empathielabs/imdb_v0 huggingface dataset:
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nTerribly disappointed with CITY OF MEN after being swept away by CITY OF GOD. Lost is the exciting and unpredictable storyline, and instead, in its place, is bland predictability with the obvious attempts at audience manipulation by a superficial pretentious production and distribution team. This story ended up feeling like a sappy soap opera rather than a gritty indie feature, which is what is should have been. This is what happens when distributors try to seek a wider audience (ridiculous sweeping shots of the Rio coastline, etc) at the expense of a gripping story and characters. I really couldn't care what happened to any of the characters in this film - they were all so 2 dimensional. In short, sad waste of potential that should have been a slam-dunk following the exceptionally inspired CITY OF GOD. Boo!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAn expedition party made up of constantly bickering and obnoxious jerks go trekking into the dangerous African jungle in search of both a fortune in diamonds and a missing young lady named Diana (luscious brunette looker Katja Biernet, clad solely in a skimpy loincloth that shows off a lot of her hot shapely body) who's worshiped as a goddess by a deadly primitive tribe called the Mabutos. Director/screenwriter Jess Franco crucially fails to inject any style or vigor into the generally blah and meandering proceedings, allowing the sluggish pace to crawl along at an often agonizingly slow clip and staging the infrequent action scenes with a singular lack of skill and panache. The lousy dubbing, excess amount of grainy \"National Geographic\"-like animal stock footage, groovy, jazzy lounge score, terrible acting, talky, uneventful narrative, tepid soft-core sex scenes, and static photography don't help matters any as well. Fortunately, there's plenty of tasty gratuitous nudity on sight to alleviate the tedium to a reasonable extent: Besides the delectable Biernert, both Aline Mess as fierce, wicked high priestess Noba and Mari Carmen Nieto as the conniving, treacherous Lita are likewise real easy on the eyes. The beautiful jungle scenery is very nice, too. But overall this picture sizes up as barely watchable and hence instantly forgettable swill.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFranco films can be divided into 4 categories- the \"earlies\" (often black and white and inventive), the \"naughties\" (late 1960s/early 1970s often involving Soledad Miranda), the \"nudies\" (of various periods, but using full frontal female nudity as plot drive)and \"the rest\".
This is part of the \"rest\". It is not really a cannibal movie at all. It is certainly no gorefest. The few women in the picture dont even lose their loin cloths and there is little full frontal stuff at all. The picture quality on the German DVD I watched is poor. The film peters out (insofar as it ever catches fire). As a Franco fan, I would tell others not to bother. Do something else with your time...read a book....get a copy of \"Women in Cellblock 9\"...anything really...
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nJess Franco makes exploitation films, and he has made tons of them. Franco is responsible for some of the most shocking films in cinema history, and god bless him for it. Unfortunately, The Diamonds of Kilominjaro is a truly awful movie that is not up to his usual standards.
Exploitation films should be judged on story, sex, and gore. What else is there? This film fails on most of those benchmarks. The plot is paper thin, placing a nubile young girl in the jungle among cannibals. We really don't get information on why she and her father were there in the first place. As expected, her father is the \"Big White Chief\" and she becomes a goddess, sitting in trees, naked. Add fortune hunters and precious stones, and you have your basic rescue the girl for greedy intentions plot line. The characters are stock, not adding an ounce of believability to the proceedings.
Gore? None, or at least very little. This film is often mentioned in the same vein as the classic Italian cannibal movies. Those seeking that type of gore need to run the other way. Save for one cheap be-heading, this movie features surprisingly little blood and guts.
As best I can tell the only reason this movie exists is so Katja Bienert, Aliene Mess, and Mari Carmen Neieto could run around naked. Actually \"Lita\" (Mari Carmen Neieto) does the full frontal heavy lifting, while the two jungle ladies are bare chested throughout. Yes, there are love scenes....probably the most sterile Franco has ever supervised. The women are beautiful, but nothing here to really make this movie an erotic classic either.
This movie just reeks of low budget buffoonery. The sets are laughable. The acting is horrid, and the editing is confusing. There is no real story to hold this together, and not enough of a budget (or effort) to shock or titillate. I think Franco fans have come to expect more out of the master of exploitation.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA group of adventurers travel to the 'dark continent' to try and locate a lost heiress named Diana, who disappeared years before in a plane crash, and who is now believed to be living with a savage tribe that consider her to be their goddess.
