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\nSure, this film was retarded. But you expected that the moment you looked at the cover-box. It's a B movie, and on the T&A factor this movie delivered. Truthfully, it was funnier than expected. While it was by no means a work of comedic genius, like \"The Party Animal\" or \"Orgazmo\", as far as B movies go it was worth the watch, if you're into that sort of thing anyway.
Christians and morally-oriented parental groups, this is soft-core adult entertainment. If you don't want your children watching sexual content and nudity, then you should keep your children away from this film.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'll preface my review by stating that I am not a fan of the independent 'straight to video' genre that owes a great debt to the grindhouse films of the 60's. I don't own any, I've never rented any, so I might lack the appreciation for these tongue-in-cheek, low-budget stinkers that many other people have.
I caught this movie on Cinemax late one Saturday evening with a lady friend. Please don't ask me why I was watching Cinemax late one Saturday evening with a lady friend. We were bored with World Championship Poker. Some atrociously bad acting courtesy of Misty Mundae (and I wish she wouldn't own up to being from Illinois, as we actually turn out some very bright thespians here) caught our attention. Now normally, the aim of some good soft-core porn would be to get you and your partner in the mood. Some good sex, tongue in cheek humor, and who know what could happen? After about 15 minutes, and a scene where the title character seduces a mugging victim, my lady friend said 'if you want to watch the rest of this fine, I am going to bed so I don't have to. Please turn the volume off.' Here is what I gather from the plot: Misty's character is a sexless nerd who gets bitten by a spider and turns into a super-sex kitten with super web slinging powers that don't come from her wrists. There is some sort of evil villainess involved, who didn't look particularly evil or sexy. Spiderbabe saves the day, has sex, M.J. (who is male in this film) constantly gets propositioned by stereotypically bad gay bikers, and somehow the evil villainess gets pushed off a building to her death.
What was good about this film? It ended.
What was bad about it? Acting to make a third grade pageant look like Oscar winners, a script turned out by people who I picture to be drunken, college-aged sex perverts who wouldn't know what sex is if they took a class taught by Dr. Ruth, special effects that were about as special as someone jumping off a trampoline, humor about as funny as well, I have yet to encounter anything that is lamer. The sex scenes? If we were watching a video, the only thing those scenes would have turned on is the fast forward button. And the action scenes? Some of my old Atari VCS games had better choreography.
Now I know this type of film is supposed to be enjoyed for it's inherent badness. Companies like EI don't set out to make good movies: they have a niche and they target it. My experience as a marketer tells me they are right on the money in servicing their audience. But after my brief exposure to 'Spiderbabe', I for one can say I am not delving into that world again any time soon. Maybe the problem with the filmmakers in this type of genre is this: they spend so much attention to making the films bad, that if they made an effort to try and focus on those things they do very well, they would turn out some very enjoyable 'le bad' Cinema, a la Troma films in the 80's. Sorry folks; the spirit is there, but the effort isn't.
Though I have to admit that \"Alice in Acidland\" intrigues me
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie is bad. I saw the rated and the unrated versions. They are terrible!! Now, I know it's suppose to be a low budget, porn spoof of spiderman, but Spiderbabe is just not good at being bad-good. It's not funny! Not funny at all!! I wanted to laugh. I tried to laugh. But this movie let me down. At least the unrated version has lots of nudity to look forward to. And is it me, because Mundae is not a great looking woman. From the waist down she's okay, but on the way up leaves much to be desired. She does look good in that school girl outfit. Please, if you must watch this spiderbabe, rent it first. Rated or unrated, doesn't really make any difference, they're both bad to me!!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis thing, directed by french sensation Patrick Sebastien,is worst than all the turkeys that you may have seen. Forget Independence Day, Kazaam, The patriot, etc... you get the picture, this one's the pits. Sebastien is a TV celebrity in france, (if you need an equivalent, let's say he's Jerry Springer with an I.Q of 13), this is his first movie let's hope it's the last. I hope Troma or someone would distribute this film in the States, so that you guys out there can excperience the French stench at it's worst. Let's cut this short, this is the Masterpiece of S**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\nThe director of this movie is a famous french TV presenter, Patrick Sebastien. He likes music and humor for rednecks, and his incredible movie is absolutely in his image. It's the story of a young retarded person, called \"Zep\" (sic). A night, he sees his sister's SM sexual relation, and decide to do the same thing: he rape the girl who he loves! Zep is placed in a asylum, and his unlucky girlfriend in a clinic. One man will find them. One man will reunite them. This man is a psychologist. This man looks like a Hell's angel. This man is... Patrick Sebastien! With an excessive use of clichés, we'll see how the Absolute Love can break all misunderstandings, and how a humanist doctor can force a victim to fall in love with her rapist. We'll also learn how using sandwiches in order to seduce a girl. Not only Patrick Sebastien thinks that he can do better than one century of psychiatry, but he also impose us a silly left ideology; with the character of the father's girlfriend, a boss, who want to take away the feeble of his girl. Distressing. But it's very pleasant to laugh at Zep (mentally retarded persons are not funny, except in 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\nTo even say that this film is Sebastien's work at his best just tell you everything you have to know on the man. Sebastien is a pathetic, foolish, not amusing at best, yet highly popular host on french television. If watching any of his shows is just plain torture for any normally constituted human being, his first (ans lets hope only) film proved to be even worst. Sebastien's apology of rape (the victim fall in love with her aggressor) is not only misplaced but plainly unacceptable. I highly suggest you not to bother taking a look at this picture (or any of Sebastien's future features), you would just loose your time...There is something about french television that don't smell right...and this is Patrick Sebastien!!!
