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\nThis plot had more holes in it than an OJ Simpson alibi!
I noticed two Star Trek references in the movie and, yet,
ironically we have a lead character played by Andy Garcia
who is the antithesis of the Vulcan philosophy of, \"The
needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or one.\"
Let's just say that while trying to save his son from cancer he puts most of the rest of San Francisco at incredible risk. Michael Keaton's character is almost as
unrealistic as well. He neglects to kill at numerous opportunities and yet is angered when Garcia foils his
attempt to kill a bunch of cops at once. The child's doctor remains in charge of her faculties even after been
held hostage several times in a short expanse of time but
put her on a wide walkway 5 stories up and she loses it.
Andy Garcia's child is something of an anathema in this
movie. He is the most sympathetic and real character, one of the movie's bright spots. He furthermore utters a line, that must have been the result of serendipity, regarding fighting cancer that parallels Keaton's motivation to escape. All in all, the movie was not a
complete waste (see From Dusk to Dawn 2: Texas Blood Money
for that) but disappointing considering the talent on hand.
\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 haven't seen Ishtar, but I did have the misfortune of seeing Kevin Costner's Postman, This is worse. Maybe the absolute worse piece of garbage I have ever seen, and if you look at my review for Moulin Rouge? that is saying something. Bad plot, acting was substandard and even wasted (even though, yes, Michael Keaton has been in some of the worst movies I have ever seen), and this movie has no redeeming value to anybody with more than half a brain. DO NOT SEE IF YOU HAVE GRADUATED THE 4TH GRADE as you will find this an insult to your intelligence.
\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 seems to be a whole sub genre of cheap, tired old sex \"comedies\" out there, that say the same old things about middle class couples. Sort of like Friends, but with more soft porn and no wit. This film is no exception- it had situations so familiar I died from deja vu. People sat on couches, spinning out clichés about sex and relationships? Check. Monogamy versus cheating with some woman/man who would never look twice in reality at some other woman/man? Check. PORN The BADDIES!!!!111? Check. Some guy/girl in it who happens to be the only reason you're watching this rubbish? Check. The lesson seems to be- when it doubt, make a tired old sex \"comedy\" about people no one cares anything about, in order to make some statement that everybody has already heard three thousand times before. That'll get your film made. It'll even attract some sitcom nobody in a bad wig!
\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 series doesn't present the British view of the Revolutionary War, so much as an anti-American view of it. The underlying theme of the series is that a silent majority of colonists enjoyed British rule; that the founding fathers were manipulative schemers whose only goal was to draw Britain into a violent civil war; that the American supporters of the revolution and the militia were racist, violent louts, duped into the struggle. Clearly, the intent of the author, Richard Holmes, is for the viewer to extrapolate these characteristics, in a straight line, from the American population of 1775 to today.
For example, in the episode \"The Shot Heard Around the World\" Holmes dredges up an obscure print of the Boston Massacre, in which he claims the skin of Crispus Attucks, a black man and the first man killed in the revolution, was purposely \"whited out\". Holmes claims that portraying Attucks as a black man would have been bad propaganda for the revolutionary cause. Holmes never reveals how he knows this. And there's more. Holmes goes to some length to work in a single, unsubstantiated, atrocity: the desecration of the body of a British soldier. He compares the American militia to the Viet Cong and the mujahadeen -- without mentioning any differences in the goals of these groups. The list goes on.
Supposedly, this series was made in response to Mel Gibson's \"The Patriot\". It says a lot when an academic feels the need to respond to Mel Gibson on any topic. Instead of presenting the British view, it seems Holmes really wanted to give a sensationalistic, anti-American view, and, in the process, he's made himself the Roger Corman of historians -- strictly third-rate schlock.
