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
It's not often I feel compelled to give negative criticism of a film; after all I often feel the maxim, "if you don't have anything good to say don't say it at all," would be apt advice for the many naysayers we listen to everyday who nitpick at things we like. If it's all the same to you the reader though I feel compelled to point out that with the lone exception of Christopher Walken in a returning role as Gabriel this movie is pathetically HORRID. I say this to you to warn you in advance that even if you are a fan of Walken's deadpan delivery and style or liked the original "Prophecy" that you will be sorely dissapointed. If you buy it, return it. If you rent it, make sure it's only ninety-nine cents.
What's wrong with this movie? A full list would take too long to read and would bore you to tears, but a short summary would be the following: the once rather crystalline clear picture of the relationship between angels and mortals of the first film is ripped to shreds. Gabriel is turned from the rather morbid right hand of God he once was (and in this role he is WICKEDLY funny in the first) to little more than a thug for heaven. Since Walken is so good at playing heavies (we all remember Frank White from "King of New York") he is still enjoyable but the supporting cast is an unmitigated and unconvincing mess of mortals and angels alike who couldn't buy a clue for 50 cents. If you can figure out the plot you're a smarter man than I. One gets the feeling we wander aimlessly from scene to scene just to move the film along to Walken's next big line. By the end of the movie you're actually wishing he'd blow his horn and make the walls of Jericho fall on the people who made this un-natural disaster.
Bottom line - it's an insult to our intelligence that they made a sequel to this film in the first place. The original told the right story, answered the questions that should have been, and left alone the ones you were meant to ponder afterwards. There are no compelling reasons to follow these characters that was in the first - the priest who lost his faith, the little girl who kept the "big secret", the teacher who protected her children - even Lucifer himself was more interesting BY himself in the first film than all the other characters in the sequel put together. I feel sorry for anybody who sees this film and not the first because they'll probably never want to watch the original and that's a real tragedy.


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 make this short and sweet....this movie sucked!!!!!!
I watched part 1 earlier today and thought it was one of the greatest films ever, gave it 9 out of 10 stars. So I thought perhaps part 2 and 3 would be good sequels, I was wrong. This movie bored me to death and was so different from the first one, it had the plot continue and thats it. It was like bad outtakes from part one or something.
I love Walken, but I felt sorry for him here. I was so happy about Glenn Danzig being in this film, but don't blink you'll miss him. There was a full cast full of crappy actors and people I don't like such as Eric Roberts and Jennifer Beals. However, it was a breath of fresh air to see Ethan Embry, he's one of the funniest people on earth.
This movie will make you like the first one a little less, so don't watch it because you feel you owe it to yourself, being a fan of part 1. I am gonna wait a few days before I watch part 3 and I pray it is better than this crap.
The last scene of the movie with the lightning was one of the most beautiful things ever shown on film. Fast forward or skip to that if you can't stomach the first part.
1 out of 10 stars - this was awful!


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


user
I liked the first movie, but this is a textbook example of a sequel that would have been better of left on the drawing board. The general idea in the first movie was, if not great, then at least very interesting. This sequel tries to build upon the idea and the characters from the first movie, and though Christopher Walken is still good as Gabriel, the whole idea suddenly gets a bit ridiculous. If you haven't seen any of these movies, then get the first movie and forget about the sequels, they can take away all of the joy from the original.


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


user
Where is it written that sequels must suck? Scream 2 didn't! Others didn't! But this one sure did... problems include horrible actors (only Christopher Walken could act in the entire film), bad writing (you will never understand what's going on and I even have done research on the idea of Nephilim before), and just horrible choices for casting. Eric Roberts makes the stupidest Archangel Michael that I have ever seen in my life!
Avoid it like the plague unless you are desperate to see Christopher Walken. In that case just fast-forward to the parts where he is in the film, and avoid the others.
Yech!!!


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


user
Can fake scenery ruin a picture? You wouldn't think so, but it actually for me in here. Listen, I have a lot of classic-era movies and I know pretty much what to except, such as the drivers steering immobile cars in front of a screen, etc. But a lot of that hokey business has to do with action scenes. To have fake scenery, fake mountains and flowers shot after shot as seen in "Brigadoon" gets insulting after awhile.
As far as the music entertainment went, this is always subjective. What songs one person likes, another may not so that shouldn't be a big part of judging a film (whether someone likes the songs). I could blast this movie for its corny 1950 songs, dances, romances and characters but that was the '50s and a lot of people liked this sort of things. Musicals did very well in the '50s. Me, I liked the '30s and '40s with the great taps. By the '50s, tap was out and this new stuff - which I can stand - was it. Does that make this a lousy movie? No. It just makes one I didn't care for very much
Despite the good cast, good director and high expectations, this film bombed at the box office, and with me. I should have liked it more, being a dreamer myself and that's a nice part of this story. I am not the cynical type and a nice town and nice people making me feel good sounds awful appeal. Then why couldn't I connect with this film? Part of it also was the dancing. I don't care for the stuff that replaced tap dancing on screen. But - no - the thing really turned me off what that staging. There was no Scotland, no highlands, just a hokey- looking background to make it look that way and it turned me almost from the start. Score one point for today's realism where they "go on location" most of the time.


