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
For getting so many positive reviews, this movie really disappointed me! It is slow moving and long. At times the story is not clear, particularly in the evolving relationships among characters. My advice? Read the book, it's a fabulous story which loses it's impact on screen.


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


user
After hearing raves about this movie for years, I finally decided to rent it and watch. Let me start by saying that I'm glad that the rental was free from the local library. This move was slow, boring, unrealistic and the plot made no sense. After 2 hours, I was ready to nuke that backwater Texas town and put the group of those characters out of their misery. I realize that taste is subjective, but believe me, I just do not understand all of the hype that I have heard about this movie. Dallas provided as good a detail of the life in Texas as this movie. Rent it only if you want to understand how movie studios can pay enough money to reviewers to convince the general public that a bad movie is good.


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 your only spoiler warning. What a sad state of our cinema when unprofessional junk like this is considered "Oscar worthy".
I divide material into three levels. The first is the stage theatre. Here the viewer is stagnant and the power rests in the presentation of the actor and, most importantly, in the power of the writer. A good playwright is better than a good screenwriter because he or she knows the ways of words better. The best playwrights know how to create imagery that the barren stage cannot show.
The second level is film. In this medium, a weaker writer can be used, but the viewer is not sitting in one spot the entire time. With film, the context can take the qualities of visual poetry and meaning in addition to strong writing. Furthermore, film can manipulate everday elements like sound and color in ways that are almost surreal.
The final level is literature. In this context, everything is imagined by the author, translated onto paper, and then re-imagined by the reader. Far more detail can go into a novel than is conceivable for a film studio.
This is why adaptations can go up, but never down. Novelizations are never better than the base film (see the dime-per-dozen ones at your local book store), whereas the film cannot convey the same power as the original book (Catch-22 and LotR). Movies can rarely be made into plays and plays can always be made into movies.
As for 'The Last Picture Show', it fails. It is a film that should stick to the stage because the director is too stupid to shoot anything right. The characters talk the same and act the same, it's pure futility. Add to that an obnoxious soundtrack and you have an entirely unwatchable film.
I saw this in my high school drama class with about 20 other wannabe thespians. The instructor raved about how sad the movie was. What is sad is how such stagnant work is considered depressing when the material itself is hilarious. Had this been in color the scenes of impotence, the pool party, and the old hooker would be considered great comedy. Look what Lucas did with 'American Graffiti' a few years later.
The American secondary education system needs to start teaching ABOUT film rather than trying to teach WITH film. Two visually powerful downbeat films: Apocalypse Now and Barry Lyndon. Rely on them, not this. It's the 'Last' I want to see of it. 1 out of 5.


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


user
Florence Chadwick was actually the far more accomplished swimmer, of course. She swam the English Channel both directions. She swam from Catalina Island to the California coast. Marilyn Bell's is a sweet story, but the usual glorification of us Canadians in the face of a superior world. Another sample of our inferiority complex. Our political system works pretty well and the health system allows people not to die in hospital lobbies. That's pretty good. Better than Lebanon. What should we do about hockey though...? And curling. The notion of calling this a sport, of its inclusion in the Olympics...! ah, but we digress...


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


user
This little show is obviously some stupid little prequel/spin off of the original series.
Compared to the live action series this show is utter crap. The live action show had intelligent jokes and story lines. While the animated series is basically a toned down bittersweet version for younger viewers to digest but i think maybe kids deteste this crap.
The storyline in every episode is basically just Sabrina has some stupid and pointless dillemma and she uses magic to fix it. Thats basiclly the idea every episode. The most bizarre episode was when Sabrina uses magic to become Gem and Gem to become Sabrina. So then Gem becomes a witch and hypnotizes harvery to become her slave. This then leads to a bizarre yet rather interesting scene were Gem says "just adore me for now" and harvey get down on his hands and knees and starts kissing her feet like shes a god. (which is quite right since he's her mind control slave) But this stupid spin-off is not worth the time or the effort.


