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
Every so often a movie comes along that knocks me down a notch and reminds me that my taste in films I seek out to watch isn't always impeccable. I normally would stay away from stuff like this, but I was duped by some glowing reviews and the Rohmer pedigree.
There's an initial and intriguing novelty to the production where Rohmer essentially superimposes the actors onto painted (digital) back-drops of revolution era France. This quickly wanes and becomes about as interesting as watching the paint dry on a paint by numbers scene. What we're left with is a boring and stuffy film about aristocrats in 18th century France. None of the characters are appealing or sympathetic. The pace is so languid, the dialogue so arduous, and suspense is clearly a foreign concept to Rohmer, that I ended up not caring whose head rolled, who was harboring who, or what the devil the revolution was supposed to be about. The movie would've greatly benefited from some semblance of emotional build-up and a music score (there's some fine classical music used at the very end). Despite being so "talky", the film plays much like a silent film, and the worst kind of film at that, a dull and uninteresting film about infinitely interesting subjects. Only the most astute French historians will find anything to take from this film, as it dose seem to paint well known events from a new angle (the Lady is English and a royalist). Otherwise, avoid this yawner at all costs unless you are suffering from insomnia (I dozed off twice).


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 hardly believe that this inert, turgid and badly staged film is by a filmmaker whose other works I've quite enjoyed. The experience of enduring THE LADY AND THE DUKE (and no other word but "enduring" will do), left me in a vile mood, a condition relieved only by reading the IMDb user comment by ali-112. For not only has Rohmer attempted (with success) to make us see the world through the genre art of 18th century France but, as ali has pointed out, has shown (at the cost of alienating his audience) the effects of both class consciousness and the revolution it inspired through the eyes of a dislikably elitist woman of her times. The director has accomplished something undeniably difficult, but I question whether it was worth the effort it took for him to do so -- or for us to watch the dull results of his labor.


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


user
As a fan of Eric Rohmer's studies of the contemporary war between the sexes, I was very eager to see "The Lady and The Duke (L'Anglaise et le duc)" for how he would treat men and women during a real war, the French Revolution.
The film looks beautiful, with each scene designed as a period painting, like a tableaux vivant. And I expected much talking, as that's Rohmer's style. But maybe Rohmer was restrained by basing the screenplay on a real woman's writings is why this mostly felt like a docudrama version of "The Scarlet Pimpernel."
As awful as the excesses of Robespierre et al, how about some recognition that the French aristocrats were spoiled brats? I kept humming to myself: "Marat, we're poor/and the poor stay poor;" you could also pick a tune from "Les Miz."
I wasn't all that sympathetic as the central figure has to go back and forth between her city home and country manor to stay ahead of the Revolution. At one point her maid claims the pantry is bare but sure manages to lay out a fine repast. I simply didn't understand her, an English sympathizer who alternately rejects and defends her former lover and patron as he and the Revolution keep shifting political focus; I think I was supposed to sympathize with her consistency more than their political machinations, like a character out of "The Scarlet Pimpernel." Hey, the only reason she didn't go back home was her disgrace after an affair and child with the Prince of Wales or somebody.
Usually in a revolutionary period there's some groundswell of change going on in relations between men and women, but I saw none here. I once went to a Herbert Marcuse lecture that concluded with a lengthy Q & A; the last question, from an audience member far older than the rest of us acolytes, heck she had gray hair, was "Why are revolutionaries so grim?" She was hooted at and Marcuse didn't deign to respond to it seriously -- but it's the only thing of substance I remember from the whole evening. Rohmer demonstrates that counter-revolutionaries are also grim and didactic.
(originally written 8/11/2002)


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


user
As interesting as a sheet of cardboard, this dispensable period piece has little going for it. It's overly wordy and fails spectacularly to evoke the tension and fear that the real-life characters must have felt as they dodged the French Revolution's fickle hand of justice. Eric Rohmer at 82? It shows.


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


user
I really tried to like this movie but in the end it just didn't work for me. I have seen most of Kitamura's output and have found it to be very variable. Alive, like all of his films has an interesting plot, some nifty sequences and a fair amount of creativity. However, these qualities are in painfully short supply in Alive. The plot is cool if not all that original and could have made for a pretty ace film. Unfortunately, the pacing is painfully slow and the film takes an age to get going, before reaching fairly predictable places. The action is just about passable, with the final fight pretty cool, and the earlier one about OK. The earlier one is also marred by overspeedy camera-work, making for less coherency. There are some neat visual effects and some interesting ideas floating around in the dialogue but the film still drags badly. The characters are neither well fleshed out nor well acted and the setting and general color scheme is drab and boring. The film is not completely terrible and has some points of interest, perhaps judicious use of the fast forward button could improve it. With about twenty minutes taken off the run time this could be a pretty decent sci fi thriller. But the full length film is dull. Only recommended to very patient and determined Kitumura fans.