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


user
I remember when I first saw this movie, I was in sixth grade when it happened. Before I saw this, i had listened to the original Broadway recording of it, and I really loved it! But when I saw this, I was like, what the heck?! This movie is missing a lot of the songs from the musical for crying out loud! Who decided to do all of that?!
I really am a very huge fan of Gene Kelly, but this movie is probably the worst of a musical that he ever did! The movie looked more like a Hollywood set than the beautiful Highlands of Scotland. And who the heck decided to cut all of Meg's songs out of the movie?!
I am willing to bet that when they saw this movie, Lerner and Lowe were probably wondering: "Who in the world decided to do this to our masterpiece?" Well they had a right to say that if they did, they were probably mad at the fact that Hollywood turned their great musical into this rather blank movie.
Song and acting wise Mr. Kelly, you passed the audition with flying colors, but you are in a movie that is missing a lot of the text.
So in short, if you want a good movie based on a musical by Frederick Lowe and Alan Jay Lerner, this one isn't it!
3/10


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


user
I saw Brigadoon on TV last night (12 Sept 2009). I am 61 years old and have been watching films as long as I can remember. I can truthfully say that Brigadoon stands alone as by far and away the worst film I have ever seen. The accents were shameful. The local children's club would have produced better sets. The characters were so wooden that they probably contracted dry rot from the tears of the patrons who had the misfortune to watch them. It is to be hoped that the stars of this film had hides thick enough to protect them from the embarrassment which they must have suffered on seeing this film. The owners of this tripe should perform a great service to mankind and destroy all copies of this film.


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


user
This movie is phoniness incarnate, a straight 11 / 10 on the phoniness scale. The fakeness of the accents as well as the tightness of the cardigan spandex pants are just staggering. Yanks, although the real Scotland may be just as colourful, if you ever go there don't expect to be given much of a the chance to "dance out" controversies with the locals. Also, don't attempt to sway local opinion through the otherwise fine art of tapdancing.
There are a couple of infectious singing-and-dancing scenes, but the plot is far too cheesy and linear, and the dialogue is often too weak. I also doubt whether anyone would want to be stuck in a timewarped 18.th-century Scottish village in the boondocks rather than gay New York City. Maybe it wasn't such a big sacrifice for that priest to have left Brigadoon, maybe he was just trying to get the hell out of that dump.
Watch it for the fine alternative-reality view of what a Christopher Streed Day-parade in Scotland would look like on LSD. Other than that I'd only recommend it to Hollywood muscial completists.


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


user
Celia Johnson is good as the Nurse. Michael Hordern is good as Capulet, though it's his usual neighing and whinnying and not a patch on his King Lear. John O'Conor reads the verse well as Friar Laurence though he never takes it anywhere. Alan Rickman is good as Tybalt, in the first of his "yuk" roles that would make him famous. Christopher Strauli's Benvolio is sympathetic.
The sets are pretty, if not stunning as in some of the other BBC Shakespeare's.
And that's it. The rest is weak to dreadful. Rebecca Saire turned 15 during production, and hasn't a clue about how to act Juliet - she opens her eyes real wide and whines every line in exactly the same way. Patrick Ryecart is poorly matched to her, and his self-regard is inexplicable. The Balcony Scene flows smoothly and uneventfully with zero emotional or erotic impact. Their deaths come as a relief. If I had a dagger, I would have offered it to them hours earlier.
Anthony Andrews is unspeakable as Mercutio, a great shock if you remember his fine work in "Brideshead Revisited." He breaks the mirror of Shakespeare's verse into a thousand shards of two or three words each, and then shouts the fragments in as disconnected and unintelligible manner as possible. In this production, Queen Mab abdicates. Awful.
The director, Alvin Rakoff, shows only an intermittent gift of putting the camera where it will show us what we want to see. The opening brawl is notably incoherent. However there is humor when in a later fight, Romeo apparently knees Tybalt right in the cobblers. Tybalt then grabs the offended region. However did that get through?
R&J is a long play. This version is not recommended for classroom use, or much else.