Once again, my search for sleazy, European cannibal movies has taken me deep into Jess Franco territorya seemingly endless cinematic wilderness swarming with sub-par scriptwriting, crawling with crap camera-work, and abundant with awful acting (Franco regular Lina Romay taking the prize this time for her pitiful performance as an ailing, elderly woman). It is here, in this hellish place, that I finally stumbled upon Diamonds of Kilimanjaro, an abysmal jungle-based exploitationer so stupefyingly bad that it took me three successive evenings to finish watching it.
Tawdry and unrelentingly dull, even by Franco's standards, this wearisome piece of trash fails on almost every level: the story is a dreadfully dull derivative of Edgar Rice Burrough's Tarzan, albeit with a feminine twist; the film appears to have been filmed in the local botanical gardens, although grainy stock footage is poorly integrated into the film in a pointless effort to convince viewers that the action is really taking place in Africa; and the death scenes are virtually bloodless (Franco can usually be relied upon for some splatter, but despite initial appearances, this isn't a cannibal movie and it isn't that gory).
Where the director does succeed, however, is in his casting of sexy young Katja Bienert as jungle jail-bait Diana. Running and leaping through the undergrowth in nothing but a skimpy loin-cloth, her curvaceous bod belying the fact that she was only sixteen at the time, this nubile beauty makes quite an impression. Franco also throws in some further nudity courtesy of Mari Carmen Nieto as treacherous traveller Lita (who gives us a glimpse of her untamed regions), and Aline Mess as topless warrior woman Noba, thus narrowly avoiding getting yet another rating of 1/10 from me (although I'm sure he'll be receiving plenty more in the futureI have loads of his films yet to see).
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nGood old Jess Franco! The always-reliable choice of director in case you're looking for undemanding sleaze, shameless exploitation and 200% gratuitousness. Jess once again really surpassed himself with this utterly trashy piece of jungle \"adventure\". Let's face it, this film is basically just an excuse to have the ravishingly hot (and underage) actress Katja Bienert parade around topless. It's actually a rather disturbing thought that an innocent 16-year-old girl had to walk around a film set naked in front of a whole crew and particularly before the gazing eyes of pervert Franco! And it wasn't even the first time, since the duo previously already made \"Linda\" together. Anyways, just in case you wondered: YES, \"Diamonds of the Kilimanjaro\" does have a plot, albeit a very imbecilic one. During the opening sequences a plane, carrying aboard a wealthy Scottish guy and a girl child, crash amidst an African tribe of vegetarian cannibals. I say vegetarian because they never at one point in the film so much even attempt to consume human flesh. The obnoxious Scot declares himself the Great White Leader and the girl grows up to become the beautiful and scarcely dressed White Goddess. Several years later an expedition reaches the middle of the jungle to get the girl back to civilization and  even more importantly - to steal some of the tribe's legendary diamonds. This could have been a compelling and action-packed adventure movie, but Jess Franco obviously couldn't be bothered. Why shoot jungle chase sequences or bloody cannibalistic rites when you can just as easily aim your camera at a hot young chick sitting naked in a tree? Most of the jungle settings simply appear to be filmed in someone's garden and there's a massive amount of clumsily edited National Geographic wildlife footage in order to fill up the gaps in continuity. The back of the DVD describes \"Diamonds of the Kilimanjaro\" as an ingenious, feminist and adult orientated version of Tarzan. Yeah right, they just put that sentence there because Katja Bienert's character swings from one tree to another using a a couple of times.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nJust saw this movie on opening night. I read some other user comments which convinced me to go see it... I must say, I was not impressed. I'm so unimpressed that I feel the need to write this comment to spare some of you people some money.
First of all \"The Messengers\" is very predictable, and just not much of a thriller. It might be scary for someone under 13, but it really did nothing for me. The climax was laughable and most of the audience left before the movie's resolution.
Furthermore the acting seemed a little superficial. Some of the emotional arguments between the family were less convincing than the sub-par suspense scenes.
If you've seen previews for this movie, then you've seen most of the best parts and have a strong understanding of the plot. This movie is not worth seeing in the theaters.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI don't expect a lot from ghost stories, but I do expect a story to make a bit of sense! Is that asking too much from the screenwriters and filmmakers? When the bad guy, all of the sudden, becomes a homicidal maniac solely because a bunch of crows start pecking him, then I have a problem spending $9.00 for a ticket! Alfred Hitchcock would be spinning in his grave. Didn't anyone learn anything in their college Film 101 class? A good movie has at its roots an INTERESTING story!
Here are some of the ridiculous messages in this movie: If you have desperate financial problems move from Chicago to the middle of no-where in North Dakota to grow Sunflowers (I kid you not!). If your toddler has serious neurological problems from a car accident move away from some of the best hospitals and speech therapists in the country to an isolated small town, which, at best, has a community hospital. Hire a drifter to live & work with you, out of the blue, without checking any references, when you have a teenage vixen daughter, a wife and toddler. ( I'm glad they're not my parents!)
