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
Okay at first this movie seemed pretty good even though it was moving rather quick and even though they only had a $60,000 budget it was good but if you found your sister dead in a lake and found out who might have killed her why would you go chase him around and pull a gun on him with only one bullet and waste it and end up running from him all retarded and get yourself killed? Plus after you found your sister dead in the lake and found a clue and figured out who the killer was why wouldn't you hand that clue over to the police who think you killed her? And at the end of the movie when she acts like her sister who was a waitress and she is talking to the bad guy she should of met him somewhere and recorded him saying she was dead and what happened for her "proof". I don't know I was not happy with the ending. This movie could of been so much better if it lasted longer and the acting was better and if the ending did not suck so bad! Do not waste your money on this movie because if you do you will be writing a review on here too and will not be happy.


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


user
I also saw this movie at a local screening about a year ago. First, I'm going to say that it looks great. Cassella is incredibly talented and a fantastic cinematographer. I just wish the movie had been as good as it looks. I would not call this a horror movie. Putting in a few shots of a decaying ghost does not make it a horror movie. There's no mystery, there's no suspense, you know who did it the entire time.
It's a drama. You know what's going on with both sides the entire movie. The acting was okay, I guess, but nothing special.
And the tagline, "Revenge can be deadly"....really?...they should have check how many hundreds of horror/thriller movies have that exact same tagline?
It pains me to say some of this, but I know a lot of the people who worked on this movie, and I know they don't want people blowing smoke up their ass, so I give my honest opinion.


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


user
OK ...I watch a lot of bad movies. I pride myself on that fact. many times there are some gems in the B rated bombs. But this movie is one of the worst I have watched. I like a good horror movie...but one with a plot of and sense of movement. The opening scenes seemed pretty good. Decent music and imagery. Then it goes down hill from there. One of the main characters has a disability (Ringing in the Ears called Tinnitus). Now this will in turn threaten to reveal his secret. They made that too much of a focus of the movie. So what he has ringing in his ears and accidentally left an ear plug somewhere where that he shouldn't have been. No need to keep bringing it up. So this guy is having an affair with this girl and in a motel she falls and hits her head on the end table. So instead of letting everyone know of his affair he decides to dump the body. Now her twin sister is trying to find out where she is and what happened to her. Well after seeing her sister over and over again (as a zombie like ghost) and even pointing directly to the location of the body she finally finds her. Now the body is recovered and she is set out to deal with the one and only suspect that killed her. Bad thing is that she didn't have much of a plan. Only to pretend to be her twin and met the guy where the body was dumped. The idiot didn't even believe he killed her. So all is revealed there and even though she had a gun....somehow she manages to get herself strangled. So the last scenes of the movie are of the "spirits" of her and her twin walking out of the water. So you mean to tell me in this movie the bad guy wins. And not one but two innocent people die.
Good things about the movie: imagery
Bad things about the movie: music sound effects long and drawn out misdirection of plot low grade acting from some not all actors


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


user
The premise of this movie was decent enough, but with sub par acting, it was just bland and dull.
SPOILERS The film does not work because of the nature of the death, it was accidental, so although it was a murder it wasn't like the guy set out to do it. Also through some flashbacks there is a secret that is revealed that sort of makes the events like justice to a degree. There is no emotion in this film. The first 20 minutes or so is just this woman calling her sister, and hearing her message. It was dull and boring.
With some polishing, and better acting it could have been pretty good.


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


user
There is so much that is wrong with this film, but to sum it up: Terrible acting- so bad it must have been on purpose. poor script - they may have had some good ideas but this was not the best way to present the story. ridiculously bad ending- in some cases the ending manages to save the film-not in this case. if you manage to sit through the entire film you will want to kick yourself at the end because the ending is not even worth waiting for. This is the worst film i have seen in a long time. It was complete torture sitting through this film, i would have appreciated someone warning me in advance. So do yourself a favor. Watch this film only if you have absolutely nothing better to do. Even then you will regret having put yourself through the unspeakable torture.


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


user
I read John Everingham's story years ago in Reader's Digest, and I remember thinking what a great movie it would make. And it probably would have been had Michael Landon never got his hands on it. As far as I'm concerned, Landon was one of the worst actors on earth, and his artistic license went way over the top, similar to his massacre of the "Little House" book series is proof. The acting, for lack of a better word, is atrocious, the screenplay sloppy, and there are more close-ups of Landon's puss than should be allowed.
This movie reflects Everingham's story as much as "Little House On The Prairie" reflects the books is was "based" on. It's just another vehicle to show off Landons horrendous hair.


