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
This movie bewilders me. It may be that I'm just a stupid American, but I really just don't get 400 Blows. Everything I've read about this movie has been a total rave, but I just couldn't stay interested. I'm sure that it was as revolutionary in film-making as all the critics say, but when it boils right down to it, it's just really really boring. Maybe it's the language barrier, may I'm just not "sensitive" or "artsy" enough, but whatever the case is, I hated this movie. The story itself isn't bad; it's about a young French boy who is treated unfairly by his parents and his teachers, and eventually he ends up in a juvenile facility. That in itself ought to be interesting, and it was, at first. There was nothing wrong with the dialogue, but then again it's hard to say because half of the conversations weren't subtitled and for no apparent reason, so I didn't always know what was going on. But for the dialogue we could understand, it made enough sense. The actors were believable enough, but it's hard to say what a real person would do in these situations. So you feel for the main character, but only in the sense that when he gets into trouble you think, well that sucks. The plot isn't even your typical plot. Each time he gets in trouble, he gets into more trouble than the last time, but the reasons never vary too much. And through the entire film you realize that there's nothing the main character can really do about it. So it's more like just waiting to see how it ends. The ending, by the way, was completely over my head. It's way too artsy for me, and I just didn't get it. Leading up to the end was easy enough to follow. The structure was certainly there, and it made sense as well, but everything was really drawn out. For the amount of dialogue and significant moments, the movie could have been an hour shorter. It just didn't end. Part of it was the unnecessarily long shots, none of which were especially memorable; for example, the ending was a clip of the main character running down a country road that lasted a good thirty seconds. Now, I'm sure that had some deeper meaning in it somewhere, but for the average viewer, I'd rather have gotten up to get some more food during that time. Or at least done something a little more useful than sit and watch this boy running, like doing my laundry, or taking a nap.
Final Verdict
The feeling throughout the whole movie was that this probably would be very moving and just amazing and that it would teach me some great life lesson, if I could only get what the director was trying to say by his unique decisions. As it was, I just felt cheated out of a good two hours of my life.


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


user
My title ought to be enough.
It baffles me that a culture so rich in literary excellence (Dumas, Flaubert, Balzac, Maupassant) would churn out such tosh as the "nouvelle vague" cinematic movement. Until the 20th century, France had a great tradition of artistic lucidity and clever philosophy. But the minute you hand them a movie camera they start acting like WOOOHOOO LOOK HOW WEIRD I CAN BE! PLOT? THEME? PSHAW! LET'S FILM AN AMUSEMENT PARK RIDE GOING ROUND & ROUND! At least this is not as bad as Godard (who has an unhealthy fascination with the backs of peoples' heads. Oh-la-la, quel artiste.). No, Truffaut maintains a degree of visual clarity. But so does the security camera at a quickie-mart. The two are indistinguishable.
Haha, just as an aside to all you dweeby film school nerds: I bet the vein is popping out the side of your neck right now. But don't leave without reading the last sentence of my review.
Anyway, if you like French literature, you will HATE this. People who like this movie probably have never read any books other than the ramblings of Jack Kerouac or maybe "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy". Or maybe they have read the lyrics to The Doors songs, and they think that's profoundly moving. Whatever floats yer boat. I find it ironic that this film injects some (weak) allusions to Balzac, one of the finest and most meaningful writers who ever lived. Nice try, Truffles. But you're nowhere near the ballpark.
Avoid this film like an aids-infected syringe.
If you're the type of person who likes to think, then stick to Jean Cocteau (ORPHEE), Robert Bresson (PICKPOCKET) and the Japanese masters Kurosawa (IKURU), Kobayashi (KAIDAN) and Teshigahara (SUNA NO ONNA).
If you're an idiot, enjoy your Truffaut, Godard, and Andy Worhol. And for pete's sake push that vein back in your neck. You look like a cabbage.


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


user
Have you ever seen a movie made up entirely of long wide shots? No? Me, neither. Well, I've finally seen one in "Spring in my Hometown," and I must confess, now I KNOW why people don't do this. The technique is "arty," to be sure, but it's definitely NOT ripe for public consumption. The technique is heavily flawed simply because the viewer has no emotional attachment to the characters, and perhaps that might be the director's whole intentions. I don't know, I can't read minds, and I certainly don't know enough about the director to make a judgement.
But one thing about this movie that IS painfully obvious is its ridiculous anti-American sentiments. As an American, I'm well aware of my country's participation in the Korean War, and I'm very well aware that we weren't always angels, but I'll be damn if I'll take this guy's version of how things happened. According to this blind fool, Americans were not only at the root of the war, we were the CAUSE of the war, and we almost singlehandedly destroyed the country. Whatever, Mister Director. And I suppose you'd still be making this film in COMMUNIST KOREA if we hadn't interfered, right? Talk about forgetting your history. This is almost akin to making the Nazis the "good guys" while turning the Allied forces into the "bad guys." This movie is so historically naive and so factually inaccurate that it's almost embarrassing to watch. For a man who comes from a country that owes its very EXISTENCE to American interference, he sure comes off as high and mighty and judgemental.


