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\nI'm a next generation person...i've never saw the original doctor who but i have heard about the series that sparked a great fan base in the past and still making its mark in the 21'st century; the new \"Doctor who\" started in 2005 but for those that live here in the states like myself we pretty much see it as new episodes on sci-fi channel or BBC America; from season one we are introduce to a new player Rose Tyler (Billie piper) and a pretty cool new doctor played by Christopher Eccelson (misspelled last name sorry). these two go on some many amazing and very extremely dangerous missions to save the world...every now and then they have companions from rose's ex-boyfriend mickey to the now ever present Jack harkness (who can now be seen on the spin off \"Torchwood\"). From season one to season two the pace is just about right...the stories can be from the outlandishly weird to the most action packed paced driven but either way its one rollercoster ride from the start of the theme song which is very catchy.
in season two he becomes different and changes and now the new doctor (David Tennant) continues the fight to save the world with rose and from this point there can be some that say some of the season wasn't as good but i have to disagree and it was sad to see rose and the doctor part ways but it leaves the opening \"companion\" role to Martha (played by the very sexy Freema Agyeman) who helps continue the fight to save mankind...season three now is more on the action/adventure level and sometimes on the emotional but not as much as the first two seasons; here the relationship between the doctor and Martha is fitting but the attractiveness CAN be rushed into at times and the obviousness comes into play that she's NOT rose Tyler being that you experienced her company in the first two seasons and not in the third season it can be a bit awkward it was for me cause you get use to rose and her ways and now to see someone who at times don't really question the doctor on an emotional level but all the same makes the pace very exciting for viewers which keeps you at the edge of your seat.
all in all this is one thrill ride of a television show i would give it more but there are some flaws to this show as well that i can't mention cause its sometimes hard to pick up but just one does which is the doctor and Martha's relationship is rushed and not leveled on the get to know you base; I've seen good shows on British TV but this is by far one of the coolest sci-fi adventures for the old and new generation to experience but you don't have to take my world for it...step into the tardis and join the adventure.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI write this after just seeing the latest episode broadcast in the UK, and to me it must be a tough job to keep up the standard. The last episode shown called \"Blink\" has elements of Gothic horror all to do with statues that aren't quite what they seem. The Doctor and Martha don't appear much, but that doesn't detract from a well crafted episode. The general standard has built to a high level and the last three episodes, the two parter with \"The Family\" and the latest have to me been the best that the current team have ever done.
It's not just David Tennant holding it together, the whole supporting cast week in, week out are helping as well. For those awaiting series 3 abroad, the wait is is well worth it.
\n
assistant\n1
\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 like watching it right and i was all like oh this is so totally awesome-full and then i was all like ya quite good indeed so i really enjoyed all the amazing dangers and all the British people and i think that the doctor is very a good doctor in his way of doing such wonderful doctor-y things and he was a very strange man and i was like maybe i won't like this guy because hes a new doctor and i like the old doctor thats not this guy but then i watched him and i was like oh this is awesome and i liked it so then i watched and enjoyed the great evil enemies and the great conquering of the evil guys and the happy doctor who is quite scary and happy looking
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI LOVE Dr WHo SO much! I believe that David Tennant is the best Dr the show has ever had and Billie Piper the Best companion! I liked the way the Dr and Rose had such a connection and a great relationship and the Dr came close a few times to expressing his love for rose! It sadly came to an end after only 2 seasons. I will miss watching rose heaps and think that the show will not be the same without Rose! But David is still there to make me laugh and make me happy to watch him play this fantastic role! I rate this show 110% it is FANTASTIC! The graphics and monsters in this show are wonderful and every storyline is different but somewhat connected and i have actually learned somethings about love, the world and relationships from this show. Therefore it must be one of the most fantastic shows of all time!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFirst off, I have been a fan of the show back when my PBS station started showing it back in 1981. I learned many things about the show and the people who were in or contributed to the show.
This latest installment of Doctor Who made a great impression on me. The original series, aka classic series, was made fun of by the bad special effects and/or wobbly sets. Well, this is NO MORE TRUE. The special effects are awesome, but what is even better is the writing. You get a chance to learn more about our beloved Doctor and maybe a bit of a reason why he loves the planet earth so much. Without giving too much away, it is a very worthwhile series to watch. Christopher Eccelston brought a side of the Doctor that we never get to see, a bitter and angry one but yet lovable at the same time.
