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
Whatever happened to Keaton is what I want to know.
Actually I don't, I crawled away, heaving, thinking she must owe half the bookies in Vegas, or maybe not, maybe she was just brainwashed, blackmailed and bored to death. Rich enough to adopt a third-world country, she somehow had to star in yet another cookie-cut, cliché-ridden drool'athon, based on the same character-franchise she's been rehashing since 'Father of the Bride'('91). You'd think she's going head to head with Mr.Bean.
(Spoilers)
So hubby (Dax) get's fired by obnoxious son of boss, his mom (Keaton)leaves his dad after classic row, and crashes over with her own dog-show in tow, oh those little rascals. Hubby's got cold-feet for diaper-duty, wifey's clock a-ticking and hey, let's toss in a space-cadet as second house-guest for good measure, all in one day because that's so funny and original. Wife gets fed up and walks away, mom leaves dad for space-cadet and the couple makes up in time for closing credits, 86 very long minutes later.
Now if you have to have a space-cadet, he can't be devious as well, he can't scheme some excuse for his stayover, and if mom leaves dad, she can't hop into a cab dressed as a pumpkin just because some scriptwriter agonized over how to cheer thing up.
Plus that gag whereby they invite her in only to then discover she's got her canine entourage in the cab has got to be outlawed by now. And you only get one obnoxious 2-dimensional boss to denigrate. Another movie-killer would be the movie-script the space cadet is toiling away at, supposedly more lame than the actual one, again, dejas-ad-nausea.
Liv Tyler doesn't seem happy here, her voice was weird at times, it had me wondering if they later had her redub some of it, and she's a smart one, she's handled great roles and we'll forgive her for Jersey Girl, it was disaster-prone, could happen to anyone. Dax Shepard was watchable and that's being generous considering the material.
Personally, it's the director, the screenwriters and especially the producers that I would love to see tar'n'feathered before shipped to Guantanamo as playthings for the prisoners, and that's me keeping this 'lite'.


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


user
Watching Smother was perhaps the longest not-quite-90-minutes of my life. There wasn't a laugh to be had; in fact, I don't remember ever cracking a smile. Diane Keaton was horridly unfunny as a middle-aged chain-smoking dog hoarder, the textbook overbearing mother character, a relentlessly irritating woman who clearly suffers from some kind of personality disorder. She is manipulative, conniving, melodramatic, childish, narcissistic, and worst of all, boring.
I suppose I should briefly mention the other characters, but why bother? It was just a long string of movie clichés--the dippy, socially inept distant relative who's just trying to break into "The Industry", the gruff and long-suffering but somehow still lovable father, the mild- mannered wife who just can't take it anymore (but eventually moves beyond the discord and resignedly comes home), the herd of unhousebroken dogs who like to chew throw pillows while everyone is away, etc.
God, what a snore. I've never been a Diane Keaton fan and Smother only reminded me why. Overacting is overacting, no matter how many pictures you did in your prime. Her attempts at physical comedy were especially humiliating. What was the director thinking?
While I like Dax Shepard and can even sometimes tolerate Liv Tyler, their performances were so lackluster and dull that it was clear that neither actor gave a damn about this movie. That was okay, because neither did I. Keaton's endless self-absorbed prattling was intolerable and at times Shepard's dislike for her seemed genuine. By the end of the movie I wanted to slap her myself.
Awful.


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


user
After seeing the poster from the film Smother,I knew I was about to live one of those intolerable film experiences which make me want to take my eyes out.However,I felt a slight optimism because the movie had a solid cast which I thought it was going to rescue the movie.Unfortunately that did not happen.Smother is a horrible movie,but it is not execrable.That is the best I can say about it.
The screenplay from Smother (written by the same guys from License to Wed,something which explains they have anything but talent for writing movies) is full of cheap and predictable humor.Seriously,I did not laugh even once watching this film.Besides,the solid cast I previously mentioned is absolutely wasted.After the big number of garbage she has been involved in (like the monumentally atrocious and execrable Because I Said So),some people may think the career from Diane Keaton is extinguishing.However,it is impossible for me to forget the excellent performances she has brought in previous decades,on films like Annie Hall or Baby Boom.On Smother,she makes her best effort with her performance,but her character is so horribly written she cannot do anything with it.Dax Shepard has left on me a good impression with his solid performances on the films Baby Mama and Idiocracy.However,he does what he can with his character.Mike White also makes a good effort,but he does not reach too far away.He is a very talented screenwriter (like he has shown on films like The Good Girl and School of Rock),so I would have liked to see he was one of the screenwriters from this movie,instead of only acting on it.Liv Tyler suffers from the same situation of all the previously mentioned actors : being wasted.
The worst fail from Smother is being absolutely boring and unfunny.Its screenplay is nothing more than a collection of forced scenes and situations we have seen on sit-coms.Stay far away from this crappy comedy.


