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
I wasn't expecting much of this film- a fun little diversion. Wuthering Heights could be turned into a plausible modern story- nice and soapy, melodramatic and intriguing. But this film decided to throw away the talents of the people involved in a simpering version so watered down from the source material that it's amazing they had the guts to call it Wuthering Heights at all. It ignores the fact that it is a story of people who are in essence unlikeable, mostly unsympathetic, and frequently cruel to one another. It changes the very nature of certain characters- Isabelle, for instance, in the novel, had not a conniving bone in her body- they've stripped her blind idealism and turned her into a scheming whore. Heathcliff is an awful person who psychologically tortures most people in his path, but in this version Catherine ends up leaving her daughter in his care. The dialog is trite and one wonders how the actors managed to deliver any of it with straight faces. In place of depth or actual emotions, we know they mean something when they scream it in someone's face. I've read criticism of the early 90's version, "Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights" which featured Ralph Fiennes and Juliette Binoche, saying that it turned an intensely dark, Gothic story into a sudsy bodice-ripper. Slightly valid comments, but the MTV version goes a step further, using the basic story structure to deliver chipper beach bums cavorting to really bad music.


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


user
What an empty and lack lustre rendition of the classic novel. I do wish people would stop messing about with classics when they clearly have no idea of the real intention or point of the original. This version is no different. I felt that the Ralph Fiennes version is much worse though as the casting of Juliette brioche as Kathy has got to be the worst casting decision EVER...anyway back to this version. It aims to make the story relevant to a contemporary setting and in a musical style. It succeeds in both but high art it is nit. Throwaway viewing for a rainy day maybe...The direction was average and the editing abysmal. Worse than the old Quincy. Deepak Verma does a great turn as Hindley and is in fact one of Britains wasted talents. The part of Heath was played with great charm and belief and I think that the casting is the strongest point of this project. Although a more talented director would have made better use of the facilities he had. Its clear that he was a director for hire and didn't instill the project with the passion that it deserved.


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


user
I just saw this movie premiere on MTV. I must say this was extremely mediocre (at its best). The dialogue doesn't explain the story very well, and I was left feeling like there were a lot of plot holes. There isn't one likable character in this adaptation due to poor acting. I just find that all of the characters are way too possessive when it comes to someone they love. Also, Cate and Heath's love seems very incestuous. They seem more like brother and sister rather than lovers. I don't understand why the father would accept something like that under his roof.
I watched this movie because of a few actors that I respected and enjoyed to watch in previous films, but like I said, it's extremely hard to like any of the characters. Katherine Heigl's performance was horrid which was a complete shocker. She was terrible at being the bitchy older sister of Edward, and there just wasn't enough lines for Aimee Osbourne for me even to critique her performance. Johnny Whitworth did well and it was great seeing him in something recent and even though his character was a bit kooky, he was the only person I sympathized with. As for Erika Christensen and Mike Vogel, they were supposed to be our heroines, but came off as whiny and overdramatic.
I just didn't enjoy this movie very much or the music in it. There was a brief appearance of the Christian punk band, MxPx, but that small appearance would not convince me to watch this movie again. MTV did a tremendous job in convincing me this was a movie it was not. I just pictured something so completely different.


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


user
awful, just awful! my old room mate used to watch this junk and it drove me crazy. the book is one of my favorites and its a shame that some people will never know what it is really like because their first impressions are from dribble like this. they changed so much it is hardly recognisable. which baffles me since the book reads like a soap opera anyway, providing enough fodder for modern day entertainment. it's like one of those Lifetime movies that say "based on a true story" but are completely fictional. there is none of the emotion or depth of the book, just mindless melodrama. if you are a high school student looking for a way to get out of reading, i suggest you try another version.


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


user
waste of my life, .... the director should be embarrassed. why people feel they need to make worthless movies will never make sense to me. when she died at the end, it made me laugh. i had to change the channel many times throughout the film because i was getting embarrassed watching such poor acting. hopefully the guy who played Heath never gets work again. On top of that i hope the director never gets to make another film, and has his paycheck taken back for this crap. { .02 out of 10 }


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


user
Dane tries to hard and is to extreme with all of his yelling and going crazy, spilling water on himself and rolling on the floor. To much. Calm down, get yourself together and make us laugh. I didn't quite understand his comparison toward comics and rock stars. Just because there both up on stage or something? He said that every comedian wants to be a rock star. I'm sure Rodney Dangerfield was really into that when he was alive. He had a few good jokes like the Burger King joke where people yell at the drive thru. I also liked the Reese's Pieces joke. If Dane just didn't act so mental he might be funnier and I might have given this a higher rating, as high as maybe an eight.