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


user
Have to admit, this version disgraces Shakespeare upfront! None can act except the nurse who was my fav! Juliet had good skills as a teen but she can't give emotional depth to her lines and we really can never connect to her. She's worse doing the scene when she is contemplating drinking the sleeping potion...god stop whining! I would have poured it in her mouth to shut her up! Anthony Andrews...yikes! Considering his other great movies (Brideshead Revisited, Ivanhoe, Scarlet Pimpernel), he's quite a shocker in this one. And don't get me started on Romeo...puhleasssssee! It's still good to see if you're on the hunt to see every Romeo and Juliet ever made in the history of film. Olivia and Leonard's version is still the best, followed by Leslie Howard's version and then the current Leo and Clare!


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


user
Easily the best known of all the Shakespeare plays, it has been seriously let down here. Shoddy direction, stagnant studio work and erratic performances spoil a fine tragedy.
In the town of Verona, the Capulets and the Montagues have been feuding for centuries but tragedy is imminent when Romeo (Patrick Rycart), a Montague, falls in love with Juliet (Rebecca Saire), a Capulet. Bloodshed soon erupts...
The studio work, especially in daytime scenes, seriously stagnates the energy of the play. It's a story that, with it's energy, deserves to be shot outdoors. Coupled with this the costumes are hideous, with too many tights and ludicrous codpieces. The stage fighting looks horrendous, with far too much stretching and running around to be engaging.
Patrick Ryecart is too lightweight to be a truly effective Romeo. He manages the character's intensity when the plot gets going but his stately accent and bland, often inexpressive eyes limit his range. It is very hard for the audience to relate to this Romeo. Rebecca Saire is too youthful to be a good Juliet - she captures the character's naiveté but a little more sassiness would have been welcome.
The supporting roles don't fare much better. Joseph O'Connor's Friar Laurence is fine but too many of his best lines have been cut. Anthony Andrews' Mercutio belongs on stage and not on camera. He gurns and gesticulates excessively and looks rather ridiculous as a result. Alan Rickman, underplaying his role, has virtually no presence as Tybalt. He did develop an edge and intensity to deliver some fine screen performances in later years, but that isn't in evidence here. The Prince can be a fine role with his brief appearances but actor Lawrence Naismith fails to give the part any authority on camera. Only Micheal Hordern, in probably his best role in this series, comes out of this with any dignity. His Capulet is well-played and a joy to watch.
See one of the other versions of this story instead.


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


user
For my first taste of Shakespeare on stage, I cannot believe what these people did to a perfectly good play.
-Let's start off with the good bit, shall we?-
Alan Rickman is alright, although some of his dialog could have been delivered with more feeling. The rest of the actors needed to pull it together.
Romeo, Romeo, whyfore art thou not dead yet, Romeo? The actor, while not only completely wooden and deadpan, could not read his lines with any gusto at all. He was completely out of focus, had difficulty even looking Juliet in the face, and absolutely NO grace with the lines that he was given. Whoever cast him deserves to be punished. Juliet is almost passable, but she gives no depth to her character,and seems to be completely out of touch with the play. Mercutio was incredibly creepy and completely out of character for the entirety of his dialog. Benvolio was unfeeling and mercilessly choppy with his lines.
I was forced to endure this half-baked production of Romeo and Juliet. The acting was stilted and the costumes were nothing short of distracting. I have seen kindergarten puppet shows with more effort put into them. I only wish that i could give this movie a rating of zero.


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


user
This is the first of "The Complete Dramatic Works of William Shakespeare" BBC series I've seen, and if all of them are like this, I might watch no more. Being practically the full text of the play is everything this "Romeo & Juliet" has going for it, lacking in all other departments. Alvin Rakoff reveals himself as a dreadful director, both in the technical and artistic aspects. In the former, because he commits mistakes that even a first grade film student would wisely avoid. Take in consideration, for example, the badly edited first shot of Abraham and Balthasar in the opening scene, or the Nurse's entering of Friar Lawrence's cell, asking where's Romeo with him being so very in front of her that she'd clearly see him even if she was blind. And, in the latter, because every single one of the performers is misdirected, even if some of them are good actors. Rebecca Saire looks exactly the way I've always imagined Juliet to look like, and she doesn't seem to be a bad actress for a teenager, but her performance totally lacks passion of any kind. Patrick Ryecart as Romeo is even worse, being not only as dull as Juliet, but also way too old and not even good-looking, coming across as a combination of Malcolm McDowell and the Chucky doll. Putting them together makes impossible to think they feel anything for each other, let alone being the main players of the greatest love story ever written. Alan Rickman, in his screen debut, plays Tybalt like if he was Darth Vader, which is a huge mistake that takes away the complexity that Shakespeare intended, no character being a hero or a villain but all flawed human beings. This Tybalt is so mean-looking that we don't believe the characters' pity after his demise. As for Paris, I kept thinking of "Prince Valium" from Spaceballs. Only Celia Johnson manages to do the character of the Nurse some justice.
At 168 minutes, this production is unable to make us empathize with the characters, because the characters don't empathize with each other and never seen to believe their own roles. The best screen version is still Franco Zeffirelli's. But, to be fair, this BBC one isn't nearly as bad as abominations like George Cukor's flamboyant geriatric version, or the crime against Humanity that is Baz Luhrmann's feature-length MTV video. 4/10.