A town where everyone knows everything would have no problem missing a triple homicide, just outside of town. And, of course, blame the man's lunacy on a bad crop of Sunflowers! (Doesn't anything else grow in North Dakota?) A couple of days after you buy your rundown house - with huge vines growing everywhere - that it reminds you of Jack and the Beanstalk, a guy from the X-Files, ala Smoking Man, (I'm glad to see the cigarettes didn't get him, I guess he doesn't inhale!) will just suddenly sneak up on you while you're working to offer you the sale price of your home, plus 15% more, for absolutely no reason!
I think you get the picture. I have seen so many godforsaken awful movies in the past month, it just blows my mind! Is it that difficult to make a movie that doesn't treat the audience like an idiot? I'm glad at least the crows in this sorry film turned out to have the some brains! I wish I could say the same for whomever thinks they are going to make money off this celluloid piece of trash!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAfter having problems in Chicago, the Solomon family moves to a remote North Dakota farmhouse to start anew, but their attempts at an idyllic farming life is disrupted when their teen daughter Jess (Kristen Stewart) and her 3-year-old brother Ben start seeing and being attacked by supernatural beings who won't allow them to live in peace.
The Messengers starts off decently although it eventually becomes a generic horror film that's a lot more humorous than frightening. After reading the premise, I thought this could have been a decent movie since it sounded creepy and it held potential. Unfortunately, the film didn't live up to its potential although I should have expected this since the trailer was awful. The screenplay was probably the worst part about it. It was full of silly sequences and bland dialog. The characters were not developed at all and most of them were acting like a bunch of idiots so it was hard to feel sympathy for them.
The directors did a horrible job at building up suspense. They mainly relied on cheap scares like loud noises and random jumps. The music was really over the top and it just made it easier for the viewer to telegraph the next \"scary\" moment. I also didn't like how they pretty much just used one location for the whole movie. The house was the centerpiece of the story and that's where the majority of the filming took place so it got a little boring after awhile to see the same area. Also, I didn't like the close-ups of the actors. During a conversation, the camera would continually jerk from character to another in the span of five seconds and it got really annoying. The directors did create a decent atmosphere and they do get some points for making their movie stylish. However, since we have come a long way in terms of style and effects, it's not really that hard to make your movie look nice especially if you are working on a Hollywood film.
The acting was atrocious and if this movie had been released in December, I'm sure it would have received several Razzie nominations. Kristen Stewart showed some talent in Panic Room but you wouldn't be able to tell she has talent by watching her performance in The Messengers. She was okay at acting scared and that's it. The rest of the time she was dry and unconvincing. Penelope Anne Miller was just awful when it came to everything. It sounded like she was reading her lines and she had some of the worst facial expressions I have ever seen. Dylan McDermott was just very wooden and he showed almost no emotion. John Corbett gave the best performance and he had a couple of good scenes. The twins who played Ben were also decent and managed to out act many of the adult actors. Overall, this lame horror film is not worth watching because of it's blandness and lazy film-making. Rating 4/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n******Spoilers within******* What a dull, predictable, non-scary snore-fest. The movie had no character development: I felt no empathy towards any of the characters (except may be the small boy), and did not care what happened to any of them. The movie had so many clichéd bits, or elements stolen from other horror movies.
The movie was so predictable. Many times I would be saying to myself, \"Let me guess, {fill in guess} happens next?\" Yup, I was right. Even in the opening scene, I predicted that the \"attack\" on the family was by some man, probably the father (because only the wife and children were attacked). Sure enough, that is what happened (of course, you have to wait 79 minutes to find out for sure). And, of course, another \"evil man\" scenario. Why was he evil and killing his family? Because he's a man, duh!
As someone else stated, this movie may be scary for someone under 13 years of age, or for a movie from the 1970's, but it is FAR from being a 'scary' movie by todays standards. AND, like so many other crap horror movies, a lot of the scares were \"fakes\". Scary music, Scary music, Scary music, and.....A crow suddenly flies at the window! Wow, scary!
How did the old bank guy manage, a few times, to walk across an open lot without the father seeing him? I thought, for sure, that the old man was a ghost. Nope, just a crappy movie.