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 the sort of person who went down to the local library and read books on Babbage's difference engine whilst my schoolmates were playing football etc.. So, if there is any such thing as a target audience for this film, then I guess I'd probably be included in that.
Maybe I just need to watch it again. A previous reviewer mentioned not to watch this film whilst being tired. Maybe that was my mistake.
I tried my best to enjoy this film, and there are aspects of it that I do like, but overall I found it amateurish and quite plodding.
Being somewhat of a self confessed computer nerd, I just can't help but pick up on the exact time frame when the movie was actually made, and how the employed graphics reflect that time (i.e. 1997). Having played games of the era c.f. "Mind Grind" to cite one example, this film cannot escape that 16-bit colour low res multimedia explosion of that time. Now thankfully this has somewhat lessened in more recent years in the gaming world at least, in favour of actual game play.
Having to resort to watching this movie via a German FTA satellite channel (as I don't think it's ever been aired on UK FTA TV, well not recently anyway), I was mildly amused to see the end credits note Gottdog (God dog) had 4 people working on it's design. Maybe it's mean spirited of me to be amused by this, given that ten years have elapsed since the movie was made, nevertheless the end result makes movie graphics from the eighties look good by comparison.
But, as for the main story, I agree that the format isn't the best idea. Like others I agree that Ada deserves a film without the sci-fi angle, and a more straightforward biographical approach would perhaps be better suited to covering the life story of this remarkable lady.
There are fundamental mistakes that undermine my enjoyment of this movie. First of all the underlying idea that somehow lost real-world information from the past can be accurately reconstructed through some sort of extrapolation via software based intelligent agents, seems somehow ludicrous.
Also, the theme running through the movie that a computing device can indeed predict the mechanics of all things through the course of time (e.g. the winds) is now known not to be the case.
OK, so the Victorians may have held this view, but the 20th century works of Gödel proving that no mathematical system can be complete, Turing's works on the limits of computability, not to mention chaos theory and quantum mechanics, have all completely undermined these ideas, which seem central to how the modern day researcher's software is supposed to work.
Finally, the clicking of the mouse in the air to mean "programming" is also just plain wrong, as previously mentioned.
This film maybe could have been OK, but at least some technical and scientific consultation would have given the film some much needed credit in the believability stakes.
I won't forget the film though, as like "Pi", it is clearly a unique work, but with too many fatal mistakes for me to truly enjoy it, 3/10 from me.


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


user
Expecting a combination of scifi and period film about Ada Lovelace, Charles Babbage, the history of computers, etc, I was disappointed by this movies nonsensical pseudoscience and mixture of real and fabulous history. It gives the impression that its writer (Lynn Hershman-Leeson) has no real understanding of the Math, technology, or history constituting the film's subject, but is working instead from a sort of fuzzy artistic impression of them. This hits a sore spot with me, as I've long been irritated by the tendency of the arts to glom onto and awfully misuse science terms and ideas to the point of confusion, eg: Emmy Coer: "information waves have a half-life", Ada: "I'm not at all certain that half a life is better than no life at all".
This movie does worse than fail to entertain - it misinforms. The only redeeming value I can imagine for it is that it might attract a viewer to learn about the subject it so badly distorts. It's more likely, I think, to promote a superstitious perception of science and technology of any degree of advancement as indistinguishable from magic.


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


user
Many days after seeing Conceiving Ada, I am still in awe that any group of people would spend so much time to make such an atrocious film.
No one ought see this film in hopes of learning anything of consequence about Ada Lovelock, her colleagues or the product of her endeavors.
Likewise, no one ought to see this film in hopes of being entertained.
As a sci-fi film, this would unquestionably be a horrendous failure. Somehow, the main character manages to bring the past to life and interact with it on her personal computer--with the advice and encouraging words of Timothy Leary. I doubt anyone could suspend their disbelief enough to keep this from seeming absolutely absurd.
As a drama film, this would unquestionably be a horrendous failure. Somehow, the writer/director manages to fill eighty-five minutes with constant, unnecessary, annoying and trivial drama over essentially nothing. I doubt that anyone could feel that all the drama in the film serves only as an irritating distraction.
I find it difficult to fully express my degree of contempt for Conceiving Ada. The circumstances under which I saw it forbid me from leaving the theater but there is no question that I would have otherwise. I am still angry that I wasted the time that it took to see it. Only that I might more effectively criticize this movie, I wish that I were more articulate.