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


user
I rated Basic instinct 2 high, yet that movie got less than a 4 rating. This film only got a 4 from me, but it has 7.3 from over 600 people. I don't see a reason why they like this film so much.
This film is boring, because it hardly ever leaves those rooms in that broken big house. And it only has a total of 5 people in this film. It is almost two hours long which is totally unnecessary. Many of dialogues are slow and meaningless. The film tone is also dark blue which is depressing to watch. The film can just be shorten to a few sentences.
This film reminds me of "Three times" directed by Hou Hsiao hsien, that one is equally boring, the dialogues are also equally boring. It also has a high rating! I had to stop watching that one after the first story finished.
This film lacks of passion or excitement.


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


user
Good films cannot solely be based on a beautiful garden and a hill top. Surprised to see it has won two awards. Extremely overrated. I first saw that kind of films from China, visually stunning BUT also with really something captivating to say, well, more than 10 years ago and I'm sure there are still more coming up. This is not one of them, I'm afraid.


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


user
Not very impressed. Its difficult to offer any spoilers to this film, because there is almost no development in the plot. Everything becomes clear in the first ten minutes and from there on its like watching paint dry. The acting seems very poor as well, and reminds me of the old black and white Maoist era films shown occasionally on daytime Chinese television. Although this is difficult to tell with the female role, Yuwen, as the story seems to only require her walking round like a wooden mannequin. It reminds me of fading star Gong Li who somehow got a reputation as a good actress in the West for having a scowl on her face all the time.
Tian Zhuangzhuang's film the 'Blue Kite' was a far better film. But don't be fooled by the fact that Springtime in a Small Town was set in the late '40s. Unlike the Blue Kite, the fact that this film is set in a time of upheaval is irrelevant to the plot itself, the ruins of the town seem to be nothing more than a scenic backdrop.
I wonder whether Tian Zhuangzhuang is simply trying to ride on the popularity of Chinese films in the West and appeal to a foreign audience who can't tell the difference between a film that is 'beautiful' 'profound' or 'hypnotic' and one that is simply tedious and insubstantial.
If any film fits the description of 'overrated,' this is it. I see no reason here to stop worrying about the state of the Chinese film industry.


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 have to add dissenting comment here. Various reviews I have read compared this movie to the likes of those by Wong Kar Wai or Hou Hsiao-hsien. i.e. one of the admirable flotilla of mandarin goodies that have come our way in recent years. Unfortunately this isn't quite accurate. The film plays out rather like a film school graduate's attempt to emulate these masters. All the pieces are there - the beautiful backdrop, the vaguely minimalist dialogue, the slow swaying camerawork, and male leads, in particular, who spend a fair whack of time sitting around being contemplative. Sounds good but unfortunately nothing is up to par. The dialogue is leaden. The acting is generally unable to lift the characters above type; the married couple and the little sister are particularly poor and uninvolving. Unfortunately when mediocre character acting is combined with a classical "Chekovian" (i.e. very predictable) plot, the results are at best tedious and at worst painful. I couldn't help but see the "Blue Danube" river scene, for example, as verging on genre parody (although the smoggy looking "springtime" sky over the river did provide a bit of black humour...) I actually went to this movie on the basis that Mark Li Ping was photographing it. While the setting is elegant, and the swaying camera attempts to replicate the mood of "Flowers of Shanghai", the film is not in the same league, visually. In fact I must confess that after an hour of wondering whether it was the script or the acting that was ruining the film, I suddenly remembered that I was meant to meet my flatmate for dinner and took the chance to leave (and I can't recall the last film I walked out of). I'm guessing from the reviews that the ending may have left a positive aftertaste but by that point I couldn't care. If you'd like to see something along similar lines done with real talent then I'd recommend anything by the above two directors, for example "In the Mood for Love" or "Flowers of Shanghai", both of which were filmed by the talented Mr Ping (the former with Chris Doyle), and both of which are films masterful enough to inspire years of failed emulations like this. It's not often Mr Hoberman leads me astray, and perhaps you'd rather listen to him, but don't say you weren't warned. Craig.



