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 remembered this awful movie I bought at Camelot music store in the summer of 1989 when I was visiting my Grandparents. It was a time when I had just discovered movies like Re-Animator, From Beyond, The Return of the Living Dead, and Dawn of the Dead. I was ready for all the horror/gore genre had to offer.... or so I thought! I was only about 12 years old at the time so I really don't remember it all that well. I remember a psycho running around with a corkscrew killing people, and a couple of cops (I think) who were riding in a car that wasn't actually moving, but being rocked side to side to look like it was... true cinemagic. I also remember it being the worst film I had ever seen up to that point and I promptly threw it in the garbage.
Something tonight made me think of that movie (I can't believe I actually remembered the name), so I jumped on imdb to see if it was listed. To my surprise... IT WAS! And a full other 5 people have seen it.... Amazing. Even though I remember hating the film at the time I sort of wish I had kept it hidden away somewhere because I'd love to check it out again for a laugh (it would probably make a good drinking game movie). Anyway, I'm glad I'm part of the elite few that's seen this little \"treasure\". I would love to pick it up somewhere for a couple of bucks.... but beware, this is not a recommendation... it is awful... it's just for nostalgia.
\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 at a garage sale when I was like 15. I hated it then, and watching it again, just for the hell of it, it's even worse now. You can hear the director and cameraman in the background yelling commands like \"Zoom, zoom, zoom!!!\". The are no special effects, just a raw piece of meat that is supposed to be a brain. This is utter crap, and i originally thought it was a one of a kind home movie or something that I bought. But this was distributed elsewhere and it's just really weird to know that other people have seen it. Whoops I need 10 lines....well....this can be an interesting thing to watch to see how no-budget movies were made before the invention of digital cameras. This sucks. Actually, yeah do watch this just to see if you can sit through the worst. If you can make it through this you can make it through anything.
\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've already commented on this film (under the name TheLegendaryWD). But I see there are others who have commented since. All I can say is: WHAT THE F**K!?\". I cannot believe that a whole 16 people have commented on this film or even seen this movie. Add to that the fact that a couple give it great reviews (probably the makers of the film who went to one of those places in a strip mall that provide internet service and wrote a good review - seeing as how there is no way they could or would pay for their own internet provider... just look at their movie). Although I still admit I got a soft spot for this movie. I thought that some of the other people writing about this one might have it confused with another... until I read the reviews... especially the person who identified the tag line on the front of the box: \"The Ultimate in Frontal Lobotomy\" (what the f**k is that supposed to mean anyway? \"frontal\" lobotomy?)... I totally forgot about that until I read it in the review. People, we are a select few... I say we meet once a year to view this film... wait, does anyone still have it? If anyone does have it please contact me... I'm dyin' to get drunk.
\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 worst film ever made, bar none. Give yourself a pat on the back if you can possibly sit through every excruciatingly painful minute of it. Except for the bit where the hard-luck loser turned deranged psychopath from forced medical experimentation pours his pea soup on the doctor's head and laughs like any good raving lunatic should...that's all.
\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\nHard to believe that director Barbet Schroeder once did the majestic and very funny Maitresse (1976), and now only seems to do \"by the numbers\" Hollywood thrillers.
This is very lightweight John Grisham material, crossed with the plot of a TV movie. Bullock is Cass Mayweather, a feisty and independent crime investigator specialising in serial killers. Ben Chaplin is her reserved police partner Sam Kennedy, and together they make an uncomfortable duo. Not good, when two unbalanced college maladriots (Gosling and Pitt) decide to send them on a wild goose chase - by planting very clever and misleading forensic evidence at a crime scene.
Fair enough, but while Bullock and Chaplin fail to create any sparks, we also have to endure a several dull overly-melodramatic flashbacks illustrating an important event in Cass's history. Then of course there are the frequent shots of a cliff-side log cabin where there's absolutely no doubt the OTT ending will be set. Oooh... the atmosphere.
Watch any episode of CSI instead. It's to the point and far more exciting.
\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\nHaving been pleasantly surprised by Sandra Bullock's performance in Miss Congeniality, I decided to give Murder By Numbers a shot. While decent in plucky, self-effacing roles, Ms. Bullock's performance in \"serious\" roles (see Hope Floats, Speed 2, 28 Days) leave much to be desired. Her character is at the same time omniscient, confused, and sexually maladjusted (the sub-plot of Sandra's past comes across as needless filler that does little to develop her already shallow character). The two teenage boys gave decent performances, although their forensics expertise and catch-me-if-can attitude is belied by stupid errors that scream \"We did it!\" Chris Penn as the all-too-obvious suspect is wasted here, as is Ben Chaplin's token partner/love interest character.