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 make it through the opening credits, this may be your type of movie. From the first screen image of a woman holding her hands up to her face with white sheets blowing in the background one recalls a pretentious perfume commercial. It's all downhill from there.
The lead actress is basically a block of wood who uses her computer to reach into the past, and reconstruct the memories of photographs, to talk history's overlooked genius, Ada, who conceived the first computer language in the 1800s.
The low budget graphics would be forgivable if they were interesting, or even somewhat integral to the script.
Poor Tilda Swinton is wasted.


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


user
Despite some occasionally original touches, like the "virtual sets" that provide the background for the Victorian interiors featuring Ada Lovelace and her circle, this film falls short and ultimately disappoints. Newcomer Francesca Faridany seems talented, but is wasted as Emmy, a character who by mid-film is reduced to nothing more than staring at a monitor watching Lady Ada narrate an autobiography. 'Conceiving Ada' takes off briefly when Lady Ada (Tilda Swinton) appears; the camera lingers on her facial expressions, mannerisms, even making her appear to be translucent or momentarily invisible, apporting into scenes to dramatize Emmy's "virtual" rendering of her.
A straightforward biopic of Ada Lovelace would have been worthwhile, but this film unfortunately makes a hash of both Lady Ada's life, and that of a modern-day computer scientist (and her broadly-drawn, doltish boyfriend).


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


user
This was a nice attempt at something but it is too pretentious and boring to rise above it's low budget trappings. The use of virtual sets almost works but at some points it fails miserably. They made good use of the small budget I guess. I just wish the story and most of the acting was better. There are a lot of parts where you see what they were aiming for and it would of been great if they actually hit those marks but they don't. Confusing and unbelievable story. Bad DVD transfer too. It doesn't take much for me to watch a movie in one sitting. This I had to shut off. It was too boring. I can do slow movies. But just make them appealing in some aspect. Visually, story-wise, acting, etc. This was lacking in all departments so it never added up to an engrossing experience. Maybe the film maker's next attempt will be better.


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


user
Yes, In 35 years of film going I have finally viewed the stinker that surpasses all other ghastly movies I have seen. Beating 'Good Will Hunting' Baise Moi' and 'Flirt' for sheer awfulness. This is pretentious blige of the first order... not even entertaining pretentious bilge. The effects are cheap, and worse - pointless.
The script seems to have been written by a first year film student who doesn't get out much but wants to appear full of portent! The acting is simply undescribably bad - Tilda Swinton caps a career filled with vacuous woodeness with a performance which veers neurotically between comotose and laughable 'intensity'. Apparently, some fool out there has allowed the director of this film to make another one... be warned


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


user
Encompassing virtual reality, the potential of computers, communication with the past, the ongoing struggle to express your identity in a constraining society, and the fascinating Ada Byron Lovelace portrayed by the fascinating Tilda Swinton, this film should have been great. But it is lousy, terrible if you consider the potential! The acting - aside from Tilda Swinton and Karen Black - veers from tolerable to atrocious. The plot construction is awkward to say the least - the modern day programmer is a dull one-note character, but half the movie is spent setting up her character, and then when Ada finally appears, it is to narrate the events of her life, not to present an engaging story (Swinton almost pulls this off, though). You never fully get to know her as a real person, just an icon from a grad student's history paper.
The digital effects, such as a digital dog and bird, are lousy and distracting, considering it was 1997 and not 1985. And, finally, the script is just bad. Bad, often pretentious dialog - especially the fights between the programmer and her boyfriend, which made me squirm - cold and distant characters, and zero attempt to create a sense of wonder. The programmer successfully contacts a person in the past! Astonishing! But it hardly seems to surprise anyone, and her boyfriend says, "Well, be careful." (Although we're given no clue then or later why it might be dangerous, and it never seems to actually be dangerous.)
Also, despite being about computers and Ada Lovelace and her love of mathematics, it is clear no one involved with the script had any knowledge of mathematics OR computers - any references to these subjects come across as complete mumbo jumbo that defies any suspension of disbelief.
One scene, towards the end of the movie, is quite good, a monolog by Tilda Swinton expressing her sadness at the fragility of life but her joy in that life. Poignant, passionate, and insightful, it seems to be dropped in from another movie.
So I am disappointed in this movie, because it is a missed opportunity for a fascinating little cult film. If you find the subject matter interesting, you might want to rent it, but be forewarned. See Orlando for another, much much better examination of gender roles in history with a great Tilda Swinton performance.
***spoiler/question: * *
At the end of the movie, Ada asks that her memories not be preserved (in what I thought was the best scene in the movie). But then the modern day programmer seems to do it anyway, transferring the memories into her little girl (hence the title of the movie). Am I correct, that the programmer violated Ada's wishes without even struggling over it? Or is this another confusing plot point that I'm misinterpreting?