I rated this movie a 2 out of 10, because it did keep my attention enough to sit through the whole thing.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie has all the ingredients of a great horror story and loses it in the last half. Few movies can actually give me chill bumps. This one did. Few horror movie give me a sense of dread. This one did. It kept me guessing. I cared about the story. I cared about the characters. The acting was decent. Unfortunately, about half way through the movie, the story just doesn't have many good directions it can go. It becomes evident that everything cool about the plot is going to self-destruct. It does. What builds in the first half as a great horror concept shifts away from horror and towards the absurd. A plausible fear turns into a series of implausible reactions from the characters. The story concludes with disappointment. While this movie seems complete, there is one loose end that could setup for a sequel. The movie isn't good enough for a sequel. This movie is worth seeing in the theater, just don't expect to be stunned. This is best suited as a movie to rent. It's probably not a movie you'd want to own.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nDespite a totally misleading advertising campaign, this flick turns out to be an irritatingly clichéd, sub-par haunted house flick with a totally implausible ending. Clue #1 for all considering seeing this turkey: Sam Raimi didn't direct it. Although commercials for the movie play up his involvement, in truth he is one of four producers. It's too bad that someone as talented as Raimi has allowed his name to be used in conjunction with such a poor movie. I don't think he would ever have directed something like this; that task was left to the Pang Brothers.
The screenplay for this film seems to have been cobbled together from numerous other \"horror\" films, so you'll find absolutely zero original content in \"The Messengers.\" What we get are a scene here and there that was plucked straight out of \"Pulse,\" a couple that could have come from \"The Birds,\" one or two from \"The Others,\" etc. Nearly every scene, almost every line of dialogue, is one that has been lifted from any number of other movies. The whole thing makes for such a predictable movie that almost anyone will be able to figure out the \"surprise ending\" long before it comes.
Right about here would be a good time to point out that the advertising campaign, centered on the idea that only children can see ghosts, has nothing to do with this movie. In fact, everyone can see the ghosts. The teenage daughter and mother characters certainly see them, even quite early in the movie. I'm sure that whomever was in charge of marketing came up with this campaign because the film needed a unique angle to have any box office appeal, which otherwise is entirely absent. Now you know, so don't be fooled! Perhaps what this movie lacks most of all is anything resembling chemistry between the actors. It simply isn't there. All of the interactions come across as awkwardly stilted. Coupled with the hackneyed story and ridiculous plot holes (just what is a guy who murdered his whole family doing still lurking around the small town where the murder happened, anyhow? Didn't anyone think to maybe arrest him?), it all adds up to a profoundly unsatisfying ghost flick that only manages to surprise anyone over the age of ten with cheap shots: loud noises, visual flashes, and anything short of a sheeted figure jumping out of a closet and yelling \"Boo!\" All we get for our buck this time around is yet another poorly-made film about spirits attempting to warn people away from a house. If there's any message that \"The Messengers\" delivers, it's \"Don't waste your time on this movie.\"
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nMy Take: Yet another lame PG-13 horror movie with predictable scare tactics and a derivative plot.
The spirits move. The walls creak. There's something wrong in the basement. These, along with several other horror movie clichés haunt the walls of yet another house in the country in the Sam Raimi-produced THE MESSENGERS, a lame pastiche of the most predictable scare tactics thrown in on a plot savagely recycled from better (and sometimes, even worse) horror movies of the past.
When the Solomon family moves into an old South Dakota farmhouse, in yet another attempt by dad (Dylan McDermott) to reconnect with the family, especially with their formerly drunk-driving daughter Jessica (the underrated Kristen Stewart), in the more subtle countryside than their home in Chicago. The horror ensues when Jessica begins to get little surprise visits from the house's poltergeists. Thinking she's some teenage girl who cried wolf, her parents don't believe her. How could they? The real horror in THE MESSENGERS is waiting for which horror movie it will savage next. Will it be an angry flock of crows wanting more than the family's crops (a direct rip-off of Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece THE BIRDS)? Will it be the haunted house with a history dating back from THE AMITYVILLE HORROR or POLTERGEIST? Or will it be the grotesque phantoms taken from your familiar recent horrors like THE RING and THE GRUDGE? Heck, the movie even manages to rip-off a scene or two from some truly bad horror movies like AMITYVILLE 3-D and the mediocre COLD CREEK MANOR. Perhaps all the Pang Brothers really wanted to do was a B-level horror movie, but did it have to be this bad? Couldn't they rip-off from the best? Avoid it.
