in direct alignment with the Earth.
Who to deliver it, but captain Tim Matheson and his crew. That is if he can keep his mind on the business at hand and not on runaway son, Corin Nemec. Taking care of the personal side of the family problems is admiral Charlton Heston, Matheson's father, and Nemec's grandfather.
There's a villain here too, Peter Boyle who is the CEO of a multi-national corporation which in this crisis is trying to control the world's food supply for the survivors. The idea he might not survive doesn't enter into his thinking. He's doing his best to sabotage Matheson's mission.
Solar Crisis seems like a bad mix of 2001, A Space Odyssey and Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea. Boyle seems to be taking his cue from Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor in Superman, apparently he's the only one in the cast who realizes he's in a turkey and overacts accordingly.
The rest of the cast are stalwart, true blue and dull. Except possibly desert rat Jack Palance who finds Nemec and cares for him.
The key here is that the film was directed by that noted Hollywood purveyor of flop films, Allen Smithee. The film gets as much as four stars for the cast involved and it was out in time for a Thanksgiving carving.


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


user
I had high hopes for this film, since it has Charlton Heston and Jack Palance. But those hopes came crashing to earth in the first 20 minutes or so. Palance was ridiculous. Not even Heston's acting or Annabel Schofield's beauty (or brief nude scenes) could save this film. Some of the space effects were quite good, but others were cheesy. The plot was ludicrous. Even sci-fi fans should skip this one. Grade F


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


user
Yet another movie with an interesting premise and some wondrous special effects falling right into the trash can.
Boring direction and performances (with the exception of the lovely Annabel Schofield who is much cuter as a brunette and probably deserves better material, and the ever earnest Charlton Heston) earn the rating of a real stinker.
It's amazing to watch Heston perform up to his usual par and display how really bad this movie is. He even plays in a sub-plot that kept me interested just to see how it tied back into the main line of the movie. The way they ended up resolving it was that they didn't. It simply falls off the end.
Really. Don't waste your 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
I saw this movie a long time ago... luckily it was for free. I have to be one of the maybe twenty people who saw this movie in the theater. I don't remember a whole bunch of it, but I do remember I was incredibly bored, the plot made no sense and when I came out of the theater the only thing I could say was at least now I know what the worst movie I ever saw was. I just was incredibly bothered by one thing: if they can make the temperature as they approach the sun low enough for humans to survive, why can't they turn it down to a comfortable temperature instead of being all hot and sweaty? How stupid do they think we are?


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


user
This su*k! Why do they have to make movies that they must know su*k from the beginning? I mean, look at Alien from 1977. If the movie you´r about to make is not better than anything made billions of years before, why make it? I had problems with the plot and who the main character was. That's not good either.


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


user
Final Score: 1.8 (out of 10)
After seeing 'Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back' I must have been on a big Eliza Dushku kick when I rented this movie. 'Soul Survivors' is a junk "psychological thriller" dressed up like a trashy teen slasher flick - even to the point of having a masked killer stalk a cast of young up-and-comers like Dushku, Wes Bentley (American Beauty), Casey Affleck (Drowning Mona) and likable star Melissa Sagemiller. Luke Wilson is also in there, ridiculously miscast as a priest. The movie, the brainchild of writer/director Stephen Carpenter, seems like a mutant offspring of 'Open Your Eyes' or 'Vanilla Sky' and movies where a character (and the audience) is caught in a world of dillusion caused by an accident/death. The movie keeps churning out perplexing images and leaves us in a state of confusion the entire running time until this alternate reality is finally resolved. I don't think these movies are that entertaining- by their very nature- to begin with, but 'SS' is rock-bottom cheap trash cinema any way you slice it. The visuals, the script, the acting and the attempt at any originality all are throwaway afterthoughts to movies like this. Plus, it's PG-13 so it doesn't even deliver the gore or T&A to sustain it as a guilty pleasure (even the unrated version is tame). I had heard that the movie contained some "hot" shower scene between Dushku & Sagemiller. As the movie fell apart in front of me and all other entertainment seemed to be lost I found myself waiting patiently for the shower scene - at least I would get something out of this. Then it comes: the two girls get paint on their shirts, they jump in the shower fully clothed and scrub it off. That's it. People thought this was hot? 'Soul Survivors' is one of those drop-dead boring movies that is so weak and inept that it is hard to have ANY feelings at all toward it. It puts out nothing and is hardly worth writing about. In the end it leaves us empty. Carpenter's finale is a mess of flashing light and pounding sound and that's probably the most lively part. It will no doubt be making the rounds as a late night staple on USA or the Sci-Fi Channel, due to it's low cost and PG-13 rating - and that's probably best for it.