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


user
"Dominique" is one of those films that the expression "slow-as-molasses" must have been invented for. Too many endless and repetitive sequences (how many times do we see Robertson walking down the stairs slowly because he can hear someone playing the piano?). It is ALMOST redeemed at the end by a surprising twist, which, unfortunately, is followed by a second twist that succeeds only in leaving a bad taste in our mouths. Not a very enjoyable film.


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


user
Cliff Robertson as a scheming husband married to a rich wife delivers a razzie-worthy performance here if there ever was one; it's as if director Michael Anderson kept yelling "dial it down; think zombie, only less lively" through his little bullhorn as he coached Robertson's effort. The rest of the cast is barely better; Jennifer Agutter of LOGAN'S RUN fame is hardly seen in what should have been fleshed out as a pivotal role. If the quality of the acting was three times better; if some of the more gaping plot holes were filled; and if the pacing were given a shot of adrenaline, then this yawner might be brought up to a standard acceptable to the Hallmark\Lifetime TV channel crowd. As is, its rating is so inexplicably high one can't help thinking chronic insomniacs are using DOMINIQUE to catch a little snoozing time. Perhaps the late-night TV telemarketers are missing a major opportunity in not shilling it as such.


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


user
To call a film about a crippled ghost taking revenge from beyond the grave lame and lifeless would be too ironical but this here is an undeniably undistinguished combination of GASLIGHT (1939 & 1944) via LES DIABOLIQUES (1954); while still watchable in itself, it's so cliché-ridden as to provoke chuckles instead of the intended chills. However, thanks to the dire straits in which the British film industry found itself in the late 1970s, even a mediocre script such as this one was able to attract 10 star names - Cliff Robertson (as the conniving husband), Jean Simmons (in the title role), Jenny Agutter (as Robertson's artist half-sister), Simon Ward (as the enigmatic chauffeur), Ron Moody (as an ill-fated doctor), Michael Jayston (as Robertson's business partner), Judy Geeson (as Simmons' best friend and Jayston's wife), Flora Robson (as the housekeeper), David Tomlinson (as the notary reading Simmons' will) and, most surprisingly perhaps, Jack Warner (as a gravestone sculptor) - although most of them actually have nothing parts, I'm sorry to say!


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


user
The character acting is a little stiff, as if it is the first time man of the actors have appeared on screen. Unfortunately one of the better actresses, Jean Simmons (played many bit roles on TV, like in Star Trek TNG and In the Heat of the Night), dies quickly and thereafter her acting can be markedly missed.
The lead role is Mr Ballard, as portrayed by Cliff Robertson. Cliff is forced to carry this movie with his body language for most of the time. He doesn't do a poor job, but it is a little overmuch to ask of an actor to plug the oceans of blank screen time during which the characters spend their time NOT talking and also NOT acting. Robertson's most memorable role may have been Ben Parker in the last 3 Spider Man movies (starring Tobey Maguire).
The plot is predictable. A husband murders his rich wife for her money. thereafter the wife seems to comeback and haunt the husband driving him insane until he leaps from a high window (fearing the specter of his dead wife approaching him) on the day he is predicted to die no less.
The second chauffeur Mr Ballard hires looks a lot like an English mark Hamill. Uncanny really! The only thing that stands out is the utter disregard for dialogue. Many minutes pass in quietness, no one speaks, and few act. It is a shame the MST3K guys never got hold of this movie. It could have been much better, if not just as predictable, with more dialogue, or shorter scenes of 'nothingness'.
I kept expecting G'Mork's red eyes to appear from the shadows and proclaim that he works for the "nothing" that inhabits this film.


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


user
This movie was o.k. but it could have been much better. There are some spooky moments but there aren't enough of them to make me ever want to see this movie again. There are some scenes you could fast forward through & not miss anything. The biggest flaw is that it is so predictable, & that is the reason why I rated it so low. It's watchable but don't expect anything great.