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


user
Having seen Versus previously I had high hopes for Alive. The description of the movie on the back of the DVD jacket sounded promising. Alive did not deliver. VERY slow development. Loads of potential with the cast and the cool visuals. The premise was intriguing but the payoff did not offset the build up. Could have done so much more at the end. Most of the movie is just " sitting around ". To put it plainly, three of us were amped to sit down and watch this movie and by the 50 minute mark we were struggling to make it thru to the end. It really needed more shock elements. If you are looking for Ichi the Killer or Versus type fights then save yourself some $ and loads of disappointment.


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


user
I'll keep this short, as I know I don't need to say much.
"Alive" is a strange little film that obviously appeals to some, but I found it to be shockingly bland from almost the very beginning. The film did very little to make any of the characters likable and the story at times became so convoluted that I completely lost interest. As I said, I know others enjoyed it, but I found Kitamura's "Alive" to be anything but - a lame, extremely boring drama disguised as a thought-provoking action sci-fi flick. I felt like I was suckered into watching this film, based by its intriguing premise and uber-exciting cover art.
My suggestion? Pass it up for Kitamura's far more enjoyable freshman effort "Versus" or his 2004 riot "Godzilla: Final Wars".
...And don't get me wrong, I'm always up for a good thinking man's film, but this certainly wasn't it. There was nary a moment that I actually cared about a single event taking place in this overly-preachy, dialogue-heavy movie.
If you wanna talk about something... talk about boring.


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


user
I don't know where to begin, so I'll begin with a snippet from the back of the cover of this movie. "Alive combines the tension of Vincenzo Natali's Cube with Kitamura's own Versus." I have not seen Versus, so I can't comment on that, but I think Cube was an excellent movie which I recommend to everyone. However, in this case someone has clearly confused "tension" with "boredom".
I'll just go ahead and spoil the entire plot, because besides being one holy Swiss cheese of a plot, it's also moldy cheese, and the movie is not worth spending any time on even if you don't know the plot beforehand, so it doesn't matter. If I have misunderstood the plot, don't hit me - it's probably because I had to struggle to keep my eyelids open.
So the American military in Nevada once lost a UFO i the Nambi desert. This apparently makes sense because they're both deserts so surely they're practically the same place. Different continents or not. A monkey broke into the UFO and acquired an alien something which was passed on to a Japanese researcher who had to eat the monkey to survive in the desert. What ever. The alien thing is now passed on to anyone who's "bloodthirsty" enough to kill the current host. The Japanese military wants to use it for military stuff, so they decide to make it pass from the current host (the researcher's daughter) to some other dude. But instead of just picking someone out of the military, which is full of people who are bloodthirsty AND already on the military's side, they decide that it's probably a good idea to pick some criminal out of death row instead. Oh, and the reason they pick this particular criminal from death row is because he was the first person in history to not die from the non-lethal electric shock which is the standard execution method, because everyone dies from the placebo effect when they get electrocuted. I don't know if they do this so they can giggle in the staff room at how everyone dies even though it's not deadly, or if they just want to cut down the electricity bill.
Then the movie turns into what The Matrix would have been if it had been really lame, and superfluous fighting bores us to tears for what feels like an hour. And oh wait, now they remember that they already had a dude who was infected with the alien thing, so the entire movie up to this point was actually a totally waste of time and also human lives. Then everyone dies. The end.
The only one moment in the movie where I didn't want to go away and sleep or eat a sandwich instead, was when a dude was pinned to a wall by a pipe through his chest, and he's hanging around up there and another dude walks by. The dude hanging on the wall says "I'm in pain, shoot me". And the living dude looks at him, and it's not like he's a mean dude or anything, so he really looks sorrowful and doesn't want the guy on the wall to suffer. So he shoots him.
(Rhetorical pause.)
In the stomach. "Gee THANKS A FREAKIN' HEAP."