\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 boyfriend and I decided to go see this movie after we heard on the radio that it was a good movie worth seeing, even up there with \"Cars\". Within the first ten minutes of the movie, I was horrified. For starters, the cows, which should be females, had male voices. Then I realized they really are supposed to be guys. I put the transvestite cows aside for a bit and tried to keep watching the movie with an open mind, but it was just so corny I couldn't help but shake my head. I probably checked my phone about ten times to see if it was almost over. The plot was decent, if not predictable, but it took way to long to reach its point. I was having trouble sitting through it, and I'm 19. The children in the theater were actually getting up and running up and down the aisles. I felt like joining them. But my biggest problem with the movie was that it was loaded with drinking references, not to mention that the cows/bulls actually hot wired and stole a car, then drank and drive, broke into a boy's house to push him out of bed (he deserved it though), then ran away from the cops, whom the writers of the movie made look like terrible people. This isn't the kind of thing I would want my kid to be exposed to. There's way too much of that in the real world, if I wanted my child to watch guys drink and drive and lead cops on a chase, I'd pop them in front of the 10 o'clock news. Children's movies are supposed to be an escape from reality, not an escape into ridiculousness. What happened to the good morals and happy endings that children's movies used to boast? That's why Disney's old movies, like Beauty and the Beast, Lady and the Tramp, The Little Mermaid, etc. are classics. If you want your kids to see a great cartoon with basically the same plot as \"Barnyard\", rent \"The Lion King\". You can get a great story without the awful drinking and driving and grand theft auto references. The writers of \"Barnyard\" were obviously trying to continue the great trend of making a children's movie that a parent could enjoy as well, but they did so in very bad taste. I would never take my kids to see this, and I suggest you save your money and watch something else.
\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\nHello - I normally love movies. I'm 19, I have seen many and dislike only one or two. This one though, the second it finished, I had to pull my sister (who had wanted to see it) out by the arm and I burst into tears of laughter as soon as I got out because it was such a ridiculously awful movie.
Why it was awful: - all the cows had udders, especially bothersome were the MALE ones with udders - none of the characters were unique or engaging, except perhaps the main Coyote Dag - the idea of cows keeping watch against coyotes is just ridiculous - the 'funny' moments are repetitive and become simply a sequence to out-do the last one - the themes of working together, which should have been present at the end, were nonexistent. Instead, people get the impression: Well, I'll take this all upon myself, and in this case I was lucky that my friends decided to back me up without my knowledge - all the moments similar to the lion king (as mentioned below) were beyond corniness, even for a kid's movie
and...the worst of all... IT PARALLELS THE LION KING IN EVERY SINGLE WAY Responsible father figure who is killed by Coyotes (the Coyotes are essentially the Hyenas, with Dag, the lead Coyote, being the equivalent of Scar) The farm falls into chaos, Odis (the cow, though basically Simba) wants to play around, and is shocked that his dad died, believes it was his fault (even though in this movie, it WAS his fault), confronts the Coyotes and gets an ass whooping, after which Dag tells him to leave, and on the verge of leaving, Odis somehow decides to go and save some chickens and his friends back him up (by complete surprise of course, he leaves without knowing they will come help him).
Other things taken from Lion King: stars moving around as signs, father figures referring to stars/signs in a mystical loving way, the obviously circularness of how the father Ben found Odis and took care of him, and how at the end Odis' love interest gives birth and he has a similar experience. Birth at the end? GOOD GOD, what the hell... and even similar type music, which seems completely tacked on at the end because it is completely different from all the previous music.
Honestly, this is the first movie I have ever seen where I really WAS rooting for the bad guys - I never understood what other people were saying, until now.
BOTTOM LINE: Don't waste your time to go see this. Convince the kids not to see it, and re-watch the Lion King. Either that, or take them to see the Ant Bully, which was creative and artistic.
\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 cannot believe the number of people referring to the lead characters as 'boy cows'!! there is no such thing people!!!! There are cows and bulls and all males in the bovine species are bulls and do not have udders!!!! There was even an actual bull but it was like it was another type of animal completely! my god this is like drawing human ears on a cat, boobs on superman, or mickey mouse with blond shirley temple curls - even in animation it just doesn't work! giving human qualities to the animals is nothing new & to be expected, but changing their actual bodies into basically a transsexual figure is bizarre for a family cartoon - how many people- editors, writers, producers, animators saw this and didn't know any better or didn't say anything- it is completely astounding! i'm no snob & I luv animation- simpsons, beavis & butthead, south park, even ice age & all the other new ones out there - over the hedge was great- but this is nuts - totally nuts- i could not accept that that many people are that ignorant & i kept hoping for a reason for the udders in the film - an explanation - none came - and at the end when they hold up this little newborn calf & half its belly is udder & they pronounce 'its a boy' i nearly choked!!!! please, writer/creator let us in on the joke!
\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 took my 4 year old twins to see this movie today and I would NOT recommend it for children their age.