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


user
Like a relative that gives you a bad gift, Soul Survivors has its heart in the right place but trips up with a bad execution. Stephen Carpenter's writing/directing effort borrows freely from other, better films, such as Jacob's Ladder and Abre Los Ojos (Open Your Eyes). For those who haven't seen either of these films, I won't give the premise away; suffice to say it's not nearly as well handled here than in those two superior films.
Melissa Sagemiller stars as Cassie, about to go away to college. Her current boyfriend Sean (Ben Affleck) and ex-boyfriend Matt (Wes Bentley), both friends, and Annabel (acerbic Eliza Dushku) are in a car accident after being pursued by two killers (?) in transparent masks. She survives the wreck, but while attending college has visions of the hospital ordeal and dead people reappear and disappear, leaving her in a state of total confusion: who is dead? Who's alive? What's real?
Soul Survivors has the look of a bad been-there, done-that, gore-filled, blood-splattered, body-stacking teen exploitation flick. True, it has its share of killer-stalking-the-victim scenes (plentiful, repetitive, and mind-numbing), but at least it attempts to build suspense through ideas rather than cliches, unfortunately rather unsuccessfully. It breeds confusion much more often than cohesion, as the story becomes jumbled, messy and incoherent near key points of the mystery (predictable as it is.)
Horror fans who pick up a copy will have no idea they are in for a film that is more concerned with building an uneasy facade of reality than delivering a body count. Credit goes to Carpenter for attempting to create something beyond a derivative teen horror flick; too bad he's created a derivative psychological thriller. Sagemiller also deserves kudos for showing strength in the central performance, actually developing her character and evoking some sense of emotion as the unraveling Cassie. It's great the filmmakers try something different, but the film ends up a mixed bag and failed experiment.
4 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
If the writer/director is reading this (and I imagine you are since you should now be out of work) then I must tell you - I have seen some bad movies in my time but this one gets the distinction of having the worst premise I've ever heard.
SPOILERS - Nothing happens!
A total waste of time. I laughed out loud at the end.
SIDE NOTE - (if the whole movie was her in a coma then does the scene where she sleeps with that guy mean someone raped her while she was knocked out?)
Utter rubbish.


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


user
(A possible spoiler or two)
"Soul Survivors" is quite possibly the worst theatrical released movie ever. Nothing makes sense at all, there's some plot about a girl who has strange visions of people who may or may not be dead. The entire movie is just a bunch of random shots of things that don't really tie together, by the end of the film.
Tha acting is non-existent, the camera work is jerky and the script is so confusing, it just makes the movie even harder to watch.
I kept waiting for something to tie the movie together but nothing came. Definitely the worst film of the year. -****1/2 stars.


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


user
I wanted to watch this movie because of Eliza Dushku, but she only has a smaller part in it, and her character isn't very likable. However, the main character, played by Melissa Sagemiller, is extremely beautiful and a perfect delight to look at throughout the movie. This is really nothing but a showcase for her looks and talent. She does a very good job.
The story itself is, on the face of it, pretty nonsensical. After a car crash, some friends are possibly dead, but keeps on living their previous lives, while all sorts of mysterious things happen. Some bad guys are after them, but we never really find out who they are (possibly they were the ones in the other car, but we certainly don't hear anything about why they are after them). The final scenes especially seem filmically ambitious, but I can't get anything coherent out of it. The opening scene, where the bad guys (who wear some strange masks) cut a blond girl's wrist and gather up some of her blood is never explained or followed up on. Unless the bad guys are supposed to be a representation of the surgeons who're trying to pull Cassie (Sagemiller) back from the dead... but no, that doesn't seem to work. The bad guys are just bad guys; they really just mess up a story that might otherwise have been interesting. In a supernatural story about death and love and sacrifice, who the hell needs bad guys?
3 out of 10.