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


user
Totally forgettable. Specially because of the weak acting. This is the first movie I've seen with Dax Shepard. To my surprise, he's been around since the late 90's. I thought he was a newcomer, since his acting was so bland. I could say the same about Liv Tyler. Although I've seen her do well in other movies, she gave Clare Cooper a strange personality. Liv is not the kind of actress that will give the character a fiery, emotional personality like Diane Keaton would be able to, but it was pretty strange to see her say her lines in whisper mode. It seemed that altogether there simply wasn't a very good chemistry going on between the actors, and I think Diane Keaton sensed that as well. She's a fantastic actress, but seemed just a bit over the top in this movie. It felt like she just wanted to get this movie over as soon as possible. I wouldn't blame her.


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


user
If you hit your teens in the 70s, as I did, you probably remember the stories about Studio 54 whether or not you liked disco. An exclusive club, it was the perfect symbol of 70s cultural overindulgence and self-absorption; there's even an excellent VH1 documentary about the club that could tell you everything you wanted to know about its heyday, and the stories are easily interesting enough to spawn a very captivating film.
Sadly, this isn't it. 54 follows the lives of a few of its employees, a bartender named Shane (Ryan Phillippe), a busboy named Greg (Breckin Meyer), his wife, a coat-check girl, Anita (Selma Hayek), and of course the master of ceremonies himself, Steve Rubell (Mike Meyers). While the goings-on at the club are well represented, this film concerns itself more with the personal lives of the workers, following Shane's story the closest.
The movie works in spurts. Sometimes it captures perfectly the shallowness of the nightlife culture (such as when Shane is taken to a dinner party and doesn't know who 'Errol Flynt' is), and other times it waxes into hokey melodrama. Some of that is inherent in the premise  following the underlings as they mingle in the world of the rich and fabulous  but a lot of it is due to the kid-gloved treatment with which both the club and Rubell are given throughout the movie. While Rubell certainly electrified the scene in New York with his penchant for over-the-top spectacle and his exclusive hand-picking of the crowds each night, the rampant drugs and sexuality are only briefly touched on; and Rubell himself, while his excesses are mentioned, come off oddly positive for a guy who was in life a liar, a cheat, a drug abuser, and promiscuous as all hell. Not that I was looking for the man to be pilloried here, but his ego directly contributed to the fall of his club and the diminishing of the nightlife culture he helped to elevate. A final scene where he gazes down at the regulars paternally is so emotionally false as to be patently absurd.
Meyers does his best to capture Rubell, but he's given so little to work with here it's surprising his performance is effective; but he's good, and he helps to anchor the film. Philippe, whom I find generally to be a good actor, is hamstrung here by the shallowness and stupidity of his character; he's limited to a deer-in-the-headlights smile or a sullen uncomprehending frown, and even he can't translate that into a strong performance. Hayek and Meyer are both okay, again, undercut by the writing, and Neve Campbell  prominently featured on the DVD cover  appears so briefly she really has an extended cameo.
For some reason I still find myself interested, even fascinated, by the popular culture of the second half of the seventies. But even given that, this is not a film that particularly engaged me, despite a predisposition to like it. I'd say if that era, or that club, has any interest for you, track down the VH1 special rather than this middle-of-the-road melodrama.


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


user
54 is a film about a club with that very title in the setting of the 70s era. It features the classic good-looking bartender. The sexy females. The high powered owner. The partying. When all entwined together chaos ensues, and the bartender (played by Phillipe) seems to be at the brunt of it all.
I'm going to be as blunt and honest as possible, whilst avoiding any outright unfair or untrue comments (like, it's an 'ok' film). I really do find it a completely dire film complimented by it's dire cast. Every time I sit down to watch a film casting Salma Hayek, I am always awaiting to see her beauty, radiantly expressed simultaneously with a great performance, but, reality invariably reminds me quite abruptly how utterly talentless she is. I mean, really, what has she ever bequeathed the masses with, other than her immense table dance in 'From Dusk Till Dawn'...? The same goes for Ryan Phillippe, another poor actor who gives nothing to the screen but his good looks and insanely dull facade otherwise known as 'acting'. Mike Myers, isn't quite as bad as these 2, he does at least give the Film something worthy. Playing the seedy, extroverted co-founder of the 54 Club. The type that the majority watching would hate (i.e. job well done), he puts in a somewhat convincing performance that gave me rare enjoyment from the flick. But alas, it is not enough to rescue the film from it's baseless and flat nothingness. Most 'bad' bad films I find something to take from the film, but this has nothing to it, really. Neve Campbell isn't too bad, but she is just 'there'. The storyline is dull, it appears the writer was more bent on making a film of this style and embellishment and forgot to add anything else. Any meaning. Any class. Anything at all. Because like most ornaments, they are just hollow pointless objects, that are merely pretty to look at, much akin to the basis of this disastrous film.
Genuinely an hour and a half of time I could have spent better doing something much more exciting, like talking to 90 year old relatives on the phone about the weather.