A MUST SEE!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI love pop culture, but I was a little apprehensive when I first heard about this. Then, I seen an episode, and I LOVE IT! I was a little upset when I found out that Christopher Eccelson would no longer be playing Doctor Who. He was probably the best one they've had. He fits the character so well. It's sad to see him go. I really don't think that the new guy is going to pull off the doctor as well as Eccelson.
I think everyone can overlook the cheesy effects in some spots and the creatures, such as the darleks. The story lines and characters can more than make up for that. I'm currently waiting for season two and I will review that as well, in case, for any reason, quality goes down.
Anyways, I think everyone should try to see one episode. I did, and I have been loving it ever since. Well written, well casted, and well produced, this show is worth the hour of viewing. Doctor Who gets a 10/10
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI have some of the older videos and dvds of Dr. Who. I've played them over and over. I adore each of the \"Doctors\" for different reasons. But due to a man in the BBC hierarchy, Dr. Who was canceled, even though it was still one of the mainstays of the BBC line-up. With the departure of Sylvester McCoy, the Doctor stayed alive through the fans. BBC graciously allowed fans to write books, and cartoons. The momentum of Dr. Who has been steady even after 1989. Then they took a chance with Paul McGann. The movie was flawed, but it gave the BBC an idea of what we wanted. In 1999, the \"man\" was gone and the newbies at the BBC felt it was time to bring the Doctor back. It was a complete success. Here in America, the Sci-fi Channel took a chance and it has become a complete success as well, although the writers were having to start over and explain the Dr. Who mythology for new viewers. It is incredible to me that they have done it. In Season 1, staring Christopher Eccleston with Russell T. Davis as lead writer, and Phil Collinson as producer, the Doctor has come back to us and in each episode we learn more about who the Doctor is. The Doctor Who universe has always been about \"Choice\", \"Love\" and \"Sacrifice\". This is what they provided. It makes me want more and it saddens me that Mr. Eccleston has chosen to leave the show. My first Doctor was Doctor no. 3, Jon Pertwee's Doctor. Mr. Eccleston needn't worry about his position in the Dr. Who universe. It is as solid as the rest. He is the 9th Doctor. I didn't know of Mr. Eccleston prior to his performance in Dr. Who, but I do now. I wish there was some way, he could know, there is push out in the Dr. Who fan community to find his other work and enjoy it. We have already seen that he is a great actor.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAs a fan of the old Doctor Who, and after the mediocre Fox movie, I was dubious of this new series of Doctor Who. I gave it a chance though, and am so glad I did.
Yes, some episodes aren't as brilliant as others, but they are all enjoyable, and yes, Eccleston's Doctor is far from any we've had before but... Eccleston's Doctor is just about the best there is. His performance is at times comical, at others dramatic, sometimes completely crazy but always fantastic.
This, and Bille Piper as Rose make this series a cut above the rest (Camille Coduri is also fantastic as Rose's mum), and there is a depth to this series not present previously. This series is incredibly powerful, especially considering its Sci-Fi. I mean who'd have thought you could ever have felt sorry or even cried for a Dalek prior to this, how many times in this series' history have we had moments like those with Rose's dad, the Emergency Doctor and the 'You were fantastic...so was I' final speech? I advise anyone, whether a fan of Doctor Who or even TV drama to buy this set on DVD, it truly is \"Fantastic!\".
Now only 4 episodes through the latest series (and looking forward to the new Cybermen) I have to say that David Tennant's Doctor is just not as good, of course you may disagree, but I don't think his Doctor is capable of those emotional moments seen in the previous series. I also have to say that in my opinion so far this series has not been as good as the last, however the return of Sarah Jane & K9 was a fantastic episode, a true gem. Not to say this series is not good, just not quite AS good.