***Spoilers Ahead*** Mediocre acting aside, the biggest flaws can be traced to a TV-of-the-week plot that never has you totally buying into the murder motives in the first place, and as mentioned, the stupid errors (vomiting up a rare food on the murder scene, an all too convenient and framing of the school janitor, the two boys hanging out together in public, a convenient love interest to cause friction, etc. etc) cause the view to go from being intrigues to being bored and disappointed by the murderers. The ending was strictly \"By the Numbers\" and was probably the most disappointing aspect of the movie. Using the now-cliched tactic of almost showing the climactic scene at the beginning of the film, and then filling the audience in how we arrived at that moment, the final scenes surprise no one and lacked any of the so-called intelligence the film purported to arrive at it's conclusion. A somewhat promising concept, but poorly executed and weak in nearly every way. * out of ****.
\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\nThere's something frustrating about watching a movie like 'Murder By Numers' because somewhere inside that Hollywood formula is a good movie trying to pop out. However, by the time the credits roll, there's no saving it. The whole thing is pretty much blown by the \"cop side\" of the story, where Sandra Bullock and Ben Chaplin's homicide detective characters muddle through an awkward sexual affair that becomes more and more trivialized the longer the movie goes on. Although Bullock is strong in her role, it's not enough to save the lackluster script and lazy pacing. Ben Chaplin's talents are wasted in a forgettable role (he did much better earlier in the year in the underrated 'Birthday Girl') as well as Chris Penn, who has a role so thanklessly small you feel sorry for a talent like him. Anyway, the plot really isn't even a factor in this movie at all. The two teen killers played by Ryan Gosling and Michael Pitt are the only real reasons to see this movie. Their talent and chemistry work pretty good and they play off of each other quite well. It's too bad they weren't in a much better all-around film. Barbet Schroeder is treading way too safe ground here for such a seasoned filmmaker. Bottom Line: it's worth a rent if you're a genre fan, but everyone else will live a fulfilled life without ever seeing it, except maybe on network TV with convenient commercial breaks.
\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\nAlfred Hitchcock invented any kind of thriller you could think of:he set the standards so high that any director who makes a suspense movie will be fatally compared to him.
The main subject of this Bullock vehicle ,all the ideas,almost everything was already in Hitchcock's classic \" Rope\":the two students who commit a gratuitous crime, Nietsche's philosophy,and the clues that the boys disseminate ,the Master was the first to transfer them to the screen.And with an eighty-minute movie which was a technical riveting tour de force.
\"Murder by numbers \" does not take place in a single room,like \"the rope\" ,mind you.And ,what a supreme originality,it pits two cops against the evil youngsters;and ,you would never guess it,these two cops are very different:actually,Bullock plays the part of woman living like a man ,and her partner (Chaplin) is as shy as a clueless girlie.The two boys' performances are not really mind-boggling ,not as good ,as ,say ,that of Edward Norton in \"primal fear\" .
Well,you know ,\" Rope\" was so good ....
\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\nFrom director Barbet Schroder (Reversal of Fortune), I think I saw a bit of this in my Media Studies class, and I recognised the leading actress, so I tried it, despite the rating by the critics. Basically cool kid Richard Haywood (Half Nelson's Ryan Gosling) and Justin Pendleton (Bully's Michael Pitt) team up to murder a random girl to challenge themselves and see if they can get away with it without the police finding them. Investigating the murder is homicide detective Cassie 'The Hyena' Mayweather (Sandra Bullock) with new partner Sam Kennedy (Ben Chaplin), who are pretty baffled by the evidence found on the scene, e.g. non-relating hairs. The plan doesn't seem to be completely going well because Cassie and Sam do quite quickly have Richard or Justin as suspects, it is just a question of if they can sway them away. Also starring Agnes Bruckner as Lisa Mills, Chris Penn as Ray Feathers, R.D. Call as Captain Rod Cody and Tom Verica as Asst. D.A. Al Swanson. I can see now the same concept as Sir Alfred Hitchcock's Rope with the murdering for a challenge thing, but this film does it in a very silly way, and not even a reasonably good Bullock can save it from being dull and predictable. Adequate!