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


user
"54" is a film based on the infamous "Studio 54" of the 1970s - the hangout for the social elite and party clubbers. In the film, Ryan Phillippe is the main character, based on an actual employee of Studio from 1977 - 1982.
The film's problem is that it's all glitter and style and no substance. It tries to be a really grimy and probing satire like "Boogie Nights" but ultimately comes across as an inferior wannabe. Mike Myers is given the thankless task of playing cocaine-snorting club owner Steve Rubell. It's only a slightly comedic role and if this was Myers' best attempts at sliding into drama like Lemmon and other comedic actors did in their time, it's a total failure.
"54" could have been insightful and interesting but instead it's just another dumb teen flick that isn't entertaining or even remotely engaging. View at your own peril.


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 waste! This movie could have really been something decent, but the writing, in particular, is crap, and the main characters are rather shallow and uninteresting. Mike Meyers was good, and the historical recreation of late 70s decadence was well crafted, but overall, this movie was a big waste of time. Instead, the movie to watch, that deals with similar themes and the same basic time frame, is the great BOOGIE NIGHTS.


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


user
Unfortunately this film, 54 was a pathetic attempt of the true story of 'Studio 54.' The only thing that was good about the picture was 'Mike Myers' who was a joy to watch. 'Neve Cambpell,' although her role was little was unfortunately bad. The bottom line is that this film lacked a good performance from the actors, except one and that the conversion of the true story was a desperate attempt for a good screenplay.


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


user
Me and my girlfriend went to see this movie as a "Premiere Surprise" that is we bought at ticket to the preview to a movie before it opened here in Denmark. We sat through the 1st hour or so and then we left! The point of the movie seemed to be simply to portray the era (and club 54), but it did so at the expence of character development, of which there was none, and plot of which there was little.
Seldom have I been so indifferent to the characters in a movie!
The music was good though. So if you like to hear some good music and get a fix of that 70ies mood I guess it is OK. But don't expect to get a plot of believable characters.



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


user
Unless you understand wretched excess this movie won't really mean much to you. An attempt was made to interject a bit of humanity into a cold and bleak period consumed by alcohol and drugs -- it doesn't work.
When Salma Hayak does her big disco number her voice is so obviously dubbed it is pathetic -- the producers could at least have gotten someone that sounded remotely like her.
The documentary that has been playing on television lately is far superior and gives a much truer view of that period of our history.
No one, with the exception of Mikey Myers, could be accused of acting; however, he does an incredible job.


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


user
I know no one cares, but I do. This film is historic for one reason. It is the unity of two heroes from two great seventies sci-fi films. Well, one is great, and one is quite bad. The great one is truly great, in fact it's the best. The bad one is truly bad, in fact it's the worst. Of course of the great I refer to "Star Wars" and it's star Mark Hamill, aka "Luke Skywalker", who is the hero of this film about a kid who gets his Vette swiped and then goes to Vegas (on a lead) and after a whole lot of adventures, eventually recovers it. (Since he's into fixing cars I guess you can call him "Lube Skywalker"). Along the way he meets a hooker with a heart of gold, and ends up facing off with a character played by Kim Milford, the hero from the seventies sci-fi cult film "Laserblast", which is, as I've hinted at earlier, the worst sci-fi film ever made. Milford plays the lead baddie whom Hamill must steal his car back from. I realize that no one cares about this meeting of two great sci-fi heroes, but I do. And I also must say that this is one of the best/worst movies of all time. Mark Hamill's acting needs the force, the plot needs extensive Jedi training, and the character of the hooker played by Annie Potts just might be the most annoying character of all time, ever, in any film I've ever seen. But it's a fun movie to watch on a weekend day, or a weekday night, late at night, very late. It's one of those films that meanders, looking for something but without quite finding it and yet, at the same time, it's entire purpose is, like free-form jazz, to simply exist as is. And it does. And what is, isn't that great, but you can't say it isn't entertaining, because for an hour and a half you might feel ripped off, but you won't feel cheated. So turn off your mind, relax, and enjoy this muddled gem without any expectations, and may the force be with you, always.


