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\nThough it pains me to some degree that I'm bothering to christen the comments board for this new series - mainly because I'd hate to give the false impression that there's actually any semblance of public interest in it - I feel compelled to throw in my chips on this one.
To put it simply, never before have I felt so persuaded to root for a TV show's swift and merciless cancellation based solely on the merit of its promo ads. And, in case you're wondering, I'm a dude.
Listen, Comedy Network: though your existing original programming is already, shall we politely say, of a 'questionable' quality (I'm looking at you, \"Girls Will Be Girls\") you have truly outdone yourselves on this one. Whoever green-lit this thing could not be further out of touch with what's cool right now.
Best of luck.
\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\nyeah..that's what the station disclaimer states after the commercials for this show \"some scenes may be disturbing to some viewers\" .
It is beyond disturbing. The validation of this whole display of ego framing and chauvinism is in the fact it is on the COMEDY channel. Yes..a comedy true and true. A JOKE. To see these 'playas' go through their rigid charade really spells out what is wrong with society. Especially the meat market bar scene. Both sides, the male and female, are equally as weak and desperate to be mingling among this superficial atmosphere. The club is obviously one of those Cigarette corporation sponsored plastic coke scenes. These people do have a choice, and that is what makes it even more of a joke.
These slick ricks try too hard. They glisten with their own groove grease. That's OK. It's a lesson on video tape for the new generation of how NOT to focus on a potential heart interest. Hopefully that facade will crumble along with the Bush/Harper administrations. Problem is, who's lined up after these characters fade? The bastard children of the one night stands?
\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 too bad these guys, the so-called judges, are such jerks, even the nominally \"sensitive\" ones. It's the self-congratulatory tone that really makes me sick though; these guys don't have any perspective on their behaviour. I think the real problem, though, is the quality of the contestants. Not a single smooth or truly charming one in the lot. They pick the most pathetic girls out of the crowd because they're the only ones these guys have a chance with. Let's see some real players trying for a truly unattainable girl, and maybe you have a show. Otherwise, you have a revolting half-hour of self-love. And real sexual tension takes two.
\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\n1) Men over the age of 25 that refer to themselves, without irony, as having \"game\", or being either a \"player\" or a \"baller\". Gentlemen, from here on in it's a swift descent into starring in your own real-life version of \"A Night at the Roxbury\".
2) Saying \"The V.I.P.\" The term \"V.I.P.\" in and of itself isn't bad, but when preceded by \"The\" it instantly becomes part of the Douchebag Dictionary. This goes double for white people.
3) People that make TV shows based on stuff that they don't know isn't cool and then go on IMDb posing as \"fans\", (...right...) moreover, one of whom is from the \"United States\" (hey, me too!) to bitterly insult members of their potential audience for inevitably thinking their show sucks. Minus 1 additional demerit point if they employ any variation on the oh-snap-nice-one-bro justification that \"If you don't like the show you obviously can't get laid.\"
4) Canadian Hip-Hop/R&B sensation Massari...a random addition to the list at first glance, but at the end of the day Massari gets the gas face for the simple reason that his particular brand of low-rent American-aping uncool and general Aqua Velva douchebaggery dovetails with the overall sensibility of \"Keys to the V.I.P.\"
5) Last but not least, \"Keys to the V.I.P.\"...for all the above reasons and more.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAfter having seen this show a few times; I am thoroughly offended as a female that there are so many stupid, women out there that fall for this bullshit. Im a little more mature than some of the \"players\" in this show, but am still appalled that the whole dating game has been boiled down to a gameshow: where goofy dudes can score points on their lame ass attempts to pick up chicks. If young guys are watching this and using it as a learning manual: Don't!!!. Save yourself the effort and hire a prostitute if all you are after is a piece of ass. Maybe there are girls out there with the same mind set;but some how I don't think so.
\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 show just sucks. i don't think i even need to say it or why because judging by the number of comments already i am just repeating everything. keys to the vip is like turning on your TV and having it throw poo at you. that is exactly what it is like i am not even exaggerating even a little bit. these guys are so stupid, not funny and not smooth with the ladies that it's not even funny-casue-its-stupid. i sat through four episodes and i want my two hours back. where do they find the contestants because they are obviously deficient mentally. if i was the man who came up with this idea for a show and put it on TV i would do the world a favour and jump off the tallest building i could find. how does garbage like this get on TV? especially the comedy network shouldn't a show on something called the comedy network at least be a comedy show or maybe be funny so often?