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


user
Fashionably fragmented, yet infuriatingly half-realized character-study, an examination of the different personalities of two college roommates: a talented but undisciplined star basketball player, and a pot-smoking, womanizing rabble-rouser. We never learn why these young men are friends. They may share confusions about the world and their places in it, but they don't seem to have anything else in common. Making his directorial debut, Jack Nicholson--who also co-wrote the screenplay with Jeremy Larner, based upon Larner's book--doesn't introduce us to the characters with any clarity, nor he does shape the scenes to help us identify with anyone on the screen. There are some very decent performances here (particularly from newcomer William Tepper in the central role), but most of the picture is unformed (perhaps intentionally), sketchy or unsure. Bruce Dern plays the hard-driving basketball coach, Karen Black is the older, married lady Tepper is having an affair with, and Michael Margotta is Tepper's wayward friend (in an off-putting, over-the-top performance). Nicholson fails to set up the sequences with any particular flavor, preferring (I assume) to let the character interaction dominate the film's tone; his script is no help either, and as a result it is unclear whom we're supposed to sympathize with. Small, random moments do work (a supermarket fight between Tepper and Black, Dern visiting Tepper in his dorm-room, all of the scenes set on the court), however the entire third act of the picture is an excruciating mess. Hoping to juxtapose an all-important b-ball game with a sexual assault, Nicholson shows no style at his craft (nor does he earn points for chutzpah, as his staging of these events is squashy and ugly). When a director goes out of his way to humiliate his actors, one has to question his motives in doing so. Perhaps if "Drive, He Said" ultimately made some sort of powerful statement in the bargain, audiences could forgive the filmmaker for his lapses in judgment and taste. Unfortunately, the perplexing closer is as dumbfounding as much of the rest of the movie. *1/2 from ****


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


user
I went to see this movie at our college theater thirty years ago because I liked Bruce Dern in Silent Running and Family Plot. To this day (sorry Jack Nicholson), it is still the dullest movie I've ever seen. It just went on and on with no discernible point and then - it just ended. The lights came up and I watched everyone looking around in confusion. Had the projectionist missed a reel? I've never had the urge to find out. All I remember about the movie is that it was a non-drama about some annoying college basketball players and their coach. The most enjoyable part of the movie was watching the totally mystified audience afterwords. Fortunately, this was just an exception for Jack, Bruce, and Karen Black.


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


user
As a member of the cast, I was a member of the band at all the basketball games, I would like to let the world know after being in the movie, that we were not allowed to see it since it was banned in Oregon. This was due to the producers and the director breaking the contract with the University of Oregon where it was shot. Seems that the U of O sign was shown. While we were shooting, we were allowed to eat several meals with the cast and production staff. Mr Nicholson was quite memorable for being one of the most ill-mannered men I have ever met. Quite a time for a young 20 year old. BUt certainly not what campus life was really like in the late 60's and early 70's despite what Hollywood may think. Trombone player from Oregon


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


user
This has got to be one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It is (I think) a story of a rebellious college basketball player, his tough-but-fair coach, his girlfriend, and a fellow student (played by Michael Margotta) who has continual nervous breakdowns. The story goes nowhere, there is zero character development, there is nobody to care about, and the performances, with the exception of Bruce Dern as the coach, are terrible. It is hard to believe how a talent like Jack Nicholson could direct such an awful movie. Make sure to avoid this turkey.


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


user
Some movies are repellent but still fascinating (Pulp Fiction); others are simply boring. This movie has an almost unique feature of being both utterly repellent and totally boring. By the end I didn't care about any of the characters, I just wanted all of them dead so I could get out of the theatre.


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


user
Tenants Two writers struggle to complete their books in an all but empty apartment house. They at first help each other and then slowly the tension between them begins to build.
This is based upon a Bernard Malamud novel and unfortunately everyone speaks as though they are in that novel. Very little of the dialog is natural, its purple and brimming with shades of meaning. Its as if a college English major with a head full of pretensions wrote the script. It's awful and I found myself instantly immune to anything the film had to say, which is a shame since the film is populated with great performances from top to bottom. Snoop Dog on down are fine form, unfortunately none of them can over come the falseness of the words and the premise.
I can't really recommend this movie. While not really bad, its very preachy and pretentious to the point of making you want to walk away. I lost interest less then a third of the way in and had to struggle to get to the end. If you're interested I'd try it on cable, but I wouldn't lay out good money to see it.