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


user
The summer of 1979, when this flick was a staple on that new movie medium called HBO, was Gas Line Summer & Iranian Hostage Crisis Summer. A change of mood was about to end low-budget, loner-on-a-mission car films, although "Smokey & the Bandit" kept need-for-speed flicks going as live-action Roadrunner cartoons for a few more years. "Corvette Summer" is as quirky as any earlier movie like "Vanishing Point" or "Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry," if lighter & sexier than most. Just-graduated, high-school automotive genius Kenneth (Hamill) hitchhikes to Vegas in pursuit of the car theft ring that ripped off his Shop Class masterpiece, a super-custom, right-hand-drive Vette. In the spiritual limbo of the I-15 desert (see "Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas") he gets into a custom van (yes, this was the tail end of the van craze, too) tricked out as a mobile bordello & driven by sassy, aspiring hooker Vanessa (Potts), on her way to Sin City to make her, well, whatever it is ambitious hookers make. VANessa, get it? Shy, innocent Kenneth is in way over his head in Vegas, with only his all-American resolve & his new friend to help him, although the hard-edged young call girl is predictably less world-wise than she first seems. Why, in the "I am Woman" age, Vanessa invested her talents, money & future in the world's oldest but least dignified profession over, say, college or even hairdressing, can be explained by young men who'd like to think that all women at least consider the joys of that career path. Remember the target audience, right? Hamill is a good choice for the whitebread Kenneth (the car doesn't even belong to him personally, but to his school), who won't be deterred from his goal by violence, money or even love--until he finds out why the car was really stolen. Potts acts with style & energy but Vanessa is too incredible for any but the most credulous testosterone machine to buy into. The bad guys are made surprisingly human, especially by the always-fine Brion James. But there's not much action & this isn't the kind of movie that can be carried by dialog, plot twists or Heavy Themes. You could always reach up, turn the TV dial & plug in your "Pong" console. The similar but meaner Chris Mitchum vehicle "Stingray," which appeared at about the same time, featured lamer acting but more skin, speed & mayhem. The best features of each film might have produced a Vette movie worth remembering. Thus the Trans Am was left to rule the box-office muscle car showroom. Another forgotten car movie brought back from the dead by "Speed Channel's" fine weekend series, Lost Drive-in.


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


user
Annie Potts is the only highlight in this truly dull film. Mark Hamill plays a teenager who is really really really upset that someone stole the Corvette he and his classmates turned into a hotrod (quite possibly the ugliest looking car to be featured in a movie), and heads off to Las Vegas with Annie to track down the evil genius who has stolen his pride and joy.
I would have plucked out my eyes after watching this if it wasn't for the fun of watching Annie Potts in a very early role, and it's too bad for Hamill that he didn't take a few acting lessons from her. Danny Bonaduce also makes a goofy cameo.


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


user
This is a pretty bad movie. The plot is sentimental mush. I suppose the production values are OK, decent photography, unobtrusive direction and all that. Mark Hamill was terrible. I've never cared much for him, and this movie validates that perception. It's no wonder that he never really had any sort of career aside from his "Star Wars" films. I'll just say "Buh-bye, Mark" as he sinks into well-deserved obscurity. On the other hand, a very young Annie Potts utterly stole the show. She showed charm, beauty, and acting chops all in one performance. I remember seeing her in "Texasville" recently and taking note of her beauty. It's interesting seeing her from ten years earlier. Anyway, unless you are interested in Miss Potts, run away from this film screaming for the hills.


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


user
Mark Hamill should have felt mighty embarrassed with CORVETTE SUMMER! This time, he uses a new kind of "force" to regain the possession of his dream machine, a bright red 'Vette. It looks like another sour teen-age flick the first half-hour and does a U-turn in heading for the wrong direction. The writing and directing jobs are dreadfully done, with a few scenes you can't hardly take. You're expecting this to happen anyway, and you're also sniffing the smell of late-70s hodgepodge. Only a former newcomer like Annie Potts would easily steal the show and save this poor movie from the repo creeps! Her impractical but delightful personality holds on to your interest for good, and this is the finest chance to see her in a swimsuit. Hooray for Annie! Sorry, Mark! I guess the Force wasn't with you this time around.