So whether you like it or not, and whether you prefer Tennant or Eccleston, The Doctor is back, and he's here to stay. \"Fantastic!\" - Almost as many \"Fantastic!\"'s as The Doctor! -
\n
assistant\n1
\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're a long-time fan of the Doctor and you cringed when you heard they were making another series, rest easy -- it more than meets the high expectations of the original. The pacing is much quicker than the original shows, fitting more often into 50 minutes episodes rather than the average 90 minutes. The writing is excellent, the acting superb. The hardest - and best - thing to get used to is the production values of the new series. Compared to the original, it's got some now. (Although I will always have fond memories of bubble-wrap and hand-puppet monsters.) If you're not a fan, or if you tried the original and couldn't get a handle on it, jump in with both feet now! Everything you really need to know about the Doctor, they'll tell you as they go along. This series was written with minimal references to the Doctor's enormous back story specifically to encourage new viewers. Admittedly, I'm only seeing the first new series now as it's being shown on the Sci-Fi channel (in other words, probably cut to ribbons for time constraints), but I'm looking forward to future episodes either on broadcast TV or on DVD. (July 4th can't come soon enough!)
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nRussell T Davies has been tasked with re-creating a slice of my childhood: hiding behind the sofa, watching scary monsters battle with Dr Who. He, and his crew, are clearly all true devotees of the original series.
In much the same way as the Star Trek movies used their budget to make the Gene Rodenberry's original concept far more believable, Russell T Davies has both money and the advantages of excellent CGI to create the best monsters ever. I am sure that this series was made with a budget that anticipated both export and DVD sales and it really feels as if no expense was spared.
The accompanying series Dr Who Confidential shows the work that goes into each episode which is a really useful behind the scenes insight. Interviews with the cast and writers help retell the story from each characters perspective and are far more useful than simply watching the whole programme over again.
How does David Tenant rank in the pantheon of his illustrious predecessors? Time will tell but tonight, seeing Billie Piper play alongside Elisabeth Sladen, who was the Doctor's companion in the 1970's confirm that she has both the acting ability, screen presence and script to be the No. 1.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOne of the most successful shows in television history is back. Now I admit I never got into the original show.... Okay, so I never watched it at all. But the new show is impressive.
Sci-Fi has premiered the first two episodes, \"Rose\" and \"The End of the World,\" this weekend. We meet Rose, a twenty-something clerk who is chased by remote controlled mannequins. She is rescued by a mysterious stranger who calls himself the Doctor. Using the Internet, she finds a conspiracy buff who warns her that wherever the Doctor goes, death follows. When her geeky boyfriend Mickey is replaced by an impostor, the Doctor informs her of a plot to use Earth as a breeding ground for more of these plastic monsters, whom the Doctor has been fighting across space and time, traveling in a Tardis disguised a 50s-style police call box.
She helps him save the world--there wouldn't be a show otherwise--and decides to join him. But when he puts her life in danger, he is distraught, and questions whether her company was worth the risk.
Although the special effects are kinda lame, and the some of the scenes are a bit choppy, \"Doctor Who\" is (after two episodes aired in the US) a smart, well-written work. Apparently, the second season has already aired in the UK, so I predict the same success here.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFor those with access to the BBC or the CBC, this has proved to be spectacular. Like Battlestar Gallactica, this is a show rebuilt from the ground up. But in the case of Dr Who, they saved the best parts. I can't believe I am saying this but.. this is by far the best Dr Who. This has none of the cheap production values and sometimes slow plodding of the old show. The acting is quite good and there is a real sense of continuity and history. The new Doctor is easily the equal of the great Tom Baker, and the writer (former QAF lead) seems to have made even the minor characters come alive.
I know...I'm gushing..but this should be on everyone sci-fi geeks list. I just don't know why it hasn't made its way here.. Whatever you do...if you ever loved Dr Who or sci-fi..see this!!!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI enjoyed some of the older Doctor Who many years ago, so when the new one came out, I just had to check it out. I was SO pleased - with the characters, the story lines, the updated look, I became hooked! From Season 1 (27 for the old fans) through to season 2 (28), it just keeps on getting better. It ties in nicely with the old shows too, although you don't have to know the old shows to enjoy this newer version.
Even though there has been a change of cast, I highly recommend Doctor Who - with Chris Eccleston AND with David Tennant.
I like that they've given the characters so much depth. The Doctor seems more vulnerable in this series, maybe because he is the last TimeLord. The range of emotions which Chris and David show are truly remarkable, and I felt their pain, anger, and sense of adventure right along with them.