Rating: * out of 5.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis was one of the slowest movies I have ever had the displeasure of sitting through. After the introduction where we are given the backstory of \"something\" killing a couple people in a farm house, We are introduced to a white looser family that is moving to a farm - AND NOTHING HAPPENS for a looooong time. Then they meet this drifter who helps out on the farm AND NOTHING HAPPENS again for a very long time. Then FINALLY the girl of the family has some plotergeist stuff happens. Then some more happens, the drifter guy goes nuts and the movie ends. In between its all about how this family had to move out becuz the girl got in some trouble back home and they have no money and its done SO POORLY that I could care less about these pathetic people. I cannot believe I actually went to the theatres to see this! Not only did this movie suck, but some a$$hole answered his cell phone, dumb morons were making noise AND the movie sucked. THATS WHY THEATERS SUCK - Bad movies, overpriced crappy food, and idiots in the theatre, I'm staying home and watching DVDs from now on, at least I could smoke if I was at home while watching this stupid movie. Stay home and bake some pie rather than going to a theatre to see this piece of typical crap. Dumb stupid crap.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nDirectors of \"The Messengers\" Danny Pang and Oxide Pang are responsible for \"The Eye\" and its sequel and their premiere American picture plays like \"The Grudge\"-lite set in a farmhouse.A family of four move from Chicago to a run-down sunflower farm in rural North Dakota.Almost immediately their teenage daughter Jess starts seeing ghosts.Of course her parents and the police are skeptical.Admittedly the film is well-made and there are two or three effective scares,but relies too much on 'boo' effect.Still the plot is a carbon copy of many ghost stories and the ending is anti-climatic and stupefyingly awful.Scares are on the low side too with a tendency toward CGI.Overall,\"The Messengers\" is a pretty weak horror film that simply doesn't deliver.4 out of 10.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie was trying to something, but failed miserably. All the attempts at suspense were cheap, and there were so many tired gimmicks and plot holes I ended up laughing and making fun of it the whole way through. At least I was entertained.
The ghosts are attempting to warn the family, so why do they attack the girl, whose name I didn't care to remember. And what was with the black and white at the beginning? I know what they were trying to do, but they fell far short. And where the heck did that guy (John Corbett's character) come from? He just waltzes in from no where in a vast field. And why did he suddenly lose it again when the ravens came? And if the ravens were a manifestation of the spirits of his family, then why did they attack him if it would make him try to kill the family? Makes no sense. So many things in this movie just don't make sense, and the acting ain't too pretty on the part of the main girl character. It's not terrible, just a little like her kiddy movie days.
So all in all this movie wasn't brilliant, but I had a good time ripping at it, and sometimes that's all a horror movie needs to do. Rent for entertainment not quality.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI almost laughed out loud when during the commentary the director said this movie is original with a strong plot line. There is not one... repeat ONE original plot line or special effect in this blah movie.
The Crows.... Hitchcock did it superbly back before CGI and even with CGI this film falls short of a well done attack scene. The creepy crawly boy... The Grudge did it and did it better. The psycho...done in Cold Creek Manor most recently, however it has been done to death. No pun intended. Disconnected/rebellious teen who no one listens to... about a dozen films have used this one right down to Beetlejuice. The oozy stuff from the basement... can you say Amnityville Horror? Doors opening unbidden... What Lies Beneath did it with much more flair. Creepy farmhouse... too numerous to mention.
The backdrop of metaphysics-- which should have been the central focus, gets lost once you figure out what is happening, which by the way is pretty early on.
One thing (of many actually) they never even try to explain in the movie is how they explain to the police that their attacker was sucked down the ooze in the basement, so they really don't have a body.