\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 show is pathetic. I can't even begin to imagine how anyone with an IQ greater than that of a can of split pea soup that's past its expiration date can willingly sit through this garbage for an entire half hour. It is one of those rare shows that is so mind-numbingly awful in every respect you can honestly say you are less intelligent simply from watching it. I conducted a study and found that the average person loses 10 IQ points for every fifteen seconds they watch this show. That is second only to another Comedy Network abortion, Popcultured (19,863,221 IQ points per second lost) and pretty much a tie with Girls Will Be Girls. Keys to the VIP owes each and every one of us an apology. Whenever I watch this travesty of a show, I feel sad for society. How is it allowed to continue?
\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\nKeys to the VIP is just another one of the horrible T.V. shows that you can and will see on this station. The show is terrible with guys claiming to be real players competing against each other (there are two of them competing in each episode) in stupid games where they try to get girls at a bar to talk to them, get girls numbers, and so on. The judges are four other guys who also claim to be expert pick up artists but they also seem like just huge d-bags just like the contestants. The show is not funny at all and not even interesting, it is just boring watching these guys desperately try to convince us what awesome players they are (talking even more about the four judges than I am about the contestants). Nothing funny has even happened in the shows I have watched and the shows are obviously rigged. Do you really think they have invited all these people to the club, got them to sign releases, and get them on tape while these guys carry out the same stupid games with them? It's not reality at all it is just stupid, it probably even tapes in the day time. Somebody else on here wrote how they knew somebody on the show and it was all fake well yeah that is obvious, it's a fake show and even with actors it's still not funny. One of the worst shows I have ever seen.
\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 professional production with quality actors that simply never touched the heart or the funny bone no matter how hard it tried. The quality cast, stark setting and excellent cinemetography made you hope for Fargo or High Plains Drifter but sorry, the soup had no seasoning...or meat for that matter. A 3 (of 10) for effort.
\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\nMost of the films I really like are art-house fare and seldom appear on the box-office top-ten lists. That said, I found \"Northfork\" utterly incomprehensible. I have no idea what it was even about. Writing in the New York Times about a different film, Stephen Holden once observed that some people seem to think they can throw just anything up on the screen and have it work as a fairy tale. I thought of that review several times while watching \"Northfork\".
On a scale of one to ten, I gave it a two.
\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 nothing I hate more in a movie than pretentiousness, and this is one of the most pretentious films ever made. It's self-consciousness is obvious in every frame: \"see what a profound, sophisticated film we are making,\" the director and screenwriters seem to be saying to us, and to themselves they say, \"lets's see how we can bore and confuse the audience even more.\" I would rather watch the worst film by Ed Wood or Edgar G. Ulmer than something like this. At least they were giving us honest trash, and at least their films, in their own atrocious way, were entertaining. This film is about as entertaining as a root canal without anesthesia, and thus is tantamount to torture.
Have these screenwriters ever heard the word 'story?' It doesn't appear so. They have a concept, they are able to create an atmosphere, and they were able to assemble an excellent cast and elicit good performances from them. And for what? To bore us for an hour and 45 minutes? Nothing really happens in this film. The only exciting part, and this lasts only about two minutes, occurs when one of the soon-to-be-evicted homeowners starts shooting at the state employees who come to tell him he has to leave. But nothing comes of it. Too bad he didn't keep shooting until he hit the screenwriters. The only redeeming features of this film are the acting and some beautifully photographed scenery toward the end. 3/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is one of the best looking films of the past few years. The fact that it was done on a virtual shoestring ($1.8 million or so they say on the DVD:they infer that they ended up with even less financing) makes it all the more impressive. Not simply the photography, but the design and particularly the locations (Eastern Montana) which are at once authentically American and otherworldly.
Too bad there isn't a coherent movie to go with it. An extremely promising setup of the last 48 hours of clearing out a rural town in 1955 before it will be flooded for a dam is washed away with pretentious mumbo jumbo alluding to angels and a dying child. And what is presented as the \"real world\" is hopelessly arch. Note to the Polish Brothers:the Coen Brothers are funny-you are not.
No doubt many cineastes will find \"Northfork\"'s abundant symbolism and inscrutability as marks of some sort of profundity, the sort that sophisticated types wrestle the night away with in coffeehouses while the braindead masses watch \"Charlie's Angels\" or something. (Sigh) If you insist....