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


user
This insipid mini operetta featuring a Eddy-McDonald prototype in a Valentino scenario is so bad it becomes an endurance exercise after five minutes. It's silly from the get go as this brevity opens two military men discussing the lack of manliness in the son of one of the officers. In under a minute he is packed off to Morrocco where he lives a double life as the Red Shadow; the leader of an Arab tribe that would rather sing than fight.
Alexander Gray and Bernice Clare possess fine light opera voices (with little acting ability) and there's a decent bass in there as well but the acting is so haphazard scenes so ill prepared you get the feeling they are making things up as they go along.
This two reeler was part of a larger stage production that lists six writers. With more room to spoof and warble the show may have had some entertainment values but this rushed quickie is little more than an insult to an audience waiting for the feature presentation.


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


user
Raymond Burr stars as an attorney caught up in the murder of his best friend (Dick Foran) thanks to his affection for his friend's wife (Angela Lansbury). This was a full year before he started doing Perry Mason, so the movie might be of particular interest to his fans if it was the inspiration for his casting.
There isn't all that much else here that's interesting though. Lansbury is always good, but her character here is very one dimensional and the motives for her crime in the mystery are totally obvious. There's an interesting performance by Lamont Johnson as a painter who's also in love with the "femme fatale", but the Burr character is pretty straightforward. It's frankly bizarre to see an actor like Burr doing these romantic scenes with Lansbury, and his halting delivery does not match his character here very well as it does in most films I've seen him in. There's no mystery at all really, and the whole suspense is supposed to be around the title of the film and the way that Burr's character is setting up the Lansbury character to implicate herself (double jeopardy prevents her being tried again for the original murder, presumably). He does so with a very large tape recorder which she doesn't notice when she comes into the room I guess.
A few perhaps unintentionally fun moments and basically the rest of the thing could have been done for TV.


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


user
As an avid fan of the Flashman books by George McDonald Fraser, I looked forward immensely to seeing Flashy on the big screen when this film was first released. Sadly it was a huge disappointment then - so I left it alone for 20 years before going back to watch it again, but it was no better the second time. Mr Fraser is a tremendously skillful writer, but I am not a fan of his film screenplay work with Richard Lester. The penchant for slapstick spoilt 'The Three Musketeers' for me and the same applies here. To me, the whole tone and feel of the film is wrong. The Flashman books are uproariously funny in parts, but they are adventure novels. There is much seriousness in the way the adventures that Flashman has - after all, he is involved in dangerous situations. This is conveyed in the novels, but not conveyed at all on film due to the its comedic style. It is a tremendous shame as it could have a great film had it been a more faithful adaptation of the style of the book. When I first read that the book was to be filmed, the article said that the film was to star Oliver Reed. I rejoiced, as Reed to me was the epitome of Flashman. How I would have loved to see him in the role. Malcolm McDowell is a good actor, but does not fit the visual image of Flashman created by the books (too scrawny looking! Flashman is supposed to be a big strapping fellow). Neverheless Reed was excellent as Bismarck. What kills the film is that it is made as a comedy. The only scene in which it creates the true atmosphere of the book is the scene in which Flashman kills de Gautet (Tom Bell). A great shame, as the production values, costumes, sets etc are superb and the casting is generally excellent - just about everybody in the film is well cast apart from Malcolm McDowell. Possibly the directorship of Richard Lester was responsible for the way the film is, as a recent radio adaptation of 'Flash For Freedom', adapted by Mr Fraser, worked quite well. Perhaps one day we may see Flashman done justice 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
No one is a greater fan of Geroge Macdonald Fraser's Flashman papers than I am.
I was surprised to see just now that Richard Lester directed Royal Flash, since I also see he had made the Three/Four Musketeers with Fraser which I though turned out rather well.
Not so Royal Flash.
I was 12 years old when the film was released and could not have been more enthusiastic since I had read all the Flashman papers published up to that time, and was intoxicated with A Clockwork Orange and Malcolm MacDowel (I still am, but he was never really given a chance after that).
What a disappointment (I saw it once again when I was about 20 on television and it seemed even worse).
None of the sharp dialogue in the books is transfered to the screen. The comedy of Flashman's character seemed to me to have been mishandled in about the same way one could imagine a group of high school students trying to parody it would do. The dueling and fencing was awful and undramatic.
Looking back with more mature eyes, the film failed completer to exploit the possibilities of direct satire of earlier film versions of the Prisoner of Zenda.
If you have read the book and not seen the film, I can only say that the film ends with Flashman and Rudi von Starnberg becoming fast friends and playing a game Rudi has just invented: Russian roulette.
A pathetic betrayal of everything the books are about.
My comments would be more direct if I had seen the film more recently, but I am glad I have not.
If by any chance Fraser ever reads this, I can only say I think he is a genius--perhaps the greatest comic novelist of his generation, but, based on my appreciation of that corpus of work, it as hard to believe that he wrote the screenplay of this film, as that he did all those awful Roger Moore James Bond films.