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


user
One can only assume that Robert Osborne is contractually obligated to express delight at even the least appealing films in the TCM library as this would explain him extolling the 'virtues' of this "charming" film during his introduction when I saw this on cable TV. Seeing as any old film on IMDb receives 'classic' status from a number of fawning amateur reviewers, I thought there was a dire need for a more honest review of this film.
This is not your father's 'Shop Around the Corner'. For all my quibbles with 'You've Got Mail', it still outshines this as a remake in just about every way imaginable. For those who have seen the original, the flaws will only be all the more obvious.
From one of the lamest Meet Cute sequences I can recall seeing (a sad slapstick attempt at 'humor'), this film gets off on the wrong foot and it never really gets back in step. This 'musical' only qualifies as one in the sparsest sense of the term. There are a sprinkling of instantly forgettable musical numbers and then there's Judy singing "I Don't Care" while flailing her arms around as if in a seizure. The Christmas song she sings in the store is probably one of her better numbers here. Miss Garland was wonderful in a number of musical films, but here she seems horribly miscast. The role was originally to have been filled by June Allyson and Judy is definitely unable to fill the shoes of Margaret Sullavan's old part. Van Johnson also turns in a rather bland performance as a second rate Jimmy Stewart type. The leads never achieve the chemistry of Stewart/Sullavan or even that of Hanks/Ryan.
This is a film that knows (some of) the notes, but not the music. It doesn't really seem to understand why the original worked and even feels the need to add another possible love interest for Van Johnson's character to complicate things unnecessarily. The remake's substitution for the original's infidelity subplot is a hackneyed plot device involving a priceless violin. It is almost embarrassing to watch and feels as if it had perhaps been lifted from an episode of Three's Company by someone with a DeLorean and a flux capacitor. It's really just an excuse for a Keaton pratfall. Even the big resolution scene between the romantic leads is mishandled. After seeing both films, you'll understand why they called it 'the Lubitsch Touch' and NOT the 'Robert Z. Leonard Touch'.
Avoid this and rewatch either the original film or one of Judy Garland's earlier films unless you're an iconoclast who enjoys seeing a once great star falling down to earth.


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


user
As has been noted, this formula has been filmed several times, most recently as "You've Got Mail", with Tom Hanks and Meg"Trout Pout" Ryan. Of the several versions, this is my least favorite. The problem i think is that the studio coasted on the Stars charisma, which doesn't quite cut it here.
The chemistry betwixt the two leads never comes to a boil in this movie. There are no real sparks. Van Johnson and Judy Garland remind me of day old donuts, pleasant but bland. And when the leads are boring the rest of the movie can only follow. Judy in particular is disappointing. She looks like she has no neck! I don't know if she was having trouble with pain or something but she looks like a turtle trying to pull it's head into it's shell, all hunched up and everything. I couldn't figure out what Van Johnson was getting so hot about. I would have made a bee line for that cute violin player. And Van wasn't great either. I've always thought of him as a rather generic Hollywood leading man and he doesn't do anything to dispel that image here.
If you're a fan of the stars or the early 1900's then you might like this movie. But there are a lot more entertaining romantic comedies out there, and they offer you much more than a mouthful of stale confection.


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


user
I rented this movie because it sounded pretty interesting but to my Horror this movie was the worst movie I had ever seen! I read the comment from Gumby-8 and he has to be a part of the cast or the crew. Unless Gumby-8 is a 4 year old child or some demented cult member no one in their right mind would think that this movie had any potential at all.
I couldn't believe Gumby-8's comments.
Quoting: "From the "Dune" inspired opening animation to the quick pace...this film keeps the eye moving and works so well that repeat viewing is not unexpected."
The Animation is the only aspect of the movie that was interesting and the fact of that the film keeps the eye moving, well that's because you keep looking for any type of suspense. I mean give me a break Halloween was shot with a budget of $100,000.00 and a painted mask and also by the way became a cult classic. As far as "repeat viewing is not unexpected" I think he made a typo.
Another quote from Gumby-8 the only Fan: "The acting is also a strong aspect of the film."
With all due respect for the actors, their performance is nothing more than the respective talent of Robert Napton.
The catchy Tagline: "Beware the hour between dusk and darkness"
That's because there is no dusk or darkness in this movie.
MPAA rating "Rated R for some violence/gore"
The only gore you see is some red paint on a sheet over a dead body you never see. As far as I know it might be a clump of grass.
In summation, I have seen horror flicks from the 50's, 60's and 70's. I have seen what I thought to be the absolutely worst and some that were very good. The director of this film either did not make any attempt, was asleep, or took a hit of acid. Whatever the case I think the actors deserve applause for trying to salvage a very poor job of direction. I would give this film a rating of .5 for a 'B' movie.