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


user
I haven't seen anything this bad since I walked out of the James Bond movie "Moonraker" twenty years ago. I managed to sit through the entirety of this one only because of Tilda Swinton, but there was nothing she could do to save this beast.
As a cross between "Pi", "Orlando", and "Tron", this movie failed miserably in every aspect of moviemaking. The characters were cardboard and unable to evoke any kind of sympathy. The plot was wholly unbelievable. The acting was, with the exception of Swinton, amateur. The computer graphics were worse than in "Tron." Timothy Leary was extremely annoying. I could go on, but what's the point.
The only good thing I can say about this film is that Tilda Swinton was in it. I have no idea why an actress of her caliber consented to appear in such a dud, but she most likely regrets it now.
Don't waste your money or your time on this stinker. There's nothing worth seeing here.


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 believe anyone thought there was anything original or interesting about this movie. I'm a fan of science fiction as much as the next guy, and I can enjoy even old movies with ridiculous premises as long when they are written by someone other than a monkey. (See, for example, my glowing review of Altered States [1980].)
A monkey could have explained better exactly why I should for a second take seriously the basic idea behind this movie. The problem is not that the producers had a low budget--it's that they didn't care.
Now, to publicly humiliate the worthless magazines whose glowing reviews appear on the box:
Chicago Tribune
San Francisco Chronicle
San Francisco Bay Guardian
(Actually, I enjoy reading the latter two. Still, their movie reviewing credibility has gone through the floor. But I know if I ever make a movie with handheld camera, a cheesy plot and stupid effects, I'll show it to these journalists and remind them what they said about Conceiving Ada.)


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


user
From the awful death scenes to guns that fire without making sounds to a character called the Fiend. It's all tiresome, slow moving, unimaginative drivel. It was OK seeing the guy with the cape and the hunchback lurking around. Visually it was creepy and probably occupied the moviegoer of the time, but even in 1936 one would think that there would have been a little more imagination and verisimilitude to even a film like this. I just kept waiting for something to happen of any importance as people stood around making speeches and acting like they were posing at an office picnic. And then there are those bullets as a previous commentator mentioned. Perhaps the best clue would have been to search for a water spot on someone's pants pocket.


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


user
"A stage company cast finds themselves terrified when a bizarre killer known as 'The Fiend' targets them for death. A pair of reporters and their clumsy photographer set out to work the story of 'The Fiend' and find themselves targets as well. Just as you think our trio of heroes has the case solved, you're thrown another twist that has you wondering who the killer really is," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.
Taking "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" to Hollywood, producer Sam Katzman's lack of studio settings probably helps "A Face in the Fog" look interesting, especially toward the end (1930s traffic). The direction could be improved upon; for example, the camera angle on the fight scene is not helpful. The budget appears slight. Under the circumstances, most of the silent/talkie crossover cast perform it amiably.
**** A Face in the Fog (2/1/36) Robert F. Hill ~ Lloyd Hughes, June Collyer, Al St. John


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


user
Some of my old friends suggested me to watch this movie but I got chance only recently. I had high hopes of seeing something interesting from Kamal Hans, what I saw was bunch of garbage camera angles mixed at high speed. I could not understand what was the message except demeaning Hinduism. I am more like many religion type but I felt Kamal Hasan is a man low character to have orchestrated this kind of thought. He could have made a horror movie than this crap. He tried to add Hollywood genre of viruses and god forbid he did not convert that guy into a mutant and ultimately going to go for world domination. This is a much befitting movie for a film school vs regular public. Shame on him for not holding up to the talent he has. Starting of story tried Chaos to borrow ideas from Butterfly effect, then in between little religious harmony at the cost of insulting Hinduism (Once again I insult Hinduism more but this movie has no equal and my insult is same for religion in general which may have made this movie intellectual one.)