In the meantime, recommended only as a case study for filmmakers for its' impeccable technical credits and photographic beauty.
\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 had a point I never discovered it. A very depressing movie which supposedly is about the final evacuation of the residents living in a dam site area on the Northfork River in Montana. The problem is that there is no actual Northfork River in Montana. There are several north forks but they are branches of other rivers which divided into north and south forks.
\tThe opening scene of the movie is a coffin bobbing to the surface of the lake but the scene is never tied into the story and the viewer is left to speculate as to its meaning. But much is left to the viewer's speculation in the movie. Another example is when a team of dam employees responsible for the evacuation of the residents arrives at the dam headquarters, another group of people are departing. Some remark which is almost inaudible is made about these people which makes no sense whatsoever and there is no followup in the movie to explain it.
\tThe movie is butchered into several stories and the film keeps switching back and forth between stories which is quite disconcerting. And the stories are weird. In one of them the occupants of one property refuse to be evacuated because they are living in a home that is built like Noah's Ark.
\tAnother senseless story centers around a sick orphan who is dying and somehow he is sharing his presence with a house full of ghosts and in an orphanage with a priest at the same time. If anyone can figure out what the ghost story was about the author must have explained it to them.
\tThe scenery was stark and the sun never shines. There are snowy mountains in the far distance. I guess the purpose was to set the mood. The time period is set by the fact that the evacuaters all drove Ford sedans of the 1946-48 era although the events are supposed to have occurred in 1955. The acting was mediocre. When I saw the billing for this movie it said that Darryl Hannah was in the picture. If she was, I didn't recognize her but I surmise that she was the ghost lady.
\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 tried to be patient and open-minded but found myself in a coma-like state. I wish I would have brought my duck and goose feather pillow...I apologize to all of the great actors in this movie. Maybe it takes a degree from MIT to understand the importance of this movie.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe frustrating thing about a movie like this, with a true potential for greatness, is that it almost enjoys being heavy-handed. We speak of allegory, of metaphor...but the truth is, there's no getting around the fact that there is absolutely no plot or real character.
At a certain point, we most know who the people are...even if we never understand where they are going. The sheer pretentiousness wore me down every time I tried to grasp a truth in this film.
Call it beautiful, great and awesome...I just call it \"cheating.\" All style and no substance. Sure, it's a matter of taste...but I would never take a confusing modernist pastiche of symbols and splashes over the spiritual clarity of Jean Cocteau or Renoir. But if it works for you, I'm all for it. Art is a personal thing, I guess.
\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\"What symbolism!\" exclaimed a woman as we exited the theater after viewing the Polish brother's paean to Ingmar Bergman. Some symbolism is there all right. But not much. \"Northfork\" adds up to some fine acting weakened by dreary cinematography that fails to make any coherent statement and a muddled story that irritates rather than enthralls.
Northfork is a town facing extinction after a new hydroelectric dam goes into operation. It's the early to middle 1950s and a squad of identically dressed state agents, all looking as if they had just answered a casting call for \"The Untouchables,\" have the job of relocating recalcitrant dwellers who fail to appreciate both their immediate peril as well as the proffered bounty for moving. An exciting anti-development movie is always a possibility but let's get real: rural electrification is one of the greatest advances in bringing decent living conditions and a boosted economy in American history. Dams can be built without forced relocation? Not in this country.
But this film is less about the plight of homeowners than it is a fantastical creation of a dying young boy's escapist imagination. Nick Nolte is the priest who tends to the lad and much of what he says might have been interesting if the sound was clear enough to hear.
Alternating between the black-suited evacuation agents (working for \"lakefront\" land when the dam creates that valuable acreage) and a phantasmagorical collection of weirdos, the film develops neither theme coherently or even interestingly.
The cinematography is poor. A washed out, subdued and depressive color permeates the whole film to little dramatic purpose. There is no reason for this vast terrain to be depicted so bleakly. Indeed, a contrast between largely untouched natural beauty and the massive and grim solidity of the evolving dam and power plants would have been very effective.
4/10.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nPretentious storytelling such as this always uses the same technique: 1) Throw opaque, unstructured threads around to perplex the audience. 2) Deal only in `big' topics such as life, death and God. 3) Make it appear profound with scenes of life, death, sky, etc. 4) Depend on an intellectually weak audience to give you the benefit of the doubt. 5) And finally, laugh all the way to critical acclaim.