Billie Piper (Rose) brings a very human element to each episode, although she is much braver than I would be. With her talent, Billie will go far in the industry.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAs talk-shows go, Larry King Live is not bad, and since he occasionally gets good guests, it's a show to turn on once in awhile, but not compulsively. When Bill Maher, Carl Bernstein, a former president, or other substantive guests sit across from him, it's not too bad. Other times, he tends to host guests involved in the latest celebrity scandal which contributes absolutely no intelligent information to the country and feeds a largely uneducated public that wants to hear the latest gossip about movie and TV stars. During the OJ Simpson trial, it seemed like every other guest on his show was related to the case. But is this really journalism? Or the National Enquirer on the tube? Sometimes, it comes off a little bit like trash television--Jerry Springer in a sit down interview with phone calls instead of a live audience.
On the other side, King's show is definitely much better than Bill O'Reilly whose show is nothing more than a rightest-political platform of the Rush Limbaugh variety. That said, Larry King is not a bad interviewer, but alas, he is not a great one. King does not always come off like he completely comprehends when intellectual material is being presented, especially if it is by a scholar or historian with a new book on subtle aspects of politics. Always seems like the minute King can't quite deal with the issue at hand, that's when he turns to the phone calls, maybe hoping someone out in the country will have a better question than he has. He might interview someone like David Gergen, but may not have read any of his books. Sort of like the movie producer that never bothers to read the script.
When it's an entertainment celebrity, no problem. He can come off like he's thoroughly knowledgeable since the material is not that substantive anyway. Talking to Elizabeth Taylor about her relationship with Richard Burton is not exactly rocket science. And I notice he usually has seen the star's latest movie. Watching a movie takes much less time and contemplation than reading a book. However, if it's the likes of John Dean or Bob Woodward, King comes off a little like he didn't quite finish his homework. So off to the phones.
If you are looking for real in-depth interviewing, Terry Gross of NPR is probably the best interviewer in the United States. She reads and/or researches everything written by or about her guests beforehand and has a working knowledge of those areas. I don't see King quite doing that. Granted, he probably has an audience 1000 times larger than Terry Gross, which may say more about the American audience than King. In short, Larry is better than Bill but not as good as Terry.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nTia Carrere was the reason I decided to watch this film, as neither the title, nor the cover would have been enough to make me spend my time and money on this film  which goes to show, me and everyone, that a DVD shouldn't be judged by it's cover.
***SPOILERS*** The film felt like it was trundling along, not really going anywhere for the moment  the awkwardness of Paul Faber (Zak Orth) around girls being almost too embarrassing to watch, and the fringe on the otherwise attractive Kirsten Beck (as Alexondra Lee) being too school-girlish to watch. Where those really fashionable in 1995?
The relationship between Vicky Mueller (Tia Carrere) and Todd Boomer (Jason London) was tantalising from the start of though! That first meeting across the lake  magical. What a beautiful coincidence they should meet again just as he has behaved like a complete moron (\"Boomer, with two O's as in moron\") in front of Alexondra. A shame really that we as the audience knew who Vicky Mueller really was. (Well the title did give that away, wouldn't you think?)
What really surprised me was the acting. Especially in the scene where Vicky gives Todd a metal version of his alter ego (the dog character), in the little white jewellery box. The actors really managed to recreate that tingling sensation of a first kiss  point of no return for Todd and Vicky. A shame really that the film ends with focus on (after getting over Todd's fathers Harvard drive) his re-uniting with his friends. I could envision a whole new film  following Vicky to New York  there must be a good art University there that Todd could attend?!?
Nevertheless, a film that does just what we want Hollywood to: entertain us for the duration of the film. Did anyone else notice how none of the loves are happy ones in this film? Todd's mother is slightly insane (on the phone 24/7), his Dad doesn't find her attractive (any more?) Todd's teacher obviously is disenchanted by his wife and vice versa  Todd himself enters into a wonderfully erotic & daring relationship which, however nice it may be, would realistically be very difficult to maintain (age difference, maturity difference etc), and Alexondra & Zak do not get together because Alexondra is not mature enough to handle a relationship (-> her reactions towards the condom, the cheating, Zak's advances etc. are all very immature, and often involve running away), and Zak himself, the poor guy  is too much of a best friend/like a brother-guy to pull even Alexondra.
Mind you, good film though! I gave it an 8/10. Brilliant performance by the actors - who bring the script to life.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nTo paraphrase Thora Birch: \"I kind of like this movie. It's the exact opposite of everything I hate in a film\".
This obscure film was too low key and intelligent to get a theatrical release, any chance for success would have needed a costly promotional campaign. And a coming of age story where nothing spectacular happens - where instead the focus is on character development, has a limited target audience. Whoever heard of a mature teen movie?