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


user
(aka: TRINITY IS STILL MY NAME) This sequel looks like it was done to capitalize on the outstanding European box-office success of THEY CALL ME TRINITY, only this time Joseph E. Levine and Avco-Embassy pictures wanted to capitalize on it in America as well. Too bad they didn't get very far since the Hill/Spencer pictures have had only had marginal success here in the U.S., and this largely boring, drawn-out film doesn't help it out any.
Trinity and Bambino swear to their dying father (Harry Carey Jr.) that they will become successful outlaws and take care of each other. They later get involved with arms-traffickers who smuggle guns out of a monastery, and who mistakenly think they're a pair of federal agents. It all winds up falling flat in spite of a couple of funny scenes, especially the one where Trinity and Bambino are in a fancy French restaurant and don't know how to carry themselves. And the scenes with the card sharks was mildly humorous as well.
The opening title music sung by Gene Roman sounds like a fair Bobby Goldsboro-like early 70s pop song while the music cues sprinkled throughout the movie are pretty good. Not sure if I'd want to buy the CD soundtrack of it but some others might.
The film could have had a half hour whacked off of it and it wouldn't have dragged on for so long. It looks like a lot of scenery is being chewed up here. In fact, I lost interest in it about 2/3rds of the way through. The DVD is also terrible, with a constant hum in the soundtrack and a poor print that looks like it should have been sent to that great scrap heap in the sky.
A big step down from the previous film.
4 out of 10


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


user
I have seen this movie and the other one. Trinity is my name and i find that this one is worse then the first one. I have no idea why they even made another movie it was stupid and pointless sorry to say that i have all of them. I have sat through them number of times and it still drives me to turn it off 5 minutes into the movie. I like Terence Hill movies and i like Bud Spencer but this movie just drove me up the wall. If it had a different story line or at least more of a plot and more comedy it might have been funner and worth the 5 dollars i spent buying all the movies. But you make mistakes so i would say save your money and don't bye this movie or any of the ones that go with it trust me on this one.


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


user
I didn't see They Call Me Trinity, but this sequel is really unfunny at all. It has many gags that are supposed to make people laugh. I guess the filmmaker just don't have the talent to do it right. Wonder why it was so popular in the 70s.


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


user
Hollywood, the home of hype, glamor and the search for profits, is scarcely ruled by spiritual values, and so it comes as no surprise that its attempts at investigations of the spiritual life are thin and often silly (better to go farther afield--to the films of Bresson, Dreyer, Rossellini and Bergman, for probing depictions of the spirituality). "Strange Cargo" is no exception. This odd hybrid of adventure film, love story and religious parable trivializes the very insights it tries to communicate. That a figure of providence and salvation would work to match Verne (Clark Gable at his most cockily mannered and self-regarding) and Julie (Joan Crawford, snarling and spitting out every other word in an attempt to be the Queen of Tough Dames) seems ludicrous at best. Is this the Patron Saint of the Star System at work, matching warring egos before sending them off to further penal servitude on the M-G-M lot? BUT. . .there are good supporting performances here, and visually arresting moments: the shadowy prison barracks; the escaping boat by moonlight, or against a painterly cloudscape; Julie walking along the seafront as the wind whips up; Julie and Monsieur Pig (Peter Lorre) bargaining for Verne's freedom as the storm builds; an unusually ennobling gay prison romance between two convicts. . .Above all, there is Paul Lukas's dignified and detached performance as Hessler, a murderer who can appreciate Cambreau's virtues, yet turns his back on him. In the film's most arresting moment, Hessler, having left Cambreau, stands outside the cabin. We hear the wind through the jungle, see the shadows on his face, which conveys a moment of fear and self-doubt. Then he exits into the night. In this moment, Hessler achieves an ambiguity, depth and existential strength that none of the other characters manage to achieve. is the film's secret that its deepest sympathies are allied with Hessler?