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


user
As a Mystery Science Theatre 3000 fan, I can withstand ANY motion picture that can be foisted upon me, but there is absolutely no reason for this.
Rated "Super Action" in the Blockbuster Video section and given the dreaded "Restricted Viewing Sticker" I'm assuming these are the only methods that film maker (HA!) Robert Napton could use to get at least 4.50 from one unsuspecting person.
Shame on you Robert Napton! Shame on you for exploiting these poor Mexican actors who you probably promised hopes for making it big in American cinema. You are a disgrace!
There isn't one moment in this movie that holds the slightest bit of action. Did you use snot on these people? Oh, look, they're having a rave in a field! Like all 6 of them. And isn't that an Asian guy in the background? Why is it always daytime? Why did it take 1/2 of the movie to show anything.. and more importantly why did we watch the other 1/2?
PS: You owe me 4.50.


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


user
This isn't cinema. It isn't talent. It isn't informative. It isn't scary. It isn't entertaining. It isn't anything at all.
I got this because my cousin says, "Diablo! COOL!" Yeah, right. The only thing cool about this experience was the lone fact that I didn't buy it but rented it instead.
It's shot like a bad soap opera. No wait. Soap operas at least LOOK professional...sorta. This? This looks like it was shot with someone's camcorder. It's horrid! Wretched! It sux.
The cinematography is detestable! WHO IS this director anyway? I don't even care enough to look him up. He STINKS! The performances by these poor unsuspecting actors were far better than this crap-fest deserved.
2.6/10 on the "B" scale.
That registers about a 0.3/10 on the "A" scale from...
the Fiend :.


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


user
It is one of the worst movies i've ever seen, but Hostel is definitely much more worse. This movie is more funny and ridiculous, than scary. I laughed most of the time when watched it. Low quality effects (when you gonna watch it, you'll understand what i'm talking about and HOW LOW quality is that), bad actors (i hear of them for the first time), and it seems like it's shot by an amateur camcorder (so it looks more like a TV show, than a movie). But at least i've had the patience to watch it till the end. Like comedies? Watch it. Wanna horror? Go watch Ju-On: The Grudge or some other good horror movie.
If i'm talking about the Legend of Diablo, i don't even know if i can classify it to a Horror genre. Just some low-budget crap.
I rate it 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
me, my boyfriend, and our friend watched this "movie" if thats what u wanna call it, and we agree with the last person, but we were stupid and bought the damn thing, we thought it really was about diablo so we bought it.
we hate it Really SUXZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! so beware: DO NOT BUY THIS THING THEY CALL A MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
we would return it, but don't no if anybody would want this stupid movie.
oh and another thing, the shouldn't call it "The Legend of Diablo" they should of called it "Legend of Azar".
and this movie is rated R????? this should not of even been not rated.
we think that diablo would be crying his eyes out laughing at this stupid movie.
this is a movie that would have been done by a Church.
theses "actors" are never gonna become nothing because 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
This may be one of the worst movies to ever make it to production, ever.
1. The most exciting part is the beginning, where the guy is walking... and walking... and walking (spoiler). There is about 15 minutes of just walking. How?
2. Not to mention there's a lot of issues with the lighting, and it's almost like they even shot the night scenes during the day.
3. The acting was TERRIBLE. It looks like they found a community theater (in Mexico)... and then took the people who were turned away.
Please, for the love of everything holy, don't rent this movie. If you know someone who owns it, apologize to them. The director should be subject to punishment through the war crimes tribunal for foisting this on the public.


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


user
The small California town of Diablo is plagued with mysterious deaths after sheriff Robert Lopez unearths an ancient box.Legend has it that the box holds the sixteenth-century Mexican demon named Azar.FBI agent Gil Vega is sent to investigate the murders and joins forces with the sheriff's daughters,Dominique and Mary to fight with evil and bloodthirsty demon."The Legend of Diablo" is an absolute garbage.The film lacks scares and gore,the acting is amateurish and the direction is bad.The animation is the only one aspect of the film I enjoyed.I'm a big fan of indie horror flicks,for example I loved "Torched","Live Feed","Bone Sickness" or "Neighborhood Watch",unfortunately "The Legend of Diablo" is a huge misfire.Definitely one to avoid.