This movie had many fighting scenes throughout it, which I found too violent and my children found scary.
The subject matter was way over my kids heads and the death scene was too scary for a cartoon geared towards children.
I was disappointed because we were all looking forward to seeing this, but it just did not cut it. If you have children under 7 years old, I would not recommend this movie.
Also, the utter thing made me crazy during the entire 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\nWords cannot describe how horrible this movie is. Well, maybe they can. I'll take a stab at it: 1 - Pitiful. Hollywood makes more talking animals set in graphics. Apparently script and storyline aren't needed anymore.
2 - Violent. Kids movie but yet one of the characters is viciously attacked and killed.
3 - Blatantly stupid. The movie is actually depicting the farm animals as having human abilities. In Nemo, the fish could talk, but for the most part, they are still fish. We only hear the English as a translation. In Barnyard, the animals are actually speaking English that other people can understand.
4 - Unintelligent - No smart story line or even any smart humor. (Ok, the 13 year old dog on crutches was funny).
5 - Culturally insensitive - The \"black\" cow is actually played by a black actress. The pink cow is played by a white actress. The black cow was playing a stereotypical black person.
6 - Ignorant - No such thing as a male cow that I'm aware of. I believe we call them bulls? If we are going to expose our children to drek, it might as well have the simplest facts correct.
7 - Boring and Borish. My 4 year old had us leave after 45 minutes. He practically fell asleep.
I'm sure this movie will make millions, which is unfortunate, because it only proves to Hollywood producers that the American public at large is just filled with suckers waiting to pay 8 bucks just to get some peace and quiet from the kids for an hour or two. An unfortunate circumstance. Why should the producers spend real money when the returns will be the same either way.
\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\nLet's see... a couple dozen Gary Larson gags, as well as his illustration style, a possibly legally difficult wholesale appropriation of an Aardman character, a more than generous sprinkling of art direction from various Pixar films, positively Lion King-esquire villains living in what amounts to an elephant's graveyard IN THE MIDDLE OF FARM COUNTRY, oh, and a stinking' Riverdance joke ten years after any possible relevance. The kids (three and five) liked it, but boy, it was a haul for dad. Just another weak attempt from Nickelodean Films to hitch on to the animation explosion. I really, really wish they had spent a little more money on character design, on rendering, on a script, on a director.
\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\nIt was so BORING! No plot whatsoever! Basically a watered-down version of the Lion King mixed in with Animal Farm. Again, no plot at all. Horrible! Worst hour and a half of my life!Oh my gosh! I had to walk out of the theatre for a few minutes just to get some relief! I maybe chuckled twice. All of the semi-funny parts are in the previews. I hate movies like that. Yeah, the movie pretty much sucked. I don't know how it got such good ratings and reviews. THERE IS NO PLOT OR STORYLINE!! If you do go see this movie, bring a pillow or a girlfriend/boyfriend to keep you occupied through out. Awful. I don't think I've ever gone to a movie and disliked it as much. It was a good thing that the tickets only cost five dollars because I would be mad if I'd have paid $7.50 to see this crap.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI can find no redeeming value to this movie. It appears to be loosely based on the Lion King school of thought. Father gets killed, son can't fill the shoes and tries to run away, etc, etc, etc. The only difference (other than being in a barnyard instead of a jungle) is that Barnyard tries to \"liven things up\" with club-type music. They go way over the top in trying to be cool. The problem is that it really isn't cool. It's like \"that guy\". Everybody knows at least one of \"those guys\" who are older and still hang out with the younger crowd in a futile attempt to cling onto their youth. They try to be cool to fit in but they really aren't. That's this movie.
But hey, if you have money to burn and you feel like paying someone to suck 90 minutes of you life away, by all means don't let me stop you.
\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 went to see this by myself first to make sure it was suitable for my little boy to see.
Thank goodness I did because I certainly would not allow any young child to see this. Why? The violence, death, the funeral. If you are not ready to explain these concepts to your kids then keep them away.
Why on earth are these topics covered in a kids movie - especially one that has a tag line of \"The original party animals\". Might as well put a gangland execution in a Hello Kitty cartoon.
