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\nThe final entry in the On The Buses trilogy sees the usual wasters go about their business in Wales. I feel sure the franchise could have continued, but Harold Pinter complained that the screenplays made him look bad in comparison, and so no more were made.
It's actually less than two minutes before we get our first dollop of sexism - a woman running for the bus finds her breasts fall out of her dress for no reason whatsoever. Still, it does at least make Stan (Reg Varney) laugh - but then what doesn't? He and Jack (Bob Grant) spend the entire movie laughing uproariously with little or no provocation. You get the impression that they'd wet themselves watching paint dry.
As before, the only funny element is the genuinely amusing Stephen Lewis, hilarious as Blakey. He's on his own, though, with a cheesy, dated script that even wastes first-rate talent like Wilfrid Brambell and Henry McGee. Yet it seems as if only Lewis understands how to time the shaky material, wringing laughs out of even the weakest lines. Describing how her daughter fell in a river, Stan's mum laments \"I hope it's not polluted.\" \"Well it will be now\" Blakey quips.
The plot - if indeed there is one - sees Stan lusting after a young girl, but being continually thwarted by her domineering mother. It's a recipe for side splitting hilarity I'm sure you'll agree, and whether it's on a storm-lashed boat or the swimming baths, Stan and Mavis's exploits always produce the same result... abject boredom. Later conquests include Maria, an Italian stereotype, and a staff co-worker. Even Stan's mum gets a one-night stand, with Stan considerately reminding her to \"put your tin drawers on.\"
When one of the comic \"highpoints\" is Arthur Mullard overhearing Olive trying to locate a light switch in the dark (\"I can't find it\") and thinking she's talking about sex, then you can see why this work reaches the upper levels of literary sophistication. In fact, why it didn't get in the BFI's Top 100 movies is beyond me.
Other rib-tickling shenanigans involve Olive (Anna Karen) breaking her glasses. I don't know what's more surprising, the lame predictability of the set-up, or the underdeveloped pay-off. The short sighted Olive follows a man in a kilt into the gents, thinking he's a woman in a skirt. The next shot sees her marched out by Blakey and redirected to the ladies. And that's it. Next, she ends up in another man's bed, and is ordered out by his wife. And... no, that's all there is to that scene, too.
When Holiday on the Buses was last screened on British television there was a breakdown in transmission. It actually came as blessed relief.
\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 rented this TV movie version of 'Troilus and Cressida' out of my library last thursday, and simply could not believe my eyes. Where should I begin? no effort was made to make the play look remotely like it was about the Trojan war, all the actors were wearing Elizabethan dress. Moreover, most of the actors were too old and horribly miscast - Aeneas (with his white beard) looked older than Nestor, Troilus was at least 30, Hector looked like a Spanish pirate, Ajax was badly played anyway and Thersites was a transvestite.
Likewise the action is poor, the duel between Ajax and Hector is short and amateurish, the camera angle focuses more on Nestor's face, so we can only see what is going on in the background which is frustrating in itself. Nor is the 'battle' at the end given it's due respect. We do not see Troilus and Diomedes fight, nor anyone else for that matter, Paris and Menelaus just seem to mud wrestle in front of Thersites. Even Patroclus death was omitted. All this was a major disappointment considering I waded through a very dull 2 and a half hours of BBC costume drama to get to that point.
Nonetheless, it wasn't all bad. I thought the Incredible Orlando as Thersites and John Shrapnel as Hector were well played, even if they didn't look quite right. I'd say the same about Kenneth Haigh as Achilles, since he didn't have the striking countenance and was a bit dry at times. SPOILER: The climax at the end - the death of Hector - was perhaps the best part of the film, Achilles' dialogue here is excellent and sums up the attitude of a cold, seasoned murderer. However, the gruesomeness of the scene (when Achilles stamps on what was Hector's head)sets it apart anyway.
Charles Gray as Pandarus was delightful as a sleazy old pervert and I thought the actress playing Cressida did an OK job. The war-mongering Troilus, however, was annoying and I think that the play would have been better perhaps if he had been murdered by Achilles instead of a peacenik like Hector.
Conclusion? OK, but could have been better if it had had a younger cast and costumes that at least attempted to look Ancient Grecian, not to mention the lack of action. 5/10
\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\nThe movie has a good story line, the action is good in some parts, but not all of them. Some of the parts, I just felt like the bad guys wouldn't have dosed off yet, from my experience from taking Martial arts. Some are the actions are long, like always mostly for the boss, but for the least important ones, they were killed or dosed off with a few hits, but some where quite unrealistic or could have done a better job at.