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


user
The best that I can say about this film is that it was mildly amusing at times, and that it was an adequate time killer. Unfortunately, this film is also so annoying that I wanted to slap these characters around. This is the kind of film that is so sweet, it hurts your teeth. The intentions were good, I suppose, but things get awfully tiresome when the dialogue is SO nauseating. When the two leads aren't together on-screen, this really isn't bad at all, but be afraid during those frequent moments when the loving couple starts talking to one another.


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 meant to be a comedy but mainly bad taste, and nothing remotely causing a smile in the film. The movie is about a couple trying for a child, and those people in real life who are in that situation will wince at the depictions that are portrayed. For instance scenes at a fertility clinic are not in the least funny and are quite frankly embarrassing. The male lead who plays a construction worker and in his hard hat comes across as a poor excuse for a reject from Village People. The female lead is trying to look 20 years younger than she is. Both leads come across as unappealing,unattractive and completely unconvincing. There are various ridiculous and totally unassuming gratuitous scenes in the film, for example with a budget airline, which is devoid of any humor. The only reason I give this 3/10 instead of 1/10 is one mark for Shirley Maclaine, who is a a class above anything else in the pic, and one mark for some half decent(albeit old) music.


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


user
This game has the(dis)honor of being the first game that I have stopped playing right in the middle of and felt like smashing into bits and then burning. Congratulations. FIRST and LAST Tomb Raider I will ever play I assure you.
Plot: Just typing that word made me laugh. There isn't one. Neither is there character development. We finally have a girl heroine who can take care of herself,who isn't a *beeping*mary-sue,but unfortunately she dresses like a slut and her breast are huge. They had to attract the sexist boy gamers you see. Anyway all she does is go in tomb after tomb shooting things as she goes along. Why she does this I have no idea. I had subtitles on and the t.v. as loud as I could and I still didn't understand a damn thing. The development(or lack there of) for her, her two friends and the*villains*were laughable. There also will be levels that you have to go through that do-not give you any hint on what you have to do next and you literally will be in most of the boring as hell tombs for HOURS trying to figure out what the hell you are supposed to be doing. There is one course(out of two) in particular with her on a motorbike(Believe me it is not at all fun)that you will be on for ATLEASE an HOUR with NO save point in sight. That means you get hit by the other motorist and guys in vans shooting at you or you hit a tree you start the hour long trek OVER.
Boss Stupid F*ck: You know lets makes the levels very long, have basically no save points, have no story, no character development, give no variety in game play, have most of the music on the longest levels ear-bleeding,and give no hints whatsoever to the player so they can stay even longer in a place instead of getting to the nonexistent plot.
Stupid F*ck one: Those sound like bang up ideas.
Stupid F*ck two: I concur. Who needs character development ,plot, or unboring game-play.
Todd: I'm sorry sir,but these ideas seem like they will extremely p*ss the player off.
Boss Stupid F*ck: Shut up Todd. You're fired.
Game-play: All she does is shoot. Of course she can flip while SHOOTING, jump while SHOOTING, or kick while again SHOOTING.But flipping, jumping, and kicking does not erase the fact that all she is ultimately doing is SHOOTING. BORING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Music: The intro music is extremely beautiful. I love listening to it. The in game music goes from tolerable to wanting to cut your ears off.
Visuals:Considering this game was made in 2006, I was expecting the visuals to blow me away.Well I was blown,but definitely not in a good way.
Bottom-line: This game is a plot-less, no character development mess with a barely dressed unmarysuish(THANKFULLY)young women in the lead that goes through boring tombs for some boring reason(what that might be I couldn't tell you)with unimaginative shooting gameplay. STAY FAR AWAY FROM THIS B.S.!!!!!!!!It's gets two stars for having a women who isn't a damsel in distress(No matter how scantily clad she might be) and the beautiful into music.