As for laughs there were very few and far between. Speaking for myself there were none. The cows looked remarkably similar to the cows in the The Far Side comics. I guess there isn't anything original about this movie apart from the addition of ridiculous violence and antisocial activities for all the young kids to enjoy.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhen my six-year-old fell asleep at the theater during this movie, that was all the confirmation I needed that this film is a stinker. It was boring. The scary parts were boring. The maudlin parts were boring. Even the funny parts -- with two minor exceptions -- were boring. And predictable. And did I mention predictable? Examples: 1) The gruff but loving Dad indulging his brat of a kid. 2) The gruff but loving Dad buying the farm (while singing a song?!). 3) The brat of a kid deciding to cut and run, but, thanks to his friends, sticking things out because they need him. 4) The brat of a kid winning against incredible odds. 5) And a sassy character voiced by an African-American actress. Gotta credit these filmmakers for that bit of originality and for perpetuating that stereotype. I did mention two funny bits. In both cases, contributed by minor characters. The mouse bouncing on the farmer's pulse was funny. The farm dog falling victim to his doggy weaknesses while vying for leadership was funny. But the rest? Painful. Someone tried to make a Hipness-Thru-Committee movie and make it even hipper by making it a computer-animated film, and this was the result. And why make the coyotes Batman-villain dumb by monologuing with their victims, rather than just eating them? Oh yeah. No blood needed in this film for kids, already concentrating on mock alcohol consumption, destructive behavior and potty humor. And the fuzzy thing-in-a-box? Just what exactly was it? A porcupine? Tasmanian Devil? What, besides a really stupid plot device to help Otis the Cow win the Mother of All Battles? Barnyard is a bomb. And I didn't even need to mention the udders.
\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 seemed like it was put together very quickly in both plot and graphics. My two daughters were ready to go 30 minutes before the end of the movie which rarely happens when we go to the theaters. This was a Nickelodeon Production and it would have been better if they had released it on the t.v. station. The animation itself in some parts was o.k. but the plot was horrible. A classic tale of a son trying to fulfill a fathers expectations is used in a lot of kids movies, but the animation or graphics need to be really good to keep a childs attention. This was not the case with this film. There were also awkward elements between the lead male character and the lead female character that the plot could have done without.
\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\nBARNYARD sucked! I saw this movie last week and it is horrible. What bull has udders? My 2 year old was asking me if all cows have udders and trying to explain to her that this is simply not true and seeing the movie only confused her more!
In addition, the violent theme scared my 2 year old. They made the coyotes ferocious looking and this has instilled a fear of coyotes into my daughter. I know coyotes for a fact are not ferocious and are natural predators. The mother and son who were sitting in front of us were shouting, \"Kill him, Kill him, yea\" in a particular scene in the movie where good vs evil per say
It is a Lion King rip off and they should stop using big name actors for a lame movie. Steve Oederek who has also done Thumb movies, such as Thumb Wars, Thumbelina and many others are so so Bad!
If a good Steve Oederek movie ever comes out in my lifetime, I will roll over naked and swallow my diarrhea and post it on Youtube.com ...Enough Said!
\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 took my family to see Barnyard this past weekend. We had so looked forward to it but had my kids not been there, my husband and I would have left. Coming from a farming community we found the fact that all of the male bovine in the film having udders drawn on them was a little disturbing. We felt like we were watching cross dressing cows or something. It was just odd to hear a male voice come from a female body. After checking some of the production notes on a different website, I felt like the animators might have slipped up on this fact. I know this is just an animated, humorous show but by putting female body parts on a male, I had to suspend my disbelief so much that I just couldn't enjoy the movie like I might have. I know udders can be found funny but they were definitely over used. None of the other animals in the movie seemed to have gender specific body parts drawn on them and I would have preferred the bulls in this show to at least have the correct ones if they had to be drawn on at all. The kids however still enjoyed the movie though we took the time afterward to make sure they knew the difference between bulls and cows.
\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\nAround 1980, the name Godfrey Ho was attached to a series of low-comedy action films starring an actor with the unlikely name Elton Chong\". Although no masterworks of the genre, they remain surprisingly entertaining films for those with a high tolerance for silliness.
It is altogether unclear why Ho (or whomever) would want to make a film that would attack Jackie Chan's Drunken MAster, the film that legitimated the making of comedy-action films in Hong Kong. But that's what this is, a savage attack on the Chan film (the imitation Chan who stars in this movie learns to cause his opponents to laugh themselves to death - a pointless gimmick in any genre).