Overall... DON'T BOTHER
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'm sorry but I can't agree that this was a good movie. Yes, it looked good visually, but it's the story that drives the movie and I must say the story sucked big-time. How in the world did they manage to slip some of those plot-holes past the critics. Better story and I would've gave it a higher vote but I was impossible to do that and still be able to live with myself. I have always been a fan of scary movies, and the previews really had me fooled. All the scary scenes were shown in the previews. And why did the family that got killed stay to haunt the house? Why did the father come back again? WHy did he decide to kill in the first place? Why were the kids the only ones to see the ghosts first? To many questions, not enough answers. If I could've gave it a zero, I would've.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSpoiler with plot explanation: a poor family is being thrown in the middle of war between the evil guy (that pops out from nowhere, and no questions asked... ) that went wacko, and Casper the friendly ghost trying to avenge his death. With every frame movie gets more and more predictable, a big disappointment. Ending seams completely dumb, it has nothing to od with the movie itself, i think someone run out of ideas or just get to the point that movie is s**t this way or other, so it may as well have a stupid ending. Waste of time, resources and money. Actor play is very poor. If you think about the dialogs you may find out that family conflict is artificially enforced by poor communication between characters. Some scenes seam random. In summary: boring, predictable, poor, pathetic. Waste of time, and money.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe Messengers is a bad,generic and boring ''horror'' movie.The film has got a big problem:it does not scare.The performances and the screenplay are totally stupid.It uses old tricks for scaring and all the supernatural events make laugh.I would not call The Messengers as a bad movie...I would call it an accidental comedy because it's so bad that makes laugh.The only good thing about this movie is that it's short,so this crap will not stay with us for so long.There are a lot of masterpieces of horror genre which count with a low budget(like Subject Two,Lucky or May)which are sadly ignored,while this crap is all a success in the box office.So,I do not recommend this weak and pathetic horror film which is called The Messengers.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nYou're Dead is an indescribably awful attempt at a British gangster film. It has not got a single original idea in it, being an atrocious copy of various elements of Lock Stock & Two Smoking Barrels, The Usual Suspects and Pulp Fiction. The acting and dialogue are absolutely excruciating, the plot is ludicrous and utterly predictable despite constant attempts at plot twists, and contains nothing but one dimensional stock characters and clichés. It has some good actors in it, but they are off-form, and unable to do anything much with the dreadful material they are working with. It is absolute torture to sit through this drivel.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nTheres not much you can really say about this film except that it was crap and probably the worst film i have ever been to see!! Take my advice don't watch this film it just wastes your money and time!!
I gave this film a 1/10 which is doesn't deserve.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film is strictly for fans of Debbie Reynolds and Eddie Fisher.
I get angry at TCM for showing this mess more frequently than Bachelor Mother, the delightful original. I get angrier still that some Hollywood boob thought it would be a good idea to remake Bachelor Mother, filling it with some lame songs that only serve to interrupt the flow of a cute comedy. Instead, Hollywood could have spent the time, money, energy and talent wasted on this horrible remake to give us something new and original - Wow, what a concept!
Bachelor Mother (the original), with Ginger Rogers and David Niven is a spicy stew, simmering with sexuality. It is a 1930's wink at the Hays Office. Bundle of Joy (the remake), with Debbie Reynolds and Eddie Fisher is strictly milk and cookies. It is a 1950's handshake with Eisenhower.
Which cast would you rather watch - Debbie Reynolds, Eddie Fisher and Adolphe Menjou, or Ginger Rogers, David Niven and Charles Coburn? For me, every member of the cast in the original version is far better than his/her counterpart in the remake.
In the original a beautiful, young Ginger Rogers is at her peak. David Niven delivers perfectly as a somewhat spoiled, sophisticated and yet befuddled scion of a wealthy department store magnate. And I always love to see Charles Coburn in a movie. In Bachelor Mother, he is priceless as the desperate grandfather wannabe.
In Bundle of Joy Debbie Reynolds is her usual perky self. She is fine in this role, although her performance (along with Fisher's) completely changes the tone of the story. As an actor, Eddie Fisher is hopeless. He is completely lacking in screen \"presence.\" Here he is way too wholesome for this story. His acting is completely bland and clueless. Likewise, his singing is so bland and unremarkable that it has been completely forgotten by the world at large. The only time he is not completely painful is in Butterfield 8 - where, incidentally, he doesn't sing. Here, Fisher's lame performance alone is enough to ruin this movie. Adolphe Menjou, a favorite character actor, delivers a competent performance, but not one of his best. He is more blustering than commanding. He and Fisher are not convincing as a father and son.
Do you see a musical for the music, the story being merely incidental? Or do watch a musical for a story, with some (hopefullly) good music used for seasoning? If the former, you might like this lame remake. Otherwise you are much better off watching the Ginger Rogers non-musical original, Bachelor Mother.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nEddie Fischer was simply bad. Possibly the worst scene came early in the movie when he broke into a spontaneous song and dance number centered around a piano and some conveniently placed employees. The song was totally stupid... I think I could drunkenly offer a few lines on a sheet of paper that would far exceed it and probably win a Grammy. Then, as if the writers could come up with no better way to escape the ridiculousness of the scene, Fischer says something to the effect of, \"Don't tell (insert the guy's name). He doesn't like music\" and smiles. I can't describe how bad this is, I felt a little embarrassed. And that guy Debbie Reynolds works with and who's always hitting on her is so annoying too. I can't even imagine someone like her wasting a fraction of time on him. The jokes were delivered without any sort of chemistry between characters which made the movie crawl by. At least the baby had cute hair. The two stars are for Reynolds, who was like a swan among ugly ducklings.