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


user
OK, plain and simple, if you are a fan of the other Tomb Raider games (yes, even AOD) KEEP AWAY FROM LEGEND.
It is, without doubt, the most disappointing TR game yet. It looks very nice, it sounds very nice, but it is totally unplayable and I've given up. I feel like I've been robbed by Eidos.
It's very simple. TR was a PC game before anything else. You control Lara using the keyboard. In 6 Tomb Raider games the controls were standard. In AOD they were 'tacky', but still the same general control sequences. In Legend they have changed her movement and control methods completely and she is totally uncontrollable.
I have seen comments elsewhere from people who say 'Use the mouse'. No, why should I? Others say 'Use a gamepad'. No, why should I? Others say 'But this has been the standard for 3rd person controls for years' Well, I don't care, it is not the standard for any other TR game so why mess with it. Oh, I know, because they couldn't care less about their original, loyal fan base, they want to cash in on the new kids who hadn't even heard of the series until the movies came out and make lots more money. Pathetic.
My advice to any serious TR fan is keep away from this game, and if you do buy it complain to Eidos. I have seen masses of other posts, mainly on the Eidos forums, from people telling them how rubbish it is, perhaps they will listen.


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


user
I'm not sure who decides what category a movie fits into, but this movie is NOT a horror movie. As for the story, it was fairly interesting, but rather slow. I was especially disappointed with the ending though.
**spoiler**
Tell me why on Earth does she run over to her uncle's(?) home without at least calling the detective or the police first? She knows exactly what's going on at that point, plus she has a video tape as proof. Instead, she runs over there and starts going nuts and saying "I know everything, I have proof! You didn't expect proof, did you?!" Then she acts surprised when her uncle stands up and starts walking over to her as if he's going to harm her. Well DUH! Of course he's going to harm you idiot, you just told him you know everything and have proof to expose everything. What a dumb ending.


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


user
Spanish horrors are not bad at all, some are smart with interesting stories, but is not the case of "Second Name". It is badly directed, badly acted and boring...boring...boring, a missed chance for an interesting story.


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


user
After the overrated success of Amenabar and Balaguero, Spanish Horror Movies spread like a disease in the increasingly sad world of horror movies. The result is all in films like El segundo nombre, a TV-like production bad written, but acted and directed even worse. I didn't read the Ramsey Campbell book, but I'm sure that the author of The Doll Who Ate Its Mother didn't have much in common with this terrible production. Avoid it at any cost, unless you're searching for a quiet sleepy night in a fresh movie theater. 2/10


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


user
I have never seen such terrible performances in all my life.
Everyone in the entire film was absolute rubbish.
Not one decent actor/actress in the whole film, it was a joke.
Reminded me of drama at school...


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 one of those films that makes you want the time you spent watching it back, and then some, like the time you spent accidentally picking it out, the time you spent getting to the video store, etc.
First off, the look: It's grainy, it's low budget. Now that in itself doesn't make for a bad film. But the way it was filmed makes the action look unnatural, so that's kind of distracting.
Then, the story. 3 gals go on a gal's weekend away from guys. Of course, as EVERYONE does when going on a camping trip, they stop on the way to get earrings. When they arrive at the area in which they're going to stay, they get pulled over by Mr. Ranger Sir, who scolds them for throwing a lit cigarette out of the car at fire season, and then drives them where they're going (a remote cabin). Of course, 2 "cute guys" wander into their vicinity, and Bambi (yes, Bambi) and Aubry are immediately smitten, but apparently Bambi is smitten by anything with two legs. Mady is rather disappointed by this development because she was looking forward to a weekend of forgetting about her ex by getting sh**-faced and stoned with her gal-pals.
Oh, and I almost forgot, there's a mean old hermit that lives up that way, that's perhaps someone to not tangle with, and the area & cabin in which they're staying have a sort of "reputation".
So of course, sooner or later (unfortunately, MUCH later) some of our weekend wood-visitors begin to die, and find various booby traps (although a couple of them actually hit a little lower than that) and of course, the remaining campers are understandably upset. No cell phone reception of course (who would miss out on a chance to check their cell phone for reception in a movie anymore?). Mr. Ranger Sir keeps popping up at odd times & his behavior seems a bit odd but he has said he will get help.
There's a fantastic twist to this that you just won't want to miss too, if you're still awake. Pray that you wake up to a blank screen.
The acting in this is terrible, the production values are terrible, and the whole undertaking is just lame & I find it amazing this was even released. Avoid at all costs, 1 out of 10.


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


user
"True" story of three girls who go into the wilds of Connecticut and end up hunted by a maniac in the woods. This is the sort of film that would have played in the drive ins across America thirty years ago to mixed acclaim. Not particularly much of anything the film works with its low budget to mixed results. The film is watchable but isn't at all scary (blame how some of the attack scenes for that). Its the sort of film that you'll probably forget about once you're done with it. Odds are that you're never going to think to see this unless its handed to you by someone and told, "here watch this", which is what happened to me. If you're handed a copy give it back, the film isn't worth the effort to see it even if it is watchable.