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


user
I ended up watching The Tenants with my close friends who rented the movie solely based on Snoop Dogg's appearance (a passionate fetish of theirs) on the cover. Understandably, I did not expect much. I thought the movie would include the typical array of Snoop Dogg related behavior and imagery often seen in cliché rap videos. However, my generalization was for the most part wrong. Unfortunately, this didn't make the movie any better.
Most would describe the movie as a dark serious drama, whereas I would describe it as a dark seriously drawn out boring drama flick. The film tells a story of two struggling writers (Dylan McDermott and Snoop Dogg) who are trying to create their own separate masterpieces. Their polar opposite lifestyles end up forming an unlikely but highly complex and neurotic friendship. This friendship moves throughout the entire movie like a wild roller-coaster - most of which is contributed by Snoop's character - reminiscent of someone with a severe case of split personality disorder. And although the movie is a drama, the acting - which has a morbid and serious tone - from Snoop and company was more comical than anything else.
I wouldn't recommend this movie for those who are attention impaired because this one has a lot of dialogue and a lot more dialogue after that. There are some mediocre conflicts, but even they are mostly bogged down with more dialogue. The end, however, jumped at me with a sudden surprise. It was a little bit twisted, somewhat unexpected and a perfect way to wrap up a movie that needed to end. While watching the ending credits I couldn't help but picture the director thinking, "Oh God, how the hell do I end this snoozer." By the way, the director laid out carefully planted hints and subtleties leading to the climax - all of which are more visible than Waldo in a crowded street of midgets wearing nothing but black sweaters.


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


user
Watching The Tenants has been a interesting experience for me. It is the first film I have ever seen where I have shuttled at speed through parts of the (non)action - and I can normally watch anything from turgid action movies to Serbo-Croat indie and find them fascinating.
The Tenants is frustratingly sluggish and over-orchestrated. One of the main problems of the script is there is little realistic character dialogue, apart from the set pieces where characters 'collide' in a very structured setting (to make this work, the film needed to feel more conceptual, which it didn't). This leads to a lack of realistic character development; everyone seems two-dimensional.
The worse for this is the character of Bill Spear, aka Snoop Dogg. I found his characterization very uncomfortable and very unsympathetic. At one point, I even stopped the film because I got so annoyed by the character's aggressive, violent and monotonal delivery, the lack of any other personality layer apart from that of the reactionary "on" switch (which gets really predictable after a while) and I so desperately wanted him to have some redeeming qualities. However, one reason for this jar might be the nebulous time scape of the film (supposedly 70s, it feels and looks more early noughties). If it had been more securely fixed in the 70s, his character might have seemed more understandable.
The lighting of the film was also awkward. All the way through, the soundtrack attempts to provide a certain gritty, jazz-infused atmosphere that just did not come off, largely because the set was too well-lit.
The Tenants, to me, is an unbelievable film. It doesn't depict real people or propose any interesting ways of thinking about race, identity or the life of a writer, be they white or black.
Strangely, I came away with the feeling that this project needed David Lynch; his eerie, clastrophobic and obsessive look and feel would have lifted both the actors and the script into something quite remarkable.


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


user
never before has a film driven me to write a review but this was just dire.i stuck with it trying to find what it was about this film that made snoop pick it as his first serious role but frankly it was a poor choice.maybe this made a good book but it certainly did not work for me as a film.i found it unbelievable,lacking atmosphere and i found many of the scenes hideously stilted.a musical maestro he may be but a serious actor snoop ain't.the acting by Dylan mcdermott and rose byrne was passable but not enough to carry a weak plot with feeble dialogue. perhaps i have just entirely missed the point but to me it didn't fit into any genre,it didn't elicit any empathy with the characters nor did it create any suspense,in fact i found myself praying for the end and quelling a deep desire to slap all three of the main characters!


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


user
May (Anne Reid) and Toots (Peter Vaughan) are paying an apparently infrequent visit to their son Bobby (Steven Mackintosh) and his family in London. Even as the visit begins, Toots suffers a fatal heart attack, leaving May adrift, unsure, and questioning her life and future. Finding herself attracted to her daughter's boyfriend Darren (Daniel Craig), her actions lead to inevitable consequences.
Beautifully filmed, but for all its heralded realism and acclaim, The Mother offers a collection of mostly unpleasant, even repellent characters, and asks the viewer to engage with them. Reid shines as May, and it is her skill and commitment as a wonderfully understated actor that salvages the film from a completely depressing mire, but Michell and Kureishi have allowed Craig, Mackintosh and Cathryn Bradshaw to create such utterly obnoxious characters, that it becomes increasingly difficult to care what happens to May. As written, the characters played by Mackintosh and Bradshaw are in fact so utterly selfish and cold-hearted that one begins to wonder what exactly was Kureishi trying to say. As directed, they are either unwilling or unable to lift Bobby and Paula above the two dimensional in their ghastly selfishness.
Worth seeing for Reid's performance, but little else. A crying shame...