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


user
This is not a very good movie, but it's not a stinker either. It is very confusing and unnecessarily long so rent it at your own risk.
My GF and I have figured this movie out (we think) so here it is:
***MAJOR SPOILERS BELOW***
Firstly, this movie is actually quite simple after you remove all of the confusing unconscious-dream-state junk (95% of the movie.)
Ignoring the junk, what REALLY happened is this: A group of school friends go to a rave one night. They leave and get into a car accident where everyone but Cassie and Sean die. That's the simple cut down version. (That's right, I said Sean, bear with me)
Right after the accident, Cassie lays in the hospital stuck in between life & death right up until the very end of the movie. This is where the dream part starts.
The movie is called SOUL Survivors, right? Cassie's mind and soul carries on after the accident interacting with the other souls (Annie, Matt, Raven, the 2 weirdos and Jude) along with images conjured up by her mind (Sean, school and everything else around her). The souls continue doing what they were defined as: Annie the rave-going chick, the 2 weirdo-killers (from opening scene), Father Jude still helping people etc.
We are then taken on a very long ride, shown lots of images (many of which my GF and I still can't tie in) but it all boils down to it not being Cassie's time to die.
At the end, Cassie wakes up in the hospital after being "dead" for a while. Her family and Sean are there. This is reality again. She's OK.
Then the director adds a little extra spice by trying to confuse us again by showing a little dream snippet of her in the wheelchair being strangled. But this part is really just a nightmare, and she wakes up beside Sean, obviously still dealing with her traumatic experience.
Due to space restrictions, we didn't cover every little thing, but feel free to drop us an e-mail if you want to.



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


user
An incoherent mess with a gratingly deafening sound track, "Soul Survivors" is the latest entry in the "who's dead and who's alive" genre of horror films. Two teenaged couples, Sean and Cassie and Matt and Annabel, prepare to go off to different colleges, but before they part until Thanksgiving Break, they attend one last fling at a rave-type party in some burnt-out church at the suggestion of lusciously slutty Annabel (Eliza Dushku, a.k.a. Faith, the other vampire slayer). Motiveless creepy guys start paying far too much attention to Cassie (the generic Melissa Sagemiller) for reasons that are never explained, and before long, the quartet leave the party. Driving away in their SUV, they are pursued and then passed by the motiveless creepy guys, who promptly and inexplicably do an intentional 180 in the middle of the highway, causing a nasty and fatal accident as the SUV flips over an embankment and plunges into a river. Sean is killed (or is he?), and Cassie spends the rest of the movie coping with loneliness and guilt (she was driving) when she's not being haunted by Sean's ghost or chased by those motiveless creepy guys. Much unexplained incoherence follows as Cassie's mental state degenerates further, until we reach the predictable conclusion. So, who is dead and who is alive? After ninety minutes of this purgatory, who actually cares?


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 have HUGE expectations for this film when renting it for $1 at the video store, but the box at least showed a little promise with its "killer cut" of "more gore! more sex!" Can't go wrong there! Well... needless to say, the box is a fraud. How in the hades did actors and actresses of this caliber sign on for a film this low?
It all opens with a drunken college girl walking out of a frat house or some other building like that and saying some useless crap to her boyfriend (?) as a camera on a bad steadicam follows her. Then she gets chased by some dude in a clear plastic mask and grabbed by another. They slit her wrists for no real reason and you can see when they "cut" her that someone drew the cuts with what looks like a crayon.
From there, repeat the same theme of the girl getting chased/killed unbrutally by two guys for about 84 more minutes. Add in one tit shot. That is Soul Survivors.
I wouldn't have had a problem with this film had the box not frauded me into renting the flick. If I rent a bad film that claims to have more violence and sex.... I want more violence and sex! One full frontal shot in 85 minutes from a chick who is clearly androginous and gore that would not scare a child does not cut it. If this is the Killer Cut, what is the Theatrical Cut?! Of course, I doubt this garbage was actually put into theaters in the first place. Shame on the actors in this film. I could see them making their screen debuts in here because they have not done anything before, but they were all established before this was released. I don't know if it was filmed before they had all been established and the studio sat on the film until they were semi-big names or not. But what i want to know is.... they really spent $14 million 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
First off let me say that this has to be on the top of my list of boring movies. Nothing, and I mean nothing in this movie is even remotely thrilling. Most of it is very confusing and as it progresses you just wish it would end!! Some people want a movie that makes them "think" through the entire thing, to which I say..."More power to you"!! I on the other hand just want to be entertained. Which brings me back to this stinker, entertainment it is not. This movie is stupid and a complete waste of time. Seems that most here agree also. Most of this didn't make any sense, and by the time you think you have one scene figured out another lame scene comes around and....well I guess you see where this is going. Avoid, this one sucks....bad!!