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


user
After a fairly lengthy partially pixelated nude shower scene, we're off to the races for this "Blair Witch Project"-esquire horror film about three girlfriends venturing to a desolate cabin deep in the woods to get away from their hectic lives for a girls' weekend out and smoke pot. They meet two guys who seem friendly enough, so they drink and tell ghost stories, until late in the movie some of them get picked off.
This is a fairly slow movie, with needlessly drawn out 'suspense' scenes, the bad acting can't carry the myriad of scenes where nothing happens but mindless banter, and the movie as a whole is a dud, a deathly-boring dud at that. Nothing at all happens until the last half hour and when it did I was to numb to really care.
Eye Candy: Ashley Totin shows T&A; Evy Lutzky gets topless briefly; and Jennifer Hart shows her right tit
My Grade: D


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


user
HORRENDOUS! Avoid like the plague. I would rate this in the top 10 worst movies ever. Special effects, acting, mood, sound, etc. appear to be done by day care students...wait, I have seen programs better than this. Opens like a soft porn show with a blurred nude female doing a shower scene then goes bad from there. Good nude scenes, but that is it. Sound and light problems were persistent throughout the movie. At times I would swear I could hear the roaring of the camera motors. YIKES! I would like to see another movie on this story, but done by different people. This batch of actors and crew need more acting and movie making lessons. Voted 1 out of 10.


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


user
I'm not saying that because the production values were so low, but because it was filmed terribly. That shot of the girl washing her hair in the creek? Did we really need to sit there for an overlong shot and watch her do that for 5 minutes in the same spot? It was terrible, the lighting was just plain bad. You could barely see anything and when the characters were talking, you could barely hear what they were saying. Did I watch the whole movie? Of course not I skipped through most of it, and I don't want to hear anyone say I need to watch the whole thing first to judge it. This film was so poorly done and executed that even by independent and low budget standards it's just plain terrible. Awful movie...don't waste any time on it unless you want a good laugh, but even then it's not because of the actors "funny" lines, it's because of how painstakingly bad the production is.


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


user
Most of the French films I've seen - and enjoyed - were more talk than action, but that's okay. I found them interesting, well-photographed and with intriguing actors. (However, I did at one point wonder if Gerald Depardieu was in every French film ever made! It seemed that way.)
This movie has the same interesting visuals and had a good opening. But then it became talk, talk and more talk....which is fine for a drama but not for a murder mystery. After awhile, I almost fell asleep watching this.
Actually, the film was more like a play with almost all the scenes played out in one room. Thus, if you love plays, you should like this...but I want a little more bang for a murder story.


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 possibly the worst film I've ever seen. The fact that it has a flimsy storyline is bad enough, that they've hooked it around the subject of football violence makes it 100 times worse.
I had severe doubts about the premise of this film even before I started watching, but went into it open minded enough even to accept the way that the writers saw fit to introduce Elijah Wood's character Matt into the hooligan scene.
But the film throws up inaccuracy after inaccuracy, to the point that by the middle of the film each one makes you cringe harder than the time before.
Let's clear up a few things: Hooligans don't tend to virtually smash up their own pub before a run-of-the-mill league game; they don't set out to kill each other; they don't ONLY wear Stone Island (and others in the crowd, hooligans or not, do). They most certainly don't, when having taken exception to a new firm member, trot off to their rival firms territory for pie and mash. And I'd love to meet the hool who would go and grass on his firm's top boy to the rival firm. (Although you can scratch what I said about setting to out kill each other if one does exist).
Don't get me wrong,I'm yet to see a film on the subject that doesn't contain some fantasy whims, but this is on a par with The Firm for cluelessness.
I found it ironical that Wood's American nemesis is morally condemned by his character for being a cocaine user, when this is part and parcel of the British hooligan scene. The film chooses not to challenge Wood's morals and instead steers clear of any of the firm using coke.
I could go on, but I think I've made my point.
As for the plot, it's highly unimaginative, and I'm sure if I hadn't spent the entire film bemoaning the points, and more, made above then I would have guessed what was going on sooner than I did. And believe me, I was well in front.
I get the distinct impression this film is aimed at men, with the hope that women will enjoy the injection of emotional issues that are raised.
If I'm right, then the makers have failed completely. It's too unrealistic to be enjoyed by anyone who knows about the scene, and I can't believe the kind of female who looks for emotive films would give a damn about any of the characters given their violent tendencies.
Are there any good points? Maybe the fight scenes are well choreographed and filmed, but I'm rarely impressed by slow-mo action, certainly not when it's a fight as the point is a ruck is rousing enough anyway.
There are some funny, if unrealistic moments. Wood's trip to school did raise a smile for me. But a few mildly funny moments hardly make up for watching two hours of complete fabricated dross.
If you're British avoid like the plague, if only not to further develop misconceptions of the scene if you're not in the know. If you're American, you may enjoy it, as it's clearly tailored to the market. But no one can deny the plot is flimsy, predictable and ultimately over the top.