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


user
I think Cliff Robertson certainly was one of our finest actors. He has a half dozen classics to his credit. He does fine here as the heavy, but the direction is so bad and the pacing so tiresome, it never gets off the mark. The story starts off well although it makes me wonder how he could count on his wife hanging herself. Still he mugs well and carries things along. The death knell is twofold. First of all, if we were to take the amount of time characters spend walking from one room to another or one part of the house to another, it would eat up about a third of the movie. Add to that, Robertson's character sitting up in bed in the blue light, looking confused, that might add another chunk. I agree with those that said a half hour shorter would have made it a pretty decent, though insignificant film. The biggest weakness is just a convoluted plot that, when all is said and done, leaves incredible questions. I'm not putting in spoilers, but when it ends, don't think too much. I can come up with ten what-ifs without raising a sweat. It would have been better if it had remained a ghost story.


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


user
Judy Holliday struck gold in 1950 withe George Cukor's film version of "Born Yesterday," and from that point forward, her career consisted of trying to find material good enough to allow her to strike gold again.
It never happened. In "It Should Happen to You" (I can't think of a blander title, by the way), Holliday does yet one more variation on the dumb blonde who's maybe not so dumb after all, but everything about this movie feels warmed over and half hearted. Even Jack Lemmon, in what I believe was his first film role, can't muster up enough energy to enliven this recycled comedy. The audience knows how the movie will end virtually from the beginning, so mostly it just sits around waiting for the film to catch up.
Maybe if you're enamored of Holliday you'll enjoy this; otherwise I wouldn't bother.
Grade: C


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


user
'Major Payne' is a film about a major who makes life a living Hell for his small group of boys in the marines. This film does not really have a lot to offer, but it provides several hilarious moments that are well-worth a watch. Don't expect it to be a memorable film, however. Just expect to laugh your way through the film and at the expense of other people. The confrontation between Major Payne and the chubby boy were hilarious, and that's really all I remember about the film except for the boys wanting revenge on Major Payne. Again, it is not a great film, and it is probably best watched on a rainy day when you need some laughter.


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


user
Sort of family parody blending "An Officer And A Gentleman", "Heartbreak Ridge", "Full Metal Jacket" (and without doubt other movies I am not able to remember now) into a rather dull movie, with some bright spots. The gags are always there where you would expect them, and Damon Wayans's lines are, well, predictable. As I said, unfortunately this movie never surprises you...


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


user
If this is someone's "favorite" movie, they need some serious help. There is nothing funny or clever about this crapfest. I haven't seen the original movie this is the remake of (some 1950s film), but it simply has to be better than this newer bastardization.
A major gets kicked out of the military for being a fringe element, and winds up teaching children at an ROTC school. Unfortunately, the major is Daman Wayans... so the children are in for a world of annoying, humorless asininity. Can Wayans whip these losers into shape? Can they get him to become a little more human? The film bombs as most Wayans films do, with only a few sparkling moments. William Hickey gets about one minute of screen time, fair too little. This charming old man (known best to me as a "Tales from the Crypt" actor, known best to you as Uncle Louis from "Christmas Vacation") shines every moment he's on screen, which isn't much here.
Bam Bam Bigelow also makes an appearance as a biker, which fits him perfectly. I wouldn't mind slightly more Bam Bam, but I think he carried the role of "biker" about as far as it could be carried for a military film.
And then there's the attractive teacher, who someone falls for Major Payne even though he treats the kids poorly, has no social skills and is simply impossible to convert into someone you would want to spend time with. She must either be incredibly stupid or incredibly desperate. I'm not sure which (though it would seem "stupid" since the movie makes it clear she gets out of the house often enough).
Wayans had one shining moment: a dance sequence where he performs a series of moves (including a very nice "robot"), and with the help of music from 2 Live Crew. This scene was enjoyable but hardly made up for anything else that made this film dog spittle.
Seriously, avoid this film. If you want to see a film a bout a loser who helps loser kids become heroes, rent or buy "Ernest Goes to Camp". At least he's a lovable loser, and actually funny. Maybe if Major Payne had fought a badger I'd feel better, but he didn't. Forget Payne, forget Wayans... you can do so much better.


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


user
but there are not too many of them. Probably the worst "major release" film I have seen in my life. Definitely the worst for this year. There is no point in commenting on the plot, the cast or the acting. The problem is beyond all that. It lays in the absolute stupidity of the annoying kind (not the funny kind) of everything that takes place on the screen. I don't know why I gave it a 2/10 instead of 1/10. Probably, because of Steven Martini. He really did try. Bottom line - 95 minutes washed down the toilet along with a few brain cells. Avoid at any cost.