This movie is pretentious faux-intellectualism at its boldest. Not only do these filmmakers not answer any questions, they're afraid to pose the questions to begin with. The film is held together by wisps. Directions are raised and dropped awkwardly. Pop cultural references are jolting and arbitrary. There is so little to point at, that any critical stabs will miss.
Critics who found an intellectual base to this movie are afraid to admit the truth: they have no idea what this movie is about. Good news: neither do the filmmakers. Satisfying attempts at answers to profound questions about human existence demand wit, intellect, poetry, and genius. Sadly, this movie demonstrates none of these traits.
\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'Northfork' is what is wrong with indie films. For all of their hard-edged commentary and attacking big subjects studios won't, this is the sacrifice we make. For nearly two hours I was subjected to the torture and pain of a film that starts by wandering like a blind man in a new place and ends without covering any new ground and thankfully dies.
There are parallel stories that detail a dying town and a dying boy. Two men dressed in black (one of them James Woods) must coerce the remaining inhabitants of Northfork to leave before a dam opens up and floods the town. The other story has a boy returned to the priest (Nick Nolte) that gave him to the parents. He is dying and is visited, I guess, by angels. Among them Anthony Edwards with bizarre spectacles and Daryl Hannah in a bizarre costume reminding me of the pirate shirt from Seinfeld.
Though this is the \"plot,\" it is not what the film is about. The film is about nothing. It does nothing, says nothing, goes nowhere, and has nothing interesting to show. Perhaps by design, more likely an after-effect of the pretentious, surreal, David Lynch wannabe - we're an important artsy film can't you see - style of direction. The entire movie is filtered through a gray, bleak backdrop that, I suppose, fits a film about death. Instead, it simply makes the film that much harder to watch.
If you want to see a film about men in black, see either 'Men in Black' films, neither too impressive but compared to 'Northfork' they are lifted to 'Citizen Kane' status. If you want to see a film about a boy dying watch 'Lorenzo's Oil.' If you want to see a film that has the destruction of a town through water watch 'O Brother, Where Art Thou?' If you want to watch a film better than 'Northfork,' there are hundreds. If you want to watch a film that is worse, there are only a handful. 0* 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\nThis is the most boring, pretentious, and stupid film I have seen in a long time. I saw it at the Academy in Beverly Hills, and there were quite a few people in the lobby who had left the screening and were seeking refuge there. All were solemnly shaking their heads and looking as though they had been to a funeral. What a waste of time and money. Even worse are the critics who gave this pretentious blimp good reviews. What's with them? Are they just afraid they won't be considered \"hip\"? Were they bribed? This film is staggeringly bad. Don't take a date to it expecting to have an in-depth chat at the Cheesecake factory afterwards. If going to see this film was your idea, she'll browbeat you and hold it over you the rest of your life.
\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 I'm the one criticizing the twenty-something Neanderthals for not being able to appreciate a film unless it has plastic t*ts, gunfights and car chases. However, in this case the film might actually have been improved with a few of those additions. At least I wouldn't have gotten bored after an hour and changed channels.
I don't mind surreal, and I certainly don't mind having to pay attention to find subtlety or hidden meaning, but there should be some point to the whole thing. I didn't get the feeling that even the writer or director really had a broad vision of anything but were, instead, just so self-absorbed in their own pretentious visions that they became deliberately scattered. Or perhaps they just got confused themselves. Either way, I don't care. It bored the crap out of me for just over an hour with no saving grace.
Although a whole pack of other viewers have filled up this site with excited ravings about the alleged symbolism and masterful cinematography, I must respectfully disagree. Perhaps I didn't mince through enough film classes to appreciate some inspired techniques not visible to mere mortals ...
Or perhaps this movie was just crap.
I give it a \"1\" and file it next to \"Ishtar.\"
\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 the easy part: this movie is pretentious crapola!
It put me in mind of \"Magnolia\". And then I thought \"Wow-- somebody made a movie even dumber and more irritating than \"Magnolia\".
I know nothing about the Polish brothers, but this film seems to have been made by someone who learned a lot in film school but knows nothing about storytelling. The trite plot elements and sledgehammer symbolism are bad enough, but the dialogue is just pathetic.