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


user
Where to start? OK, don't compare this film to fight club for a start - ridiculous. If it was even a patch on fight club, the violence, blood, gore etc would be much more evident and realistic. Secondly, this film is no football factory - which is so much more real (and Danny Dyer makes Nicholas Nickelby look like an embarrassment). Fair enough, the storyline is quite decent and the fight scenes are well choreographed - with a decent ending i might add. But the film on the whole is poor, seriously poor. As people have been mentioning the accents should not spoil a film - i disagree - either a simple casting error, or a lack of effort in coaching the voices caused the film to be irritating all the way through - it was obvious from scene one some American/Geordie was playing the role. Don't get me wrong, good looking guy, who looks great with a skin head - but no not a football hooligan. I could go on forever about how ridiculous the football scene was - the 'fake steward' situation. Also, when the GSE are going to play United up north, they go on the train expecting only 3 of them - doesn't make any sense - this a real organisation of gangsters and thugs, which is portrayed in the film to be some mickey mouse cult of about 5 people. In terms of accuracy - did West Ham and Milwall not play for the last couple of years they have been in the Championship together? Hmm, ten years OK. And I'm sure 'Bother' would be able to just waltz into a Milwall firm pub. Basically, a very poor film which people will like if they have little knowledge of real football, and hooliganism. If you do actually love football and are intrigued by the underworld of hooliganism,, you will simply feel as though this film has insulted your intelligence. Ross George


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


user
First some background; I am English and have lived in London all my life. I have been to many games at 'The Den' and most other London club grounds. I am familiar with the type of person who gets into hooliganism and I know just how they act and how they speak. Have to say this is a bad, bad movie. I can tell you that Green Street is one of the most unrealistic movies I have ever seen. I spent most of the movie cringing with embarrassment. I felt I should write a mini review because I felt I needed to point out a few things.
a) People just don't talk like that in London in real life; the filmmakers took the whole slang thing too far and made it sound stupid. Unfortunately hooligan types do exist, but those you see in Green Street are more like parodies. b) The actor who plays Pete Dunham (Charlie Hunnam) unfortunately sounded about as 'English' or 'Cockney' as Osama Bin Laden. He's from up north in Newcastle and I'm just amazed any of the other actors could keep straight face acting alongside him - how are we supposed to take him seriously. Why they didn't just get someone from East London to play that part is beyond me. I could have done 'a bang up job' myself, hehe. c) Mr Frodo. I mean how can I be expected to take seriously Elijah Wood kicking the ass of people twice his size and who are genuinely nasty hooligans. He'd be dead. Simple as that. Honestly (as a Brit) it was hard to watch this film. I'm pretty sure this film will bomb here in the UK. It may do a little better in the states because the Americans just wont know (or care) how inaccurate it is.
Please my American and foreign friends, don't believe a word of this nonsense. Yes these firms do exist but it's all extremely underground and hush hush, and on a vastly smaller scale. The movie only gets a 2 from me because they actually filmed some of it in London. Usually they try to film these things in Cardiff (Wales) or something and expect us all not to notice.


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


user
I'm sure to people watching this move outside of Britian this film will be an entertaining watch, but for someone from the UK it's painful in it's errors.
Right at the start of the film Elijah Wood gets off a tube at Bank station, which has been trashed. He says to his sister, who he's meeting, "What happened here" and she replies "Oh Tottenham were in town yesterday"!!! Tottenham are in town already.. they're part of the town, they don't have to go there! And if Tottenham fans wanted to fight other fans the last place on earth they'd do it is Bank station, where there are probably more security cameras than anywhere else in the world.
There are several other similar errors but the biggest failing for me is the actor who plays the lead hooligan. He clearly decided it wasn't worth trying to speak with an East End accent and instead opted for a Dick Van Dyke style mock-ney which made my ears bleed. It was accentuated by the fact the rest of his gang all spoke in the way you'd expect West Ham fans to speak. This error made him unbelievable in the role and really spoilt the film.