The least important actors or stunt people were the right picks for the movie, my girlfriend started to have a crush on them that she started to watch the movie more than she spends her time with me.
The movie is good, that is all I can say.
\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 touted as a sequel to Crash Dive, which was a very good film in the low budget category. I assumed this movie would be good also, but boy was I wrong. First, this movie has nothing to do with Crash Dive other than they both take place on submarines. Secondly, the plot can be slow, tedious, and in some cases, totally preposterous.
This movie will not hold most people's attention. (I remember reading a book during the slow, boring scenes.) There will be scenes that are supposed to be used for dramatic effect that will make the viewer laugh out loud. The corkscrew scene is definitely one. After I got over my initial shock that anyone would slip this in and not know people would not only disbelieve it but laugh at the sheer silliness of it, I was able to find humor in it.
If you want to see MD in a good sub flick, watch Crash Dive and leave this lame film on the shelf.
\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\nStory of an ex-Navy Seal who is now a combat medical officer assigned to a state of the art Russian sub with a nurse. This is to answer a call for help set off by a dying member of the original crew. The sub has been overtaken by terrorists who are bent on destruction. So we see the duo try and gain control back. And this happens with the fear of the US Naval Forces is about to unleashing everything it has got on the terrorist sub to prevent it from launching its arsenal. Be careful of the early explicit sexual scene in the first quarter of the movie. A couple of unexplained scenes towards the end. Watch it when you have the time. Nothing to miss out even if you let the show run while you go get yourself a cup of coffee: slow moving.
\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\nCates is insipid and unconvincing, Kline over-acts as always, as does Lithgow while butchering an English accent (at least, I assume that's what he's attempting), and the tone staggers uneasily between farcical and maudlin. As with most pet projects showcasing a celebrity couple, it's a relief when this shoddy piece grinds to it's forced and jarring conclusion.
\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 is a very strange film, with a no-name cast and virtually nothing known about it on the web. It uses an approach familiar to those who have watched the likes of Creepshow in that it introduces a trilogy of so-called \"horror\" shorts and blends them together into a connecting narrative of the people who are involved in the segments getting off a bus. There is a narrator who prattles on about relationships, but his talking adds absolutely nothing to the mix at all and just adds to the confusion. As for the stories themselves, well.. I swear I have not got a clue why this movie got an 18 certificate in the UK, which would bring it into line with the likes of Nightmare On Elm Street and The Exorcist. Nothing here is even remotely scary.. there is no gore, sex, nudity or even a swear word to liven things up, this is the kind of thing you could put out on Children's TV and no-one would bat an eyelid. I can only think if it had got the rating it truly deserved (a PG) no serious horror fan would be seen dead with it, so the distributor probably buffeted the BBFC until they relented. Anyway, here are the 3 tales in summary: 1. A man becomes dangerously obsessed with his telekinetic car to the point of alienating his fiancee. 2. A man who lives in a filthy apartment is understandably freaked out when a living organism evolved from his six-month old tuna casserole. 3. A woman thinks she has found the perfect man through a computer dating service.. that is until he starts to act weird.. And there you have it. Some of them are pretty amusing due to their outlandish premises (my favourite being number 2) but you get the feeling they were meant to be a) frightening and b) morality plays, unfortunately they fail miserably on both counts. To sum up then, this flick is an obscure curiosity.. for very good reasons.
\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\nIts hard to decide where to begin.I bought this for a few quid and its the worst few quid Iv ever wasted. The back of the DVD had no pictures and a few lines plot summary, this should have warned me, but I usually like bad movies for a laugh so decided to give it a go. The movie is made up of three short stories,each revolving around someone who was on a particular bus at one point.(its never made clear what the significance of the bus is, or what city its set in)
POSSIBLE SPOILERS(as if there is anything to be spoiled) The first story is about a man who is persuaded, by a car, to purcahse it, against his wife's wishes.The car is sort of like a demonic Brum and takes over his life.
The second is about a slob of a man who never cleans his fridge and a monster bacteria man grows out of it.
The third about a woman who goes to a dating agency, only to discover her date isnt all that normal.
Inbetween these, we are treated to shots of the bus(or A bus anyway) while a narrator whittles on a load of garbage about relationships(really,its like he is on commission for saying 'relationships')
The movie actually has no redeeming features whatsoever.The acting, the costumes and the little Spfx are all disgusting.There arent even any attractive female cast members to admire.Simply put, this movie is a debacle.