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


user
The acting was horrible and they got both of the sports wrongggg.......not only did they get the figure skating rules wrong, but also they rules of GIRLS Ice Hockey. In GIRLS ice hockey you cannot check. You also don't BLOCK for someone. Not all they girls are disgusting gross mean and big. I play hockey and I'm only 4'11 and have been asked to go to schools like the one in the movie. Also not all hockey players hate figure skaters. A lot of current girls hockey players were once figure skaters themselves. Also we skate A LOT faster then the ones in the movie. I was embarrassed by the movie it gave people the idea that we suck.......although i must mention that it is difficult to transition between the sports because of the toe pick on the figure skates.....also some of those twirly moves KAtelin was doing on the ice you couldn't do in a regular hockey game. She basically tripped the person, which is illigal. Its also unrealistic that she would get a HOCKEY scholarship when she figure skates. That really made me angry that scholarship would normally be used to someone who could benefit the team.


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 say this is one of the best films I have ever seen. But then again, I can't say it's one of the worst I have ever seen.
OK, so it's basically a girl does skating, is good at it, wants to go to an expensive school, can't afford it and has to take a Hockey Scholarship. She has to hide her skating secret from her friends.
Personally, I didn't like the actress playing Katelin. She absolutely couldn't cry to save her life, just made wailing sounds, like a toddler pretending to cry to get it's own way.
Katelin was just an annoying person. The way she tried to act all nice and helpful to people. Also the part where the two skaters are calling her names and they say something about her choreographer and she says she 'draws the line' made me cringe.
We all knew where it was going to go with her and Spencer. Classically they didn't like each other and sort of get together at the end was just typical.
Overall, I think this is a movie to watch if you like skating but if you don't mind the main skater being extremely annoying. It's good to kill time basically.


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


user
Okay, when I came on the board for this movie, I was really expecting people to be making fun of it. I was surprised to see that people over the age of 7 liked it. I enjoyed the movie... but only b/c me and my little sister (who is, in fact only 10) made fun of the whole thing.
I am sorry Jordan, but that acting was awful. You know a movie is headed for the toilet when the lead cannot act. And it didn't even have a good script or plot to redeem it. I also thought that the character of Pamela was very very lame... border-lining pathetic.
Even with that being said, I thought there were a few good actors, such as gorgeous Spencer, Hollywood, and Ronnie. Still, not enough to redeem the movie.
Two things about this movie that I just can't get over:
1.) That that Spencer guy would fall for her. Okay, eww. I looked up the dates and while in reality, he is only about four years older than her, the difference in "Go Figure" seemed much larger. Jordan is a very pretty girl, but in GF, she seemed like 10 or 12... she seemed like a little kid! Jake Abel (Spencer) seemed like a college student.
2.) That there is any way that Kristi Yamaguchi would come just to skate for one girl. I mean, I know that Katelin is good and everything, but it still just seemed kinda unlikely that Kristi would go to a boarding school that didn't even have scholarships for skating, or that a school would have employed a skating coach with such connections.
That all being said... it wasn't the worst movie ever known, but it wasn't very good even by DCOM standards, which I consider quite low.


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 the biggest waste of my life ever. The acting was pathetic. Jordan Hinson could not show any upset emotions. At the beginning of the movie, she was supposed to be discouraged. Instead, she bobbed her head with her bottom lip stuck out. She sobbed pitifully without any tears for the crying scene. I was almost angry that out of all girls who wanted to be actresses, they had to pluck out her. Everyone else was suffering from over-acting as well. It was flat out annoying. It was also an insult to figure skaters. Jordan took a month to train, and they cast her as a person who makes the Olympic team. It's practically spitting on the effort real figure skaters put into their work. A pitiful excuse for a movie, and a pitiful attempt to associate hockey and skating. Don't waste your life. It doesn't even deserve one star.


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


user
I personally hated this movie because it was predictable, the characters were stereotypical ,and the whole idea was a rip off of "The Cutting Edge", and "Cadet Kelly".
The main character is a snotty girl who gets shipped of to a place where she doesn't belong. The whole place hates her, and to make things worse there is a hot guy that seemingly doesn't like her ( well duh the whole damn school can't stand you). Amazingly she finds a way to fit in and make everyone to like her plus, gets the guy to fall head over heels in love with her. Then comes the choice, where she must choose between figure skating and hockey. She chooses hockey then she goes to the figure skating nationals,and gets to be on the Olympic team. No real surprise there.
This whole movie was so damn predictable You knew what was going to happen before you even saw it. This was so awful I nearly puked, and by the time I was finished watching it, I had an awful headache and the urge to shoot myself for watching such crap. Don't watch this unless you are under ten, or actually like crappy tween movies.