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


user
Let's just say I had to suspend my disbelief less for Spiderman than I did for Hooligans. That is, to say, I have less of a problem believing Toby McGuire can stick to buildings than I do Elija Wood throwing down with toughs in Manchester. I won't get into specifics, as I don't want to write a spoiler, but the idea of grown, professional, British men getting into near death scraps every weekend is, well... funny. And this film is not. The fighting, the idea of fighting, is taken far too seriously. The gravity of the pugilism, the reverence with which the subject matter is treated becomes irritating, as it neither establishes or resolves the conflict. It seems as though the plot, with holes big enough to drive a Guiness truck through, has been slapped together with a contrived "fish out of water" theme so that viewers can gaze into Woods teary eyes as he learns how to become a man ie. hitting other young men of opposing football tastes with blunt objects and then running away as fast as he can. The characters are cartoonish, especially the Americans at Harvard. The character development and story line are telegraphed to the viewer throughout the picture. Unfortunately, the absurdity of the film doesn't reach its height until nearly the end, which by then you'll have spent nearly two hours of your life you are never getting back. Pick up "The Football Factory" or "Fight Club" instead of this corny, and disappointing dud. It doesn't waste time with empty melodrama, the tired old "Yankee in King Aurthur's Court," or weepy, parables of coming of age bullsh*t. They're just pure, dark, and clever fun; the way violence is supposed to be.


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 probably about as silly as The Naked Gun (which was supposed to be). Case in point:
1. In order to fake her drowning Roberts is secretly taking swimming lessons at the YWCA. After her "death" the YWCA calls her husband at work to give their condolences. HELLO how did they get his work number?
2. Before she leaves town she drops her wedding ring in the toilet. Days or even weeks later her hubby finds it in the John. Does this mean the toilet was never flushed?
3. No explanation is given on how she is paying for her mothers care in the retirement home (since she did it behind her RICH husbands back).
4. Towards the end of this tiresome film Roberts suspects her husband is in the house. Instead of running for her life she runs to the kitchen instead to see if the cans are stacked neatly.


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


user
Julia Roberts obviously makes a concerted effort to shake off her cotton wool Pretty Woman persona with this spurious spousal abuse thriller, but it's hard to imagine she'd end up putting in a performance as powerful and convincing (and oscar winning) as she did in Erin Brokovich based on the back of this rubbish. And make no bones about it, it's nothing more than a Julia Roberts vehicle, but unfortunately, her performance is not the most lacklustre thing about it.
The plot has all the markings of a late night made-for-cable, and don't be under the impression that it will offer any insight into the dark world of domestic abuse because non of the characters are sketched out enough for you to really care.
Ultimately disappointing and unsatisfying, without Roberts' name above the title, I'm sure it would have totally flopped, deservedly.


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


user
"Sleeping With the Enemy" is a predictable, 'been there before' thriller that never seems to find any inspiration no matter how desperately cast and crew try. I can't believe a bunch of my friends talked me into seeing this at the movies some sixteen years ago.
The complete lack of originality from the Ronald Bass screenplay (based upon the Nancy Price novel) does not help, nor does the stale direction of Joseph Ruben or the very average performance from Julia Roberts. The supporting cast including Patrick Bergin and Kevin Anderson do little to help.
There really isn't a lot to say. Just give it a miss.
Sunday, April 14, 1991 - Hoyts Cinema Centre Melbourne


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


user
What a powerful start to a film when Julia Roberts character is punched in the face by her abusive and anal husband played by Patrick Bergin and I felt ready to experience a powerful film on the same level as Farrah Fawcett's The Burning Bed. Well, as the summary says I was mis-lead. This film was nothing like The Burning Bed, which had power and Farrah played the part of a woman you truly felt for, and felt her pain and her need to survive. Sleeping with the Enemy drifted off after the first act into cheap thrills with Roberts faking her death to escape her husband and goes to live in Iowa. Her husband at first believes she is dead but starts to grow suspicious that she may still be alive and sets off after her. The rest of the movie is basically a cat and mouse game with Julia getting a house in this small town in Iowa and changing her identity....there is no mention of course how she got the money for this but at this point in the film I did not care all that much. She meets a guy (Mr. Nice wimpy) and falls for him and her husband does finally catch up to her but not before he re-arranges her soup cans and straightens up the kitchen. This was I assume to provide a cheap thrill to the audience. But I did not care much if she was an abused wife because the film as I have said cheated the audience. If it had stayed the course I might have felt for her and her situation. Of course the husband is killed and all is well for little ol Ms Roberts. If only the real world was anything close to this....See the Burning Bed and you understand what a film is suppose to be like on the subject of domestic abuse.