\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, I'm wondering while watching this film, did the producers of this movie get to save money on Sandra Bullock's wardrobe by dragging out her \"before\" clothes from Miss Congeniality? Did Ms. Bullock also get to sleepwalk through the role by channeling the \"before\" Gracie Hart? As many reviewers have noted before, the film is very formulaic. Add to that the deja vu viewer experiences with the character of Cassie Maywether as a somewhat darker Gracie Hart with more back story and it rapidly become a snooze fest.
The two bad boy serial killers have been done before (and better) in other films. As has the \"good guy partner trying to protect his partner despite the evidence\" character been seen before. In fact none of the characters in the film ever get beyond two dimensions or try to be anything but trite stereotypes.
One last peeve - using the term serial killer is false advertising. Murdering one person - even if it's a premeditated murder - does not make you a serial killer. You may have the potential to become a serial killer but you are not a serial killer or even a spree killer.
\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\nAt first the movie seemed to be doing great, they had the characters profiles set...the plot seemed to be going in the right direction... however, as the movie progressed it seemed the director focused on the wrong kind of things...or just a lot was edited from the movie. The characters' identities changed for the worse within the movie. Also, there seemed to be a lot of implicit meaning -- in other words -- they had things within the movie that didn't seem to fit the movie itself. AND the title... no where in the movie does the title fit the movie...I suppose the title works for the previews.... Actors did well with what they had.....if they had a better director and writer, maybe this would have worked out better. But it didn't. So now there's a new terrible movie coming out this Friday.... My opinion!....don't waste your time or money.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nwell, the writing was very sloppy, the directing was sloppier, and the editing made it worse (at least i hope it was the editing). the acting wasn't bad, but it wasn't that good either. pretty much none of the characters were likable. at least 45 minutes of that movie was wasted time and the other hour or so was not used anywhere near its full potential. it was a great idea, but yet another wasted good idea goes by. it could have ended 3 different places but it just kept going on to a mostly predictable hollywood ending. and what wasn't predictable was done so badly that it didn't matter. the ending was not worth watching at all. sandra bullock was out of her element and should stay away from these types of movies. the movie looked rushed also. the movie just wasn't really worth seeing, and had i paid for it i would have been very mad. maybe i was more disappointed because i expected a really good movie and got a bad one. the movie over all was not horrifibly bad, but i wouldn't reccomend it. i gave it 2 out of 10 b/c i liked the idea so much and i did like one character (justin i believe, the super smart one). and it also had some very cheap ways to cover plot holes. it was like trying to cover a volcano with cheap masking tape, it was not pretty. anyway, if you see it, wait for the $1.50 theater or video, unless you like pretty much every movie you see, then i guess you'll like 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\nMurder By Numbers is one of those movies that you expect is made-for-TV but isn't. Considering the only actor of any note is Bullock (although Michael Pitt seems to be moving onto bigger and better things), it isn't a great surprise that this movie quickly fades away from memory to be replaced by more important things. Like... remembering to lock your front door when you go out. Or putting clothes back on when you come out of the shower.
Bullock plays Cassie Mayweather, a cop with personal issues (don't they all). Together with her new partner (a wet-looking Ben Chaplin), she is called to investigate the murder of a young woman. Nothing unusual there except that the perps are a couple of teenage students who think they've planned and executed the perfect murder. As the investigation continues, a battle of wills emerges between Cassie and the main suspect Richie Haywood (Ryan Gosling).
The crippling issue here is that the two leads are hopeless. Bullock, though she is very nice to look at, is about as believable in the role of a hardened cynical cop as Rodney Dangerfield (actually, he'd be better!). Chaplin, for his sins, is a complete non-entity and I feel sorry that he has to put this film on his CV in his attempt to break into Hollywood. At least Gosling and Pitt, as the conniving sneering suspects, acquit themselves adequately. As if dodgy leads weren't bad enough, a story that would send anybody to sleep and a highly predictable (but illogical) ending shoot this film in the head before it has a chance to run.
\"Murder By Numbers\" has absolutely nothing going for it, even a pointless nude scene by Bullock wouldn't redeem it. Well, just a little but still not enough to save it. Forgettable, predictable and redundant - this is one film that isn't going to move the cop genre forward. As Cassie probably says on her next case, there's nothing to see here people. Move along, keep 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\nOf all the films I have seen, this one, The Rage, has got to be one of the worst yet. The direction, LOGIC, continuity, changes in plot-script and dialog made me cry out in pain. \"How could ANYONE come up with something so crappy\"? Gary Busey is know for his \"B\" movies, but this is a sure \"W\" movie. (W=waste).