Detailed comments would just be a laundry list of failure. The parts that are supposed to be funny or satirical are not; the \"elegaic\" parts are nice coffee table pictures with mediocre music; the \"emotional\" parts are simplistic.
The worst thing is that the movie shows no love at all for the characters, except for a little cornball dignity in the priest.
I still can't believe the respect some people have given this picture.
\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 good time to say how good I think of this site: it gives me the opportunity to feedback all the frustration I lived for two hours, awaiting for something to happens, for something to be said, to be shown, to be insinuated subtly, for a symbol, an idea, whatever. No, just long, endless violins, alternated by a tired piano. Tired voices, tired actors and bored characters and situations. Boring is the long death of the mind, and this movie is, from that point of view, a public enemy. How many thousands of live hours will be still stolen to another thousands of innocent spectators. I don't claim for my money back, just for my time and the time of persons I invited to watch this thing... oh God !
\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 fairly lost throughout most of this film, and I am the one who usually understands the works of such enigmatic cinema greats as David Lynch (Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me) and Darren Aronofsky (Pi). Not to say that Northfork doesn't make sense on some level, it just doesn't combine to form a wholly coherent film. As time passes from watching the film, its themes and intentions become clearer, but during my initial viewing, I was really confounded, and I find that this is the major fault of the film...its lack of direction. The plot centers on the town of Northfork, Montana in the year 1955. The town has been emptied and will soon be flooded to make way for the creation of a hydro-electric dam. The major problem is that not all of its inhabitants are willing to be evacuated and relocated. A group of men are hired to coerce the remaining residents out of the town before it will be drowned, and for the most part they succeed amidst some fairly odd situations and townspeople. Simultaneously, the film tells the story of Irwin, a very sick young boy (or is he a fallen angel?) whose adopted parents gave him back, due to his illness, to the Northfork orphanage that they adopted him from. Father Harlan (Nick Nolte) cares for the dying Irwin, but Irwin imagines (or does he?!) that a group of angels (including Daryl Hannah and Anthony Edwards) have arrived in the desolate and empty town looking for a fallen angel. Irwin has scars on his back and on his head, and he tries to convince the angels that his scars are where the humans amputated his wings and halo. Oh yeah, and during all of this there is a strangely surreal walking animal on stilts that roams throughout the backdrop of the landscape. There are a lot of other small events that happen in the film, but none of them end up amounting to much more than momentary intrigue. One can appreciate the artistic quality of the film (it's obvious that the filmmakers cared deeply about this film) and its rich cinematography, but the film still tries too hard to be different and then gives up and whimpers to an end without making much of a statement. Like I wrote earlier, it becomes clearer, long after viewing, what has possibly taken place in the film. Irwin is dying, and so is Northfork, and in coping with his own loss and death, Irwin has most likely created characters, from ideas he gets from the objects that surround him at the orphanage, to console him as he is abandoned and his life nears its end. But then again, maybe he really is an angel, and he has found his kind and can now return home. I must emphasize that there are some truly beautiful moments in the film, heartbreaking, vivid and full of loneliness and sadness. Unfortunately, the film as a whole just ends up feeling disconnected and somehow incomplete.
\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 should live this film, but I don't. It won international awards, it is foreign (I usually like such films) it is slow moving (again something I like) and it has no gratuitous sex or violence. the problem is that it is boring. We have two friends from the same village in Turkey one \"successful\" the other not. the unsuccessful one comes to Istanbul to stay with the successful in an attempt to get a good job at sea. Both live lives that are unfulfilling, pointless and petty.
Well, it isn't the first time this kind of film has been made. I didn't see anything new being added to this tired theme. There are long takes that are just someone standing and looking at the sea or sitting in a coffee shop or watching TV. I do understand that this kind of thing is there to show the emptiness of their loves, While it does do that I got the idea in the first 15 min. I don't need to be beaten over the head with it for the rest of the two hours.
The symbolism is also a bit heavy handed. the plate of live minnow type fish with one off the plate and flopping around in its death throws. Symbols are best when they are not obvious but are there, in the background, creating a mood just slightly below the viewer's awareness.
The film is so apathetic, that it doesn't even rate a score of 1, so I gave it a 2. To rate a 1 takes a talent at being bad. This film didn't have that much energy.