See Bachelor Mother instead.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI saw this piece of pseudo-intellectual crap a couple of years ago, and it is now making a comeback at the local film club. It uses every cliché in the Intellectual Movie Makers Handbook (Beginners Edition) in order to appear as intellectual as the director probably imagines himself to be. You get your run-of-the-mill slow-motion tempo, brown color scale, slow pans through bombed-out environments, blank, suffering facial expressions, over-symbolic imagery, and the requisite miserable ending.
It is a complete failure, an unintentional perfect caricature of the typical Russian art movie. The director, Aleksandr Sokurov, has excellent command of technique, but he lacks eye. He doesn't see when he crosses the line into the realm of the pathetic.
This movie is a wet dream for art film haters. It lives up to every stereotypical view of the genre that there is.
If it was bad in an entertaining way, it would a turkey. But for a movie that is so bad that you walk out afterwards royally p***ed-off, we need a new term. This movie is a Sokurov.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'm a big fan of Patricia Hodge and Mariam Margolyes, so I watched this show when it came on A&E some years ago. The show was strange to say the least, but I gave it a chance because I liked these actresses. This has got to be one of the worst shows I've ever seen. I wouldn't watch it again and certainly wouldn't waste money on buying the video. The storyline of this TV version is ludicrous and just plain stupid! The \"kicker\" (pun intended) comes when Ruth has surgery done on her leg bones. That kind of nonsense belongs in James Bond and Sci-Fi movies. If this version is true to the book, then I won't be checking the book out from my local library! The American version came out some years after I'd seen this original. To my surprise the Americans got it right this time, as their version with Meryl Streep and Roseanne is played for laughs and is rather funny. When played for laughs the storyline works.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'll give it a two because it has a lot of music, otherwise it would be a one.
I saw this movie for the first time tonight and it's the first \"Road\" picture I've seen. I was expecting waaaaay better. Robert Osborn says this is the best of the Road movies. If that's true I needn't bother to see the others. The best thing about this movie is that it has a lot of songs in the first half, but that's balanced out by only one production number with dancing in the entire movie.
I didn't like the movie. Neither Hope nor Crosby came across all that well, their characters weren't very charming, the movie was not funny at all, most of the dialog was just lame filler, there wasn't much action, there wasn't much spectacle.
The movie wasn't what I expected. I was expecting more \"Road,\" but there isn't much. They quickly make it to the palace and then most of the movie takes place there, until the end. I was also expecting a lot more of the famous \"road\" style of breaking the fourth wall, wherein the characters talk directly to the audience or comment on the plot. There was only about 4 instances of that. One of those is an example of the non-funny humor of this script:
(Hope recaps the plot up to now to Crosby) Crosby: I know all that! Hope: Yeah but the people that came in half-way through the picture don't. Crosby: You mean they missed my song?
Those are two weak punchlines, but at least they are actually jokes. Much of the rest of the script doesn't even have any jokes. An example is:
Crosby: Remind me to throw you a piece of cheese in the morning. (Indirectly calling Hope a rat).
That's not funny at all, it barely even qualifies as a joke, but that's the kind of non-joke dialog that carries most of the movie. Many of the scenes don't even come that close to a joke, just using generic uninteresting dialog like:
Crosby: Hey, whadda ya' take me for? You think that you can just throw me to the dogs? Hope: Well why not, you did it to me didn't you? Crosby: Yeah but that's because I was lookin' out for us. You're not lookin' out for nobody. Hope: Oh yeah? Well then why did I pay the check?
(the above is just from my memory. It's not exact but it illustrates to you what I mean).
And so on....just generic dialog with no jokes at all.
My grade: A waste of time.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhen a friend and I saw this in the recent releases, we decided to get it despite the fact that neither of us had heard of it before. We both like Costas Mandylor and it had James Coburn so we figured it couldn't be that bad. We were wrong. It was. It was REALLY that bad. No actor or actress could have made this film worth seeing. It was like taking Titanic, The Poseidon Adventure and some nuclear bomb film and trying to cut and paste it all together.
I must admit that there were a couple of chuckles. I did laugh when the head cabin boy is asking Alan (Costas Mandylor) if he's some \"pussy marine.\" The other laughs this film got though had nothing to do with the writing. I would dearly love to know how the people making this movie thought that you could have a cruise liner knocked upside down and have it remain steady. It isn't tipped or anything.
If you are looking for something to watch for Costas Mandylor, James Coburn or any of the rest of this cast, move on. Find something good that they did.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIn my opinion, this movie is not good. I hardly find a good thing to say about it, but still I would like to explain, before I conclude it is just another bad movie.