Take for example: about two dozen FBI & local law officers surround a trailer house with a jeep wagoneer. Inside the jeep is MA and is \"confused\" as to why all the cops are about. Within seconds a huge gun battle ensues, MA being killed straight off. The cops blast away at the jeep with gary and company blasting away at them. The cops fall like dominoes and the jeep with Gary drives around in circles and are not hit by one single bullet/pellet. MA is killed and gary seems to not to have noticed-damn that guy is tough. Truly a miracle, not since the six-shooter held 300 bullets has there been such a miracle.
\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 have been a huge Lynn Peterson fan ever since her breakthrough role in the 1988 blockbuster movie \"Far North\", and even though I loved her in her one other film \"Slow\" (2004) where she plays \"Francis\", this is by far and away her strongest role.
Lynn, as I'm sure you all know (or should), plays the critical role of \"Driver\".
Unfortunately, other than Lynn's amazing performance, I'm afraid this movie doesn't really have much going for it.
Oh wait - there was one other thing - the amazing creativity of the editing to remove profanity for TV viewers. Memorable lines like: \"You son-of-a-gun!\", \"You son-of-a-witch!\", \"Shoot!\", and \"Well, Forget You!\"
O.K. Bye.
P.S.: Does anyone know where I can get another Lynn Peterson poster?
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA handful of nubile young college sorority sisters decide to go camping with a professor. A giant druid want to sacrifice them to prevent the apocalypse come the year 2000, they also have to contend with bikers, an Indian and a loch ness monster type thing. Worth watching for only 3 reasons, George 'Buck' Flower (a sadly unsung B-movie staple) is on hand as a hobo and the other 2 belong to the stunning Savannah (in one of only 3 non-porn roles she had). Both have very small roles. Too bad everything else in the movie is horrendously bad.
My Grade: D-
Retromedia DVD Extras: Original Trailer
Eye Candy: 4 pairs of breasts, 2 asses
\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\nOh my. Started out with such great potential - a bunch of cute sorority girls walking around practically naked, check. Then off to a bar where the 80's cheese gets turned up a notch, check. Off to a woodsy state park the next morning, check. A bunch of girls and their professor, rowdy bikers, a General store guy, and that dood from They Live acting as the local drunk - makes for a nice body count, check (and speaking of body count, notice the strong resemblance on the DVD cover to the foreign horror flick - Body Count! aka Camping del Terrore). A whacky Indian in the woods doing some sort of ritual, hmmm, OK I'll let it slide, check. And then, oh brother, all downhill from there. Terrible. The Lochness monster head in the pond had me cracking up though.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie is so irredeemably bad, NOTHING about it makes it worth seeing. NO effects, no suspense and poor dialogue poorly delivered. Oh, and neither a CAMP or any FEAR does it contain. Do yourself a favor and go see the original Friday the 13th or (preferably) Sleepaway Camp, but what ever you do, DO NOT see this movie.
Even Michele Bauer's appearance at the very beginning can't save it. Usually, in these kinds of films you expect violence, suspense, and a little gore and some T&A. The violence was poorly executed, the \"suspense\" was laughable, there was NO gore, and the T&A is plentiful IN THE FIRST 5 MINUTES, then, NOTHING. At least one of these things, properly done would have at least made it watchable.
To say at least one nice thing about it, Buck Flower is great, he seems to be the only one who understands they are making schlock and rightly hams it up. If everyone else had fit that tone it would have been campy fun, no pun intended.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie starts out the way every movie should start out, with a bunch of hot babes in a dorm walking around in their undies and/or topless. A couple of them take showers. I'm liking it so far! Unfortunately, we then meet or main characters. They're just not particularly likable. Usually in these movies, the actresses aren't really acting, they give very \"natural\" performances, and they're quite sympathetic, fun, and likable. Not here. They don't have much of any personality and I didn't care for them much.
Some of the girls go on a camping trip for school. On the way they stop at a backwoods gas station and meet a biker gang. The biker gang should really have been left out of the movie - it was cheesy before, but now it's just plain stupid. The head biker looks like a middle aged guy dressed up as John Bon Jovi for Halloween. The girls go out to the woods and later the biker gang follows them.
I don't really know what the heck happens after that. There's a bunch of stuff about the world ending because it's the end of the millennium, then some of the bikers get killed by a mysterious Indian dude who keeps disappearing. Somebody gets eaten by a cheesy Lock Ness Monster thing as he's swimming across a lake. Some guy in silly makeup is apparently a Druid, and he needs to sacrifice some of the girls in order to forestall the end of the world. Or maybe cause the end of the world, I'm afraid I wasn't paying much attention. First he dresses the girls up in animal skin lingerie.