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


user
Melissa Sagemiller,Wes Bentley,Eliza Dushku and Casey Affleck play young students at Middleton College in the town of Middleton.The four teenagers form two love triangles.One night during an ominous full moon they drive and argue along a slippery and twisting mountain road.Not looking properly they careen into another car and one or more of them are killed.The ghostly nightmare begins...Pretty lousy and politically correct horror flick without gore and nudity.It's obviously influenced by "Carnival of Souls".The cinematography is decent,unfortunately there is zero suspense.4 out of 10-just another instantly forgettable teeny-bopper trash.


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


user
Steve Carpenter cannot make horror movies. First of all, the casting was very wrong for this movie. The only decent part was the hot brown haired girl from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. This movies has no gore(usually a key ingredient to a horror movie), no action, no acting, and no suspense(also a key ingredient). Wes Bentley is a good actor but he is so dry and plain in this that it's sad. There were a few parts that were supposed to be funny(continuing the teen horror/comedy movies) and no one laughed in the audience. I thought that this movie was rated R, and I didn't pay attention and realized it had been changed to PG-13. Anyway, see this movie if you liked I Still Know What You Did Last Summer. That's the only type of person who would find this movie even remotely scary. And seriously, this is to you Steve Carpenter, stop making horror movies. This movie makes Scream look like Texas Chainsaw Massacre.


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


user
...had I watched it in my teenage years. This movie was mildly entertaining. What I liked about Soul Survivors were the gothic atmosphere during the party scenes, and the constant flips between 'dream' and 'reality.
Had there not been movies like 'The 6th Sense' and 'Don't Look Now' I would have been surprised by the ending.


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


user
Quite unimpressive. The 'twists' are all pretty predictable, if you've seen any movies within the last ten years, and the few somewhat interesting parts (wherein someone utilizes context clues to make a decision) are few and lack much punch, since the 'secret' has already been shown before these clues are explained.
(spoilers, sorta)
The acting is decent enough. The story simply isn't very interesting. The whole 'still awake' premise becomes nullified by the astral projection stuff(not kidding).
The surgery scene is initially tense, a bit discomforting, but then becomes utterly banal.
Not horrible, but not memorable. Terrence Howard's least interesting role to date, so far as I've seen.
Kind of boring, overall.


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 already fantastic stories, but the premises of this one are so unbelievable that it comes very close to being ridiculous. A rich and young guy undergoes a heart transplant the day after his marriage, and he is somehow witnessing his own surgery and the plot of his surgeons to kill him. Even if there is a medical explanation to such a phenomenon what next happens is a mixture of dialog among ... say ... souls? ... maybe and real life where the dedicated mother will do everything to save the life of her son. There is no shade of suspense or thrill, just a combination of a bad and simplistic plot with a series of coincidences that can never happen in life.
This is not to say that the film is completely lacking quality - actually first time director Joby Harold does a decent job in directing a good team of actors that includes Hayden Christensen at his first major role after having taken off the Anakin Skywalker costume, fabulous Jessica Alba and super-gifted Lena Olin. All would have deserved a better story.


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


user
For a film about a killer this is surprisingly dull.
Nothing much happens and even when things do happen they don't generate any real excitement or interest.
The acting is good from the two leads, Cassetti in particular delivers a great performance combining the certainty and stupidity of Succo but the rest of the cast also do what they need to.
The problem is that there is poor writing and direction and the fact that as a true story it isn't interesting, Succo is not a unique character, he isn't interesting or exciting.
Films of this sort normally try to generate tension or empathy or outrage and this generates nothing except a feeling of regret that you wasted your time watching it.