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 a horrible excuse for...a movie. first of all, the casting could have been better; Katelyn the main character looked nothing like her TV mom.
also, the plot was pathedic. it was extremely cliché and predictable. the ending was very disappointing and cheesy. (but thats all i'll say about that).
the nail in the bag though, was a scene when Katelyn (jordan hinson) was supposed to be crying, but the girl couldn't cry on command! there were no tears streaming down her face, just a few unbelievable sobs. she is not a dynamic actress at all. she gave the same fake little laugh identical to that of hillary duff on lizzie Maguire (sp?). thats when the movie went from not-so-good, to just plain bad. it really looked like she was acting.
in a nutshell: this movie was really bad! it was kind of a mix of every cliché kid movie from the 1990's that everyone's sick of--only worse!
i give it an 'F', because it was just so darn hard to sit through (b/t/w, i was babysitting when i saw it).
however, you may like it if your 9 or under. ;)


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


user
(NOTE: I thought I'd be the only one writing what I did below, but I see the others here agree. I guess it was pretty obvious - this was overdoing the bait-the-cat bit. Anyway, here is what I had written:)
The owners have left on vacation for two weeks - a trip to California - leaving the cat (Sylvester) all alone and locked in the house. That means no milk, but the cat, to his relief, does find a bunch of canned tuna. However, to his dismay, he can't find the opener.
It turns out the little mouse in the house has it...and baits the cat with it. This is a mean rodent who keeps teasing Sylvester with the opener and then yanking it away at the last second. Sylvester tries everything possible to open the can of tuna but can't do it.
This is a frustrating story, and why they make the sadistic mouse the "good guy" is beyond me. It's like some of the Tom & Jerry cartoons where poor Tom always gets the worst of it even though many times the little mouse starts the conflict!


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


user
The opening scenes move as fluidly as frozen velveeta. The attempt at dramatic dialogue only makes me wish I had better control of the fast forward control. Vampires are usually portrayed as sexy and intelligent or mangy disgusting creatures. This vampire tries to seduce his prey by imitating a lost puppy. I usually tally a body count, so there was a cat (which doesn't count) a bum, a girl who fell out of the sky with a sword in her (whatever that was about) and then the plot. Foley artists are respected for using celery to create the sound of a broken arm, but using the sound of biting into an apple for a vampire biting a victim is just plain silly. I liked Warlock, but this movie just stunk so bad that we turned it off, and it was so forgettable we rented it a year later only to turn it off again.


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


user
I love Julian Sands and will at least attempt to watch anything he's in, but this movie nearly did me in. I'm hard pressed to remember when I found any other movie to move....so......slow.........ly.....zzzzzzzzzzzz
Pop it in the VCR when you've run out of sleeping pills.


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


user
The movie opens upon Julian Sands, lying on his back, a black kitten drooling blood into his awaiting mouth from where he holds it, about two feet above him. That was so provocative, and I thought, "Here we go! A good vampire movie!"
And then it died. That was literally the only scene which captured any part of the imagination. It was slow, uneventful drivel thereafter. I was vastly disappointed, as my previous experience with Sands' acting was quite enjoyable. However, this attempt was obviously misdirected and the screenplay left a lot to be desired.
Even Julian Sands's questionable performance could not begin to save this already sunken barge of a movie.
It rates a 1.1/10 from...
the Fiend :.


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


user
This is the movie that I use to judge all other bad movies, and so far there hasn't been anything close.
The only good thing I can say is that after watching this I know that I have seen the worst movie I will ever see.


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


user
I watch lots of scary movies (or at least they try to be) and this has to be the worst if not 2nd worst movie I have ever had to make myself try to sit through. I never knew the depths of Masacism until I rented this piece of moldy cheese covered in a used latex contraceptive. I am a fan of Julian Sans, but this is worse than I would hope for him.
On the other hand the story was promising and I was intrigued...for the first minute and a half while the credits rolled and I had yet to see what pain looked like first hand. Perhaps there are some viewers out there that enjoyed this and can point me in the right direction, but then again I know of those viewers who understand if not commemorate me, especially when we had to turn the video off, and that simply is NOT done with our watching (we had to make one exception obviously).
If it were up for a remake, I'd give it a chance so long as they had at most 1% of the original incorporated into it. That's all.