But if you have an opportunity to see this or if you can part with a few bucks for the DVD, you could do a lot worse. \"My Teacher's Wife\" is nothing revolutionary but it has a lot going for it and holds up well to repeated viewings.
Jason London (as high school senior Todd Boomer) is the star and fits this character as well as his parts in \"The Man In the Moon\" and \"Dazed and Confused\". He is helped out by exceptional work from his supporting cast. Tia Carrere in the title role is a revelation (she can act) as Todd's calculus tutor and love interest. Christopher McDonald as the teacher in a nice self-parodying performance. Zak Orth and Alexondra Lee as Todd's best friends, and Jeffrey Tabor as his father.
As someone commented earlier, this is a \"mature\" teen movie because the romantic relationships are universally unsuccessful-at least by traditional happy ending standards. Even Todd's parents are indifferent to each other, with his father panting after the title character and his mother (Leslie Lyles) literally on the telephone during her entire time on screen (a device that provides increasing comedy relief with each successive appearance). The London-Carrere romance has unexpected charm and is far more believable than any other older woman storyline you are likely to find.
But the real strength of the film is the evolving relationship of the three friends. There is no overwrought melodrama here, just three immature people who alternate between testing and trusting each other, subject to all the dynamics that three young people can bring to this kind of thing. They actually manage to pull off a \"believable\" three-person relationship, perhaps the first one in cinema history.
Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI have mixed emotions about this film, especially as it compares to its forerunner,
\"An American Werewolf In London.\" That film had it's funny moments, it was still more of horror tale than anything else. This updated version, now set in Paris, does not have that \"edge\" at all and simply isn't in the same class....but it does have some good things going for it that the first film did not have and overall it's still fun to watch.
So, \"werewolf purists\" aside, most of whom think this film is pure garbage compared to the London version, I'll still give it decent marks since I don't care what others think. I liked it even though I agree \"London\" is better and I prefer that version, too.
The first 30-40 minutes of this movie is strictly played for laughs including a hysterical scene with a \"balloon\" in a restaurant. It also introduces the lead female character, played by Julie Delpy. I don't see enough of this actress. She doesn't seem to make that many films, or least ones I hear about over here in America. This French actress has a face that is classic beauty, so the film got points for having her in it, and she looks great.
When the horror starts, it can get scary and the special effects are good. I also liked the lack of profanity in this film, unlike the first one: no f-words and no Lord's name in vain - amazing!
However, there are plenty of sexual remarks and there is one scene with a guy running out of bar tied to a cross which was blasphemous to me. The soundtrack is heavy metal which isn't appealing to a middle-aged guy like me, either. This film is geared a lot more toward 20-somethings, if that helps anyone.
It's entertaining.....just don't expect it to live up to the first film.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThree American lads are backpacking their way around Europe, challenging each other to accumulate as many daredevil stunts and Hot babe lays as they can, But Andy seeks true love. He finds this during their bungee-jump attempt on the Eiffel Tower, when he comes across and breathtakingly saves a suicidal and heart-burstingly beautiful Julie Delpy. His attempts to find this girl and the secret he uncovers lead he and his friends into an fast paced adventure full of action, romance, gore, and inspired humor, without ever taking itself to seriously, or striving to be anything other than a wildly entertaining 90 minute ride. I have seen this film a number of times and found it a much more rewarding experience than the 'London' original, although both films are so different it is not fair to compare the two or even to consider this a sequel.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe title suggests that this movie is a sequel to \"An American werewolf in London\". None of the characters from the previous movie return and aren't even mentioned in this movie by name. So as a sequel, AAwiP fails, one would say.
I dare to say the opposite.
An American werewolf in Paris is a charming, effective horror movie. It's one of the better werewolf films I have seen in a long time too. And I have seen quite my share, such as An American werewolf in London, The Howling, Wolfen, The Wolfman and the Underworld trilogy.
The story tells of three Americans visiting Paris on a vacation. At the top of the Eifel Tower one of them saves a woman trying to commit suicide. What starts out as a romantic relationship slowly turns into a nightmare when the dark secrets that lurk in the city are revealed...
I really liked the acting in this film. Especially the two stars of the movie: the woman who tried to commit suicide and the guy who saves her. They have good chemistry together. But the other two Americans also play their roles nicely. I didn't really find anything annoying about the acting, so thumbs up for that!