\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 is perhaps the most ridiculous crap I have ever watched. Three unconnected stories about completely stupid and random things are occasionally interrupted by a bus and a boring monologue about relationships by a stupid man. Christ knows why so many people got involved in this. Highlights: Green fridge man reading Jean-Paul Sartre, the slob mans dinner guest and her horse-manure hair products, a RIDICULOUSLY unreasonable woman in the third short, who suspected a man of foul play just for taking an interest in her generic activities, Blowers.
I need to use up a few more lines apparently, so may as well mention some more stupid things about the film. The first film involves a man driving a talking car around and obeying its unreasonable demands for absolutely no apparent reason. The only way you would watch this film is if you were blind and had other debilitating defects in your personality and brain. It is kind of funny in an ironic way, but also extremely wearying, like being forced to chew for a very long time on a stained rug.
\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\nWith a cheap pound shop having just opened,i thought that it was worth looking to see if their were any cheap DVDs that looked good.and while the back of the cover made this sound like a Jeepers Creepers type of film,it is actually an anthology film! and thought one or two of the stories feel very familiar.Its still a fun light horror/comedy. The plots:
Story one:The classic.
A young couple feel the it is time that they should try to in prove their financial life by picking up a $1500 car.But,when the guy goes to pick a car,a car starts to talk to him.The car (called Banns) says that to get everything that he has ever wanted in life,that he must buy Baans for $5000.So while the guys relationship crumbles,Baans does everything he can to show who really is in charge.
Story two:Kitchen culture.
A guy that might get thrown out by his land lord,due to how messy his flat is,discovers that due to keeping a tuna pasta in his fridge for six months,the it has now moulded and evolved into a green mouldy version of himself!.And while they start off as friends,they end up having a big falling out,the leads to a final battle to see if the real guy or his fridge clone will survive.
Story three:Too good to be true.
A girl signs up with a dating agency and she gets matched with a guy the is perfect for her.But she is unsure that the guy is too perfect,and when she thinks that she sees him 'shut down' she starts to get spooked. View on the film:
The first thing that i have to mention is the rating for the film in england,where it has been given an eighteen rating,even thought it has no nudity,swearing or blood at all.And the other odd thing about all the stories is that they all have happy endings,where the goodies win!.And while the first story is too close to the Stephen King classic Christine,the second story is easily the highlight of the film,with director Tom Parkinson making the nuttiness of the story feel like a low-budget Muppets episode!.
Final view on the film
While it does have a bit of a 'remake; feel,their is enough wackiness to make this a good horror 'comedy'.
\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 grandad gave me this DVD. With friends like these. The front cover looked quite scary thought i'd watch it. What a bloody mistake.
Basically the film follows three people on a bus and what happens to them involving friends.
The first one is about a guy who buys a car that talks to him. The second is a about a guy who wakes up to find a cassarole clone in his fridge. And the third is about a woman who does online dating but it turns out he has a robotic arm.
The DVD case rated this film 18 but even a 5 year old can watch this and not be scard or entertained. The film should be rated 12 for slight scares and the swear word bloody.
All in all this film is utter shite don't go near it.
\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 acquired this film a couple of years ago and on trying to find some info about it I found that even the mighty IMDb didn't have it listed. That should have been all I needed to know.
With Friends Like These is an anthology that plays like a collection of second rate Twilight Zone / Outer Limits episodes all linked together by a bus journey that never really seems to tie in with the rest of the film. Of the three stories, the only one that I gleaned any entertainment value from was the second episode in which a man (of sorts) grows out of the bacteria in a guys fridge. This episode wins points for a few spots of humour and it's bizarre premise. Other than that there is an episode with a talking car (bland and directionless) and an episode where a girl visits a very unique dating agency (my dog guessed the ending of this one).
As has been mentioned in other comments, the 18 rating is entirely unwarranted. There is nothing to offend here. If you're after a good horror anthology check out Asylum or the Creepshow films 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\nThis film's a big bore. It has a plenty of Predictable plots & endless sentiments from the start. It starts good with a classy number but seems lost midway.
Surya & Jyothika's on screen chemistry works out really good & a good part by Bhoomika. Why include Vadivelu in it? He disappears totally after a good half an hour!. Santhanam proves his wit again by timing comedy.
AR's tunes sure will last for sometime. But he could have done better. What ever be the drawbacks still it's worth watching once if you feel alone at home or looking for a good time-pass.