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


user
Cedric Kahn's films have been character-based, rather than action-based (I'm thinking of L'Ennui and Feux rouges) so it is jarring to see this series of really expert car chases interspersed with some plodding attempts to give character to Succo. I don't find Stefano Cassetti to be an interesting actor; he reminds me of pro athletes who are coaxed into movies, like Bret Favre. That blank stare looks like a really vicious deer caught in the headlights. A real actor would have forced us to reflect more on Succo's personality, rather than admiring his skill at carjacking.
The little acting there is comes mainly from Isild le Besco as the needy schoolgirl Succo takes by storm. The interview at the police office is a marvel of bland obstinacy with a little fear of the future blended in. Le Besco apart, there is little to recommend 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
What a wasted opportunity to actually make an interesting film about a complicated subject. There is very little exploration about what it really feels like to be a straight (or gay) man working in a gay sexual environment.The dancers keep talking about their art as if it has no erotic component. They may not all be prostitutes for hire, but they are indeed sex workers playing out fantasies and selling private sessions where more than dancing is offered. From the film one would get the impression that they mainly appeal to the women who go to the gay clubs and then end up hiring the "dancers" for private sessions. Even the shots in the club only show women in front of the stage and the "dancers" only playing to the women in the audience. This just isn't the reality of these clubs. It would be pretty hard to make a living doing private dances for straight women and couples. So what do they really feel about their gay admirers and clients? We learn very little. Instead we get filler. A gay activist who adds nothing to the study of straight dancers. A manager who tells us about the costumes for the drag acts but offers no insight into the dancers' lives and attitudes.
The pictures of Mexico City are generic. The phallic montage showing sausages roasting is ridiculous.
This is a totally simplistic film which should be of interest only to those who want to see a few pictures of pretty boys dancing. The rest of the movie is an insult to gay men.


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 Chan Is Missing when it first came out, about four years after moving from San Francisco to New York. Maybe it was the perspective of a few years away, but this movie seemed to capture the essence of the city and its people better than anything else I'd ever seen (still does). It concentrates on one particular community - the Chinese - but that's fine, because so much of the city's soul is refracted through the settings, the faces, and the maybe above all the voices of the characters.
This isn't the tourists' San Francisco. The settings are humble and everyday: a taxi cab, the kitchen of a Chinese restaurant, Richmond District row houses, little Chinatown apartments and small-business offices, the piers, a Philippine elder center. This is what the city looks and feels like day to day to the people who live there - even now, in the era of Silicon Gulch urban redevelopment. Unlike, say, Dirty Harry (in its own way an excellent San Francisco movie as well), everything is filmed at street level: We come to understand the characters' points of view from the perspective their surroundings give them, not from some fancy vertiginous shooting.
Wang apparently filmed in B&W because he didn't have the money to do otherwise, yet one of the strongest visual elements of the movie is the natural light he achieves. The often harsh, pervasive quality of the sunlight is one of my closest associations with San Francisco: It seems to expose everything, bringing the buildings, the hills, the other landmarks down in scale and, in a funny way, making the people you pass on the streets seem more individual and potentially closer to you than they might in another place. Wang's photography perfectly conveys this, and even helps the story along at points.
Wang captures the speech and conversational style of Chinese and other San Franciscans better than anyone ever has, I think. If there's such thing as a true San Francisco "accent," it's what you hear from the balding taxi medallion broker (I think) who appears talking on the phone in one scene (listen to the way he calls the person on the other end "ya dingaling!").
The story is poignant and, despite a few very small missteps, makes its points beautifully about the longings that pull at the hearts of people living in old immigrant communities - including the justified political and ethnic resentments, and little ironic amusements, that help to fuel them. All this is communicated delicately - perhaps why some respondents here think the film meanders. It doesn't - suffice it to say that the two cab drivers' quest for Chan becomes a quest for something more personal.
Chan Is Missing finishes up with a Chinatown travelogue sequence backed by a goofy novelty song from the 1930s (I guess) about San Francisco and all its crazy diversity. An American caricature, yes, but somehow not entirely off the mark either.