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


user
Yeah, well, I definitely had regrets about giving up my Saturday night watching this strange little, yet very long, movie. Apparently neither did the main character for stealing two hours of my life. Here's the epitome of the antihero in 'No Regrets.' We have this jerk, so messed up, so wandering, so selfish, aimless and unlikable that it was extremely hard to get past the attraction a highly favored businessman's up-and-coming son, Jaemin, unless it was just that: physical attraction. He claims otherwise, that it's love. But after watching this, it's like loving Charles Manson because you dig the beard. (Alright, he's not that bad, but still no real redeemable characteristics.) I could never get past the reason Jaemin endless stalks Sumin. It was never shown, just told, that Jaemin loves Sumin. Perhaps it's a culture thing that flew over my head: crazy/stalking = mad love over in Seoul. It has to be, because a little more than half the movie is one stalking the other and the last part is stalking back and forth to the point I thought this was turning into a screwball comedy. I was waiting for a tiger named "baby" to make an appearance. Okay, so Sumin works two jobs while going to school, so far so good on someone trying to better themselves. But after his first taste of his stalker's attraction, he gives up his day job for some kind of prostitution ring. What? OK, well, as previously mentioned, the obsession doesn't stop due to the job/career change and if you throw in a bunch of other very angry characters you get one messed up movie where unbelievable occurrences just seem to happen without buildup. Basic movie, not 100% terrible, but you can do better with foreign gay-themed movies.


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


user
::POTENTIAL SPOILERS::
Man, this movie was awful. A Catholic/superstitious/suspense thriller it goes over already well tread ground from previous movies.
The doubting priest. Sex and the priesthood. Politics and religion. Church hypocrisy. Conspiracy involving the church. The dawn of a new evil age. All kinds of dark magic voodoo battles between good and evil.
Pretty stupid and lame with a weak storyline to suffice. The story revolves around two concepts: Absolution, better known as the Sacrament of Anointing the Sick - the last rights a person can ask for to cleanse one's sins while on the brink of death; And Excommunication, the act of cutting a person off from the Church. Basically, an Excommunicated person can't receive Absolution. Thus comes in the Sin Eater, and I'll leave it at that. Throw in all the dopy things I already listed and you have "The Order".
I found the sex scene with the priest interlaced with shots of a picture of the Virgin Mary rather insulting to Catholics. It also ends with Heath Ledger saying (I paraphrase) "I am the redeemer and damner of sins, I live on without love blah blah blah" /cue him walking in dark alley with long trench coat alla "The Matrix".
I gave this movie a 1 for not only being crappy and unoriginal but also because it managed to insult an entire faith in the process. If you want to see something better I suggest "The Prophecy" with Christopher Walken.


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


user
The screenwriter poorly attempted to re-create the "Exorcist'. But put in some blah-blah love story that makes you sick instead of keeping you engaged. There is no substance whatsoever in this entire film. It had the potential of being something special but blows it by showing a bunch of people yack about things nobody cares about. Extremely boring, I wanted to leave the theater when I saw this but the dumb movie tickets were expensive so I had to withstand the dreary torture which felt like it lasted forever. Nothing on screen connected relevance back to whatever the characters were talking about.
They use computer graphics in here that instead of wowing me (as it intended, I hate CGI) just ruined the movie even more. Some people say this movie did horrible in the movie theaters because of how "thought-provoking" and "slow-paced-without-action-because it's an intelligent film" it was. What is so intelligent or thought provoking when the story is basically about pretty boy Heath Ledger as a priest who has a love interest and disobeys his religion? Seems like an uninspired concept. Oh and there's some mumbo jumbo about the "sin-eater" (movie was originally going to be titled "sin-eater"). Lame concept but the movie took the "sin-eater" thing too seriously, making the movie become pathetic and delusional about how dark and intelligent it was. Yeah, I know there were really sin-eaters in the medieval times but this movie just makes it sound cheesy.
Nothing in the movie was executed right and I forget why I even bothered to see this movie. If you want horror films that actually have depth, watch Rosemary's Baby, The Tenant, Naked Blood, Society, Cannibal Holocaust, Pin, Exorcist, Omen, or any of the Romero "Dead Trilogy" films. Nonsense dialogue does not equate to intelligence people, mainstream movie fans think that though (same kind of people that think a ridiculous movie like Hulk is a cinematic masterpiece). If you want mind-numbingly boring horror, watch the Order. This movie makes church seem like a roller coaster ride.