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


user
1st watched 2/28/2006 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Sydney Pollack):-DVD version I watched titled "3 Days of the Condor"- So so CIA drama full of laid-back performances making for a very laid-back movie. The premise of the story revolves around 7 out of 8 members of a CIA research group being killed with Robert Redford's character, codename = Condor, being the one that was left. Who killed them and why? That's what Redford tries to find out while trying to not be the 8th victim at the same time. Along the way, he gets Faye Dunaway's character involved involved, originally because he needs a place to hide, and then she eventually helps him out after a little lovey-dovey time. This is one of a handful of innocent guy on the run stories but this one doesn't have a lot of suspense. The flat performances don't help and the finish doesn't seal the deal for the audience enough either. Despite having a good director in Sydney Pollack and a group of classic performers, the story and the performances are not what they should be and therefore the movie is not what it should be.


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


user
Generally I don't like films directed by Sydney Pollack ("The Firm" being somewhat of an exception) and I've never been a Robert Redford fan either. Still, I thought "Three Days of the Condor" must be good because of the number of praising comments it has received.
Although the widescreen cinematography is quite pleasing for the eye and Max von Sydow does a nice job as the sinister professional killer, I found the whole affair tremendously disappointing. The film undeniably radiates paranoid atmosphere, but everything is ruined by the muddled plot which doesn't seem to make any sense.
The film also contains one of the most unsatisfying endings I have ever seen which really leaves the viewer hanging in the air. And what can one say about that absurd romance between Redford and Dunaway? I'd much rather watch any of Hitchcock's films five times in succession than to sit through this piece of waste once more.


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


user
Being a big fan of Corman's horror movies I expected from his western a bit more than I got. Well, I was entertained all right. I had almost as many laughs as watching Mel Brooks' Blazing Saddles.
See the spectacle of mobile tire tracks on the prairie of the old west. You can kill time by counting them if there happens to be an otherwise boring scene going on. And the horses seem to have gears in them too, considered the fast-forward chases. See also the swinging bar room queens of the traditional wild west saloon doing a number that reminds of a certain fashionable dance from 1920's, here decades before the style was invented. Hope the saloon around them won't crumple.
In the middle of all this mayhem the main actors do a decent job. Ireland, Garland and Hayes are all truly fine. A special praise for them for doing the best they could with the material that seems mostly having been lifted from 'Johnny Guitar', but doesn't quite impress the same way. But there is really nothing wrong with a laughable western like this. Just like a really bad old horror movie, it might fail one way but succeeds to give joy anyway. That is one of the reasons Corman's work appeals to me and that is why I dare to recommend you to experience this movie if you get the chance.


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


user
I'll admit that I don't expect much from a Roger Corman film. Generally, I expect a lot of walking and bad scripts. Yet in this case, I am pleasantly surprised.
The Gunslinger is a story of a woman (played by the spunky Beverly Garland) who takes over as sheriff after her husband is brutally murdered. Ms. Garland is a pretty good shot herself, killing one of the murderers the next day at her husband's funeral. Her first task is to shut down the local bar that is violating the town curfew. The bar's owner is trying to buy land in anticipation of being bought out by the (hoped-for) railroad. However, Ms. Garland is a thorn in her plans, and the bar matron hires a man to kill Ms. Garland.
Because of Ms. Garland's plays her role honestly and realistically, there is absolutely no temptation to go to Suzanne Somers "She's the Sheriff" jokes. With the exception of a couple of faux pas (the apartment door that opens OUT from the inside, jeep tracks, and the two horsemen waiting on screen for their cue to ride around a corner), the movie becomes quite passable as movie fare. However, Corman could not resist padding his film with horse riding scenes, much like he does walking in other films.
Sterno says The Gunslinger is a horse opera worth your time.