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


user
Disappointing and irritating. The screenwriter has no true understanding of human nature but instead strings together clichés in a disjointed fashion. Character is not explored in depth. These are puppets plunked down in a plot he openly confesses needed a dramatic element, the mother's affair with her daughter's lover.
Anne Reid gives an excellent performance in spite of being given some peculiar situations and lines, such standing passively to allow her angry daughter to slug her in the eye. The script portrays Darren (Daniel Craig) as a Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde without any hints about why, except that he snorts cocaine before the big scene.
A mature writer could have done so much more with this topic.


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


user
I understand what this movie was trying to portray. How the old are often ignored and treated like a bother, which means they end up feeling unappreciated and like their lives are empty.
I do not have a problem with this message, but I just feel that it could have been put across in a way that is not so painful to watch. I enjoy a good art movie but when a movie becomes too self-consciously arty (as in this case) the result is often frustrating. Including shots of a person packing a suitcase slowly that take 5 minutes try to make a point but just end up annoying the audience.
The female characters are very weak and you end up wanting to just tell them to pull it together. This is a movie you feel you should enjoy or rate highly and certainly has its' merits but I was just too frustrated watching it to ever recommend it to someone else. It might have a deeper message than other Roger Michell movies (for example: 'Notting Hill') but at least that was a movie you could enjoy watching.


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


user
After Life is a Miracle, I did not expect much. It's hard to believe that these films were made by the same man as Do You Remember Dolly Bell, for instance. Zavet is two hours of silly antics with no story. The wild and unbridled humor of Underground seems to have degenerated into pathetic buffoonery here. It appears that Kusturica has been going steadily downhill since he started making life-affirming comedies, beginning with Black Cat, White Cat, which I think was great, but already had some disturbing signs of dementia. I liked his early films so much, and this is why it's especially disappointing to see something like this. Let's hope his next one will be great.


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


user
This "movie" is more like a music video. Kusturica said in an interview from 2004 that when he is making movies, he feels like making music, and when he is making music, he feels like making movies. The best thing in "Promise me this" is the music, written by Stribor Kusturica.
Kusturica said in the same interview, that for him the dialogues in the movies are like noise. "Promise me this" has very little "noise".
I liked "Life is a miracle". It was also like music video for the first 30 minutes and at some points later, but it had a beautiful plot. "Promise me this" has no plot. I was awaiting this movie with big expectations, because I've read, that the script has been written by Ranko Bozic - one of my favourite scriptwriters, who participated also in "Life is a miracle". Ranko Bozic writes great dialogues, but for Kusturica they are "noise", and much to my regret, I saw only two dialogues, which I could identify as written by Ranko Bozic. The other part of the script was used by the director for making his chaotic music video for the music of his son Stribor.
Gordan Mihic (the man who wrote the scripts for "Time of the gypsies" and "Black cat white cat") said in an interview, that Kusturica never follows the script. "Black cat white cat" was the only script, for which Kusturica said, that he will not touch it. According to Gordan Mihic, after all Kusturica comes back to the script, and if he doesn't, he doesn't make a good movie. And I think this is the case with "Promise me this". He should have followed the script of Ranko Bozic.
"Promise me this" is billed as a "comedy", but there are very few moments, which made me laugh. The comedic moments are in the same style as "Black cat white cat", but are not that funny at all. I think the difference comes from the fact, that "Black cat white cat" was written by Gordan Mihic.
However, I know some people, who liked "Promise me this", they find it very positive movie.


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


user
Arthur Askey's great skill as a comic was in the way he communicated with his public. His juvenile jokes, silly songs and daft dances went down well because he was able to engage folk and draw them into his off the wall world. A lack of a live audience was a distinct disadvantage to him, and he was never completely comfortable in films. He has his moments in The Ghost Train, and his character, Tommy Gander, has been tailored to make the most of his talents, but Askey the performer needed to be seen to be appreciated.
Askey's support in the film is not strong, it includes regular co-star Richard Murdoch; Betty Jardine and Stuart Latham as a dopey honeymoon couple; Linden Travers going over the top as a 'mad woman'. Also on board are Peter Murray-Hill, who off-screen married Phyllis Calvert, as the nominal leading man, giving a totally bland reading of the part, and leading lady Carol Lynne, who turns in an equally insipid performance. It is left to character actress Kathleen Harrison to effortlessly steal the film as a parrot loving single woman who gets smashed on Dr Morland Graham's brandy.