\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\nExtremely slow movie.There are fine performances from all actors which is why above 5 score.Surya and Jyo are supposed to be this ideal husband and wife and we are shown this till it gets to a point you start asking is there a story.Then one day Jyo discovers Surya's diary to find his failed college love story .The college love story is totally unconvincing as Surya is an arrogant Senior who is always picking on Bhoomika, beats up her friend, yells at her in public and despite being terrified of him she falls in love for him.Even after that he continues to dominate her using crude language.I certainly could not appreciate the meek character played by Bhoomika, I don't think any self respecting woman will fall for such jerks in real life.So Jyo decides to bring them together and what happens after that is the climax. The story is extremely weak in its characters.A extremely arrogant Surya to Bhoomika is the exact opposite with Jyo( and there is no reason given for the sudden change in character).Again a extremely meek Bhoomika becomes a big extrovert when she returns.Wonder, if she had turned so super confident why didn't she try to find her love as she no longer feared anyone.
\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 bought this movie for 99 cents at K-mart several years back (along with \"Hawken's Breed\") figuring anything with Gabriel Byrne and Amanda Donahoe is surely worth that much. It wasn't. \"Dark Obsession\" (the title I bought it under) was a slight cut above \"Hawken's Breed\" (IMBD rated at 2.4), but not enough to allow me to even keep it in the house. I threw both movies in the trash.
This thing fails on so many levels it's hard to narrow it down, but let's just say it's tawdry, incredible, boring, hedonistic, confusing and even at 100 minutes, way too long.
I love Byrne as an actor, but this schlock really looks bad on his resume.
\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\nSeven pioneer kids strive independently across many miles of Indian territory and harsh weather to reach Oregon.
According to history, young'uns who traveled by themselves through long distances of land - such as with the 'Children's Crusade' - were manipulated and exploited by being abused and sold into slavery, but these kids are pretty tough and they try their best to prevail in accomplishing their goal of making a homestead out west. Film is a little too syrupy at times, but OK for fans of 'The Waltons' and 'Little House on the Prairie'.
Dean Smith gives a cool performance as 'Kit Carson'.
\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\nStaten Island filmmaker Andy Milligan is well known in the horror community for being an even worse director than Ed Wood. And with this as a dim example of his output I'm apt to agree with them. In \"The Ghastly Ones\" we basically have three bickering couples traveling to their childhood home (located on a conveniently secluded island) to collect an inheritance. There they are killed off one by one and the events unfold in murder/mystery fashion with a scarred retard hunchback butler added to throw you for a loop. The film is in such bad shape that it looks like someone just ran it through a dishwasher, the sound is terrible, the dialog is otherworldly bad, there's some primitive mannequin gore (plus some dismemberments and guts) and it's technically inept in every possible way it can be inept. But is it enjoyable in a bad movie kind of way? Sort of. It's excruciating to watch but oddly entertaining in a train wreck fashion. Approach with caution. If you're not a fan of horrible movies better deep six this one.
\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 was released in the UK under the name Blood Rites. It was banned outright and never submitted again for release.
As The Ghastly Ones, it was supposedly a hit with the horror hungry denizens of New York City's famed 42nd Street Grindhouse circuit. If you are looking for some bloody horror, then you will find it in this film.
Unfortunately to see the developmentally disabled Colin (Hal Borske) chomp down on a live rabbit, you have to put up with shaky 16mm camera work that makes Ed Wood look positively marvelous.
Three sisters are to spend three days in the family homestead with their husbands before the old man's money is disbursed. Naturally, in such a situation, people start dropping dead. Family secrets are exposed and lots of blood is spilled, especially during a gruesome dismemberment.
Maybe it was the bunny bit that the Brits objected to, I know I 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\nWell well, at last a view of this underrated flick. But you can't find a good copy of it, terrible copy full with green drops, the editing isn't syncronized, the sound do has sometimes that terrible hiss and sometimes you even can hear the camera recording. Overall it's too dark, a waist of time you should say but it isn't. It's a bit slow, the first half part of the movie it's all talking and making love to each other. It is even still weird that the girls in movies from the 60's never wear any bra's. When they enter the sleeping room it's full glory. Anyway, banned in the UK since 84 and still on the video nasties list. The reason is simple, it's gory for their time being. It really has some nasty dismemberement's and it's creepy in some way due the fact that it is filmed handycam way. So every shot the image is moving, things they do these days with the steadycam. The Ghastly Ones could have been better if the quality of the film was better but still better then other films of the time like Schoolgirls In Chains.