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


user
Horrible waste of time - bad acting, plot, directing. This is the most boring movie EVER! There are bad movies that are fun (Freddy vs. Jason), and there are bad movies that are HORRIBLE. This one fits into the latter. Bottom Line - don't waste 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
The turgid pace of this movie numbs us to any shocks that it might provide. There was no real suspense. Most of the characters were insipid. The chesty Irish priest was as lame as the love interest. Interest is misleading. The girl that they chose to provide the film's sensuality might be better. The central conflict of the main character was uninvolving. This film is entirely devoid of positives. It is like a tedious exercise by someone who didn't want to go to the gym that day but did anyway.


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


user
I shouldn't even review this movie, since it's not actually a horror movie -- and thus not worthy of Dr. Cheese's attention. At least, it's not horror in the usual sense. It's certainly a horrifying proposition to waste your time watching this crap. That's why I turned it off after the first four hours. Imagine my surprise, then, when the clock showed that only 45 minutes had passed. Yep, that's right; in plain terms, this movie is b-o-r-i-n-g.
"The Order" had lots of flaws, not all of them unique. In particular, it seems to me the main problem with the "religious" subgenre of horror films is Hollywood's unwillingness to engage Christianity on its own terms. It is quite possible to make truly creepy films that are also orthodox. Just ask William Peter Blatty. In fact, without orthodoxy, films like this are just an anything-goes smorgasbord of the filmmakers' (usually dull and illogical) imaginations.
Think about it. If someone made a movie ostensibly about, say, physics, but not only got the basic laws of physics wrong, but based the entire plot on its wrong portrayals, you would soon get tired of the resulting pointless plot. The same goes for these sorts of movies.
In other words, "The Order"(and many similar movies before it) invent out of whole cloth stuff about the Catholic Church and about the Christian faith and attempt to build a plot out of these inventions. Unsurprisingly, the plot ends up being incoherent and stupid. This movie has the added charm of being as interesting to watch as your toenails growing.
Avoid this steaming pile.


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


user
What was the worst movie of 2003? "Cat in the Hat?" "Gigli?" Mais non! I propose that it was this atrocious little film from earlier in the year. Badly written, badly edited, and (if I may be so bold) badly acted, "The Order" is the black hole of film - a movie so dense not even the slightest bit of entertainment could escape from its event horizon of suck. It isn't even accidentally funny, like (for example) "Showgirls."
You know that the producers are assuming that their audience isn't going to be very smart. They renamed the movie, originally titled "The Sin Eaters," because they figured Americans were too stupid to understand what a sin eater was, even though they go to great lengths to explain what a sin eater is in the movie. Instead, they figure an utterly generic title and a picture of Heath Ledger looking sullen are more than enough to get you in there.
And, hey, what do you know, they were right! My ex-girlfriend saw the picture of Heath and dragged me in. Congratulations, producers, you've met your target market. She also liked "Grease II," so you're in good company.
Back on topic, Heath plays a Catholic monk from a specific (you guessed it) order that is trying to investigate the murder of his mentor. He has celibacy issues, possibly because nobody in their right mind would believe that he knew the slightest thing about religion, much less be a celibate monk. The only other member of this order is a funny alcoholic fat guy. As much as I've wanted to see the return of the funny alcoholic to the big screen, his attempts at humor reminded me of all the dorks in my high school who did imitations of Monty Python, thinking that if they just said the lines like the Pythons did they would automatically be funny. You know the sort of people I'm talking about.
If I utter any more, I would be in danger of generating spoilers. Frankly, the thing that spoiled this movie for me was the fact that it was created.