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


user
An absolutely wretched waste of film!! Nothing ever happens. No ghosts, hardly any train, no mystery, no interest. The constant and BRUTAL attempts at comedy are painful. Everything else is pathetic. The premise is idiotic: a bunch of people stranded in the middle of no-place, because their train was held up for less than 3 minutes. What? And the railroad leaves them no place to stay, in a heavy storm? I think not. Oh, they can walk 4 miles across the dead-black fields. umm, yeah. Sure. Or, they can force themselves on the railroad's hospitality, and stay at the 'haunted' train station. A station which proved to be nothing but DEADLY BORING, utterly without ghosts, interest, or plot.
So very terribly dull that this seems impossible.
This ought to be added to the LOST FILMS list !! aargh !!


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


user
Dynasty Revisited in Hawaii... Full of clichés, highly predictable, unrealistic and sometimes even stupid. If you have nothing better to do however, it does provide 40 minutes of simple, unpretensive entertainment, endless looks at great male and female muscles and very good photography of the spectacular Hawaiian scenery. On the other hand, If you are looking for anything more than that, stay away...
Oh, and by the way, if you have ever worked in a Hotel or know anything about running one, you have two options: 1. You will feel sick every two minutes at the sheer stupidity and silliness of how the show presents Hotel Business or, 2. Look at it as science fiction comedy as I did, lie back, relax, and laugh about it!


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


user
Someone mentioned editing. This is edited badly and what started out as somewhat intriguing became an incomprehensible mess. For starters, let us know what it is you are trying to do with these experiments. Why are these people the best choices for the type of experimenting they are involved in? And, what exactly are they testing? Apparently there is some grand plan that some agency is going to exploit. The acting is pretty bad. Everyone is emoting. Everyone is keeping secrets. They frequently mention that if it weren't for the money, they'd hang it up. There's a deranged minister who spouts scripture. On and on. But, again, the biggest hang up is the lack of laying out a playing field for the actors. There are some really cheesy elements. Those little rooms and those chaise lounges. The awful wallpaper (was it wallpaper?). It was interesting, but didn't seem to go anywhere.


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


user
Oh, my gosh...I thought CBS primetime television shows were the
worst things Gerald McRaney appeared in...
Four people are experimented on by a crazed mind control
computer. That's it, don't rent it.
I saw this under one of its many titles- "Grey Matter," and it is
perhaps one of the worst films of recent memory. The other
reviews are right, it is awful. Never have so many establishing
shots appeared onscreen, NEVER. The cast is awful, the direction
is awful, and the script is awful. I cannot stress how awful this is.
Avoid it like you would smallpox.
This is rated (PG) for physical violence, some gun violence, mild
gore, some profanity, and some adult situations


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


user
Ouch, what a painfully BORING Sci-Fi movie! And that's especially saddening because the opening 15 minutes were so action-packed and full of potential! During the intro, we follow a bunch of nervous security officers and hired hit men as they chase a doctor who escaped from a mysterious laboratory with a briefcase full of top-secret files. As he's about to reveal the supposedly horrible & inhuman events that take place in the lab, he's executed. Figures From then on, the 'action' swifts back and forth between two locations, the aforementioned laboratory and the rural mansion of a corrupt senator (or something), and it quickly becomes clear that the experiments are actually the complete opposite of disturbing. More like dull, pointless and vague. Scientists selected four random persons without living relatives and it's really really really really important that they speak the truth even though a giant machine reads the content of their minds, anyway. They all hide dark secrets from their pasts and people suffer when get revealed; yet I fail to see how these tests could ever result in a humanity-threatening device. Perhaps I missed something, but I doubt it. The interactions between the patients and doctors are even less interesting to follow, as really none of them have personalities. So basically, "The Brain Machine" just handles about a bunch of lame people living in an awfully decorated room. The film also could have been half an hour shorter if it weren't for a THOUSAND stagnant shots of buildings! The relocations from the lab to the villa and vice versa are indicated EVERY SINGLE TIME by a five-second shot of the places. Either the makers really needed the padding or they just assumed that all Sci-Fi viewers are morons unable to notice a change of location by themselves. Staring at a forsaken pool with a mansion in the background for the tenth time in only five minutes becomes quite annoying, I assure you. James Best's performance as the reverend with mental issues is rather decent, but one man definitely can't save this thing from being an absolute waste of time. Avoid!