\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 film purely based on the fact that it was on the DPP Video Nasty list, and while I'm glad I saw it because it's now 'another Video Nasty down' - on its own merits, Andy Milligan's film really isn't worth bothering with. There are, of course, far worse films on the infamous list; but that doesn't make the pain of viewing this one any easier. The film was obviously shot on an extremely low budget, and that has translated into the script; as Blood Rites works on an idea often seen in horror cinema, and doesn't do anything new with it. Basically, the plot centres on three couples who find themselves at a house awaiting the results of a will. It's not long before they start getting picked off...blah blah blah. For most of the film, nothing happens; and then when we finally get down to the scenes that justify the movie being banned, they're so amateurish and silly that they're impossible to take seriously on any level. It's a very good thing that this movie doesn't have a very long running time as otherwise it could have been used as a particularly nasty method of torture. It all boils down to a fittingly tedious ending, which also succeeds in being a non-event of epic proportions. Apparently, this movie is still banned here in the UK; but somehow I doubt it's because of its shock value. Basically, Blood Rites isn't worth seeing and I personally can see no reason to recommend it. Unless, of course, you've made it your business to see everything on the Video Nasty list...
\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 shown on a premium channel, so I didn't realise it was made for TV. Even so, I like some of the movies on lifetime (Lifestyle here in UK), but this was awful. The family were so cheesy, \"Love you mum\" \"Love you even more honey\" Then after they were broken into for the second time, 10 mins later, they were at it again, \"Love you mum\" big cheesy smiles etc... She phones her husband, and tells him not to bother coming home. They were only broken into by a guy that wanted them dead, have a nutter living next door, who needs help? She has her teenage daughter and a cat (not for long) to look after her.
However, as a comedy, I'd give it a good 7. I might even show it to my friends next time I have them round. Could be great fun after a bottle of Vodka or 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\nSo bad as good - not only the script is obvious, but the acting is not just poor, but pathetic. The worst of all is the definition of the characters: unrealistic ingenuity, affected reactions, camera forcing to watch superficial aspects, which are introduced as keys to the plot.
Can't prevent laughing when, at the end, main character says to second something like 'your daughter plays no soccer and knows no cooking'. Such offense to female intelligence defines the level of this film.
Is the film about the psychological behaviour of the second character?, about its impact on the main character?, or just a sequence of events set in order to heat for the obvious ending?
Pls, make more of these - I had a good time guessing what next would go wrong...
\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 acting is awkward and creepy, and not in a good way...at all. The writing, the dialogue, and the chemistry between the actors is horrible. Nothing makes sense and every close-up of an actor's expression or reaction lasts 3 or 4 seconds too long, making it seem like a Mexican Soap Opera (telenovela). Everything about the writing is unrealistic, and all of the actors involved make it that much worse with their campy interpretations of the script. Am I the only one who sees this??? To use the word cheesy to describe this Canadian disaster would be the understatement of the century. Did the director even watch the final cut before it was put on the air???
\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... or should I say unintentionally hilarious? Either way, this is one of the best comedies I've seen in a long time. I was laughing throughout at the antics of some of the dumbest fictional characters this side of Homer Simpson. It's just one forehead-slapping, painfully stupid scene after another as the clownish, dim-witted cardboard cutouts substituting for actual humanoid characters push, pull, and drag the \"plot\" to its inevitable and obvious conclusion.
If I had to describe this movie to someone, I'd call it a mutated hybrid of Fatal Attraction, Dumb and Dumber, and the Three Stooges, with a \"climax\" uncannily similar to the episode of Family Guy in which the whole family gets into a knock-down fistfight in the living room.
Advice to Benson family: next time you get a new pet, do the poor animal a favor and DON'T name it Fred!
\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 can name only a few movies that I have seen which were this bad. This movie has terrible everything: The dialog is corny and cliché', the acting is poor for the most part with a few exceptions, the cinematography is nothing to cheer about, and the plot is silly (A fat woman stalks a suburban family because her daughter didn't make the soccer team). This is so bad, it's funny to watch. If you can catch this on lifetime, I'd recommend it highly as a comedy. As for being a serious movie, I'm afraid i'll have to rate this a 2.
Don't watch this film if you are a serious movie fan and looking for an interesting and challenging storyline, or good acting. There is none to be found.