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


user
Did anyone stop to realise what sort of movie they were producing here ? Now let`s a former marine officer becomes assinged to a group of kids at a cadet school so this should be a family comedy right ? Wrong . This is just a gross comedy aimed at teenagers with many bad taste moments .It might have been watchable in an extremely dumb way at this point but I found Damon Wayans voice to be irritating beyond belief . Does he speak like that in real life ? If he does then he has my sympathy but he won`t be getting any of my money from watching his movies


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


user
Major Payne was really not very good at all. Despite being funny here and there, the story was ridiculous and the acting was poor. Major Payne's voice and temperament were especially annoying. The idea was ridiculous and the things that the boys had to do in that film were even more ridiculous. I would not recommend this film to anyone.


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


user
I view probably 200 movies a year both at theaters and at home and I can say with confidence that this movie is by far the worst I have seen this year (If not ever, however I have not actually seen "Quest of the Delta Knights" yet). This movie is just bad joke after bad joke geared to the 13 year old and because I had he displeasure of viewing it on a bus trip I couldn't walk out.
Do yourself a favor and skip this one in the rental aisle. The four dollars could be better spent on any movie by numbers produced by Jerry Bruckheimer.


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


user
Stefan is an x-con that five years ago got married to Marie. Their marriage has been stable until Stefan past catch up with them and he's offered to do a courier job. Stefan's job is a heroin delivery from Germany to Sweden which should go easily.
In Germany Stefan meet Elli, a girl from Bosnia that has been sold to a stripclub owner. Stefan dislikes what he sees and decide to help Elli out of her misery. Due to the fact that Elli's father during the war fleed to Sweden Elli now goes with Stefan to Sweden. To make up with the past Stefan promises Elli to help her find her father, no matter what it takes. Finally back in Sweden the whole situation seems to be more complicated than Stefan ever thought of..
This movie doesn't seem to fit in the ordinary class of swedish movies due to the fact that it's been americanized alot. Regina Lund and Cecilia Bergqvist makes it all average, the effects makes the movie a little too much though. See it and jugde for yourself.



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


user
With the releasing of "Farligt förflutet" Swedish film industry has truly hit rock bottom. Stefan (Jens Hultén) has for the past years lived a calm life with his wife Marie (Regina Lund). One day an old friend of Stefan´s arrives with a favor to ask him. Stefan is to do a small courier job. He is supposed to bring a suitcase filled with heroine through the Sweden-Germany customs. Unfortunately things in Germany don´t work out as planned and Stefan is now in big trouble. It is always nice to see a Swedish film that breaks the traditional family-drama pattern. Unfortunately if the people involved in the production have no clue of how a movie is supposed to be written, filmed or cut the result can only be catastrophic. The content can be concluded with: bad acting, an incoherent plot and idiotic dialogs. The only highlight in the movie is the unprovoked sex-scene wit the incredibly beautiful Regina Lund. This lasts for only a few seconds leaving approxamitly 90 minutes of pure, let´s say what it truly is, crap.


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


user
Absolutely one of the worst movies I have ever seen! The acting, the dialog, the manuscript, the sound, the lighting, the plot line. I actually can't say anything positive about this, although I enjoy Swedish movies. The fighting scenes are so ridiculous that it's impossible to take it seriously. And when the lead character just happens to loose his shirt, while dodging bullets in a strip bar, I'm not sure if it's supposed to be a joke, or if someone really thinks these are ingredients in a good film?! Regina Lund is the only half descent actor, but she disappears in a flood of laughable pronunciations and unbelievable reactions. It leaves you horrified that someone actually spent time and money on something like this...


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


user
This film, by Oscar Petersson, is unique. Its uniqueness doesn't lie in the story, since many a half brained Hollywood production has served us comparably miserable plots, but rather in the thorough way that complete and utter lousiness in one aspect is joined with equal lousiness in all other aspects.
The dialog is worse than embarrassing. Rotten acting and abysmal direction are thrown into the mix. Bosnians speaking English with heavy Swedish accents add an unintentional element of humor. Uninspired lightning and camera-work are icing on the turkey film cake. As a sort of surprise for the audience, there are a few completely unmotivated slow motion sequences where you'd least expect any. To add insult to injury, the whole thing is cut by someone devoid of any sense of timing.
The "bad guy henchman turns good after hearing good guy's speech" scene in the church, is the point at which is time to dethrone Ed Wood from the position as the worst director of all times; Move over Ed Wood - here comes Oscar Petersson!