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 (it was only $3, ok?) under the title "Grey Matter". The novelty of seeing Sherriff Roscoe in a non-DukesOfHazzard role intrigued me. As the other reviewers warned, it's a pretty boring tale of a top secret government experiment gone awry.
And yes, there are plenty of establishing shots, especially of a house with a pool in front of it. Some of the characters and interiors are so nondescript I guess the filmmakers worried we might forget who is who, so they keep tipping us off by first showing the outside of the buildings. It's actually kinda funny. After awhile the pool shot feels like a tv channel's station identification logo, reminding us that we are watching "Grey Matter".
I also enjoyed two bouts of name-calling. At one point an angry test subject taunts somebody in charge by calling her a "Scientific b*tch!". It's just a very inadequate insult. Several scenes later a different subject lets off steam by muttering about that "scientific b**tard!". It just sounded very awkward to me.
Someday this movie will disappear forever. Another decade from now it will likely be impossible to find any copies of it. Almost like it never happened.



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


user
Let's see, here are the "highlights" of The Brain Machine: 15 establishing shots of a pool and a house; 15 establishing shots of a nondescript office building; 5 countdowns by a bland technician; 7 close-ups of a menacing guard; and a myriad of technical babble to show us this is a high-tech experiment.
Various posters have commented on the discrepancy between the copyright date of 1972 and the release date given on the DVD box of 1977. That's an easy one to explain. This dog simply sat on the shelf unreleased for five years, until someone dusted it off, thinking it fit in perfectly with the post-Watergate mood of distrust in government. After seeing The Brain Machine now, my only wonder is that it ever got released at all!


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 about secret government mind experiments and the corrupt use of the citizenry by secretive and vile shadowy figures had the potential for being a really interesting movie. But for me, it failed. I won't elaborate much on the rather confusing plot line, but if you are looking for a detailed explanation, the comment by user "reluctantpopstar" gives a good description of it.
But it didn't work for me. I found it slow, which would be okay but for the fact that it seemed to go nowhere. The viewer is left in the dark about too many things to really be able to get a handle on this movie-in some films, one can argue that the filmmakers intended to provoke thought and left things ambiguous for that reason. I don't think that this is the case here.
As for the frequent long shots of two buildings that have been frequently mentioned by other users...I see that they do have a point-they give the viewer time to get another drink without missing any of the "action". And I suspect many viewers would welcome the opportunity to have several beverages on board to get through 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
You know you're in trouble when the film your watching has numerous alternate titles. Generally it means that they tried and retried to hide the turkey in various markets. Such a turkey is The Brain Machine which has seven different titles.
Its about some super secret government project that is suppose to be able to use a computer to read people but instead it drives people to kill each other or themselves, or something like that. Its filled with B level TV actors sitting in paneled room with lawn chairs trying to act a script that makes almost no sense.
Its a turkey of the untastey kind. Avoid it.


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


user
"The Brain Machine" will at least put your own brain into overdrive trying to figure out what it's all about. Four subjects of varying backgrounds and intelligence level have been selected for an experiment described by one of the researchers as a scientific study of man and environment. Since the only common denominator among them is the fact that they each have no known family should have been a tip off - none of them will be missed.
The whole affair is supervised by a mysterious creep known only as The General, but it seems he's taking his direction from a Senator who wishes to remain anonymous. Good call there on the Senator's part. There's also a shadowy guard that the camera constantly zooms in on, who later claims he doesn't take his direction from the General or 'The Project'. Too bad he wasn't more effective, he was overpowered rather easily before the whole thing went kablooey.
If nothing else, the film is a veritable treasure trove of 1970's technology featuring repeated shots of dial phones, room size computers and a teletype machine that won't quit. Perhaps that was the basis of the film's alternate title - "Time Warp"; nothing else would make any sense. As for myself, I'd like to consider a title suggested by the murdered Dr. Krisner's experiment titled 'Group Stress Project'. It applies to the film's actors and viewers alike.
Keep an eye out just above The General's head at poolside when he asks an agent for his weapon, a boom mic is visible above his head for a number of seconds.
You may want to catch this flick if you're a die hard Gerald McRaney fan, could he have ever been that young? James Best also appears in a somewhat uncharacteristic role as a cryptic reverend, but don't call him Father. For something a little more up his alley, try to get your hands on 1959's "The Killer Shrews". That one at least doesn't pretend to take itself so seriously.