The effects on the werewolves are nice. It doesn't look too cheap or fake to me. Of course, the opinions are divided about this subject. But let's just say that I wasn't disappointed.
There's also a good amount of humor in this movie. There are some really funny scenes you will probably remember for a long time.
So, to sum it up, An American werewolf in Paris might not be a direct sequel to it's predecessor, but it's still an enjoyable movie. Perfect for fans of werewolves! 7 out of 10 stars!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI just finished a double feature night of An American Werewolf in London & Paris. Let me start by saying \"London\" still holds up after all these years and the transformation sequence is by any standard quite impressive, the film was funny, and scary, also a bit of gore....Now lets get to \"Paris\" its enjoyable, a few scars, lots of gore not as exciting or eerie as original but it does have a few laughs in what has become quite the fashion these days in films so maybe in that sense it was ahead of it's time, the transformations al'a CGI while good for the technology of its time are nowhere near as impressive as the original. I gave this movie a 7 because I have to admit it was enjoyable, I laughed a lot and found Tom Everett Scott to be so silly that at first I wanted to dislike his performance only to end up liking it...go figure...Julie Delpy was competent as was the direction it's the script that lacked a bit of shine & finesse. I read here that John Landis was supposed to direct to bad he didn't I am quite sure it would have been a different movie altogether. I also noticed some discussion of a Sequel \"What If\" well no one has noted the Obvious it should be in American and here is my title \"An American Werewolf Comes Home\" or in DC that would be fun all those political dogs need a good scare. You simply must see the original in it's new DVD transfer with dolby 5.1 sound and see both of these on an HDTV with upconvert turned on...nice!!!!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOK, most of us agree that this is a weak attempt at a remake, but at the same time it's also a different movie in its own right. Don't get me wrong, 'American Werewolf In London' is a superior film, but 'American Remake In Paris' is a decent movie as well.
First off, the only real similarities are the TITLE, 2 American BACKPACKERS, and WEREWOLVES. Other than those 3 things, 'American Remake In Paris' stands apart fairly well on its own with its special blend of humor, action/adventure, and horror. Most of the people who say this film is better than the original are the youth of today's generation that think any movie made before 1990 is total crap. While those of us who grew up in the 80's can appreciate older films and what they have added to the horror films of today. What a lot of people fail to realize is that without the old classic films, including the B&W ones, horror wouldn't be what it is today. Now I'm getting a little off the beaten path...
An American Werewolf In Paris is a good attempt at re-creating a classic, but it will never surpass the original, ever. With that said, this is still a very entertaining film to watch and I do recommend it. I'm giving it a 7 out of 10. Maybe that's being a little generous, but I've seen much worse attempts at trying to re-create a classic.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI have never seen \"American Werewolf in London\" but this movie was very entertaining. When renting it I thought it was a horror movie but it turned out to be more of a comedy with some horror aspects. I thought the transformation sequences were nicely done but effects wise, the best scenes were those where the effects and the lighting built off each other, nice. The transformations reminded me a lot of werewolf transformations in other movies, but the werewolves themselves are very beastly and not very dog like. Gore: i do believe there is too much in this movie, which really takes away from the horror, when every frame has blood in it, taking the violence seriously is hard.
J.Hurst (8th grade)
\n
assistant\n1
\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 is not as bad as some say it is infact i think it`s more enjoyable than the original . maybe that`s why some people hate it as much cos they dont want to admit it`s a good (not great) movie.
most if not all fx were done by C.G.I which i didn`t mind at all cos it was an enjoyable movie. Phil Buckman - (Chris) was in my opinion the best guy in the movie Julie Delpy was rather attractive she brought the sexiness to the movie.
there were a lot of wisecracks in the movie which i thought were good. this movie is in my collection but the original is not because i dont like it as much as this one. i was not bored when i watched this movie it kept me watching unlike some horror movies i could mention like oh say = driller killer & suspiria (dario argento`s movie) thats to name but two.
this is an ok werewolf film it should be in people`s collection if they like werewolf movies maybe i`ll get the original at some point maybe. i have only one complaint and that is Phil Buckman - (Chris) should have been in it more than he was but apart from that the movie was fine.
rating for this movie 8/10 an ok werewolf movie not the worst one out there.