Along with all the flaws one expects from a Godfrey Ho film of this period - no continuity, no motivation, incomprehensible plot line, irrelevant and unbelievable characters - the film suffers from two unforgivable faults that effectively make it unwatchable: the fight scenes stink, and the comedy isn't funny.
Pointless.
\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 film is great! I watched it with some friends and we thought it was proof that a film doesn't have to see commercial success to be a hit!\" ...is what I would love to be able to say about this film. In the words of the film itself \"you are very very bad!\" I went to see an unlicensed acupuncturist once so generally agree with the moral of the film though.
i'd include a spoiler, but the lack of plot makes this very tricky. overall, a cinematic disaster.
quotes; 'you're not a leper at all!' 'you're beautiful, and i bet you're nice too' 'have you ever seen a naked man's body?' 'you couldn't break a piece of straw.'
cameos in dubbing; Micheal cane x3, harold bishop, steve erwine, benjamin netinyahoo, yoda.
\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 below average martial arts films which is worth watching for the comedy value due to the part where a pair of symbols are used as weapons. Thats it really there is much to say about this film it lacks in every department because the martial arts are not that great either and with all movies of this type the dubbing as BAD
\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 to admit, that out of the many many thriller movies i have seen, this has to be one of the worst. I was shocked to discover that this piece of work had a 1.5 mil budget. When it started, i thought that the opening sequence was pretty good, fairly standard for this kind of film, but pretty good anyway. But as the film progressed i began to feel distinctly uncomfortable with the lack of pace that i was seeing, each sequence seemed to take hours. The reason for this could have been that by now the film had already bored me to tears, nothing was happening other than endless accusations peppered with confusing flashbacks and the occasional fit of bad temper. Well ... after wading through what felt like a lifetime of these scenes we finally reached the big finale...an all singing, all dancing demonstration of how lack of imagination can completely ruin what could have been a good film.
Overall i found this movie predictable and tedious and I would not recommend this film to anyone other than those people i personally dislike, but if you have a couple of hours to waste and you want to watch a thriller that is not even remotely scary, this is the movie for you.
\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 predictable and poorly acted. I really can't recommend it to anyone, not even for unintentional laughs. It is just plain bad. It is pure TV movie hell, the cast doesn't seem all that bad, but they act terribly. Just stay far away from this movie and rent something more intellectual, like porn.
\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\nSkeletons In The Closet takes the father-teenage son genre to new levels of low. This is a movie that serves no purpose. The plot is layed out in the first few minutes, there is no suspense, the characters are cliché and despite plot twists that try to confuse and obfuscate, everything plays out exactly as you think it will. Halfway through the movie I could no longer stand the snail pace and started fast forwarding. The movie ended exactly as I expected. Linda Hamilton is great as always and the other actors are above average considering there seems to be a complete lack of direction. If you really believe you need to see this uninspired lackluster wannabe whodunit, watch it on fast forward.
\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 video case for this film reads \"a story of beauty, passion, and forbidden fruit\". Are they talking about the same movie I just saw?! They can't be, as the film I just saw was beautiful, but there was no passion and as for the fruit, this is all hogwash meant to entice the potential viewer to see this movie. If only it did have some passion or some life to it, I would have greatly enjoyed this film. Instead, it was an agonizingly slow paced and not particularly interesting film that I would definitely not want to see again. It isn't that it's a bad film (after all it IS very beautifully filmed), but it is dull beyond belief. I kept waiting for something exciting or interesting to happen, but then the movie just ended. There was no great sense of excitement, mystery or anything--just a rather unexciting story about a young girl who becomes a servant and spends the next 10 years of her life working as a maid.
\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 checked out this video expecting to like it. Wanting to like it. I like foreign films, I like beautiful cinematography, I know the critics liked this film (including my favorite, Roger Ebert), and I don't mind \"slow\" films.
Well, it's beautiful. That's about the best I can say for it. The plot is very thin, the shots are very long, the glances are very meaningful, the actors are very sincere, and it seems like a very long movie. I fell asleep half way though it, woke up, rewound the tape, tried again. It was a trial, but I made it to the end. I didn't like it any better 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 guess when people say this is beautifully filmed they are talking about the close ups of frogs and the cooking of meals. It certainly doesn't refer to the set which seems to be composed of about 3 rooms with no outside shots at all. Also all of it is filmed too close up.