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


user
This film is pure 'Hollywood hokum'. It is based upon a novel called 'Not Too Narrow  Not Too Deep' by Richard Sale, which may or may not have been interesting; it would take research to find out! The story in the film takes for granted many incidents and much background which obviously existed in the novel but are nowhere to be seen in the film, so either the film was savagely cut or the screenplay was a mess from the start. There is not one millisecond in this film which is remotely realistic, either in terms of events or characters. It is pure Hollywood fantasy in every respect. Two well-known actors, Paul Lukas and Peter Lorre, are so under-used and wasted that there was no point in their being in the film at all. They must have been thrown into the mix in the manner in which one adds a sprinkling of chopped chives to an omelette, hoping that the flavour will be enhanced. The film is a ponderous attempt at producing a 'morality tale', and is so corny that it is laughable. The story concerns some hardened criminals imprisoned in French Guiana who want to escape from their French colonial prison through a jungle (very much a Hollywood set jungle, with a rubber snake). Naturally there has to be a woman in the story, so Joan Crawford hams it up as a down-on-her-luck tramp who for some reason becomes irresistible to Clark Gable, one of the escaped criminals. Crawford in escaping through the jungle wears high-heeled shoes and keeps her makeup fresh. Gable flirts and grimaces and makes mawkish expressions, crinkling his brow as was his wont, smirking and looking suggestively at everybody, which was his manner of acting. It is hard to treat such a character as a hardened criminal when he is always trying so hard to be Clark Gable that surely he hasn't any time left to be a thief. (Attention-seekers are by definition too busy to steal and unsuited to a task which requires that people NOT see them.) The whole escapade is so ridiculous that it can only be regarded as light entertainment. An attempt at religiosity and 'depth' is made by injecting into the story a mysterious 'angel of mercy' who voluntarily walks into the prison and pretends to be an inmate. He helps in the escape and accompanies all the criminals and ministers to their various deaths, helping them to find 'peace' in their last gasps. This character is played very well by Ian Hunter, who retains throughout a convincing air of secret knowledge, smiles enigmatically, makes cryptic prophetic remarks, and has a small spot trained on his face to give him a heavenly glow. The theme is meant to be redemption. You might call it the Donald Duck version of 'Hollywood Goes Moral and Gets Heavy'. For real depth, Hitchcock's 'I Confess' of 1953 shows how it should really be done. By contrast, this piece of trivial nonsense shows just how bare the cupboards of Meaning were in Tinsel Town, and that when they went rummaging for something that might mean something, all they could come up with was, you guessed it, more tinsel.


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


user
Hollywood always had trouble coming to terms with a "religious picture." Strange Cargo proves to be no exception. Although utilizing the talents of a superb cast, and produced on a top budget, with suitably moody photography by Robert Planck, the movie fails dismally on the credibility score. Perhaps the reason is that the film seems so realistic that the sudden intrusion of fantasy elements upsets the viewer's involvement in the action and with the fate of the characters. I found it difficult to sit still through all the contrived metaphors, parallels and biblical references, and impossible to accept bathed-in-light Ian Hunter's smug know-it-all as a Christ figure. And the censors in Boston, Detroit and Providence at least agreed with me. The movie was banned. Few Boston/Detroit/Providence moviegoers, if any, complained or journeyed to other cities because it was obvious from the trailer that Gable and Crawford had somehow become involved in a "message picture." It flopped everywhere.
Oddly enough, the movie has enjoyed something of a revival on TV. A home atmosphere appears to make the movie's allegory more receptive to viewers. However, despite its growing reputation as a strange or unusual film, the plot of this Strange Cargo flows along predictable, heavily moralistic lines that will have no-one guessing how the principal characters will eventually come to terms with destiny.


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


user
I watched this with a growing sense of unease. Why would God, in the shape of Ian Hunter, help these particular people in their attempted escape from Devils Island ? And what was he doing there in the first place ? I mean, I know God works in mysterious ways, but helping thieves and murderers and prostitutes find redemption, forgiveness and changes-of-heart in such a godforsaken location.... In any event it is hardly a likeable movie. Whatever Gable had by way of charm is missing in this portrait of a thoroughly selfish man, Crawford is as endearing as ever she was i.e. to me, not at all, and the whole look of the film makes it seem as if it was made 10 years before.Compared to contemperaneous films like "Stagecoach" and "Mr. Deeds Goes to Town", this looks prehistoric.


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


user
Funny how many of the people who say this is far superior to Romero's version tend to be very young (judging by their other posts). What we have here is a slick, action packed, gory and "Whoopee" filled 2 hour MTV video. Frantic editing, pop-video camera work, "cool" music blah blah blah
Actually it ain't bad compared to other recent remakes (Chainsaw Massacre was a total disaster)... pretty good acting all round, totally predictable in the "who will die next" stakes and a total cash in on the Dawn Of The Dead name that will generate plenty of revenue alone by fans of the original who will go and see it out of curiosity...
Don't remakes of classics get on your nerves? Can they REALLY not come up with something original? Why remake Dawn Of The Dead? The things that made the original special (the middle segment kids think is so boring is supposed to be slow to show how when you get everything you ever wanted you still ain't happy) are totally missing. This is an action flick, plain and simple. The faster the better. If you are into action flicks (and as this, the 2004 version is well done) fair enough, but for anyone who likes a little substance to their films... get ready to sigh (again)...
Watch the cinemas over the next few years as we get The Godfather series remade by whoever the most fashionable Pop director is at the moment, and Star Wars remade, with all the kids saying how the new version is miles better cos the old version is slow and boring and holds a camera shot for more than 5 seconds...
Not bad, but in 10 years they will still be discussing the Romero version, not this pap


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


user
When I went and saw this movie, I had great expectations. But I had so wrong. This movie was exactly as every other horror movies. It's a virus, zombies etc. Exactly as Resident Evil and many, many other movies. But the difference with this, and other movies, is that the story is very week. It's bad actors and boring music. The photo is OK but the rest is total crap. Don't see this "horror" movie, go and see the Ring 2 or any other movie who's much more of a story. I hope they will stop making horror movies who has a virus and the virus spread and make people to zombies. We have seen enough of that. The only good thing in the movie is when they are standing at a roof and shoot famous, infected celebrities.