Edit: Hmmm... I think a group of people who work for lifetime must have written some phony reviews and voted all the negative ones down. Don't believe them. This is a really crappy 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\nToo fractured to be enjoyable, too loose to be interesting and too clumsily photographed to be tolerable MR LONELY is an interesting idea ruined by really bad film making. Like a Ken Russell film at its worst, or DAY OF THE LOCUST remade by amateurs, MR LONELY might have seemed like a good idea on a few scraps of paper (no script, you see) and a free holiday to somewhere, but in the end we have a widescreen film that seems as if it was made by film students whose parents told them that EVERYTHING they did was a brilliant creation. Or did I get the film maker right? MR LONELY is a waste of resources, trying to be (gawd!) quirky and deliberately off kilter. It ends up being annoying and indulgent.. and pointless. What's the point of going to a commune in Scotland? What a stupid idea in this film about Hollywood delusion. Maybe Korine wanted to remake GODSPELL ... well the result is GOD-AWFUL. Oh and there is some subplot like leftover footage from FITZCARRALDO including Werner Herzog, nuns and a plane. Add slo-mo drifting and violin music all wistful and melancholy, add James Fox who seems to hope he might be seen as daring (like in PERFORMANCE) and the result is amphetamine fantasy alphabet soup in widescreen. It might have been fun to film but the result on the screen is a mess. Imagine American PIE BAND CAMP with food poisoning.
\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\nWhy would anyone make a film like this? Why would anybody invest in a film like this? Why would anybody in the film business work on a film like this? Why would any theatre show a film like this? Why would any TV channel program a film like this? Why would any critic bother to review a film like this? Why would anybody watch a film like this? Why would mental examinations not be made of the writers/producers/directors of a film like this? Sometimes there are movies that are so bad they're good. This is a movie that is so ghastly that it's horrible. IMDb really must institute a \"0\" or even a minus scale to embrace works of this appallingly pretentious awfulness.
\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\nHarmony Korine. I'm not sure what he was trying to do with this film. If it was to turn my good day feeling into a night of disturbing memories than I guess he succeeded.
I know that there were big questions raised in this movie like, who are we really, what are we here for, is there really a God. All great questions, But I really don't think that is funny when you have the questions along side such tragedy. I'm all for real life being portrayed but come on. It's never funny when a wife is being raped, someone killing themselves (and family and friends find the body) and people die for unexplained and unnecessary reasons.
The only good thing about this movie was the location it was filmed. There is a lot of beautiful places.
I'm not a film student or even know all that much on the subject I admit this, but I do know that when I leave the theater with a feeling of disgust, then it was not a film I would recommend to anyone.
\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 watched this movie and all I can say is this...I am not a film student, nor am I some artsy intellect who tries to look for a deeper meaning into everything that I don't understand. However, IF I were to do that with this film, my thoughts would be...
Yep! He's on drugs and I can picture it now...he was tripping one night and sat around with his buddies laughing and saying stuff like, hey...wouldn't it be funny if nuns really could fly? Like what if one just fell out of a plane and free fell for a while, bounced to the ground and got up and walked away? *cackles* or if buckwheat gave the pope a bath? oh my god, I'm cracking up just thinking about it! Dude! We gotta make a movie about it! And then he says to his friend as he's laughing...Oh and wouldn't it be hilarious if people loved it and called me a genius for it? So to me, this is what happens when some guy does one too many drugs and writes a script and produces a movie. Should I have been doing LSD to understand what this guy was thinking so I could have had a laugh too? Because I have to tell you, I wasn't laughing. I was yawning and checking the time.
I think everyone who is trying their hardest to find a deeper meaning is hysterical. I had never heard of this director until I came to read the reviews, which I did because I was mad that I lost that last 2 hrs, or how ever long it was, (it felt like 12 hrs of my life) and I can't ever get it back, anyway...I have read that this guy is a heroine addict and he wanted to die for art?? what the heck is that? So my point is sort of proved. This guy is not all there, he's a drug addict, and his movie is evidence of such...So please quit trying to find a deeper meaning to it. If one really wants to understand everything in this movie, go drop some LSD and sit back and relax, then it might actually make sense.
It reminded me of the time I watched Gus Van Sant's Last Days, another movie I was mad about watching. I cannot help but wonder what the ratings would be for that movie, if the same people reviewed it who reviewed this one. It seems like, if the movie's director is totally off his rocker, or if it's a french movie with sex and subtitles, or if it's a cartoon, it is going to get great reviews, hands down, anything else is boring and has already been done. BLAH, bring on the boring please!