I got sick of the little boy who keeps farting at Miu or pouring hot wax over ants...also do Vietnamese spend all their time sitting on their haunches? Kind of gross looking at least the way this movie depicts it--one close up of it would have been plenty not a dozen or more.
Then finally comes part two... a chick flick for Vietnamese girls with the perfect handsome rich man who spends all day playing the piano (He is cultured). The pretty maid steals him like the forbidden green mango fruit. Deep.
Except for a few nice close ups this film is a dud. It is sort of a soap opera with out dialog. It is cloyed. How is it beautiful?? The set looks completely fake.
No don't make the mistake I did and rent it because someone recommended it. I was expecting beautiful shots of the coastal mountains of Vietnam or something when I heard it was a visual gem.
I wanted to like this movie. I like foreign movies even prefer them. But this movie is dumb and dull. It will leave you irritated that something like this won a bunch of prizes.
\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 could have been summed up in about 10 minutes. I don't know what everyone else was smoking calling this a beatiful film. I feel that a couple hours of my life were stolen from me and I want them back. I would put this in the category of a Battlefield Earth. Yes folks it is that bad. You would do just as well to watch a two minute clip of this movie over and over it would have the same effect. DO NOT WASTE YOUR 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\nThis episode has just aired in the UK.
What a disappointment. The heavy-handed touches of humour were ill-judged, childish and detracted from what could have been a pretty good storyline. I cannot believe that Jerry Bruckheimer allowed this episode to take place. I have seen every previous episode of this show, and even the episode where Jack played his own older self was way ahead of this episode. The lesbian kiss was pathetic sensationalism.
There was also no continuity from the previous episode. There was nothing in the storyline investigating Martin's dangerous behaviour or possible drug addiction. There was similarly nothing explicitly written about Jack's burgeoning relationship with Ann. Usually Without A Trace is pretty good at this sort of continuity.
The next episode needs to be a considerable improvement.
\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 watched this movie (movie?) casually and i've never stop watching because is so ridiculous any dog can play this act and will be better then the actors (actors?)of this bad remake of the Fatal Attraction there is no directing, no playing, only an unlucky copy of the Adrian Lyne movie if you have doubt to suicide watch this and you can choose...for \"yes\"
i can't imagine people that went to cinema to see this rubbish; maybe someone that had an empty afternoon and choose the first cinema near house to stay 2 hours with some others to forget problems but it's hard to go back home relaxed
\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\nIt's hard to comment on this movie. It's one of the few movies Dimension actually has not shelved (it's hard to come up with a reason why) and it was rushed into a an unimpressive 500 theaters it's opening day. Maybe Dimension was afraid of how people would respond to a swamp creature using his tow truck to pull a house apart piece by piece.
Ray Sawyer is just a tow truck driver, until he rescues a Voodoo priestess from a bad car accident, and in return, he gets attacked by a bag full of snakes and drowns. At the morgue, Ray comes back to life, and stalks a group of teenagers who witnessed the awful crash occur.
What brings this movie down is it's paper thin characters. I didn't care for one moment about any of them. Also, the dialog was less than ho-hum. Also, it was very predictable. Characters did the typical stupid horror movie character things, like check creaky noises, call out people's names, and trip on a rock while being chased. I also could immediately pick out who the final girl would be. And why did the camera have those quick white flashes whenever somebody died or whenever the killer was shown?
What's good? Well, there is an impressive suspense scene where the killer walks underneath swamp waters to get to his victims and a tense sequence where the final girl must camouflage herself with bunch of other dead bodies while the killer looks on.
But other than that, It's another August/September disappointment. I was looking forward to it, but I did not get what was expected.
\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 gotta admit it, I love horror films...especially 80s slasher films. Hell, I even love cheese like Sleepaway Camp and Night of the Demons. But, I didn't think much of this movie. The death scenes weren't very well done, the CGI was terrible, and the acting was ho-hum. Worst of all was the story which didn't make sense at all. I'd say save your money but chances are, if you want to see this movie...you're going to anyway. I didn't hate it...it's just not very good. Overall, it's just another bland, lifeless horror film that lacks life (it's no surprise that this one was on the shelf at Dimension for over a year after it was completed).
\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\nOverall it was a watchable movie. I didn't pause it or stop it to come back to it--a clear sign of a boring movie--so it passed the first test. Best of all, it got into the story fast, no boring unneeded back story for the characters.