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


user
I watched this on a whim because it was available and I'd heard the Thumb movies were funny. This one was not. The majority of the jokes were based around "Geranium's" physique and, in turn, Kate Winslet's. I think it's really pathetic of the the "Thumbtanic" creators to stoop so low to make jabs at a respected actress just because she (heaven forbid) doesn't starve herself into the model of ideal modern beauty.
My favorite part was the line that goes something like, "Hey, I have a great idea! Let's swim over to this makeshift raft that no one else seems to see!" Thirty seconds of amusement out of a 26 minute movie does not redeem its value.


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


user
The Thumb idea isn't such a winner the second time round. ThumbTanic wasn't as good as Thumb Wars for a number of reasons. Primarily, I think, Mr Oedekerk had far less to work with in the Titanic send-up. Unlike Star Wars, the movie Titanic hasn't (yet?) become a cultural myth and there are far fewer references to be made which will resonate with the audience.
In ThumbTanic, the holes are filled by one-off jokes which don't really seem related to anything. For example, the hero's insinuation that the heroine isn't clean during the "jump off end of ship" scene - it's not funny. Rather, you just think to yourself, "Did I miss something in the original movie?". There were too many of these type of baseless jokes (cf. arachnid).
By contrast, the send-up of the smarmy ship's designer had meaning and was funny. Also very funny was the send up of the bloke in the movie who wanted to go "faster" as a maniac running around demanding *everything* be "faster" including the sinking of the ship and himself being the first to die. These sort of jokes meant something in the Titanic context and lent meaningful humour to Thumbtanic.
The thumb "media", the faces and the voices, are still amusing. The props and sets and the CG animation are worthy of appreciation. Overall, although ThumbTanic proves that quirkiness alone won't work, this filmette still keeps you amused and chuckling to the end.


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


user
What this movie fails from answering is how wrong this war is (and most US wars recently made only to get some oil).
How many innocent civilian casualties there has been, how many lives perished and how blatantly stupid the perpetrators are.
So, let me ask you - if American soldier kills women and children apart from enemy, its OK, but if government accidentally kills their own forces by deadly chemicals while killing many civilians as well, it is not? Your logic fails, gentleman.
I'll give it 5 for the solid performance and 1 to everything else, 3 in total.


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


user
Another vast conspiracy movie that tries to blame the US government and the Armed Forces (especially the Army) for every disaster since the Great Flood. Anyone who has ever served time in the US military can see how bogus this film is. Uniforms, equipment, sets, and mannerisms are all wrong. (And of course, all Senior Officers are either corrupt criminals or total idiots.) Blatant propaganda with no attempt at objectivity. Most of the theories presented have been disproven over the past few years. Uses every cliche', rumor, and Urban Legend from the Gulf-all are presented as gospel. (The truth is, no one knows for sure why some GW vets are sick and others are healthy as horses.) PS This is not new. War is NOT fun and I know WWII, Korean, and Viet Nam vets with some pretty serious ailments, too. (And the government has the responsibility to take care of all of them.) Sensationalistic movies like this will not solve the problem!


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


user
Apparently none of the previous reviewers,most of whom praise the film for its accuracy, have actually read a biography of Louis Pasteur.The most glaring inaccuracy is in the relationship between Pasteur and Napoleon III.Back in the 1930's the latter was invariably shown in a bad light.While far from an admirable character-he was an inept politician and a self-appointed "military genius" who allowed France to be dragged into a disastrous war,he was not the stupid reactionary depicted here. He had an intelligent interest in science,and like many other people in the 19th century saw a bright future because of the improvements it would bring.Far from exiling Pasteur, he was his PATRON,building him a laboratory and providing him with all the resources that he needed for his research.While the lab was under construction, Pasteur became gravely ill.A bureaucrat, deciding it was a waste of money to build a laboratory for someone who would soon be dead, ordered work halted on his own authority.When the emperor heard about this, his outrage shook the bureaucracy so that there was a flurry of buck-passing, and work promptly resumed.The Emperor personally visited Pasteur to comfort him and reassure him that he would get his lab.The emperor would often bring members of his court to admire Pasteur's projects,and it was obvious to everyone that Pasteur was one of the emperor's favorites.Pasteur's main worry concerning the Emperor was that Napoleon thought Pasteur was virtually a miracle worker who could do almost anything, and was constantly assigning him tasks outside of his previous experience.Pasteur, a very modest man, was always protesting this, but Napoleon would say that he had complete faith in him,and Pasteur despite his misgivings, always came through.They always had a close and friendly relationship,and after the Emperor was overthrown, Pasteur refused to say a bad word about him,grateful to the end of his life.
The part about his daughter having the baby, and Pasteur sacrificing his principles to get a doctor, never happened.The part about the anthrax and rabies, for which he was famous, is generally correct, but the notion that the anthrax experiment raised him from obscurity to fame is false.He was famous and respected at the time this happened.This movie is OK from a dramatic standpoint,but very distorted as biography.