It could have been a really fun cheesy movie, but the biker gang kind of ruined the atmosphere and the plot was so scatterbrained that it didn't even live up to my grade Z schlock expectations. They really should have eliminated half the plot elements and just focused on one or two things. Instead it's all over the place. Overall, if you're looking for late '80 schlock, I imagine you could do worse. If you tried really hard. There's plenty of nudity at the beginning, but the characters are kind of crummy and the plot is too nonsensical to be even the least bit satisfying.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf this movie was made two years earlier it could have been a lot better. But unfortunately, it was made in the decade that had no idea about how a horror movie was supposed to look or act. When I first heard about this movie, people on IMDb were classifying it as the sequel to Cheerleader Camp. Oh how wrong they were. Yes, Betsy Russell was in it but Uma Thurman sure wasn't. I'd really like to find the person who started that whole sequel rumor. I'm sure a lot of us would though. I'm not gonna give anything away because frankly I don't remember how this movie even ends! I'm just gonna tell you to watch a real camp horror movie... The Burning starring Jason Alexander, Fisher Stevens, Holly Hunter & the geek from Fast Times at Ridgemont High. A word to the wise - Just because a horror movie has the word camp in the title, doesn't mean its gonna be worth watching. Oh, and another thing, ANY HORROR FLICK MADE IN THE EARLY TO MID 90's WAS EVER CONSIDERED EVEN REMOTELY GOOD!
\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 thought this would be a fun comedy with no sex or nudity in it. Well, there's no sexual content but as for being a \"fun comedy,\" I only remember laughing a total three times during \"The Green Butchers.\" The hilarity is centered around cannibalism and mental retardation, which is just sick humor, in a bad way.
I should have walked out of this film and I'm kicking myself because I didn't. In fact, I shouldn't have seen this movie in the first place. The only good that came out of this film was was the fact that Bjarne and his brother finally made amends and put their ugly past behind them. I advise any well-meaning individual to steer clear of this gross-out 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\nThere is so much bad to say about this movie and so little that's good!
The plot has enough holes to sink the Titanic, the characters are completely unbelievable, the monsters are so unrealistic, and I'm sick and tired of seeing movies that involve an ex-husband and ex-wife being thrown together in some bizarre emergency - it happens far too often in films and it's become another bad cliché.
I find it hard to believe that anybody would have invested $1 in making this garbage, never mind the $100 or so it must have cost.
You could make a better movie with more convincing special effects on your home computer! I didn't think movies could get this bad! Avoid it at all costs - do something that's more fun and enjoyable, such as having a tooth pulled, or an enema!
\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\nEven by the standards of most B-movies, this movie is by far the worst I've ever seen. The graphics are so poor that a man in a monster suit looks more realistic. the ocean water effects are especially laughable, including the one scene where they board the mini-sub, and the \"water\" looks like its frozen in place. The problems with this film are so numerous that I'll just stop here with the details. needless to say, I kid you not when I say that even Uwe Toilet Boll himself could do a better job. Avoid this movie at all cost, there are other B grade movies out there that, despite being horrible, are at least a good way of passing the time by.
\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\nSome giant scorpions are on a submarine and kill everybody. Two months later, some Marines and the scientists in charge of the scorpion project go to the sub to retrieve their cargo. After finding 200 dead bodies, the Marine commander tells the doctor \"I need to know if there's anything down here that could be a danger to my men\". Uh, gee...ya think? She refuses to tell him what is down there, citing \"need to know\". Yup, that pretty well sizes it up. One of the scientists is apparently some sort of idiot savant - real heavy on the idiot, light on the savant. He's given the task of fixing the lights. He finds the control panel for the lights, cuts a wire, and shrieks like a banshee. Then he does it again. Then he takes a hammer and smashes the control panel to pieces, which causes all the lights on the submarine to start working.
And so it goes. Apparently this was made in Sweden; I'm not sure if the Swedes have a really weird sense of humor or if they're just really awful movie makers. I'm inclined to think they're awful movie makers. If you guessed that there's a huge explosion at the end of this thing, well, sorry, but that's on a need-to-know basis, so I can't tell you.
If you've absolutely got to see a giant scorpion movie, let me suggest Tail Sting, which is a cheesy and fun movie about scorpions on a plane, or Bugs, which is a fairly descent B movie about scorpions in a tunnel. Look at this movie as an absolute last resort. Oh, it's watchable, it's hard to turn it off just because of the sheer lunacy of it, but that's about all it's got going for 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'm a fan of low budget B-movies and campy horror flicks, but this was too much, even for me.