\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't think of anything, I repeat, ANYTHING positive about this \"Movie\"! The whole 1 hour 45 minute movie could be shrunken into a short 5-minute movie! In most scenes, there is absolutely nothing going on and it seems just the camera was left on recording on purpose only to increase the time of the movie! All you see is someone in the background walking around or watching TV with no specific subject or even talk what so ever! I just feel I've wasted 105 minutes of my, my family's and my friends' weekend for nothing! If a movie is poorly made or the scenario isn't great that's whole another story, at least it leaves you something to discuss about but about DISTANT, I just have to call it a \"Movie\" because it was motion pictures recorded by a camera.
If you haven't seen it, imagine a 105-min long movie based on two-three lines of story! What will you end up with? 5% of content and 95% of fillers! That's exactly how \"Distant\" was at least for us! Actors did a great job acting roles that had nothing special in them, they barely talked or showed any special emotions! I picked up this movie in the comedy section of a store relying on what I read on the back of its cover. I'm still wondering what was funny in it other than our face after watching the 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\nThis movie is about a depressed and emotionally constricted man has a distant relative move in with him in his apartment in Istanbul. As time passes, their relationship becomes more and more strained until finally he begins yelling at his house guest--who is out of work and doesn't appear all that eager to find work. That's most of the movie in fact. The problem is that although emotionally constricted and depressed people are VERY withdrawn and non-communicative, they don't make for a very satisfying movie. That's because most of the time he (and his roomie) just stare into space and say nothing. I think all these flat moments could have been shortened to make a 30 minute movie--I certainly wouldn't have minded.
\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 seem to be many fans of this movie here, but I found it boring, slow, meandering, and pointless. And I watch and enjoy plenty of art-house and independent films, so I wasn't expecting an action movie. I didn't sympathize with either character. The guy from the countryside was a bad guest and didn't seem to be trying very hard to find a job, and his relative in Istanbul was humorless and closed off emotionally.
In an interview on the DVD, the director says that the movie is about a common situation in Turkey - the person leaving in the countryside because there are no jobs and coming to Istanbul and staying with relatives while trying to find work. That in itself is interesting, but the movie wasn't.
\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\nDon't get me wrong: I enjoy art-house movies, low-budget flicks, character studies, and foreign movies. Unfortunately, I couldn't enjoy this one -- glacial pacing, complete lack of plot, and characters that you can't dislike enough to hate, but you can't tolerate enough to like.
For me, Distant was like watching the cutting-room floor footage of a reality show -- all of the scenes which were deemed too uninteresting which would normally not make the final cut, were the only scenes included. A camera in my apartment with two of my friends ambling around for hours does not an interesting movie make.
Distant certainly makes the watcher feel that way -- long stretches of no dialogue (nearly 10 minutes before the first word is spoken from the credits) can be made to work (2001 comes to mind), but for me, something else compelling needs to happen to draw me in.
If you're the kind of watcher who can sit through a movie and be content with movie analysis, perhaps it will work for you. However, if you're somebody who chooses to watch movies to relax, expand your mind, or be entertained, you should probably look elsewhere.
\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\nBad, ambient sound. Lots of shuffling. Loooong pointless scenes. Eg: guy sees interesting woman in lobby. Manages to stay there and watch her under the guise of waiting for the building supervisor to get a package. Says nothing. Stares creepily. More shuffling and other irritating ambient noise. Wait. Wait. Wait. Guy says nothing. Woman looks frightened or at least slightly disturbed about it and rightly so. Manager comes back with package. Guy goes up to the apartment with the package.
Another example: the guy and his host sit around watching bad TV. More ambient noise and shuffling. Wait wait wait wait. Guy wanders off to bed. If you can stand to sit through any more of this movie, you get to watch them watch TV again later.
If you want a story, any dialogue, entertainment, or a well crafted film, look elsewhere.
\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 seen comments from Turkish people (which I'm not) saying this movie is fantastic and accurately portrays Turkish life. All I have to say is... Turkey must be one of the most boring and depressing places in the world, because in my opinion, that is exactly what this movie was to me. If I were Turkish, I think it would have had a greater impact. But if you're not from Turkey, I would advise you not to waste two hours of your life on this.
\"Distant\" seems to lag on forever. Many scenes are painstakingly long with little or no purpose. I don't understand the director's objectives in even including many of the scenes. It is pointed out that the director used his own car, apartment, and friends in making the movie...Well guess what? It shows. It looks low budget. The acting is poor. If it's a cultural thing then so be it. I just don't understand the purpose of basing a movie on this story. It's unbelievably boring.