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


user
- When the local sheriff is killed, his wife takes over until and is determined to clean-up the town. Not everyone in town, however, is happy with what she's doing. When the sheriff orders a curfew in town, the local saloon owner (also a woman) hires a killer to take care of the sheriff. There's no way the saloon owner could know that the sheriff and the killer would fall in love.
- Gunslinger is an example of what happens when you have a fairly interesting concept and combine it with poor execution. There's a good movie here somewhere trying to get out. In more capable hands or with a larger budget, Gunslinger might have been an entertaining look at the role of women in the Old West. As it is, Gunslinger is a sloppy mess of a movie.
- There are just so many things wrong with the movie: a supporting cast with no acting ability, stilted and unnatural dialogue, and sets that look like sets. But the biggest offender is the editing. I was amazed at how many times a scene would begin with the actors (and horses for that matter) obviously waiting for Corman to yell "Action". The best is the scene of two riders on horseback just standing beside a building. All of a sudden, they take off and come racing around the corner like they had been riding hard for several miles. Or, take the example of people who can seemingly transport themselves across town. We see a man enter a building and a second later emerge across town to mount his horse.
- It's not as if Corman didn't have a few decent actors to work with. While none were great stars, Beverly Garland, John Ireland, and Allison Hayes were all capable of turning in a good performance. But, in Gunslinger, they're not given much to work with.
- I have now seen both the MST3K and non-MST3K versions of the movie. I would strongly recommend going the MST3K route.


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


user
Beverly garland was born in the wrong time. She was an actress ahead of her time, bringing power and grace to even such lame flicks as the Corman films she starred in. In Gunslinger, she's the town sheriff's wife. He gets offed, so she takes over his job to pursue his killers. She's better than the material she's working with, by far. The movie is gray, stilted, and mostly boring. There's some(unintentional)humor with the tire tracks everywhere, people running behind one building to emerge suddenly in front of another (I've heard of false fronts, but this is ridiculous!), and the truly stupid plot line of the newly widowed sheriff falling in love with the guy hired to kill her. Even if she hadn't loved her husband, it had only been something like a week or two since he'd died! And she ends up shooting the guy to death in the end, anyway. No luck with men, this one.
The villain of the piece is another woman, the saloon owner. She's scheming to buy up a bunch of land just in case the railroad goes through and makes her rich. Her plan of action if it doesn't is pretty lame-she'll just steal as much from the town as she can and skedaddle. Hell, it's just her and her hired gun at the end against an entire town. Are you telling me these people aren't armed? Look what happened in real towns of the Old West when bank robbers came in to rob the bank, then were cut down in a hail of bullets by the armed and dangerous town folk.
There'a a lot of pointless talking and riding around, interspersed with a few lame shoot outs. The ending is as grim as usual in a Corman flick, although thank goodness it lacks the moral proselytizing at the end that was in It Conquered the World. The sheriff turns over her badge to Sam Bass and rides off into the sunset, although the movie was so gray that you never saw the sun.


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


user
I guess that "Gunslinger" wasn't quite as god-awful as most of the movies that "Mystery Science Theater 3000" shows, but westerns just aren't Roger Corman's forte. Portraying Rose Hood (Beverly Garland) becoming sheriff in an Old West town after her sheriff husband gets murdered and having to fight off baddies, the movie is pretty predictable. John Ireland is Rose's new hubby, secretly working for unctuous Allison Hayes (yes, the 50-foot woman). Also appearing briefly is frequent Corman co-star Dick Miller as a mailman (Miller nowadays stars in Joe Dante's movies).
I do wish to assert that you'll probably want to watch the "MST3K" version to really enjoy this movie. They had a great time with it.


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


user
Sure it takes place in the west, but the title makes it seem like it is a conventional western. Instead, it is a movie of a woman sheriff. Make no mistake though this is a bad movie about a woman sheriff. She becomes sheriff when her husband is gunned down; she is only a tad bit upset by this. Her main goal is to go after the villain who is also a woman, but the villain hires a guy to kill her. So this is what happens, the hero falls in love with the killer and vice versa. Utterly stupid, as anyone killed in this movie has the new sheriff to thank. She had more than a few chances to put the killer behind bars, but I guess because she liked him she wouldn't do it. The killer is also after the mayor of the town for personal reasons that are also rather dumb. This movie is very boring and not really worth watching...it is not one of the better episodes of MST3000 they made. I can not imagine anyone seeing this without them because that would make it that much more painful. Corman is a low budget director, but even he should know better than to have people go into one place and coming out another.


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


user
I'll be blunt. I'm not one for politically correct movies where the woman plays the bad ass who's not going to take any crap from anyone. If any one of the cast members wanted to, they could have just taken her out in a heartbeat. It was entertaining on MST 3K, but don't rent the real version. Trust me. Have I ever lied to you?