If you can get past the weak plot, the cheesy effects and the uninspired acting, then the horrible writing will kill you, or you'll wish it would. The dialog was most likely written by high school stoners, who thought that saying \"sir, yes sir\" over and over again, made these guys sound more military.
The characters were all the typical cardboard stereotypes: Gung-ho sarge, sorta gung-ho other guy with sensitive side, evil scientist with secret agenda (bald or course), bitchy brainy chick who would be hot if she tried too, dumb sexy chick with vital piece of information, idiot \"genius\" nerd, random other sorta military dudes who die soon enough, and spoiler character alert, crazy scientist who was in charge \"until something went horribly wrong\" Oh yeah, I almost forgot, there is a secret military (navy?) submarine, sitting on the ocean floor, 5 minutes from HQ (or so it seems), full of radioactive scorpions (ok?) and dead bodies. Your mission is vague and poorly defined.....
If you watch this, don't say you weren't warned.
\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\nAt the very beginning, the look at a control panel that reads \"8 miles of the cost of California\", and no, I didn't misspell that, they really did not realize the put of the cost instead of off the coast. These people must have been morons.
It's good if you're into terrible movies, but the sheer fact they couldn't catch a simple spelling issue make me believe they really didn't put any effort into creating the movie whatsoever. The Navy uniforms are not correct at all in any manner whatsoever.
Wow, completely ridiculous, but good if you are looking for something insanely stupid to watch. How these folks made any money off this is beyond me.
\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 starred as Eugene Morris Jerome in my high school adaptation of the play and this film definitely doesn't live up to the script or the imagination of Neil Simon. I know this play backwards and forwards and I can honestly tell you that the acting was off, The production was cheesy. The changes in the play's script were poorly done. If you want to really enjoy this play you should see the actual play, not a Hollywood movie adaptation. The Eugene character lacked soul and was overly sarcastic in all he said. The other characters were off key as well. A general disappointment, messy, disloyal to the play, amateurishly executed!
\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 tolerance for shlocky direction was overwhelmed by some of the choices in this could-be-really-good time-waster.
When the \"romantic\" intervals were of a nature to take me out of the story and into \"How-and-why-did-the-movie-maker-do-/that/?\" mode, you got to figure something is missing in there; restraint and tastefulness, I think.
Brian Brown is a capable, empathetic actor - usually. I think he didn't like the project or the people, and it shows. I don't remember anything the other guy did. Can't even picture his face.
On the other hand, it doesn't have to be any good to be entertaining; some of the vignettes and twists are fun and even ingenious.
I watched this movie ($2.00 purchase at the vid rental place) against the advice of the screenwriter; I understand he was tempted to remove his name from the credits. Matter of pride, I bet.
\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\nCasper Van Dien... what can I say? I enjoy the guy! His movies bring a certain flair to them that is actually not brought on by the director or producer, but by him! Recycled plots... check. Rip-offs of better movies... check. Wooden acting... check. It's not that Van Dien is a bad actor (he has been effective in Hollywood gloss as Starship Troopers and Sleepy Hollow) he just really has not been offered a script worthy of his talents; and yes, he does have acting talent other than being eye-candy. This movie offers a slight hint of what Van Dien can offer but is bogged down by the production of it all. The script can be better developed (see Oliver Stone's U-Turn). The directing can be better utilized (see Robert Rodriguez's From Dusk Til Dawn). The DP could've made the desert more exotic (see Russ Meyer's Faster Pussycat Faster Kill!). This script is weak because this is something we have seen before many other times so the double/triple-crosses are expected. The direction is weak because it is not offering anything new and telegraphs many of the weak script moments. The cinematography at times paints a lovely autumn desert flavor to it, but at other times it doesn't take advantage of the scorching light and the beginning sequence is horrible in cornflower blue.