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


user
My friends and I walked out after 15 minutes, and we weren't the first. Afterwards, we tried to get our money back. Movie theater management wouldn't allow this, but they did agree to let us see another film. The only time that worked for us was to see Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star. As you can tell, this wasn't a memorable night. Probably one of my worst movie nights. Close second has to be when I saw a double header of Domestic Disturbance and Heist. In conclusion, for the sake of humanity, please don't see The Order.


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


user
This sorry excuse for a film reminded me a great deal of what I heard about "Gigli", that Ben and Jen flop earlier this Summer. "The Order" was clearly edited to such an unconscionable degree that the scenes, rather than forming a cohesive and provoking film, appeared to be a collection of disconnected sequences that did little to forward any semblance of a unified plot. Now, I'm a Heath Ledger fan ("10 Things I hate About You", "A Knight's Tale" and particularly his supporting role in "Monster's Ball"), but my man needs to find himself a better agent. Keep accepting scripts like "The Order" and "Four Feathers" and he's going to be on the fast track to movie oblivion.
Here are the problems I had with the film. Firstly, the Director tried to make up for the inadequacies of his essential plot by introducing two other plot lines that seemingly had little if anything to do with, well, much of anything. Plot skeins involving the American trying to take over the Vatican and the Dark Pope, while mildly interesting, did nothing to reveal to the viewer anything about the main characters. The attempts to tie these threads together were pathetic at best. Secondly, please don't insult the intelligence of the viewer by inserting into the film scenes that are clearly obligatory. We had manufactured angst, manufactured love and most idiotically manufactured sex that seemed like a page right out of "Matrix Reloaded" with skull-numbing techno music. Rather than developing character, these elements seemed like the cheap devices they clearly were, a half-hearted attempt at putting popcorn-chewing adolescents in the seats. Thirdly, and most importantly, this movie seemed to ha ve an intriguing concept. We have scandal, we have religion and we have supernatural forces at play. Why then do we learn almost nothing about anyone's background? We learn a little about Alex, but even he gives up the passion of the priesthood to sleep with a woman after two days, a woman who tried to kill him during an exorcism at some point in the past. And Alex is the most developed, if you can call it that, character in the entire film.
As the cliche goes nowadays, if you're going to see one movie this year, make sure it's not this one. There's about ten interesting minutes out of the intolerable 101 minute affair. The only thing that saved me was going with a girl who I'm rather fond of.
1 out of 10. I'm disappointed. File this one firmly under -had potential but blew it on over editing and bad directing-. Heath my man, go back to Monster's Ball-like cameos. They really suit you.


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


user
The coming attractions to "The Order" make it seem like a decent horror mystery/thriller, but what we get is a plot that has potential to be excellent all thrown together to form a pile of garbage.
First off the whole movie consists of terrible dialogue and god awful special affects. The acting was also nothing to be proud of, but Keath Ledger (I think I spelled that right.) saved the movie in this category.
For heaven's sake: DON'T SEE 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
OK, I didn't have high expectations but this film descending into depths I could not imagine.
The plot, as it were, involved a priest of an obscure 2 member order investigating the death of the founder of the order by a Sin Eater. The Sin Eater allows for Catholics to achive salvation outside the authority of the Church and is yet another immortal in film with loads of ennui. Nevermind that this makes no sense since then a Baptist could give you salvation....we'll move on.
I'll layout the plot w/o giving much away: the priest goes to Rome with his buddy to investogate. He brings with him a mental patient (I'm not making this up) who shot him during an excorism and who loves him (not one lick of this BTW is explained), a drunk Irish priest and Peter Weller as a Cardinal. They get to Rome, find some creepy kids who do nothing in the film, meet with a bondage gear S&M anti-pope that the drunk Irish guy knows (not explained) and who gives information by killing people (oh, BTW, he's a bad guy so he has an industrial/techno soundtrack) and then...umm, seriously, I'm not sure. the plot meanders about. Heath chills with the Sin Eater, flies to New York with the Sin Eater for an overnighter and then some other stuff happens and then (all off camera) the anti-pope falls and the film ends.
About 1 hour into the film one really wonder if anything has happened. By the end something has happened but you can't be at all certain that it matters and since most of the drama takes place either before the movei or off-scren you're really feeling cheated.