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 other commenters mentioned that they almost walked out. If I hadn't been with my wife, who wanted to stay, I would have left. It's a shame, too, because I think it could have been a good movie. But this is easily one of the worst adapted screenplays I've ever seen. It starts out nowhere and it goes nowhere (I would say it goes nowhere fast, but it really goes nowhere slow...painfully slow). From time to time there are hints that something interesting might happen, or that there is potentially some depth underneath one of the characters, but that's all we get - hints. There is not a single payoff or revelation in the entire movie. Not that I need a slick plot to be entertained...I love a good meandering character study as much as the next indie buff. But these characters add up to nothing. For the entire duration of the film you don't care what happens to a single one of them. As a matter of fact, you almost start hoping they die, because at least a death might be more interesting than watching their inexplicable behavior, which is so strange and unpredictable that you'd think it in itself would be compelling, but it's not. Instead of quirky, noir-esquire characters acting in hard-boiled fashion, you simply recognize it immediately for what it is: a bunch of talented but miscast actors, brooding and raising their eyebrows while reading bizarre dialogue without a hint of relevant context. All this for two plodding, painfully slow hours. Awful.


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 movie that demonstrates that mood and music and texture aren't enough to make a good film. Sure, the viewer is treated to numerous fine scenes of Los Angeles in the thirties--I especially liked the view of the trolley approaching the tunnel, and the tram rising up the hillside--but in a sense this fine cinematography is self-defeating, because it creates a mood that "something's going to happen"--and nothing does. The script too keeps feinting toward some plot or action or trauma--and time after time not delivering. Not even delivering the (I assume) theme of the movie, the characters' essential misfit. The lead actors, both too pretty for their roles, didn't convey any repression or agony, and the script didn't expose us to any.
Now, Donald Sutherland? That's another story. His character was so well fashioned, so perfectly played, that I wanted the camera to follow him.


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 proves that good acting comes from good direction and this does not happen in Ask the Dust. Colin Farrell is usually a fine actor but in this he is juvenile. Donald Sutherland comes across as an amateur. Why? Because the script is awful, the adaptation is awful and the actors seem bored and half hearted. The atmosphere of the movie is bad - I could only think when it would finish and I turned it off half way. The director has done a very poor job and even though I have not read the novel it is certainly a missed chance. The atmosphere this film is trying to evoke and the message and storyline never reaches the audience. In one word, it is a TERRIBLE film.


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


user
A friend told me of John Fante last summer after we got into a conversation about Charles Bukowski. I did not know that Fante was a favorite writer of Bukowski's - an author with similar edge and humor except from one generation earlier. 'Ask the Dust' was the first Fante book I read, and it remains one of my favorite novels. The novel was a brilliant piece of writing about a sad, frightened young writer posing to himself and the outside world as an overconfident, masterfully talented author who had no idea how to write about the real world experiences he had none of. In the novel the protagonist is a virgin, with no idea how to win the graces of the women he desperately wants to write about in magazines. The story of his bizarre relationship with Camilla, how he settles for his first sexual experience with a 'wounded' admirer, and how he eventually is left with nothing but the story of his failed attempts at love is biting and real, with no touching Hollywood ending. The film adaptation stays true to the book for a while, but meanders into the cinematic trap of love persevering through racism, sickness and death. The heart of this story lies in the fact that Bandini is a jerk and Camilla is f-ing crazy, and their love never was and never would be the real thing, no matter how much either of them wanted to find it in each other. This movie tore out the real meaning of the story out and replaced it with schlock. I can't believe the man who wrote Chinatown could read this book and make a movie about it that got it so wrong.