\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\nSilly and violent thriller that is a rip - off of 'Deliverance' but without any charm and intelligence. The plot is ridiculous and the cast seems to be tired and anxious to be free of this obnoxious entry. This movie is a solid example of a bad plot and a very, very bad idea all the way. It's a shame to see good actors like Thomerson and James make a living in a mess like this.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nNo idea how this is rated as high as it is (5.8 at the time of writing) but this movie was absolutely horrible. The acting wasn't entirely bad but it really had no point whatsoever and the overall quality was poor. Its obviously a B movie (or a C if such a thing exists) and it looks like it was made over a weekend at a friends house or something. Im all for low budget movies and I generally watch any I come across but this one is really really bad. I mean like \"The Fanglys\" bad. I don't know what else to say but trust in this as I have indeed sat thru this horrible horrible movie and I can save you the effort... Don't bother. Seriously... Just don't.
\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 little slow-moving for a horror movie, but the quality is better than you might expect for a director's only effort on IMDb. The camera work and lighting were both surprisingly good, and the acting  although variable  is better than is often found in Indie genre flicks.
As the lead, Robert Field is rather stiff, which is especially unfortunate given that his character, Claude, is the film's narrator as well as the centre of its action. However, it was the entry of Christopher (Brandon deSpain) that I considered the turning point of this film  and not in a good way. A twist is introduced in a clumsy fashion, and slow-moving becomes drawn out and overly wordy.
On the up side, Pete Barker is consistently entertaining as Father William. He's the easy stand-out in what is a fairly ordinary offering. While the first half hour caught my interest, I ended up feeling quite disappointed in the way things played out.
\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\nSometimes you just have to have patients when watching indie horror. If you can just toe-tap your way through the slow-paced early scenes, sometimes a real gem will present itself... This (unfortunately) was not the case with \"Satan's Whip\".
Written and directed by Jason Maran, \"Satan's Whip\" attempts to drag us along on a boring snore-fest of a film, with no real pay off at the end. I'm guessing that the black & white (and blue) cinematography must have been for a reason, however it is never explained why the majority of the blood is blue, and I found this increasingly annoying as the film went on. The story in itself is not that bad, and actually had some originality and decent content but the acting is simply pathetic. This, combined with the slow-pacing and lack of any real (red) gore made \"Satan's Whip\" one to forget quite quickly. I will give it a \"4\" rating for some witty dialog that made me chuckle, but alas that could not save this boring waste of my 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\nJust saw this movie yesterday night and I almost cried. No, it wasn't because it got me utterly petrified, no. It was absolutely HORRENDOUS! Sometimes, you see movies that make you wonder what will become of the human race in the near future - this movie is one of those. It's as though the writer, actors, director, et al, just came together and copied and pasted scenes of their favorite horror flicks, zipped it all together and said \"hey, here's Satan's whip!!!\" After seeing this movie, I could not help but be tormented by the sight of people whom call themselves \"actors\"; waltzing around like they're some kind of talented artistic interpreters... do not be fooled they suck! Don't bother wasting 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\nThis was without a doubt the WORST movie I have ever see, yet once I started, it was just like the really bad car wreck on the side of the road - you can't help yourself, you just have to look. My EYES !!! The acting was awful, the production was awful, the filming was awful, awful, awful, awful. I was glad the priest got chopped, would have loved to have done it myself because of his POOR acting. I mean suck-ful acting to the tenth power. I would have cheered if Chris had just axed the lot of them before turning it on himself. And what was WITH that freaking wig from hell on his head?! I sincerely hope no one got paid, I mean if getting paid were to be considered here, they should be paid to never attempt another film project again, everyone that was involved, never, never again. That was just a huge piece of garbage that I am embarrassed to say I just had to keep watching until the very end. Don't watch it, it's about an hour and a half of your life you will never get back, and then you'll have to spend time registering on this website so you can write a comment like I am doing now, which you must do as a catharsis in order to survive the aftershocks of having viewed this film (and I use the term \"film\" loosely here).