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


user
I was not entirely impressed by this film. It was originally named Sin Eater and should have stayed that way considering that is all that was talked about for the last half of the film. I'm not even sure what the first 20 minutes of the film had to do with any of the rest of it. It was very slow and what was with picking Robocop (Peter Weller) as one of the main actors. That was a sad point.
All in all I would say check this out if you are into things dealing with the Catholic religion but don't expect an Exorcist or Stigmata from this film. It will surely flop after a few days and word gets out.


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


user
First of all, I have to say I have worked for blockbuster and have seen quite a few movies to the point its tough for me to find something I haven't seen. Taking this into account, I want everyone to know that this movie was by far the worst film ever made, it made me pine for Gigli, My Boss's Daughter, and any other piece of junk you've ever seen. BeLyt must be out of his mind, I've only found one person who liked it and even they couldn't tell me what the movie was about. If you are able to decipher this movie and are able to tell me what it was about you have to either be the writer or a fortune teller because there's any other way a person could figure this crap out.
FOR THE LOVE OF G-D STAY AWAY!


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


user
Always enjoy great films which deal with the super-natural and the deep thoughts of the Spiritual world. However, this film just turned me off as far as its production and direction. There is nothing to go into deep discussion about what this story has to tell; all I can say is that it was a big waste of time and effort to put it on the big screen. The actors, namely: Mark Addy, Thomas Garrett, gave an outstanding performance in his native land England, and we have seen him in "Still Standing" a TV Series. Heath Ledger, played the real wicked dude and we have recently viewed him in "Brokeback Mountain",'05, gave a great supporting role. Shannyn Sossaman, (Mara Sinclair), did a good job of seducing a priest from a church not recognized by any faith. Don't waste your time, you will be sorry!


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


user
This really is the worst film I have ever seen. Ever. Period. I actually paid £3.50 to watch this steaming turd of a movie. Incredibly dull, poorly acted, dire script, often incoherent and too many scenes that don't seem to have any relevance to the overall film (like when Heath Ledger's priest partner get's nailed to a wall by a ghost...what was the point in that scene? answers on a postcard please...)
I should have got a medal for sticking with this film for it's entire running time. I would rather take a strong kick to the groin than sit through this film again.
This should be cast into IMDb's bottom 100. Hopefully my vote of 1/10 will help it on it's way.


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


user
The orders fatal flaw-besides an asinine plot-is that the character's simply don't resonate or even react.
Two examples: A priest, walking through a graveyard late at night, is suddenly attacked by ghostly spirits. After fighting them off, he calmly resumes his walk when his buddy come up. "Anything wrong?" His buddy asks, having seen the attack. "Just some demonic spirits-nothing I couldn't handle." No reaction, no surprise, just like he'd changed a tire. His buddy is equally unconcerned... must be standard priest training... ["And then you put the wafer into their mouths. Any questions? Ok, moving on, Demon Spirit attacks..."]
Example two: At one point the priests need an answer to a question, and only a demon (or something, who cared by now) could provide it. How? Why, you have to ask a dying man! So the demon has some random person hung in front of the two priests so they can ask their question to the thrashing, gasping man. "Hey, don't kill him!" or maybe "That's not nice!" would have been more realistic then their response. They never ask that they let the man go or stop-in fact, the closest to reacting they get is mild annoyance. They ask their question and go.
I had to shut it off at that point-my brain was starting to atrophy.
Avoid
* / **** (one star out of four)



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, but one bizarre ridiculous scene after another forced me to shut it off. Character's don't seem to react to anything. Consider this: Heath Ledger is walking a night (through a cemetery I believe) when he is attacked by spirits, which he drives away. Once past this ordeal he calmly walks away and meets up with a friend that saw it all. When asked what happen he says blandly "attacked by demons, nothing serious.", as if this is only a little more exciting than a flat tire.
I shut it off when they go to ask something-a demon or something, I stopped caring-a ques ion. The answer can only be rented out of someone with the energy of their death, and the priest watch in what appears to be vague annoyance as a man is strung up and hung and they ask his thrashing, dying body question.
0 out of **** stars.


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


user
Yes, MTV there really is a way to market Daria. What started as a clever teenage angst-"comment on everything that sucks and make the viewer feel better about their sucky teenage life" sitcom now mutated into a "how you should deal with your problems"-charade. I used to watch Daria all the time and loved it. Now, sitting here after watching the so called "movie" I can only wonder what the point of this all was. Daria tells us how to lead out life in college? Excuse me? didn't the point Daria made every episode that what you like to do is ok, as long as it is ok with yourself no matter what the rest of the sick sad world thinks of it? This entire thing reminded me of the scene in "Reality Bites" the movie channel shows the documentry for the first time.