Now to the acting... Van Dien shows some grace and charisma to his Jake. He neither gets too methodical nor too campy in his role. A nice balance especially since the rest of the cast seems too distracted as to how they should be acting in this film (bad script or bad direction... you make your opinion). The only other person worth mentioning is Bryan Brown's villain as it provides the only real credit for acting in this film... aspiring actors forget trying to learn how to act in green screen, try learning how to act in a horrendous script and take notes on Bryan Brown in this film. He adds extra depth to his role and is a nice counter part to Van Dien's character. Jake always seem to either be one step ahead or control of any situation whether if it is out of his control. The femme fatale is weak (this is a desert noir after all) and is another nail in this film's coffin (you decide... script or direction). The Rosalita character should've been thrusted forward in the movie instead of being pushed into the back ground later on to make room for the real femme fatale. So watch the film for Van Dien and Brown; and for fun, try to skip a rock across the plot holes laced within the film.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie was absolutely one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The plot could have been made to work, had the movie been written better. The acting was some of the worst I have ever seen. I was very slow and made me want to leave/turn off the movie several times. I watched the entire movie in the hopes that the ending would make it worthwhile but it didn't. this movie I think should be rated in the negative numbers. (In my humble opinion)
\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 a crappy, miserably acted movie based on sublimated male fantasies. A shame that it was based in Texas, an otherwise excellent state. I would recommend this movie to no-one, and wish that it had never entered my consciousness as I am now so irritated that I wasted my brain cells even paying the slightest attention to 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\nThis is species already hatching into a beautiful model (Mathilda May). A smashing baby with an urge to kiss and kill!
The movie begins with a strong launch, and infected by a bore-virus throughout the middle to end.
The weakest spot is the presentation of the basic plot/story. As you should have compared it, Natasha Henstridge's Species got the same plot, but adds up much interesting side plot and not mentioning good actions and strong clymatic ending.
This explain why Patrick Stewart joins the fleet of enterprise in Star Trek Next Generation; he wanted to find more models in glass cage, floating inside Halley-Comet.
A must see for a science fiction fans.
\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\nEven though this is one of the worst movies I have ever seen, I would recommend this movie for anyone who likes good pyrotechnics. Its plot was terrible. Its horror wasn't really that good. Its sci-fi was even worse. But its pyrotechnics were excellent! (Mathilda May was extremely beautiful too.)
\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\nUsually, any movie with Steve Railsback in the lead is a good movie. However, this movie does not conform to that opinion. Lifeforce is a below average movie that is extremely confusing in the beginning (reminds me of Star Trek: TMP), but is able to pick things up a bit towards the end when London becomes Zombie City. A horror/sci-fi mess that is very hard to sit through, although the naked spacegirl/vampire is very easy to look at. This movie deserves a rating of 4 out of 10.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA poorly-paced sf/horror venture that takes itself much too seriously, memorable only for (a) the beautiful Mathilda May wandering around naked through the chaos and (b) terrible miscasting. It has a few mildly gruesome effects and startling moments, and some unintentionally funny scenes, but is mostly a waste of time.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFirst, I am a big fan of Alien and Alien II - in my opinion both of these movies created and defined the Si-Fi Horror Genre as we know it today. I noticed Lifeforce was often compared to the Aliens saga - after viewing this movie I would highly disagree. There are some okay special effects with the alien vampires, and the story line might have been acceptable. I just can't get past a naked woman space vampire throughout the whole movie, this is absolutely absurd (although she does look good). Add in a bunch of bad British acting and it's pretty much OVER. Most of the movie ends up taking place in London or somewhere in England, so after the first 20 minutes you lose the outerspace setting and any hope of some real Si-Fi Horror action and suspense.

\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI was really excited about seeing \"Cold Mountain\". Alas, like most movies I'm really excited about seeing, it was a letdown! Were it not for that miraculous invention called a DVD, I think I would've put my head through the monitor, I was so bored!
I closely watched Kidman and Law when they meet because their characters are supposedly \"destined\" for each other. Yet Law's face showed anything but dumb-struck love, while Kidman seemed to be counting the seconds until she could run back to her trailer! Zellweger's character is pure Granny Clampett (as if we don't get it, cornball banjos mark her every entrance), and so over the top, it was all I could do not to laugh! Ironically, her performance serves to highlight just how stiff-as-a-board the leads are.
Ada nearly starves because she freed her slaves; we never learn why. More perplexing is why didn't any of them stay on as Ada and her father were unusually benevolent, and (as shown in one scene) it was a very dangerous time for Negroes (as they're politely called here). Why didn't the neighbors teach her how to milk a cow or grow a crop? Heck, why didn't she just sell the farm and go home? And for all of Ruby's practicality, when she dispatches Ada's \"evil\" rooster, that kind of puts the kibosh on them having any more chickens!
By the time her beloved finally returns, Ada doesn't need him or anyone else -- which is the big joke! Indeed, she may be physically intimate with Inman, but her real intimacy is with Ruby, who has turned Ada into an Über-Babe version of herself. Did anyone else notice how they walked down the hill holding hands, happy as two peas in a pod, as they left Inman behind?