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


user
It must have been excruciating to attend the dailies as the shooting continued on this failure of a film. Probably Cruise, the Exec. Prod., saw what was happening and had Towne use much, much more of the nude footage in the final cut then Towne wanted to, to make up for the disaster he saw looming.(Maybe Cruise even thought of "Titanic".)A few items: Colin Farrell can't act his way out of a paper bag. But he's one of the flavors-of-the-decade, a producer's darling and one is forced to avoid the embarrassment of watching him by not attending his films. He has so many moments of not believing in what he's doing and you can see it in his eyes. I think he would have been at his best as a film actor, albeit not as rich or famous as he is now, playing second banana to dynamic leads who can act. The trap of spending a lot of money for period sets, costumes, cars, et al and photographing them as if they just came from the dry cleaner or car wash/wax. No one seems to want anything to look, well, worn. Or dirty. Is this because the production designer was told by the line producer to make sure they didn't ruin the stuff because then the company wouldhave to pay for the ruined items?
This was a story about the depression-thirties folks, not a Disney Broadway musical about that era. How about doing it in black and white or better yet, given Caleb Deschanel as your D.P., have him desaturate the colors during the mix to suggest some of the actual grime and poorness of the times. It should have been, after all, a bit depressing to live so desperately as these folks did, in the Depression. More on Farrell. Did anyone for a moment believe this guy was a writer? H.L. Mencken on the wall; did I see his eyes roll at one point? Hayek and Farrell as a sexually dynamic duo? Sending a boy to do a man's work? Perhaps in the book, which I haven't read, the story was about an older woman and a youth. I cannot delve too deeply into the middle to latter parts of the film because I bailed out early on. But the memory of the scenes I did see made me think that someone was doing a not-too-amusing parody of a noir movie. Sort of what Saturday Night Live has been like for the past decade: not funny. (In my mind I kept thinking of a Guy Noir sketch, music and all.)


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


user
I love the depiction of the 30s and 40s in film. I love Salma Hayek. I was more than ready to love this picture. but . . .
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ! ! ! !! !
No sir, nothing good about this. The only entertaining aspect for me was Colin Farrell's character is an insecure writer and this screenplay, despite tackling the juicy subject of racism, approaches the audience in the fashion of an ABC Afterschool Special.
The only person who didn't sound like he was "acting' was Sutherland, and his minutes were few.
Stale approach to a tired plot.


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


user
A film starring Salma Hayek and Colin Farrell, two respected and talented actors, sounds like a great idea. An independent film sounds even better. The studios will control less of the content allowing the actors and writers and director more creativity.
But then why is this movie so bland? Ask the dust.
This film assumes right off the bat that we are deeply invested in the characters. No one is given a proper back story, so we don't ever know why the characters act the way they do.
Explanations for physical and emotional scars are left to our imagination, if you still have one left at the end of this movie.
I told a friend that I went to see this film, and that I thought it was awful.
Her question: "Not even Colin Farrell could save it?" My response: "Not even Colin Farrell's ass could save it."


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


user
"Ask the Dust" looked intriguing from the trailer, and we especially like all of the actors. Unfortunately, the movie was not compelling enough to be considered drama, and it wasn't funny enough to be a comedy. It practically seemed to satirize itself, and to no entertaining effect. After seventy minutes of waiting for this thing to get better, my wife and I walked out, valuing not having wasted any more time on such nonsense. It simply was not interesting, moving, funny nor artistic. It appears as though it were written, produced and directed by a high school kid; worse yet, it was such a shameful waste of otherwise extraordinarily talented actors, not to mention our time and money.


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


user
Given the history of the director of this movie, it is hard to believe that this was such a painfully bad movie to sit through. I was at the European premiere last night and one of the Executive Producers was there. He was yet to see the movie and, boy, was he in for a surprise. I have not read the book that this is based upon, nor do I know if it highly rated or appreciated, but I have read "Captain Correlli's Mandolin" and given how poorly that was adapted for screen and how bad this movie was, I can only presume that something similar has happened here. The acting wasn't bad albeit that there were a couple-too-many raised eyebrows from Farrell. Honestly, I can't believed how little I cared for any character in this movie. Situations play out on the screen in an empty sequence of nothingness. Donald Sutherland's part comprises a few scenes where he opens a door, says something and closes it again. I kept looking at my watch when I wasn't cringing at the dialogue on the screen. I have never walked out on a movie but I was tempted to start during this. I gave this movie a score of '2' for reasons which seem horrendously shallow to me but these are the best things that I can say about this movie. The first is that I really enjoyed the all-too-short earthquake scene and the second is that Salma Hayek got naked and looked beautiful. I can say little else positive about this movie. Don't ask the dust anything, it can't talk!