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


user
In theory, 'Director's Commentary' should have worked. The talented Rob Bryden plays Peter DeLane, a former television director recounting his experiences behind the camera. Amongst the programmes he is alleged to have worked on are 'Bonanza', 'Flambards', 'The Duchess Of Duke Street', and 'The Bounder'. His commentaries are not the least bit informative, due to his habit of wandering off the point.
But in practice, it failed dismally. It is a one-joke show, and the joke is not particularly funny. The scripts are completely lacking in wit, and Bryden fails to convince as an old man. Whenever stuck for anything amusing to say, which is like every five seconds, he issues a hissing laugh. Rather than being amused by DeLane, you want to shoot him. If senile old men strike you as hilarious, then this is for you.
It didn't help that the shows mocked were, with the exceptions of 'Mr & Mrs' and 'Crossroads', rather good. For the joke to work, they needed to be really dreadful such as 'Charlie's Angels', 'O.T.T.', 'Telly Addicts', 'Neighbours', and 'New Faces'.
The show tanked big time, so thankfully we are spared the horror of future editions. Wouldn't it be deliciously ironic if 'Director's Commentary' were someday itself the subject of a spoof?


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


user
After watching this, I had lost a little respect for Christopher Lee (This has passed over time). This film was utter garbage. First, they tried to recreate the ending from the first "Howling," with incredibly bad make-up. Then they try to turn it into a sad excuse of a werewolf porn film! The plot sucks and the whole film is just AWFUL!!!! A brother of a werewolf victim from the first film (From the look of it, it was SUPPOSED to be Dee Wallace Stone)teams up with Lee and another woman to destroy the group of werewolves, lead by Sybil Danning, who seems to be naked all the time.
This is not even worth renting (Unless you want to waste your time and money watching the nudity.). Try to catch it on cable instead. It would be so chopped up, it may actually make sense.


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


user
Howling II (1985) was a complete 180 from the first film. Whilst the first film was campy and creepy. The second one was sleazy and cheesy. The production values on this one are pretty bad and the acting is atrocious. The brother of the anchorwoman werewolf from part one wants to find out what happened to his sis'. The "scene" from the first film was badly re-created. A skinny plain looking woman accompanies bro' (Reb Brown) to the old country (Romania) to uncover the mystery to her sister's murder/transformation/death. Christopher Lee appears and disappears over now and then as sort of a sage/guide to the two. Sybil Danning and her two biggest assets appear as Stirba, the head werewolf of the Romania. She also suffers from a bad case of morning face, ewww!
Bad movie. There's nothing good about this stinker. I'm surprise Philippe Mora directed this picture because he's usually a good film-maker. The film is so dark that you need a flashlight to watch it (no, not the content but the film stock itself). To round the movie off you get a lousy "punk" performance from a Damned wannabe "Babel". Maybe if they forked over a couple of extra bucks they could've got the real deal instead of an imitation.
Best to avoid unless you're desperate or you lost the remote and you're too lazy to change the channel.


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


user
From the moment Christopher Lee puts on a pair of punk sunglasses and tries to sneak into a punk rock club, you know you've got a stinker on your hands! This film had potential. Beneath all of the sludge there are the remnants of what could have been crafted into a decent film, if not an interesting one. The final product is a real mess, however. Aside from the gratuitous nudity and some very attractive women, Howling II winds up being a laughable excuse for a horror film. Christopher Lee gives it a nugget of credibility, but even he cannot raise it above the level of crap.
Having never seen any of the other films in this series, this critic will be forced to accept on face value that this is a genuine continuation of the events in part one. We start off at a funeral for one of the characters from the original, and within the first ten minutes we find ourselves in Transylvania with a small group of heroes ready to battle a coven of werewolves. The film is paced fairly well, and there are not too many dead spots. The action is there; it just isn't filmed well. One bright spot is the music of a punk band called Babel. Though their song is played quite often, it is rather catchy.
The problems with this film are great in number. First off, the acting is worse than pitiful. Christopher Lee is good enough, but that's where it ends. The two leads Reb Brown and Annie McEnroe are lacking in just about everything you'd want for such characters. The writing is wretched, the editing redundant, and the direction amateurish. There are a couple nice special effect gimmicks, but the cheesy ones far out weigh them in number. Sybil Danning is nice to look at, but her acting performance is less than satisfactory. Judd Omen looks the part he plays, but his voice and acting are unconvincing to say the least. Much of the dialog is in an unintelligible language that may or may not be Latin.
I liked the general idea for the story. I always enjoy stories of true believers out to battle seemingly invincible forces of evil. One scene where a small group of good guys are trekking through a dark forest and shooting down a bunch of werewolves is even kind of exciting. Kind of. Maybe a bigger budget or a better director could have made the rest of the film a bit more compelling. 3 of 10 stars.
The Hound.
Side note: As of this writing, the censors at youtube.com have still not taken down the ending credits with Sybil Danning ripping off her top several times while the Babel song is playing! Catch it while you can!


assistant
0