I doubt that Minghella recognized this as he was too busy making an anti-Bush movie. Inman tells us he is \"like every fool sent out to fight with a flag and a lie\", and Ada's father says \"I imagine God is weary of being called down on both sides of an argument\". These \"observations\" are historically inaccurate and insulting. While slavery was the basis of the South's economy, the reasons for the War were more complex. It was incomprehensible for a soldier to think that the cause was \"a lie\" (in fact, most in the rank-and-file were indifferent to it). For filmmakers to stamp their views onto a period where such views were foreign to those who lived in that time is beyond obnoxious.
Structurally, the film is choppy and episodic. Law and Kidman are miscast, and have zero chemistry! The script is little more than half-baked dialog, and an egregious bunch of clichés and banalities. \"Small moments like a bag of diamonds?\" Ugh!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie was so bad, I thought I was going to scream in the middle of it. It was all I could do to sit through it. The beginning of the movie where they are at war was promising. Only it smacked of \"Saving Private Ryan\" to me...or at least an attempt at it. Only we don't care for these people. There was no build up to the characters. The kid that dies I guess was suppose to make us cry...but for some reason it just irritated everyone. Then we have to listen to line after line of sappy dialog that tried desperately to mimic \"Wuthering Heights\", which of course was also quoted in the movie. Go figure. There was nothing original about the movie at all, it was like sitting through the most mundane parts of every war movie ever made, with a little bit of humor thrown in to keep you hoping that it was going to get better. Sadly it doesn't. 3 hours later, I leave the theater feeling cheated. Anthony Menghilla should be shot for trying to duplicate the English Patient, which for it's time was a good movie, but now I wonder....should I rent it and make sure I wasn't just caught up in the HYPE??? Maybe I was, but I definitely wasn't caught up in the hype of this film. I really went to the theater wanting to like this movie. I am a die hard Nicole Kidman fan. Save your money, rent it on DVD and laugh through it, as 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\n***MILD SPOILERS*** Dear Inman, Kind words are hard to find for me to describe the movie I have just been subjected to that stars you. The problems are far and wide and painful for me to recount. . . yet I feel I must, if only to prevent others from suffering the same anguish as I did. This is NOT a film for anyone under 50, it's sloooowwwww, soooooo slowwww, and when the big reunion of Ada and Inman happens. . .the biggest and most important scene in the film, NOTHING happens, it is a epic letdown. Now, like the director should have done, I will keep my words short and end with this warning, your film is disjointed, boring, has no flow and Jude Law is tragically mis-cast, he showed more emotion as a robot in A.I. - be warned, the film should be retitled . . . Bored Mountain. Love, Ada
\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\nCritics are falling over themselves within the Weinstein's Sphere of Influence to praise this ugly, misguided and repellent adaptation of the lyrical novel on which it's based. Minghella's ham-fisted direction of the egregiously gory and shrill overly-episodic odyssey is one of the many missteps of this \"civil-war love story\". Are they kidding? After Ms. Kidman and Mr. Law meet cute with zero screen chemistry in a small North Carolina town and steal a kiss before its off to war for Jude and his photo souvenir of the girl he left behind, it's a two hour test to the kidneys as to whether he will survive a myriad of near-death experiences to reunite with his soulmate. Who cares? Philip S. Hoffman's amateurish scene chewing in a disgusting and unfunny role pales to Renee Zelweger's appearance as a corn-fed dynamo who bursts miraculously upon the scene of Kidman's lonely farm to save the day. Rarely has a performance screamed of \"look at me, I'm acting\" smugness. Her sheer deafening nerve wakes up the longuers for a couple of minutes until the bluster wears painfully thin. Released by Miramax strategically for Oscar and Golden Globe (what a farce) consideration, the Weinsteins apparently own, along with Dick Clark, the critical community and won 8 Globe nominations for their overblown failure. The resultant crime is that awards have become meaningless and small, less powerful PR-driven films become obscure. Cold Mountain is a concept film and an empty, bitter waste of time. Cold indeed!!!
\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
This movie really has nothing going for it. With the Reverend played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman complaining about his constipation and other toilet humor in a 2.5 hour movie, you know that they made no cuts at all and left the crap in, literally. It's a waste of good talent, and a total embarrassment. Dreadful!

\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\nJude law gives Keanu Reeves a run for his money as the most wooden actor around, Renee Z's character is straight out of the Beverly Hillbillies, and the two leads have about as much chemistry as Darth Vader and Queen Amedala. The \"bad guys\" are the worst kind of cliche, and there's not a subtle moment in the film. Incredible that some critics actually liked this movie.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"