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


user
I thought watching employment videos on corporate compliance was tedious. This movie went nowhere fast. What could have been a somewhat cheesy half hour twilight zone episode turned into a seemingly endless waste of film on people parking their cars, a picture of some dude's swimming pool (he really needs to answer his phone by the way) a dot matrix printer doing its job, and Heuy and Louey sitting in a yellow lighted control room repeating "T minus 10 and counting" as if something exciting is going to happen. It doesn't so don't get your hopes up. The best thing about this movie is to see James Best and Gerald McC, in something other than there famous TV personalities, and that is stretching to find anything good. And do NOT get me started on the music which was totally composed of a Tympani, some large marine mammals, and microphone feedback. This movie is as close as I have given a one yet, but it gets the 2 because I actually was able to finish this insomnia cure, and didn't have to leave in the middle. AVOID AT ALL COSTS.


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


user
"Grey Matter" AKA "The Brain Machine" but the video people thought better of that; the screen says 1972 but IMDb says 1977; it's that kind of movie. The government has some kind of overriding interest in this 'brain machine' project that has drafted four people - who turn out to be, roughly, a philosopher, a horny priest, a crackpot veteran and a patriot who got an abortion - to sit in a shrinking room with a computer that can read their horrendous secret thoughts. In the end the government takes over the lab by force and everybody dies. Here is a movie that is incompetent in every important way; MY s*** has better production values than this. It held my interest, though, just to see what exactly these exploitation filmmakers thought they were doing, dabbling in four-guys-in-a-room character drama. The answer: a tract about how science is inferior to God. Thanks a lot. It's like opening a Kinder egg and getting your 30th goddam jigsaw puzzle. The priest is played by James "Roscoe P. Coltrane" Best, the philosopher by Gerald "the Republican Simon" McRaney. Also featuring very, very, very long establishing and transition shots in great quantity, this moves almost as slow as the Liberal convention.


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


user
Before this made for TV movie began, I had relatively low expectations. That's because it was made after the final episode of the series had aired and many of the series originals were gone. There is no President Sheridan, Delenn, Lennier, Londo, Vir, G'kar or Lyta. If you remember, on the second to last episode of the series, all the regulars except Zack, Vir and Captain Lockley left B-5 permanently. Now for this film they did bring back Garibaldi (who was not in the last B-5 movie) to join Zack and the Captain and the Doctor makes a brief and irrelevant appearance. But because so much is gone of the old chemistry, this film already is severely handicapped.
The movie is about a Soul Hunter (Martin Sheen) who is led to Babylon 5 in search of a globe filled with souls that had been stolen from a hidden repository by an archaeologist (Ian McShane). A lot of spooky mumbo-jumbo stuff occurs but frankly it was all pretty silly and pointless. Yeah, yeah, the station nearly blew up but was saved and all, but frankly I felt like it was a case of "been there done that--and done that a lot better in the past".
The secondary plot, provided more for comic relief, was much more interesting, as an entrepreneur installed a holo-brothel and those in command weren't sure what to do about it and when they tried to pressure them to close, they were slapped with a lawsuit. This was fluff, but it did provide a few laughs--something the other dreary plot was surely lacking.
By the way, Sheen at first did a good job playing the Should Hunter--with his wild eyes and bizarre delivery. However, repeatedly throughout the episode he fell out of character. This should have been spotted and corrected.
So the final verdict is this is only for total die-hard B-5 nuts (like myself). Others seeing it might assume the series sucked--which is a great injustice. This is a great example of a show not knowing when to quit.


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 a big fan of B5, having caught on only at the end of season three. I faithfully watched all the previous seasons when it was syndicated, concluding that it was one of the most well-thought out story arcs to ever hit television. Even the filler episodes were interesting. The movies, also, were well produced and as entertaining as anything to hit the theaters.
Which brings us to 'River of Souls'. Naturally, after seeing everything else, I had high expectations. Martin Sheen appears to be acting in an Ed Wood movie rather than a serious Sci-Fi story. The story itself, might have looked good in outline form, even made it to the story board. However, it suffers obviously when it came time to filling this notion out into a two hour movie. There are no special effects to keep us entertained in the total absence of a compelling story. There are places where they were obviously short of time and just improvised the dialog to fill the story out. Had this made the regular season, it would have rated among the worst of the episodes.


assistant
0