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


user
Yes there are worse movies out there. Most of them made for fun, on a shoe string budget, or as a t.v. movie of the week, but even if this was the 'movie of the week' it would rate no more than two stars. It is a poor movie about a serious subject featuring an abused woman who flees the king of the slime people in to the protective arms of the king of the wussy people. ( If this is an attempt to show that she doesn't need a man to protect her than wuss man is superfluouse to the film and ought not to be in it at all). It has no suspense, no character development, and an heroine that could be outsmarted by a rotton onion. ( I think she flushes her wedding ring on a boat with a self contained tank rather than just dropping it overboard in the ocean (where her body should be anyway) and after the husband finds her, demonstrating that she is a moron, she still makes childish assumptions that lead to almost getting her killed.) I am always amazed when I see the sort of generally high rating a movie like this gets and it makes me realize that Dr. Seuss still has a huge untapped market of people who would be challenged by his work. After I get done laughting at humanity I weep.


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


user
"Serum" starts out with credits that are quite reminiscent of the "Re-animator" movies, and it owes a lot to them. The story is very similar; a mad doctor develops a serum that he believes will alleviate pain, sickness and death, but he's apparently not a big believer in clinical trials and so winds up with a brain-eating zombie on his hands in the person of his nephew. The zombie even looks like one of those from "Re-animator," and in fact some of the make-up effects in "Serum" aren't bad. Unfortunately, the script is pretty slow and unbelievable in quite a few places, resulting in a soap opera feel for most of the first 3/4 of the movie. For some reason, the director feels compelled to tell us the time of day every few minutes by flashing it in big white letters across the screen. I can't see why this was important, other than being an attempt to provide viewers with a sense of time passing; sometimes, that wouldn't be present otherwise as the plot plods along.
There are a number of moments that just don't add up here. For instance, one victim is bludgeoned with a sledge hammer, but when we see the victim's head up close, there's no sign of that trauma. In another scene, a character runs down a fully lit hospital corridor (we can see the circles of light on the floor, in fact) with a flashlight in hand, looking for all the world like he's walking in the dark... but a moment later a second character walks down the same fully-lit corridor without one. These are just a couple of examples; moments of what look like directorial or editorial sloppiness crop up quite frequently throughout the movie.
"Serum" is better in some ways than much of what goes straight-to-video as independent horror lately. In terms of technical items  sound and photography, for example  it's got a more polished look than a lot of what lands on a DVD. On the other hand, there's still a good deal of wooden acting (particularly by one of the lead characters, the mad scientist himself!) and nonsensical moments that have nothing to do with suspension of disbelief and everything to do with writing and continuity. Maybe these are things that the people involved with making this film will eventually get more experience with, though. One of the problems with low-budget independent horror lately is that the filmmakers often set out to remake more popular movies that had bigger budgets, and that almost never works out. It didn't in the case of "Serum," anyhow.


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


user
Serum is about a crazy doctor that finds a serum that is supposed to cure all diseases through the power of the mind. Instead it creates some kind of monster that needs to eat human flesh and brains. The mad doc creates some zombies out of cadavers and has some problems. There is a very long lead into all the action with many scenes getting you acquainted with the characters. The mad doctor's nephew gets into a car accident and the mad doc tries to use his new serum on the boy. The results are not good. This is a class C film with OK acting but some troubles directing and some continuity errors. There isn't much zombie action in this one and the effects, while adequate, are nothing special. You can fast forward through the slow parts and get some enjoyment out of the action scenes. Watch out for some nudity and bad language.


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


user
Dr. K(David H Hickey)has been trying to master a formula that would end all disease and handicaps, but needs live donors to complete his work. His doctor brother Richard(Dennis O'Neill)has a son named Eddie(Derek Philips)who is accepted to medical school. Eddie has a girlfriend named Sarah(Lizabeth Cardenas)who is pre-law and plans to attend law school herself the coming fall. She and Eddie resume their relationship when Sarah calls things off with her current boyfriend who is also shagging the lady of Walt(Bill Sebastian;Eddie's best friend who recently paid for his cheating girlfriend's boob job). Eddie accidentally gets hit by a car and appears on the throes of death when Dr. K makes a suggestion to Richard..let him "recuperate" Eddie using his secret, illegal methods. When Dr. K applies his serum to Eddie horrifying results occur. Eddie's face bulges massive warts while he has also acquired a taste for human flesh. Many will die so that Eddie can feed this uncontrollable appetite he can't quench. Soon he may even pose a threat to his father and girlfriend..Eddie Monster must be stopped.
Typically awful direct-to-video horror flick suffers from a severe lack of budget, acting, and overall talent. The premise, which seems like an interesting fright-fest, fails to deliver even as a zombie flick. The gore is limited with a few munching scenes but most of the violence occurs off-camera. The use of time to move the story along can really get annoying.