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


user
Entertainment Tonight has been going down hill for the last few years, but as of last night (Aug 17th 2006) they reached a new low.
In an effort to try to hype up their broadcast, they decided to post actual photos of JonBenet Ramsey's body in their teasers last night ...saying "Pictures from the case you have never seen before". The two photos were graphic and very disturbing. One was of the side of her face and head/neck and you could clearly see the cord that was used to strangle her around her neck, and bruising on her face. This was so hideously awful, I could not believe it. How has this got to do with ANYTHING remotely related to Hollywood Entertainment?? Nothing!! They have dropped their level of dignity and values to a new low....and it shows. This used to be THE premiere show to watch...and it's just garbage now.
I will watch Access Hollywood from now on.


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


user
This show is unbelievable in that . . . what it represents and what it focuses on and . . . words cannot describe how insane ET is. They will report anything. If a celebrity is even remotely indirectly connected to the story ET will report on it. If a dog poop in the Tom Cruise's yard they will report on it. If a celebrity dies . . . they will talk about it for weeks on end to the point where the public envy that celebrity. If a celebrity is on trial . . . ET will report it for MONTHS on end. There is no end to what this show will reports and no time frame that dictates how long they will focus on a story. Is it even considered legitimates reporting? The reports are so dang annoying too, with harsh rambling voices and end with an unnecessary pause to convey a sense of important. I cannot watch this show without questioning humanity's existence. ET is one big reason I avoid pre-evening shows in general. I regret that IMDb can only allow a minimum of one star rating and not zero or even in the negatives. For this show deserve -10 Stars.


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


user
ET's obsession with Dannielynn Smith is despicable. Leave the child alone. With all the constant attention she'll most likely grow up psychotic, depressed or worse. Think of Princess Diana and how she longed for privacy. Now poor little rich girl Ashley Olson just wants to be left alone. No wonder Greta Garbo became a recluse and said "I want to be alone". How much does ET make off this little girl? Does ET not have anything better to report on? I bet there's lots of people who really don't care what color her birthday cake and balloons were. By the way, I never heard that Anna Nichole ever won any of those court cases over the will and her inheritance. Who is paying for the lifestyle of Larry, Howard and little Dannielynn? Could it be ET?


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


user
Like most people I love "A Christmas Story". I had never even heard of this film and perhaps for good reason--it is awful. Same locale, same narrator, same director but the warm fuzziness of the original was lacking. Charles Grodin was a poor choice to replace Darrin McGavin but I cannot imagine anyone being able to replace him. The story seems forced and lacks the sweetness of the original. The interaction with the neighbors, the Bumpuses, is ridiculous. In "A Christmas Story" Ralphie's obsession with the BB gun seems cute but his obsession in this movie is boring. Scud Farkus, the original neighborhood bully, is replaced in this film by yet another kid with braces and a weird hat but with little of the Scud Farkus menacing appeal. It would be pretty difficult to equal the original, even if this movie had been made with the original crew.


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


user
"A Christmas Story" is one of many people's all-time most beloved films. ACS was able to take the viewer to a time and a place in such a way that very few films ever have. It had a sweetness and goodwill to it that is rare.
So I awaited (and awaited) its sequel, "It Runs In The Family" . The film was almost released a couple of times, only to be pulled at the last minute. When it finally came out, IRITF was (and is, I guess) a total failure.
The sets and cinematography were just fine, but the directing totally, completely missed the mark. The film was nothing more than a cash-flow formula of lazy casting, lazy writing, and disconnected acting.
The narrator, Jean Shepard, who was one of America's great humorists and story-tellers, forced upon us a false reprise of the warm wit he used in ACS. He over-emoted, and why he did that I'll never know. He somehow managed to become an annoying, overwrought parody of himself.
The writing and acting in IRITF is inauthentic and forced. The actors may have seen ACS, but whatever wit and nuance that was in ACS mustn't have registered at all on any of them. The acting was embarrassingly slapstick and bereft of any of Shepard's dry humor.
ACS will always be a real treasure, but to call IRITF a sequel is to insult all of the fans of Jean Shepard and ACS.