It will never go down as a great movie. Nor as a great B movie. I would recommend this movie to slasher/horror fans who don't mind straight to video releases.
Unlike some movies of it's ilk, there is no nudity, only moderate language and rather subdued gore. There is violence though. The deaths were rather dry and unimaginative sadly. The computer special effects were actually pretty good. The way the 'creature' wielded his chains in some scenes reminded me of 'Spawn' and the 'Ghost Rider' comic books.
A little pet peeve...It's set in Lousinia, but no one seems to talk with any accent. I had to watch the credits to even realize it was filmed in Lousinia.
Like most low budget movies, there are small goofs in the filming. Lack of time and money would be the main factors for the goofs. For example in one scene it went from mid afternoon to pitch black in seconds...during a short car ride. The other instance was the stunt double for the 'creature' didn't have on the 'creature' makeup when falling out of the tow truck...it also looks like he's wearing a shirt in the scene.
In summary, I didn't hate this movie but I also didn't love it. I probably will never rent it again, but if a buddy owned it, I may watch it again in a few years.
\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 wouldn't exactly call this a good movie, in fact it might even be a bad one.
BUT there are at least 2 good reasons to keep watching this movie, those are the performances from AGNES BRUCKNER (Eden) and JONATHAN JACKSON (Eric) whom both deliver solid performances.
They are much better then the rest of the cast whom are pretty bad, especially MEAGAN GOODE (Cousin Skeeter).
BIJOU PHILIPS was excellent in the \"Suburban kids goes to the hood\"-drama HAVOC, but here she's far from good on the edge to being annoying.
THE STORY is decent enough although nothing special, BUT it would have been much better since it takes place in LOUSIANNA that any of the kids actually incorporated a down south-accent, but they don't (!).
Especially in a movie where \"the monster\" is actually bounded so deeply into the Lousianna folk-lore, with voodoo and such it's just plain stupidity not to include that accent into the characters.
The only one who does this is rapper METHOD MAN, he plays Deputy Turner and puts down a pretty good accent in his few scenes, and I mean if a rapper is able to do this then why shouldn't the \"proffesional\" actors be able to do the same? Mister Tical aka Meth is highly enjoyable in his very VERY small role, Who know the Ticallion Stallion would ever be a cop? Even if only on the big screen.
Anyways besides that it's a pretty stupid but fairly enjoyable Slasher-movie, but if BRUCKNER and JACKSON was as bad as the rest of the young cast this could have been really bad, thankfully they are good as usual.
4.5 out of 10, decent BUT there are hundreds of better slasher-movies out-there.
\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 never intended to see Venom, but I caught it on cable. It does have good elements. The Louisiana swamp atmosphere for one, something we will unfortunately not see so much of in movies because of Hurricane Katrina. It is based on an interesting concept, a regular man imbued with the spirits of evil. His confrontation with his son could have been interesting, as could much of the movie. But as tends to happen in Hollywood, an interesting idea goes down a familiar direction:
Kill off all the characters save the good girl, starting with the Black guys. I'm a fan of Agnes Bruckner, but the other characters, the villain's afore-mentioned son, CeCe who must become a voodoo priestess, are more interesting. And for the love of God, just once I would like to see the virgin get killed. We all like the easy girl, why can't she live? In this case it was Bijou Phillips, and we love her.
The ending made no sense considering what had been established about the villain's invincibility. All the carnage and atmosphere, and it leads to nothing.
\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\nHere he is. A new horror icon for the new millennium. Better than Freddy. More dangerous than Jason Vorhees. More evil than Michael Myers. Hard to believe, I know. But his time is here....
Ray The Prick.
Yep, the antagonist, Ray is a complete Prick. This is partly because of the naughty things he does. Also because he has a scar (oh, scary) on his face. But mainly because Ray The Prick has been milked.
Yep, Ray doesn't channel evil. He doesn't even become cursed, not even by a voodoo spell. Nope, Ray The Prick has been milked. As DeNiro once said, \"You can milk anything with nipples\". And Ray has been milked. Of evil.
How do you milk evil you ask? Snake nipples, I reply. Snake nipples.
Why Ray you ask? Because he's a Prick, I reply. Capital P.
Watch out for the New Line Pictures extravaganza entitled \"Freddy Vs. Ray The Prick\".