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


user
I don't'know... maybe it's because I'm Brazilian but all that stuff was too much. Too much love for the music, too much parties, too much contrast between the nice lives of the main characters (come on, it's not so sad) and the aspect of the city shown by the director. Everything looks too fake to me: the families, the relationships, the music, the "happiness". It simply sells a little taste of fake latinamerican culture. I must be honest: it did seduce me a little, but who would not be seduced by that fake lives made of nice music, sex and parties? I'm not that stupid: what kind of world is this one in which people do not suffer of diarrhea, profound sadness and STDs? I liked the scene with Caridad's mother phone call and the discussion about the contract with all the musicians and the Spanish people.


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


user
"Triumph of Love" is proof that not every Comédie-Française author who uses cross-dressing disguised courtship like Shakespeare is worth seeing.
Or maybe something was lost in the translation of this adaptation of Marivaux, a Commedia Dell Arte-inspired playwright of whom Brittannica says: "His nuanced feeling and clever wordplay became known as marivaudage."
While Mira Sorvino has fun dangling three mixed-up romances, her pants role wasn't even up to Cherubino in "Marriage of Figaro."
The herky-jerky editing is annoying and just seems to indicate that a lot of takes were needed for each long speech.
Best was Fiona Shaw as the fooled spinster, as well as the costumes.
The glimpses of audience we see and the closing curtain call to wink that this is all artifice doesn't really help.
(originally written 5/29/2002)


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


user
Let me be clear. I've used IMDb for years. But only today I went through the trouble of registering on the site, just so I could give this movie the lowest possible rating. I've seen hundreds of films, some of them bad, a few awful. Never, though, have i seen such a contrast of pretense and incompetence, of high intentions and failure.
Mira Sorvino is horribly cast as the princess, but entirely unbelievable as Phocion, a young boy. Fiona Shaw is always an entertaining character, but the dialogue in the film is much worse, even, than in the insipid French play that is the source (Marivaux never reached Hollywood until now, and we should keep it that way).
To illustrate, for example, that Leontine is a brilliant, passionate philosopher and scientist, she is shown frantically pouring chemicals from beaker to beaker, shouting out names of famous scientists. And the romance between Agis and the princess is played even sillier. For this, the pair should receive a joint 'Clair Danes' award, which in a just world would be awarded for gratuitously anachronistic and uninspired re-interpretation of interesting teens from literature as brats of the 1990's (see Miss Danes in Les Miserables).
Aside from the atrocious plot and dialogue, there are some attempts to introduce artistic tropes into the filming. For example, there are moments when a handful of spectators are faded in and out of view of the action, sitting in chairs, watching the principal characters. The Director wants us to realize she's adapted a play. I get it. But it doesn't happen at all until far into the film. At that point, seeing a crowd of people sitting in chairs for a moment, then disappearing, is creepy and distracting. They're like some sort of un-scary zombie crowd, appearing through the mists, filling us with dread. When you see the horrible frolic and song that ends this movie, you'll want to rouse your own crowd of zombies and kill them all for the grave injustise of poisoning your mind for 112 minutes.
-Matthew McGuire


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


user
Yikes. This is pretty bad. The play isn't great to begin with, and the decision to transfer it to film does it no favours - especially as Peploe doesn't decide how she wants to treat the material's theatrical origins (we get occasional glances of an observing theatre audience etc.) and has decided to go with a jumpy editing style that is intended to keep reminding you that you're watching a film, whereas in fact it only serves to remind you that you are watching a very poor film by a director who is overwhelmed by her material. Mira Sorvino's central performance is breath-takingly poor: stage-y and plummy, it's as if she's playing the part via Helena Bonham-Carter's Merchant Ivory oeuvre. Only Fiona Shaw delivers a performance of note - and it may be that her theatrical pedigree means that she is best able to handle the material - but it's hard to watch a film for one performance alone, even if that performance is as light, truthful and entire as Shaw's. Ben Kingsley turns in an average and disengaged turn, and Diana Rigg's daughter, Rachel Stirling plays her supporting role as just that. Sadly, none of Bertolucci's magic has rubbed off on his wife if this film is to be the evidence.


assistant
0