\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 people at ABC forgot to do their biographical research... so many scenes were just plain wrong! The actor playing JPII was very rigid, there was no personality there. It is very very obvious that this movie was on the bottom of the programming totem poll, the move is so low budget. The script is terrible. Conversations like: \"You must follow the rules\" \"No, the people are starving.\" Lame. Plus, the movie was jumping like crazy from event to event in order to fit it into the two hours. Terrible! A better use of your time would be to watch a PBS documentary on JPII. Also, CBS put out a miniseries on JPII that is better than ABC by far. JPII was a wonderful man, and it bothers me to think that my grandkids might get a hold of this ABC movie and think that THAT is what he was really like!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI saw that this movie was coming out and could not wait to see it. I have to say I was very disappointed with it. This would have been better as a mini-series. The whole show seemed very rushed. They did not explain things very clearly. At the end they showed John Paul II, alive and well and the next scene he was dead. Never any explanation as to what happened. (We all know what happened in real life) I think ABC dropped the ball big time on something that could have been great. In all I think this movie was a blur. It seemed like a drunken monkey jumping around from one point in John Paul's life to another point never explaining how or why things happened. Such as when his older brother leaves, it was never explained that his brother was a doctor and that is why he left home. Also when his father dies, all we see is his father lying on the floor and that was that. I was very disappointed with the over all 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\nNot finding the right words is everybody's problem in this vaudeville-type urban comedy. They don't know what to say, and they don't know how to say it, which is why they embark on the potentially humiliating enterprise of pre-arranged speed dating. Unfortunately, they all come across as cardboard characters rather than real people. The story follows a conventional three-act structure: getting to know the sizable cast in their sorry single lives, the actual dating circuit, and a final stretch of romantic fallout, showcasing some of the new-found couples' follies. Because it's all so predictable, I'd say that as a narrative, \"Shoppen\" is a failure. As a comedy, most of the time it's too goofy to be really funny. Thumbs up to Kathrin von Steinburg. She stands out from the soap opera crowd as the aloof, independently wealthy Miriam. Great makeup on her too (Verena Weißert): Heavy eye shadow meets skin-tone lip gloss, creating a brooding and bohemian, yet girlish effect. Thumbs up also to Stefan Zinner as the Bavarian love machine and Tanja Schleiff as the hot nutritionist. They bypass the communication challenge by way of the timeless body language of copulation.
\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 feels like a feature-lenght treatment of a comedy-routine that could have also been told in a ten-minute short. Also, technical credits are sup-par. The film really feels like a film school diploma project.
The cast is a mix of seasoned stage pros and talented newcomers but the problems is the superficial scrip. Their lines feel constructed, exactly like cued TV show material.
The director fails to take his protagonists seriously, therefore we are not touched by their problems and conflicts.
The film has been cleverly marketed and offers a unique selling point, but in the end the film disappoints on all levels.
\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, I have to admit that this movie brought some occasional laughs to my face. OK, but that does not make it a good movie. Most of the characters are terrible stereotypes and truly unconvincing. Not all of them give great acting performances, but some really try, but fail because their characters are badly written. The perfect example is Julia Koschitz: She changes her eating habits from one talk to the other, on one talk she does not drink alcohol on the next she is allergic to champagne, she feels too beautiful for most people (in fact she is) but still ends up with the \"perfect\" fit concerning the looks, and refuses to give some more \"realistic\" guys a chance, and so on... The end is very cheesy, although I like one of the final scenes, when everybody finally stops talking and the director gives us a chance to catch our breath again. Shoppen is basically a movie that offers some cheap laughters (mostly because it is about sex and relationships, I assume) and maybe some short entertainment. Still, the whole picture is one big stereotype and nothing is really special about 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\nEven though I tried to avoid German films recently, positive reviews lured me into renting this one. There I stand fooled again by German media which has been hyping domestic flicks over and over again. To me it is no wonder no one abroad wants to see this crap. The idea to make this film is no idea at all (I guess some fool read a women's magazine article about speed-dating). In short: The characters (which are none), dialogue and content are so stunningly trivial, trite and cliché-ridden, I continued watching because I could hardly believe what I saw. BTW to call the flat theses mechanically delivered by the figures (certainly from the aforementioned magazines) dialogue, would be simply incorrect. Acting is so over-the-top, I can't remember worse than that on screen in a long time. You have to guess the director had/has no clue at all. Amazingly distributors and producers around the country are still wondering why German films (with rare exceptions) generate no interest world-wide. Why? Because it's waste of time and money.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"