\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIs it full moon tonight? OH! It doesn't matter they can change whenever they want cuz of that drug! What was I thinking if its full moon tonight?! Geez
I really like this movie, there's romance, suspense, horror, and hot stuff ;) I like the first half of the movie when the guy saves the girl from killing herself by bungee jumping and catching her. That was really cool. The setting of this movie is in the city of love which is Paris in France. The cemetery scenes are nice, it gives you chills not knowing what will happen there or who's behind the walls. The scenes that makes you jump out of your seat is really cool. Even they got me on that scenes. His friend who died and the girl whom he killed in the cemetery but still shows themselves to the lead character(sorry I forgot his name), was really funny. The actors did a good job plus the make-up crews. The part when they're all partying in an abandoned church, I can't believe people would that because even though that's an abandoned church, that is still God's house. I bought this movie long time ago, and I do not regret buying it. I'm a horror-movie-lover. I give this movie 5 stars out of 6. For the people who are open and loves movies like this, give it a try, you might like it.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAndy McDermott (Tom Everett Scott) is a shy American teenager spending vacation in Paris with his friends Brad and Chris. Andy saves Serafine Pigot (the gorgeous Julie Delpy) from committing suicide in Eiffel Tour and has a crush on her. He does not know that she is a werewolf. They go to an underground party and are attacked by werewolves. Andy is wounded and becomes a werewolf. He is advised that the only way to become normal again is killing the werewolf that attacked him and eating its heart. This movie is a violent black humor movie. The special effects and the soundtrack are excellent, highlighting the song of the band Bush. I do not know why some readers compares this movie with the masterpiece 'An American Werewolf in London'. The stories have nothing in common (only an American teenager, werewolves and a city in Europe). Highly indicated for fans of werewolf and black humor movies. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): \"Um Lobisomem Americano em Paris\" (\"An American Werewolf in Paris\")
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOf course I am going to think it was a great movie. I recognized several people I didn't see during filming also. I was the one playing the guard about an hour into the movie in the death row exercise yard asking for a light for a cigarette. I also changed this one scene. They had originally had it set to go into the rec yard and straighten out the inmate and turn him around and walk him out. The Director said \"It is taking to long, what would you do Gower.\" I said, \"We need to go in and hook the arms and drag him out backwards. That way your camera can stay on his face as we take him off set.\" I also lived at this same prison as a young child as my father was the Assistant Warden of Security. I am also a current employee with the Tennessee Deaprtment of Corrections as a supervisor at the Riverbend Maximum Security Institution. Even though a lot of the movie was a joke, the part I was in was reality enough. Also in the bar scene the dancer kicking high in the air and leaving the stage was an actual stripper I use to work with at a club called \"The Classic Cat\".
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIn Landscape after the Battle, Andrzej Wajda in the second era of his filmmaking career, depicts emotional and psychological confusion in a former Nazi-prison in Poland, freed immediately after the WWII.
A hand-held camera explores a lot of extreme close-ups and vivid colors. The end credit as graffiti on flanks of freight train cars symbolically concludes the film. The soundtrack is great, except Vivaldi, which sounds tacky in pop-art fashion, in the opening sequence.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAside from the fact that the women in the film are stunningly beautiful and all the camp prisoners are too fat, this film rings true on the chaos of the post-war.
Beautiful photography, and a powerful national expression of the Polish national character.
It's very slow at points, but its entire pacing is so different from American and Western European films that it's quite refreshing.
Both lead actors do a very good job. On the DVD version, you can see interviews with the principal actors and crew, and the lead actress Stanislawa Celinska has gained about 50 lbs and lost all of her beauty. But in 1970, she was a stunner.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nKrajobraz po bitwie like many films of Wajda is, perhaps, not understandable for the \"rest of the world\". Story based on the few short stories of Tadeusz Borowski, who during WWII was the prisoner of Oswiecim, Dachau and Dautmergen camps. Borowski in his books describes inhuman life in the Nazi camps from the point of view vorarbeiter Tadek - porte parole of author who also was on the privileged position among the prisoners. Borowski was merciless for the humanity and merciless for himself. He describes the human history as the endless chain of exploitation and humiliation. Ironically, after the returning to Poland he stopped writing artistic prose and became communistic propagandist, producing stream of anti-imperialistic and anti-american press publications. After few years he committed suicide. In the movie Wajda changes point of view. Vorarbeiter Tadek - character created by the Tadeusz Janczar - plays only supporting role. Story is focused on the poet, destroyed, burned out by the war and imprisonement and his one-day love affair with Nina, Jewish girl who escaped from communistic Poland although she actually hates jewish life and mentality. As the background we can observe sad grotesque of so-called \"dipis\" (displaced persons) life, who after the liberation are settled by the Americans in SS barracks. Marches, patriotic kitsch mixed with hunting for the extra dose of food and/or prostituting German girls.