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


user
"Kids Like These" could have been a decent film, given the subject matter. But instead it has become a below-average, run-of-the-mill TV-movie of the week, with not much going for it. The acting is stale, the plot predictable and the direction non-existent. For a better movie on the same subject, try the excellent "Le Huitième Jour", a film that really cares about the people with Down-syndrome. In "Kids Like These" they are merely used as an excuse for weepy sentimentality. Pretty appalling. 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
"They Are Among Us" is poor science fiction at best. Mediocre acting bogs down this film. The plot holes are numerous. Aliens that somehow came to earth on a meteor and have been hiding among us for over 100 years, but need a plastic surgeon to make them appear human. In their alien form they supposedly have exo-skeletons (which is why they need the plastic surgery) but when you see them they have teeth and fingernails. The heroine's father "disappeared" after Project Blue Book closed, but was supposedly an F-16 pilot. And on and on. If you want to see an alien invasion movie, pick "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", and see how it is done right.


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


user
My friends and I rented this from Blockbuster because we saw Nana Visitor's name on the box. This movie is a travesty I hope she negates from her CV.
The "plot" was lose and flaccid, the acting was mostly dry and unbearable in some parts. The movie made no sense whatsoever. The rough plot of an alien parasite species that infects humans has been done many times by films with much better scripts than this, for example, invasion of the body-snatchers and The faculty.
If you ever have the misfortune to come across this movie, I suggest you burn it.
How it classes itself as a horror movie when there was no use of fear, suspense, gore, terror or any of the usual horror film techniques I don't know, however if you still find yourself wanting to watch this film I suggest you have a lot of sugar before hand, so you can find parts of it funny.


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


user
Words fail me.
And that isn't common.
Done properly this could have been great, funny spoof B-movie sci-fi, but sadly, it was not to be. Rarely in the field of drama have so many competent actors struggled so vainly with such a dogs-breakfast of a script. I can only endorse the previous reviewer's comments - go clean the bathroom. In fact do ANYTHING except watch this film.
Positives: Lucy Beeman's nose. Negatives: Everything else.
Most apposite line: "This isn't going anywhere".
If only every plastic surgeon could meet with such a fate.


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 believe how awful this movie turned out to be. I feel magnanimous even referring to it as a "movie". The acting was flat, the editing was terrible and the plot leaves many major questions unanswered. The premise was OK, if unoriginal: a small group of aliens is living in the US and trying to slowly take over humanity. But it goes rapidly downhill from there. How could they convince a "human" to accept an alien as his wife in order to make they alien-human hybrid they require? They show a larval alien but never show what it does. They have a plastic surgeon that can produce perfect looking skin on an industrial scale. They throw in the obligatory huge alien monster with teeth. The ending was almost too painful to watch. I suppose that I'm mostly disappointed that Bruce Boxlietner would have anything to do with this. How could he say to the huge alien monster with teeth, "Get away from him you son of a b*tch" with a straight face? It's a long fall from his Babylon 5 days. Avoid this at all costs.


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


user
I am very tolerant of really bad sci/fi and horror movies - I've been watching them since I was 4 or 5, so I've seen some really bad stuff, but I deal with it. I've even watched a lot of SciFi Channel movies so I know not to expect much - a usually promising movie that has no ending to speak of. Hope springs eternal, I guess - or the triumph of hope over experience, as they say. Unfortunately, this is a dog right from the beginning and I knew it, but like a moth to the flame, I kept thinking something, anything, interesting would happen. It doesn't. All of the actors give a decent performance - given the script, I don't know how they all kept straight faces. It has something to do with collagen-starved worm parasite creatures who are slowly taking over the human race, one body at a time. There's an evil plastic surgeon who collaborates with the enemy by giving them the outward appearance of humans...don't worry, he gets what's coming to him. The slug people themselves don't really know where they came from, they think they might have thumbed a ride on a meteor that landed on earth, but...somehow they know about the members of slug royalty among them - the slug princess has managed to breed with a human being who knows that she's the worm queen and loves her for her self...oh, must I go on? Please, I implore you, do not waste 2 hours of your life watching this...anything would be better...think of the worst, least enjoyable way you can spend two hours...it would be better than this.


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


user
No scenario, bad actors (poor Melissa Gilbert)... Beurk Beurk Beurk ...
Give a such budget to make this... In Belgium, we make ten films which win all prices in Cannes with this.
Last time that I've seen a such NULL-Film was Hypercube. But scenario was better.
Is anyone knows if the director was a graduate in school-film or a cop ?
The better things in this film was the word "End".
Why authorize to sell this ? 1ç is to expensive.
I've pay ten dollars to buy this.
For me, pay for this was my BIG MISTAKE of millennium.
Too bad.
Next time I'll break my arm but buy this type of sh*t.