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 truly terrible film.
I'm only writing this so that some people somewhere are put off watching it. If I have stopped one person from wasting some of their precious life watching this film I shall die happy.
Unutterably dull, although since it stars Al Pacino I was fooled into thinking that at any moment something interesting was going to happen. Then the credits rolled, and I realised I had been completely fooled into watching this unbelievable drivel.
I cannot believe that this film has achieved as high a score as it has at IMDb (over 5 stars when I last saw the voting). Are you people voting ironically?
Please, please, please do not watch 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
"People I Know" is a clunker with no one to root for and no one to care about -- despite the game efforts of a talented cast.
Pacino delivers his usual tour de force as Eli Wurman, a past-his-prime publicity agent hollowed out by a lifetime of moral corruption. But unlike Michael Corleone, it's impossible to have an emotional investment in this character, his dilemma, or his fate.
The film traces Eli's preparations for a benefit for a liberal political cause, while distracted by a client's (Ryan O'Neal, good in an underwritten part) latest "dirty laundry" -- in this case, a TV actress companion who's gotten involved with the wrong people. Tea Leoni brings her customary star power to this supporting role, although again, the script doesn't give her much to work with. As Eli's sister-in-law, Kim Basinger manages to evoke sympathy despite implausible plot mechanics.
This movie is strictly for those who like watching Pacino strut his stuff, and enjoy the other principals. Unfortunately, between the script and direction, "People I Know" is strictly amateurish. Hence its limited theatrical release, and speedy journey to DVD. Consider yourself warned.


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


user
Very silly movie, filled with stupid one liners and Jewish references thru out. It was a serious movie but could not be taken seriously. A familiar movie plot...Being at the wrong place at the wrong time. An atrocious subplot, involving Kim Bassinger. Very robotic and too regimented. I have noticed that Al Pacinos acting abilities seem to be going downhill. A troubleshooter with troubles , but nothing more troubling than Pacinos horrible Atlanta accent. Damage control needs to fix this damage of a film. OK my one liners are bad, but not as bad as the ones in this film. This movie manages to not only be boring but revolting as well. Usually a revolting film is watchable for the wrong reasons. This movie is unwatchable. I did manage to sit through this. The plot ,if written a tad bit better, with , perhaps a little better acting and eliminating the horrendous subplot,and even dumber jokes, could have pulled this thriller out of the doldrums. What we are left with is a dull, silly movie that made sure it was drilled into our heads that Eli Wurman was Jewish. An embarrassment to all the good Jewish folk everywhere.


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


user
The movie is about two stories: one is a political murder of a call-girl, the other an upper-class political party. The crossing point is the public relation character played by Al Paccino, as he is the witness of the crime and the instigator of the evening.
If the script is terrible without any decent dialogs and the directing void of any sense of drama, the performance of Al is memorable: how many fellows can be as much convincing as a powerful and feared man (as "The Godfather") as here as a little servant (see also "Donnie Brasco").
Actually, the big young lion has become a tired old one. This passing of ages is very moving, because it makes the audience ponders about getting old too.
But his slowness is only a make-up because he can get back his energy in Church scene.
Maybe it is a good thing that the movie is so awful because it put the starlight on Al's talent!


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


user
The only good thing about "People I Know" is that it serves as a perfect example of movies that Al Pacino should avoid performing in. The first big turn-off I had was the way in which Pacino tried to portray a Georgia accent; at times it was weak and unattractive while in other segments it seemed too overdone. Dialogue and character interaction was terrible along with a weak plot. The supporting cast did an extremely perfunctory job in keeping the movie interesting, and within an hour I still saw no signs of a sturdy plot. The story overall is a real bore, and I had to slap myself in the face a few times to keep myself awake.
This movie will surely bore you as well...avoid at all costs.


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


user
Much as we all love Al Pacino, it was painful to see him in this movie. A publicity hack at the grubby ending of what seems to have once been a distinguished and idealistic career Pacino plays his part looking like an unmade bed and assaulting everyone with a totally bogus and inconsistent southern accent.
The plot spools out this way and that with so many loose ends and improbabilities that the mind reels (and then retreats).
Kim Basinger is there, not doing much. Her scenes with Pacino are flat and unconvincing. Hard to believe they meant a lot to each other. There's no energy there.
Tea Leone, on the other hand, lit up the screen. She was electric and her scenes with Pacino were by far the most interesting in the movie, but not enough to save Al from embarrassment.