\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\nHarmony Korrine - hate him or hate him? On this evidence, loathe might be a better word. Not him of course, just everything he does. But it could've been so different because the first ten minutes of this film promises so much including a fantastic idea of a Michael Jackson impersonator falling in love with a Marilyn Monroe impersonator. Fantastic. And set in Paris! This could be great. But unfortunately, Korrine may spark the odd decent idea but because he is an awful writer, the story fails on every level and the audience walkout I witnessed about an hour in is proof positive that he is the most boring and pretentious film-making out there. Apparently the walk-out rate at its premiere in last years Cannes festival was quite shocking. Instead of focusing on the two protagonists, he switches the story stupidly to the confines of a château to introduce a bunch of other impersonators making the whole experience tedious and narratively barren. When will the independent cinema stop funding this upstart?
\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 just watched this yesterday and wanted to read other peoples scathing comments but found some high marks.
WHAT??? This was probably the worst Asian horror movie I've seen.
*spoilers* There were just so many fundamental problems with the story. A lot of Asian horror has the twist of spirits trying to help but just looking scary (with notable exceptions: ringu and Ju-on). This is the case here except they aren't scary. A pretty Asian woman who looks a little pale isn't scary at all. The \"monk\" character straight up explains everything as being a perfectly natural cycle of life; nothing scary there either. But the woman just doesn't get it, she would rather kill herself and her baby then let this poor ghost be reincarnated. My friend and I were just laughing when she jumped off the building twice and the ghost waits until after the second time to tell her why she's been following her around. That information would have been nice to know before she started jumping but whatever.
*That said I did like a couple of parts right in the middle. First she rides a taxi with a ghost (ghosts ride taxis?) that has a whole lot of extra hair which inexplicably IS creepy. Right after that at the bus stop, well you need to see it as it's pretty messed up.
All in all this movie is a total bomb, I gave it an extra point just for those two scenes above. This is a poor quality Asian horror that manages to make ghosts flying into women's wombs almost beautiful while trying to scare you with the same images.
\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(The beginning might be a spoiler...)
\"The Eye 2\" is the sequel to \"The Eye\". It's about a pregnant woman who is able to see ghosts and spirits after an incident happened to her.
The sound effects scared the hell out of me though momentarily but that's the only scary thing. Some of the scenes from the prequel are comparatively similar and repeated so the chilling effects certainly have chilled.
\"The Eye\" has quite a frightening and indelible impression whereas \"The Eye 2\" is a forgettable horror-cum-drama film. Omit watching this. Watching \"The Eye\" is good enough.
\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****Probably will contain spoilers****
After a successful attempt to get attention (I would not call making sure that you get help before you die a \"failed suicide attempt\"), Joey finds out that she is pregnant and starts seeing images of spirits.
Overall the movie was a little slow going, but entertaining enough to watch the whole thing. For a horror movie, there were only a few minor creeps and thrills. Halfway through, however, was a really good scary scene (I wont give it away though) :) I watched this movie because I really liked the preceding movie, The Eye.
I was a little confused, however to determine that, other than being a \"supernatural suspense\" movie from the same creators, The Eye 2 had NO relation to The Eye, *whatsoever*; different cast, different story. The Eye2 does not even have anything to do with eyes :\\
The movie had a few questionable scenes: Joey attempts suicide 3 times (4 times, if you count the time when witnesses say they saw Joey trying to jump in front of the train), she is associated with brutally defacing an attacker, she freaks out in a restaurant and witnesses say she was \"attacking\" people and yet she is allowed to go about her business freely, without even so much as a psyche evaluation or put in the hospital (for reasons other than her pregnancy).
The movie was not the greatest horror movie, the story was rather far-fetched (even for a fiction movie :P ), the spooks were either few and/or nothing we have not seen before. However, it was an \"interesting\" story and once you know what the \"truth\" is behind the spooks, it was an interesting twist on the \"ghost\" story.