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 horrible movie. I cannot believe i wasted 90 mins of my life watching this re-make. Please tell me why Ving Rhames and Mehki Pfifer starred in this film? Mehki Pfifer is great in E.R and Ving Rhames probably didn't know what he was doing. I feel terrible for them. The music background i must say did not fit AT ALLLLL with the story and it's amazing how you can find these directors who have absolutely no lives in creating a well and balanced film. I hope that in the future no director as horrible as this one was, could ever distroy such a great classic film. This film should not have been made in the first place. An advice to everyone who has seen it, please tell me that i'm right because i couldn't possibly be the only viewer who did not enjoy it.
BOOOOOO!!!!!!!! -10 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
The plot is about a female nurse, named Anna, is caught in the middle of a world-wide chaos as flesh-eating zombies begin rising up and taking over the world and attacking the living. She escapes into the streets and is rescued by a black police officer. So far, so good! I usually enjoy horror movies, but this piece of film doesn't deserve to be called horror. It's not even thrilling, just ridiculous.Even "the Flintstones" or "Kukla, Fran and Ollie" will give you more excitement. It's like watching a bunch of bloodthirsty drunkards not being able to get into a shopping mall to by more liquor. The heroes who has locked themselves in, inside the shopping-mall to avoid being eaten by the hoodlums outside, are not better either. Even though they doesn't seem to be drunk, they give the impression of being mentally disabled. Save your money instead of spending it on this!


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


user
Just don't bother. I thought I would see a movie with great supspense and action.
But it grows boring and terribly predictable after the interesting start. In the middle of the film you have a little social drama and all tension is lost because it slows down the speed. Towards the end the it gets better but not really great. I think the director took this movie just too serious. In such a kind of a movie even if u don't care about the plot at least you want some nice action. I nearly dozed off in the middle/main part of it. Rating 3/10.
derboiler.


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


user
What the hell is this? Its one of the dumbest movies I've seen. I don't understand why people on this site love it so much. Its senseless &nudity for no reason. Its worst then Resident Evil. I strongly don't recomend it unless you want to watch chessy, bad acting crap. Watch real horor movies such as Stephen King's It, The Shining, Jurassic Park(kinda horor), JAWS, etc. Leave this crap for a rental when there is nothing else to rent. It is bad as Crudy vs Gayson. Attack of the Killer Tomatoes is better then this crap.
Oh wow flesh eating zombies. How many damn zobie movies do we need. SKip this one.
* outta ****


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


user
Worst. Movie. Ever.
What was the purpose of filming this remake (aside from turning it into a 90-minute informercial for the movie's soundtrack)? Zombies that *run*??? I guess the director never watched the original "Dead" films, which show stiff-limbed (from rigor mortis) creatures shuffling/shambling toward their living prey.
And how, exactly, did the survivors know which boat in the marina belonged to the recently departed Steve?
1/10


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


user
I was so eager to see this one of my favorite TV shows.I saw Universal trademark followed with a newly acquainted title and theme song which still impress me.Computer animation on some scenery like a solid title name"The Jetsons" or a dimension view of a spaceship approaching an amusement park and more made this version splendid and fantastic.Shortly after that till the end...I couldn't believe my eyes!!!!How lucky I was that I could forget all I had seen.Just songs by Tiffany and its theme song in new arrangement were in my head.Anyway,I wish to see this space-aged family (also The Flintstones and Yogi Bear) in all graphic computer design as Toy story or Bug's life.The best style for Hanna-Barbera's in my opinion.