Thought your new horror saviour was Jeeper The Creeper? Well not any more, cause Ray The Prick is here. And I'm frightened.
Pity about the atmosphere-less, PG-13, unoriginal workmanlike quality of the film though, because Ray's a star.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIn this movie everything possible was wrong and I don't know why I bothered watching it until the end. It would have been more fun watching paint dry. For crying out loud I even liked D-Tox and it was much better than this. Here is the basic plot for you: A redneck gets bitten by snakes that hold the evil of 13 murderers and becomes an undead killing machine murdering teenagers that have zero personality. During the movie I lost hope when it didn't scare me at all, when the kills were bad and there was BAD CGI blood and CGI snakes. It got worse with the cardboard thin characters killing their friend by holding her from her legs and not letting go so she got impaled by a tree and when the bad guy moved under water like the shark in Jaws. I'm still upset why I even bothered with this. I guess because I'm a horror movie fan.
\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 wasted my time. i saw only part of it and i was crying about the wasted time that i could of spent doing something productive and useful towards this earth. for everyone that has watched this movie more than once, i am blaming them for global warming as the the amount of black balloons that got entered into the earth from this piece of crap were not needed and if they came from a different movie, i would have forgiven them. robin Williams lowered his standards to actually participate for more than 10 seconds in this film and Tim Robbins, how he went from this film to the shawhsank redemption, i have no idea. please do not watch this movie for the safety of the earth. stop releasing black balloons into the earth from a film that they should have never funded or released. please burn all copies before anyone else has to watch this crap.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nHere's yet another movie with dysfunctional lead characters who are totally amoral and, yet, we're supposed to root for them? Not me. No character in this film was worth a damn.
Robin Williams plays car salesman \"Joey O'Brien.\" The man has no class, a loser in every moral sense and a guy who thinks he can talk his way out of anything. Knowing Williams' ability to talk, he was good for this role. The women in his life are driving him loony, too. Some of them aren't much better than him.
Tim Robbins plays a similar low-life who starts the take over the film when he, fully loaded with explosives, crashes into a car dealership showroom and holds people, including his wife, hostage. Robbins, as in normal for him, plays a disturbed and ridiculous character. I guess these nut-case roles come easily to these two actors. Gee, I wonder why.
There is so much yelling and screaming in this the movie that it will give you a headache. Combine those two screamers with the nasal voice of Fran Drescher and you really have an annoying over-the-top cast. This is like listening to chalk on a blackboard for an hour-and- a-half. This is comedy? No, this is lame.
In fact, for a Robin Williams film to only have a dozen reviews posted here tells you something. It's a far cry from his best 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\nJealous husband holds car dealership hostage while Williams burdens the viewer with his worn out Mork shtick at every turn. Yawn.
Pay channel grist. An uncommonly bad script coupled with a less than convincing Robin Williams as a slick talking, philandering Queens car salesman caught up in a hostage workplace crisis. The laughs aren't there, the message(s) or morals are just all wrong, and the film cant ever decide on whether its a comedy or drama. Pretty good cast all acting pretty badly. When a movie ages so badly so quickly, you got yourself a stinker. Not much else to be said other than maybe, avoid at all costs. Textbook mediocre movies like this are actually more tedious, and less enjoyable than the over the top bombs.
\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\nAnd one only, in my opinion.
That reason is Margaret Leighton. She is a wonderful actress, on-stage as well as on the screen. We have few chances to see her, though. I think that's especially true in the United States.
Here she plays a sympathetic role. Not only that but she is also very pretty and meant to be something of a bombshell.
Walter Pigeon does not hold up the tradition of Drummond performers. He is always reliable but he's not much fun. He's not a rascal or a knave. Consequently, this seemed to me a talky endeavor with little action or suspense. But check it out for Leighton.
\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 really is very little positive that can be said about this film. Walter Pidgeon is a truly unconvincing hero and even moreso when he tries to go \"undercover\" as a villain who, we're meant to believe, drinks too much and knocks his wife about a bit. Margaret Leighton, as the wife/undercover sergeant is a little more convincing but it's still difficult to believe that any hood worth their salt would not have seen through their charade in less than a minute. The plot, about a bullion heist, is silly, and the action drags rather than grips. David Tomlinson, who plays Algy in the same way that David Tomlinson seems to play all his roles, is the only glimmer of light in a wholly dull affair.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"