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


user
I don't like this film, but then I didn't think much of the book either which, although lauded by many as a "masterpiece", I found lacking in character development and disjointed and illogical in plot, although it was far more readable than Fante's dreadful first effort "Road to Los Angeles" not published until Fante became fashionable in the mid 80s.
I was intrigued to see what sort of soup Towne would make with such meager ingredients. He has worked hard script-wise to repair the many shortcomings of the book but for my money didn't rescue it. There was never a movie in Ask the Dust while ever he tried to stay faithful to the book. I consider this film Towne's folly.
In a word: forgettable.


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


user
This film is based on the novel by John Fante. Could someone please tell me why? I see absolutely no reason why this fine book should be adapted in this way. If you want to make a romantic melodramatic Hollywood production with Colin Farell and Selma Hayek, then how could you possibly make a connection to Ask The Dust (the novel)? -And if you wanted to make this story into a film, then why would you want to make it into a romantic melodramatic Hollywood production with Colin Farell and Selma Hayek? I don't get it.
The adaptation of the story is poorly made, and if you have read the book and liked it, I'm almost sure you won't like what Towne did with it.
In the beginning of the film you'll maybe find the casting odd, the acting bad and the cinematography just a bit overdone. But you hope for the best. I really hoped a lot during this film. I actually wanted it to be good. But it only gets worse, and it is as simple as that: Whether you read Fantes novel or not, this is not a good film. Just another romantic melodramatic Hollywood production combined with bad acting, lack of structure and - of course - plenty of shots of Colin Farells naked butt.
I could complain a lot more about this film, but why waste my time. I've seen it. Alright. I had to see it, because I like the book so much and was curious. And I'm very disappointed.
1/10 is for Colin's sweet little mustache in the end of the film. So sweet... Had he worn it the whole time through, I'd given it 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
Gorgeous bodies, gorgeous colors and camera work, pretentious dialog, banal plot. The name of the prima donna, Camilla, and the eponymous flowers that appear frequently, are enough to remind us of the plot similarities from Dumas' novel La Dame aux Camelias, the movie Camille starring Garbo and (I think) Robert Taylor, and last but not least Verdi's opera La Traviata. Beautiful, not-too-virtuous young ladies, social outcasts for one reason or another, loved, split up, reunited just in time to die of tuberculosis in the last scene... One forgives banal plots and stupid unrealistic dialog in opera, but why waste Hayak, Don Sutherland, a beautiful rendition of LA in the 30s, a deus ex machina earthquake that conveniently kills the other woman, and all that beauty on this mediocre turkey where there isn't even any beautiful singing?


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


user
What do you expect when there is no script to begin with, and therefore nothing that the director can work with. Hayek and Farrell, and Donaldson and Kirkin are good actors, they just don't have anything to say or anything to react to. Even the earthquake was pretty poor. And I don't know how closely the movie follows the novel, but two have the Jewish girl show up out of nowhere just so show that Arturo has a nice, warm heart, but some stereotypes don't amount to anything. And he even buries Camilla out in the desert, instead of bringing her back to L.A. for a nice Catholic burial where he could at least bring her flowers once in a while. Pathetic. And the L.A. set was ridiculously graphically created. Anything good? The window to his apartment felt real, the curtains, the sounds, the wind. And Donaldson is always great. Has been since the Body Snatchers or Night of the Living Dead, whichever it was.


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


user
A warning to potential viewers: if you are looking for an adaptation of the classic story "The Most Dangerous Game," look elsewhere. "Seven Women for Satan"
only superficially addresses the original work by using the name of Zaroff and having said character murder people.
Some of what follows might be considered by some to be spoilers. Or not.
Boris Zaroff is played by writer/director Michel Lemoine. Whereas his ancestor hunted men because they were the only prey that were truly challenging, Boris' victims are usually in a position where they cannot defend themselves. The film rambles from scene to scene with a near-total lack of clarity. The director seems to have totally disregarded pacing and left the viewer with a suffocatingly dull film. A few individual scenes are mildly interesting (such as a torture rack sequence), but as a unit, the film fails to entertain. Viewers who are more
interested in an assortment of attractive and semi-attractive actresses in various stages of undress might find the film watchable. Most will probably find their time is better spent watching Mentos commercials.
In a side note, the DVD extras included a fair amount of information on the film's history. Apparently, it was banned for several years in its native France which pretty much ruined any chance it had for widespread distribution.


assistant
0