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 all for the idea of a grand epic of the American Revolutionary War. This ain't it. (And for that matter, neither was the Emmerich/Devlin/Gibson THE PATRIOT. But I digress.)
I saw this film at a publicity screening at the old MGM Studios (now Sony) just before it came out. The audience had high expectations for this expensive period piece, written by veteran Robert Dillon, directed by the esteemed Hugh Hudson (of CHARIOTS OF FIRE fame), and starring Al Pacino.
But it didn't take long for people to start squirming in their seats, whispering derisive comments about Pacino's horribly misconceived accent -- he was supposed to be an American frontiersman of Scottish ancestry(!) -- and that of Nastassja Kinski, who was supposed to be recently emigrated from England(!!). Then the story started and it all went downhill fast.
Motivations were muddled, dialogue was atrocious, events had no historical or political context. What there was of a plot lurched forward on absurd coincidence; by the second or third time that alleged lovers Pacino and Kinski stumbled into each other it had become a bad joke. Donald Sutherland gave an unhinged performance as a British officer/pederast. His accent was all over the map too. I guess there weren't any English actors available.
Lots of people left. Those who stayed tried to stifle giggles, then openly guffawed. I stuck it out -- I figured that at least the battle scenes might be good. I was wrong. Inexplicably, Hudson chose to film them with hand-held cameras, not even Steadicam, the jerkiness giving a misplaced newsreel 'authenticity' which ruined the sense of scale.
There was a semi-famous TV reviewer in the audience a few rows ahead of me: (the late) Gary Franklin of Channel 7 Eyewitness News. I could tell he was peeved by the behavior of the rest of us. And sure enough, on his TV segment the next day he gave the film a '10' on his notorious 'Franklin Scale of 1 to 10', while remarking churlishly about the louts who'd disrupted the screening the night before, who clearly didn't know art when they saw it. What a buffoon.
After this disaster, Pacino didn't star in another film for almost 4 years. Hugh Hudson's career never recovered. You can't say I didn't warn you.


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


user
I can't figure Al Pacino out. I watch him in the Godfather, Scarface, Carlito's Way, and I think I am watching one of the greatest actors of the last thirty years. Then I see him in Two for the Money, Any Given Sunday and Revolution, and I wonder what the guy is thinking.
I stumbled on Revolution a few nights ago, and thought I would invest the next two hours on this. Here is a news flash: Want to get prisoners to talk? Force them to watch this over and over...they'll confess to anything.
I won't rehash the plot since there is no coherent plot, but it does take place during the American Revolution and Pacino plays an uneducated peasant who does not want to get involved, but ultimately does. While he has no money, no education and dresses like a caveman, a very hot Natasha Kinski falls in love with him for no apparent reason, since they have only two minutes of dialogue together.
Quite frankly, if "Al Smith" starred in this movie, instead of "Al Pacino", it would have ruined their career. The script was horrible, but Pacino's demotivated performance and obvious fake accent made it even worse. Donald Sutherland's role was laughable. I really can't describe it. Natasha Kinski is a main character, but has like 5 lines in the movie. In fact, nobody speaks much in this movie.
One of the most laughable premise in the movie is how Al Pacino and Kinski have this uncanny knack to continually run into each other on the battlefield. Its like the entire Northeast is a Starbucks. "Hey, funny to see you here again, on ANOTHER battlefield 100 miles away...see you in a few months".
I am required to give this one star by IMDb, since there is nothing here for a negative score.


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 promising: my favorite actor in a historical drama during the Independence war. It had memories from "Dances With Wolves" for the big prairies, Indians, military fights & from "Barry Lyndon" for the British & candles lights atmospheres...
Unfortunately, the script is awful: the continuity of the story is lacking (cuts with "5 months later"; "3 years later") & the romance is so ridiculous that it's hard to believe in it: America is a big country but the characters kept bumping at each other; Above all, wait for the ending & you understand how to kill a story (imagine the same in "Titanic").
Sometimes, a bad script is saved by a brilliant filmmaker. Unfortunately bis, Hudson is a poor one. He has already committed "Greystoke" and i find again the same flaws: no dynamic in scenes, in editing, in scoring: it is long, dull, flat....
I knew that this movie was a disaster for Pacino's career: now i understand. Finally, this last movie for 2006 is in the vein of this year for me: A painful one...


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


user
Revolution is a terrible movie, I don't care if you're a history teacher, news writer, Al Pacino fan, there's no way this movie can possibly earn a legitimate '10'.
The key point to the plot is Tom Dobb (Al) trying to get money from a note he got for radical patriots taking his boat. Everything revolves around that note. Tom's son joins the army to make up for the note, making Tom join the army as well, they go on an adventure trying to get out of the army, years later the war is over and they can finally turn in the note for their boat. The End.
It had a few battle scenes, and they were pretty mediocre at best. Transistions between scenes used "five months later" and magically put the characters in some famous historical battle. The love story is a joke, and the movie as a whole is just hard to follow. So save your "Notes" and watch the Patriot instead.


assistant
0