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


user
"Bullfighter" was made in 2000 but it is being released on video 5 years later for some reason. I wonder why? Could it be: The confusing storyline, the incomprehensible dialogue said by Oliver Martinez, and the annoying editing? It's got to be. I think the plot was Mary (Michelle Forbes) and Jacque (Oliver Martinez) go on a mystical road trip. They meet a lot of wacky characters and avoid some evil ones too. The movie looks great and there is a lot of style, but there is no substance. Most movies, when trying to subtle, don't call attention to themselves with unanswered plot developments, and weak special effects.
Don't be fooled by the cover: Willem Dafoe is in it for 2 minutes at most.


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 know Willem Dafoe was so hard up for bucks that he'd disgrace himself with such shocking hamming in this monstrosity. Hell: I'll donate that money that I was going to send to Ethiopia if he's that desperate. I have never seen such a pathetic and disgusting film for a long time...who paid for this? They are either pulling some tax scam or insane. A 5-year old would be ashamed of the plot, and I'd rather get cancer than sit through more than the hour I suffered already. Everybody involved should be locked up for a year in the sodomy wing of a third world prison. Avoid at all costs. I'd give it minus 10 if possible...unbelievable.


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


user
I only rented this movie because of promises of William Dafoe, and Robert Rodriguez. I assumed that upon seeing RR's name on the cover (as an actor) that this movie would be good. It sounds like a movie that Rodriguez would of made so if He's going to lend his name to it, than it has to be good right? WRONG WRONG WRONG. By far the worst editing since "Manos Hands of fate". The way it was edited made no sense and made the movie impossible to follow and after the first 30 minutes you wont even want to try to follow it anymore. I have no idea how Dafoe and Rodriguez got involved in this film, maybe they owed somebody, but they are way to good for this. Besides they were only in this movie for a couple minutes apiece and Rodriguez didn't even talk. So if you wanna see a movie with Poor editing, poor acting, and confusing storyline than be my guest but don't say you weren't warned.


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


user
Some very interesting camera work and a story with much potential. But it never comes together as anything more than a student's graduate thesis in film school.
There are two primary reasons for this. Fist, there is not a single likable character, not even a villain we might admire for his/her chutzpah. Secondly, all the acting is awful - even from veteran Willem DaFoe. The ham is so plentiful here, you feel like you're at a picnic - but one of those wretched company employee picnics where you drink too much cheap beer and get your hangover before you even stop drinking. Then you eat an underdone hotdog and throw up.
All right, I'm being a little rough on a young director who might still go places - as I said, the camera work is quite good.
But I feel cheated - the blurb for this film suggests we will get to watch a "Modern western", and the DVD packaging has pictures on it that suggest this as well - but nobody actually connected to the film's making seems to know that this is the kind of film they're supposed to be making.
That betrayal is what hurts; but even without it, the fact remains that we don't like these characters, we feel embarrassed for the actors, the story is hopelessly muddled, and in the last analysis, we just don't care.
I took it out of the DVD player about half way through. but the rental store wouldn't give me my money back.
Now, that really hurts.


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


user
I bought this movie last weekend at my local Movie Gallery. It was buy 2 get 2 free and I needed one more so I chose this one. Horrible mistake. The box reads like it would be a really good movie. Well, it starts out like it is going to be this great movie. For about 5 minutes, that is. The movie is about a young woman, Laila, who gets killed trying to save her beau, Jack, from a bull. Laila's dad, Cordobes, is a rancher that the townspeople are afraid of. He assumes that Jack killed Laila because she was supposedly afraid of this bull, and goes on this hunt to find him. That was the first 5 minutes that is good. What follows after that is only gonna get 100 times worse. Whoever wrote the script, in my opinion, had to of been on some kind acid trip or something because nothing else made any sense what so ever. Jack is on the run and finds this traveling radio DJ named Mary who gives him a ride. I think Mary is supposed to be a virgin Mary type character. You know, Jesus' mother. But, who knows, I couldn't make heads or tails of it. As they're running... we get to see bad guys, magical visions, ghostly encounters, flashbacks, etc... And all these things are done in such a way that your brain hurts from trying to figure out what's going on. Needless to say, I took the movie back and exchanged it for something else. It's horrible I tell ya, horrible. And, there is absolutely no bull-fighting in this movie. Unless you count the first minute of the movie. Hope I helped some other people keep from wasting their time on this movie.


assistant
0