\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nthere is one of the best movies directed by andrzej wajda,that story told about young writer who is seekin' his place after a second war(he's survive german camp).excellent true atmosphere(action goes in camp for displaced placed),main hero(played by one of the best polish actor daniel olbrychski) finally fall in love ,but unfortunately his lady has been killed .there was beautiful scene,when he is talking with american soldier and says (about death his girl)\"nothing is happen,simply you're shootin' to us now... he's condition of soul has been destroyed. 10/10
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA story of love between two people at the end of WWII. Beautifully filmed, very romantic and yet rather fatalistic fable of budding love and war that would not end. If you want happy endings don't watch Wajda movies, sweety.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe movie was certainly true to the real life story on which it was based. It was hard for me to find newspaper articles about the actual facts, but when I located them, I could see that truth, in this case, was stranger than fiction. Judith Light was frighteningly evil in her role as the mother in this movie, so much so that it was difficult to separate her from the role, the mark I think of an excellent performance. Rick Schroder was appropriately clueless as her son who also defended her in court, an example of how hard it can be in some circumstances for a child to accept the actions of a parent, no matter how criminal they may be. One can find fault with the movie, but not with its treatment of the reality on which it was based.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhen I first saw this movie back in the middle of January (2005) I didn't like it. I thought it was too weird and thought that some parts that the main star, Judith Light, acted were so unlike her. (Which of course is true) And then I watched bits of it the next day when it re-aired and I felt pretty much the same. Then I watched it again two Sundays ago (March 20th, 2005) and I began to really enjoy it and this time I taped the entire thing. I even cried the first 2 times, but mainly because the actress was actually crying and I am a big fan of hers.
It is a very well acted and done TV Movie. Judith Light is one of my favorite actresses and I think she does a superb job in this film! I keep watching it over and over. It's a sad movie, but very good.
If you have not seen this movie, I definitely recommend it! It's not usually my type of movie, but I did enjoy this one! A+++
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAn incredible performance! This is one of the best films i have seen ever. I know this is being said a lot, but i bet you will not regret watching this film.
It's great from the very beginning to the last second. The acting (of especially the mother - played by Judith Light) is so convincing, there are not many other films i've seen that could compare to it, and it seems it's impossible not to feel anything for the people in this drama.
There are lots and lots of movies made every year, but if you have to choose just to see a few in your life - make this one of them.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf there are people that don't like this movie, I don't think they are human. This film deploys all emotions and shows many sides of Judith Light's character. Made in 1997, this is one of the best movies I have seen and really the film that Judith Light has starred in to make me a huge fan of hers. This movie, although sometimes you want to rattle the son for trusting her so much, is incredibly moving. I cry at the end every time and it takes much to do that to me! The plot doesn't have much to it but the acting provided by Judith Light is incredible. She looks beautiful the whole time and by the end, you don't want the fate imposed by the courts to happen to her. Overall, a movie worth my highest praise! Thank you for making it and redefining my view on the death penalty. I eagerly await this movie to come out on DVD or some other form of media since Lifetime is starting to issue some movies to customers. Although I don't have high hopes for this one because this took place almost 9 years ago, which is still hard to believe, since this movie is STILL ingrained into my head after all this time.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nEverything about \"Choose Connor\" was top=drawer, especially the script and the very proficient work done by the 21-year-old director, writer, producer Luke Eberl . . . a talented young man from whom to expect great things. All the acting was credible, the dialogue smart, the theme important. Loved it!!!
Saw it at the 2007 Woodstock Film Festival, where it was screened twice and went over tremendously with the audiences. It's more than just a coming of age movie -- this kid learns a hard, heartbreaking lesson about trust, politics and \"the system\" -- how things really work to suit the personal agendas of those in powerful positions.
I would recommend this movie to anyone with a working brain.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"