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


user
Since its release in 1983, "A Christmas Story", the Jean Shepherd-narrated story of his alter-ego, Ralphie, has become a true classic. "My Summer Story", however, still has Shepherd as the narrator, but it has absolutely none of the charm, and the characters are nowhere near the caliber of the original film.
"My Summer Story" is basically a mishmash of mediocre and just plain not very interesting stories, which include hillbilly neighbors and battling tops. Charles Grodin, who I normally like, is extremely unlikeable in the role of the father (more aptly handled by Darren McGavin in the original), and his character never seems anything but forced. Kiernan Culkin is a poor substitute for Ralphie, and the little brother is all but forgotten here. Only mom seems to have any worth here and perhaps that's because she beans a cinema manager with a gravy boat when he pushes his luck too far with irate housewives on "free dish night".
The stories in this are mostly inconsequential and stretched paper-thin. May appeal to the extremely undemanding but as a sequel to "A Christmas Story", it's a very poor one and not worth most people's time. 2 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
Funny how a studio thinks it can make a sequel to what was a classic Christmas story with an entirely new cast and expect it to float. Sure they used various actors for Batman, but in that instance Batman was a classic character before any of the actor donned his cape. In this instance you had a classic character in the blond headed horn rimmed glasses wearing Ralphy that wanted a red ryder bb gun for Christmas... Somehow we are supposed to forget him and accept another little boy that share no resemblance to the original... If I had not known it was a sequel I wouldn't have guessed it from the cast... except of course Charles Grodin tries so hard to imitate Darrin McGavin that your are constantly reminded that the original was far better...
In the end it might have work if they had cast the movie better. They should have looked for look a likes or simply ignored the original and not tried to copy its look and feel. This one is just a cheap imitation. The Ralphy evokes no sympathy just a desire to seem his character shoot his eye out or die.


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


user
Really bad. Why anyone thinks this is a good film let alone funny is a true mystery. I like comedies as much as the next man and I LOVED "A Christmas Story." The fact that it has the same director and was based on the same writer's memoirs has me completely puzzled as to why this film is such a complete failure on every level. Charles Grodin is woefully miscast as the father for starters. For another it does not seem to have the same pacing -- it just doesn't flow well. Everything seems tired and forced. The joy of life that permeated the first film is completely absent here -- you just want the movie to end. I wouldn't even recommend this movie for curiosity-seekers who enjoyed "A Christmas Story." It's that bad. 1/10.


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


user
This is an in-name-only sequel to "A Christmas Story," originally entitled "A Summer Story." Ralphie narrates his family adventures during the summer when they moved to a small hick-town in the middle of nowhere. Hilarity, unfortunately, does not ensue.
The original worked because of its irreverent nature and honesty - everyone could relate to it. This one is simply stupid and not very funny at all. Charles Grodin's last movie - no wonder! It's one of his poorest roles. I felt sorry for him.
Mary Steenburgen is given little to do, everything's formulaic, and you have to wonder why they even bothered.
And I mean, come on - a competition with spinning tops?! Sadly, it's the best part of the movie...


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


user
A Christmas Story Is A Holiday Classic And My Favorite Movie. So Naturally, I Was Elated When This Movie Came Out In 1994. I Saw It Opening Day and Was Prepared To Enjoy Myself. I Came Away Revolted And Digusted. The Anticipation that Rang True In A Christmas Story Is Curiously Missing from This mess. A Red Ryder BB Gun Is Better to get than a chinese top.And It Is Not Very Funny At all. Charles Grodin Is Good but the Buck Stops There. Bottom Line:1 Star. Don't Even Bother.


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 not very entertaining, certainly NO WHERE as original or as good as A Christmas Story. The characters (except the youngest) try to emulate the preceding actors, and they fail. The hillbilly neighbors come out of nowhere as they weren't a part of the first movie. This really sucked, might have been good with the original cast, then again maybe not because the story is so weak. Skip it.


assistant
0