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


user
Firstly,I must admit that it isn't a good movie. And,I would never watch this movie if Pacino wasn't in it.
The movie is about a publicist's strange 24 hours.And he is overworked,dizzy,sick and sometimes regretful.I don't like the character at all.It's really boring,after 20 minutes you may fall asleep.And I don't understand why Pacino wanted to be a part of this horrible movie.Just because of money or what?
Since I'm an avid Pacino fan,I bought this 2002 movie People I Know.If you haven't bought it yet,don't even think about it,it's just a waste of time.


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


user
In what seemed like the longest 1hour 35 I've had to endure in a long time, Al Pacino delivers an accurate performace to be sure. Not his usual typecasting, which was nice. But his character was just truely pathetic. Someone to pitty as he stumbles around forgetting appointments as we realise that the Hollywood social life has drained him of his life energy. But in this movie we needed someone to like. And for some reason, every character in the picture said "I don't know why I like you, Eli" to Al Pacino's chracter and I couldn't even come close to liking him.
All the other actors played their usual styles. Tea Leoni, Richard Schiff, and Bill Nunn did nothing to change their established personas developed on TV or in earlier films. And Kim Basinger wasn't even in the film long enough to deliver a performance of any kind.
The movie's story had no momentum. Most scenes never driving the story forward, but rather just collecting factoids about characters which later came into play in an anti-climactic ending. It had potential except for their unwillingness to build upon the story.
Whats the point of the film? Daniel Algrant and Jon Robin Baitz would have you believe "Once Hollywood has you, you can't get out." Yeah right! And that's why so many people get fired in Hollywood.


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


user
Saw this movie in an early preview, and I cannot stress enough how bad I thought this film was. From the very beginning, the audience was groaning over Pacino's awful southern accent. Poor Al looked really, really haggard, and I can't decide whether this was purposely part of his role as a drug addicted publicist, or perhaps he just didn't get any sleep before coming to the set. Much worse than Pacino's close ups, however, is the wretched excuse for a plot. Early in the film we are given indications that Pacino's character is gay, and I suspect that is what the screenwriter had originally intended. Later, however, we are supposed to suspend our incredulity and believe that both Tea Leoni and Kim Basinger (both of whom are sleepwalking through lame roles) lust after this elderly, half dead looking, effeminate man with the ridiculous accent. The worst part overall was the main plot thread, which had to do with some corporate espionage that is never fully explained and we never, ever care about in the slightest. Because this was a preview I will reserve my final judgment, because of the possibility of re-shoots and editing, but you can bet I will not pay a cent to see this in theaters.


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


user
Unless somebody enlightens me, I really have no idea what this movie is about. It looks like a picture with a message but it´s far from it. This movie tells pointless story of a New York press agent and about his problems. And, that´s basically all. When that agent is played by Pacino, one must think that it must be something important. But it takes no hard thinking to figure out how meaningless and dull this movie is. To one of the best actors in the world, Al Pacino, this is the second movie of the year (the other is "Simone") that deserves the title "the most boring and the most pointless motion picture of the year". So, what´s going on, Al?


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


user
Al Pacino? Kim Basinger? Tea Leoni? Ryan O'Neal? Richard Schiff? My mouth was watering. I dropped everything to watch this movie on Cable. 30 minutes in I was having trouble staying awake. 60 minutes in and I hit the record button and fell asleep. Finished watching it the next morning. Shouldn't have bothered. What a waste of a great cast and an idea that could have been an interesting story of a "Day in the Life..." Cure your insomnia if you have it and watch this movie. I guarantee you at least an hour and a half of uninterrupted sleep. Dialogue horrible. Continuity non-existent. Camera work could have been done with a hand held Super 8 and looked better.
This movie was a total disaster.


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


user
If it wasn't for the bad dialogues and script. I mean, the direction was really in touch with it's subject. The actors were doing good at bringing their characters to life. But in the end, the thing that was really missing was a solid script to hold all the pieces together. I would highly suggest not to watch this. Unless you're a Al Pacino enthusiast like I am and will watch everything he is playing in. Even if the result lately are rather poor. This is, after S1m0ne, a second very bad movie for this actor that once knew how to choose roles.


assistant
0