I rate the movie 3 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 for one has nothing to do with the absolutely fantastic first flick. And of course us Americans just have to remake everything successful into English, because man reading subtitles is SOOOOO Hard isn't it! From what I've see in the new trailers with the adorable now pregnant Jessica Alba (well that sure ruins every teenage boys fantasy everywhere doesn't it!) It looks EXACTLY the same but probably w/double the budget. I thought the original was one of the best horror/suspense/mystery flicks I have seen in any language in quite a long while. I would recommend watching that one and skipping this one all together, there is no reason to watch this as there is no reason this even called \"The Eye 2\" except to capitalize on the excellence that was the first flick. Do yourself a favor watch \"The Eye\" with the volume turned up and get ready for some probable jumping. I watched it w/headphones on and was pleasantly surprised on the excellence that was the direction of the Pang brothers. If \"The Eye\" remake does well which I'm hoping it does for the sake of the Pang Brothers movie careers, but at the same time it seems a shame that people won't/can't see the original, because very often/almost always the remake isn't as good as the original. Watch this one if one wants to be mildly kinda of boring flick, but the original is no comparison to this sequel in name only flick.
\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\nAltioklar's populist approach manifests itself in all his titles, from the worst to the best. He doesn't care (or has no clue) about art, all he cares is to make people think they've got a kick in the groin by watching his movies. The problem is, the effort is way too evident, and as events unfold with all the senseless exaggeration kneaded into them, the effort fails badly.
On this \"Turkish\" movie (who knows where the original or originals were made, since it felt extremely Hollywoodish to me), Altioklar is trying to be some sort of Tarantino. (Mr. Tarantino, if you're reading this, please watch the movie for the best comedy of your life!) He doesn't use subtle moves to do that, all he does is to use extreme stuff, and it gets unbearably absurd and laughable.
Levent Üzümcü as the forensic guy with the cow-licked hair is just hilarious. I'm hoping to meet him in person and ask how he felt about this movie himself. Because I really found the role insulting for him. Demet Evgar groping her genitalia was also uncalled for, and did nothing other than making everything look fake. Another specifically idiotic aspect of this movie was the 100% faulty pace setting. When things need to be taken slowly, scenes flow abruptly. And at other times, it makes you sleepy to watch the slow ridicule going on.
If Altioklar is so deeply in love with lame Hollywood superficiality, he should use Michael Sixarrows as his name instead. Even such a move wouldn't be half as ludicrous as what he has done on this movie. He should first learn not to imitate directors whose levels he'll never approach, then realize he's not in Hollywood, and then take private lessons from Zeki Demirkubuz or Reha Erdem on how to lay the flow of ideas out in the plot. This useless movie couldn't be saved even by those, but perhaps he can make watchable movies in the future by taking these steps.
By the way I've seen some infamous failures such as Propaganda and Otostop, and I still can't divert from saying this one was the worst Turkish movie ever.
\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\nPersuaded by the 7.0 points in IMDb, which is pretty good, i decided to watch this movie. However, i found this movie quiet boring (about 2 hours) and full of clichés, A little girl getting multiple personalities after a childhood trauma etc. Tamer KAradagli is quiet funny in this movie, dialogs motions etc, you will have to see it, he is kinda the tough cop you see on American movies, perhaps copied too much. I would describe this movie as ordinary American thriller with a little bit of Turkish touch, Unfortunately yet again I'm convinced that comedies and dramas are the only genres worth watching in Turkish cinema Anyways i gave this movie a 4, its too boring and full of clichés
\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\nAltioklar: Master of the thieves.
Watch some movie, steal some parts of them, write a script... It must be very easy to be a director in Turkey. I think Altioklar watched \"Identity (2003)\", \"Saw (2004)\", a few series which is about crime, murder etc. then he said \"Eureka, eureka\"(i have found it!) after that he wrote the script of the movie.
You can guess the murderer at the beginning of the movie. It took only 10 minutes for me. He shouted \"I'm the murderer, i'm the murderer.\". There is no mystery.
Tamer Karadagli is same(sux). Exaggerated mimics, funny macho man.
There is only one good thing in the movie. The performance of Demet Evgar is very good. You may see the movie just for that.
\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 understand the purpose of the director to tell stories that aren't stories, but the way he tried to show time passing by (the couple of joggers, who first appear jogging together, than jogging with a stroller (sic!), than the man alone...) and to link the \"adventures\" of the characters (the final scene, with the maid climbing a mountain seeing the big black guy on another cliff, and then seeing the boat with her former employer and saying \"Oh, a boat!\") were awful. At the same time, I liked the way he portrayed the middle-high class, even in an excessive way. I think it is a lousy movie. If you want to watch it, do it as a film school student, trying to see technical aspects and issues. It will help a lot.
\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\nWhile I agree with the previous post that the cinematography is good, I totally disagree with the rest: This is nothing more than a porno movie disguised as an artsy film. Showing little boys naked is not art and amounts to child porn. Steer clear of this dud. Stupid is what this film is.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"