I decided to watch it because Costas Mandylor is starring in it, and that was the main reason I watched it till the end. I like action movies, and I understand that such movies are built on the action rather than the story. I know they don't go into details when it comes to the credibility of the story and the events, but even that does not explain why some scenes, just because they lack the sense of reality, look ridiculous.
At the beginning, the movie looks quite promising: a tough, good looking specialist and his not so tough but smart and funny partner must do a job, which turns out a bit different than they expected. The story takes place on a cruise ship. A disaster happens, the ship is turned over, and only a few are left alive. During their struggle to survive they have to escape a shark, a professional killer and the rising water.
Furthermore, the movie is quite violent. The main weapon (beside the disaster which already took out most of the passengers) is the gun, which is successfully used in many cases. I personally missed a good man to man (or woman to woman if you prefer) fight. Family fun? I don't think so.
All in all, I think this movie was shot in a hurry, without a real vision what it is trying to say. Made of the usual action movie tricks, with a bit of something called love, and without a real meaning, it just results in a bad movie.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nShirley Temple's films for Twentieth Century Fox aren't negligible because they're poorly-made (Darryl F. Zanuck supervised most of them, after all); they don't retain much of a \"classic\" stature among cinema aficionados mainly because they're weighed down with the syrupy optimism of Depression-era Hollywood. 1930s audiences were placated by the delight of seeing a dimply, often orphaned sunshine girl making the grown-ups look foolish by comparison (they fretted and wrung their hands while she danced her troubles away). Seen these many years later, Temple's vehicles barely get by on story (aided always by musical sequences to bolster the content), and her timing (always too-perfect) and exaggerated reactions might leave most modern viewers rolling their eyes. No one could possibly be blamed for their exasperation over Temple's performance here (shouting lines at the top of her lungs) or the perverseness of her dance steps, sashaying with a crowd of sailors to \"At the Codfish Ball\". Still, the fantasy aspect of this particular story, previously filmed in 1924 from the book by Laura E. Richard, is enough to captivate those in the proper saccharine spirit. Seems Shirl was pulled from a shipwreck by a government-appointed lighthouse keeper, but when a truant officer from the State Board finds out the tyke isn't in school, she threatens to take the kid away. It doesn't really matter if the prune-faced officer has a point that Temple isn't being raised properly (the woman is turned into the proverbial villainess almost immediately); one can see right away that Temple can hold her own, taking care of herself and her elderly guardian in the bargain (as well as the local widow who has her hooks in for the Captain). Temple isn't the only one overly-rehearsed; Guy Kibbee's January is cued for wide-eyed reactions so often you wonder if maybe if he didn't film them all in one day. The dialogue is steeped in waterfront metaphors (\"You can't rush a trout!\" ... \"Well, don't give up the ship!), and something about the whole enterprise seems strangely pixilated. ** from ****
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI was a still photographer working in Europe the summer that Jim Salter shot the movie Three.
I did some swell pictures for him, one of which I was told became the poster for the movie. I didn't see the film until years later. I thought it was bad. A pity, because the elements that went into it were compelling. Robie Porter's girlfriend was almast as beautiful as Rampling herself. Salter asked if I would stick around and be an extra cameraman so they wouldn't have to shoot everything twice. I said sure, but I had to return to NY, promising I'd be back. Alas, I never did get back. One of life's unsung melodies.
I wish I could post the pictures I made somewhere.
Rowland Scherman
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nNo doubt about it, Rampling is gorgeous -- a classic beauty, here very young. She manages to appear simultaneously sophisticated and poignant. Her two male foils act well too. But seen in 2003, the flic is all
American-trying-to-be-artsy-and-not-be-Hollywood-while-shooting-beautiful-sh ots-of-the-French-Riviera-and-three-pretty-young-people-in-their-cute-old-ca r. I enjoyed the view (both the actors and the nature) but the movie is boring and pretentious while trying to be the opposite.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf you haven't read Tolkien's masterpiece; prepare yourself for maybe the best movie experience ever! If you have however... After having read the books several times, over many years, I have come to love the characters and story, and feel I Know it intimately. I have my own personal vision of The Shire, Hobbiton and the character-gallery. Thus for me the movie was a disappointment. Why? It dictates the appearance of the characters (unavoidably), it changes events, it removes important storyline, it removes not-so-important storyline. Great chunks of what makes The Lord Of The Rings what it is, is simply ignored. Even 2001 special effects can't do Tolkien's (and your own) imagination justice. Peter Jackson has made an honest attempt at the impossible, and I don't think anyone else could have done it better! But the fact remains, I regret seeing the movie. The next time I read The Lord Of The Rings, Peter Jackson's limited vision will leap forward, not my own.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"