\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 you wish to have a truly traumatic experience, than this awful motion picture (if you may consider to call it that) is for you. A film worse than the postman,sizzle Beach U.S.A, Batman and Robin, Kazaam,fair game...well you get my point.This film directed by French television sensation Patrick Sebastien (Jerry Springer with an I.Q of 25) can truly be considered the worst film ever made. I do hope that Troma or someone in America would distribute it, so that the u.s.a can experience the French stench at it's worth.
\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\nOne can only sit in utter amazement at this mess of a film and be amused at some of the raves people have bestowed upon it. The biggest problem seems to be the director's inability to make up his mind as to whether it's black comedy, farce or a combination of both. It meanders all over the place in search of direction and has some utterly embarrassing performances that might be better suited to bad sitcom. What a shame to see the talented Dianne Wiest's comic talents squandered and the ever annoying Jane Birkin is so over the top she's more bothersome than usual.
Perhaps a lot of the positive criticism is due to the \"quirky French\" nature of the film - therefore, it's labeled \"smart\" or \"genius.\" It's neither. Instead it's bad tripe that leaves a rather rancid after-taste. Merchant-Ivory should stick to the serious stuff as they certainly have no comprehension of comedy.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI don't even know where to start. I did not like it. It did not behave like a story and so much was injected into the movie (the pot brownies, the son was gay (?) the murder was justified, what possible reason could there be in the script for Linda aka Penelope to exist) that was never explained. It was all fluid spilled on a table and left dripping off the counter until it all made a big mess on the floor.
Why did Vanessa Redgrave make a five second cameo? Why did Diane Wiest use her Bullets over Broadway character without the camp-fun? Why was Jane Birkin in the storyline to begin with. The list is endless. The movie ended and we all looked at each other -- like -- did you understand any of this??
I tell ya one thing, if I watched my long lost Dad get murdered I certainly wouldn't be hugging the murderer. Tell ya another thing, if \"Bob\" broke up with \"Bob\" what purpose did hiding the son in the closet have? Was Bob going to have sex with Bob in front of the son? How did the murderer contact the son so easily?
If this review sounds confused, it is because this was a waste of film, talent and time. What the heck did the dead shrink have to do with anything!!
Jezz, this is one of the worst films I have ever seen because it should have/could have been better, stronger and it should have made some kind of sense. Any sense. Instead we are given a watered down \"Diva\" (the film from the 70s complete with a murder) and tired performances reading boring words from a script that is completely insane.
By pass it folks. Or maybe me and the rest of the people who reviewed this film are too stupid to understand it all -- I mean after all it is a french film.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAlmost a masterclass in how not to direct a movie. From the misjudged, often incomprehensible script onwards Dr Rey builds on a series of poor decisions that make the film an excruciating viewing experience. Sadly the film never rises beyond a kind of old fashioned, almost misogynistic gay camp in which women are over-wrought, OTT and middle aged and the men are young, vacuous and forever on the hunt for sex. The director was unable to pitch either the tone of the film or the level of the performances.
There is certainly a great deal of 'acting' going on. Dianne Wiest slips into a pale impersonation of her Bullets Over Broadway performance and poor old Jane Birkin flounders in her attempt to give a comic performance. Though you have to pity her as there is very little real comedy here. The whole thing feels like a very low rent version of Merchant Ivory's Le Divorce which, to be quite honest, wasn't very good, either.
\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...out of this movie.
Sorry to say, this showed at the Cleveland International Film Festival. Our copy did not have subtitles, so I asked the Festival crew if there was a problem with the print received. \"Not so...\" I was told. \"the director wants it this way\".
Again, sorry to say, my French is barely high school elective level (more than 3 decades ago). Much of the initial dialog is in French, so I'm sure I missed the nuance and many details in between my understanding of a few key words.
I've rated this a \"1\", primarily because of the irony of a director who once worked doing subtitles refusing to put subtitles into a movie to be seen by an American audience. Excuse me, even if most Americans wouldn't know where Europe was on a map, not even a film festival audience should be assumed to know \"the native language\" of a given movie. Even if a few of us don't know Finnish, I would still expect subtitles for the few \"dolts\" who aren't sophisticated enough to have expertise in the 37 different languages presented. I'll put up with this ego from David Lynch, not from Litvack.
\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'll give it a two for Denis Leary. He had some good lines, but that's it. What was the point? Where was the script? Who was supposed to act? A movie needs more than this one has to offer. Save the hour and a half to watch your hair grow, or fall out, whatever the case.
\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 have a lot of luck with these small scale movies. I looked at the cast. Leary, Lovitz, Delpy, Wuhrer, Estevez. How bad could it be? Unfortunately the answer was...pretty bad. I have a hard time remembering a movie that had such poor execution of a plot that had potential.
\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\nWhat a waste of energy and money. What a waste of what talent there was.
Emilio Estevez was completely wasted and mostly unused throughout. Jon Lovitz was very mildly amusing but pointless. Harry Dean Stanton - why bother? And was it just me or can Kari Wuhrer barely act in this one.
The story was pretty non-existent and really disjointed. One of my biggest problems was the reaction of the characters to the events that transpired. Like the surf \"dudes\" giving up their lives every time they were threatened in the last half? How about that you NEVER saw them surf once!! The set-up to some scenes took way to long with not enough pay-off to make us give a damn. Nothing in this \"movie\" felt really true or genuine.
The only good things I can say is some (very little) of the scenery was filmed nicely and a few scenes were mildly interesting. Don't see this when there is so many better pointless 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\nHated it with all my being. Worst movie ever. Mentally- scarred. Help me. It was that bad.TRUST ME!!!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nCheesy 80's horror co-starring genre favs Ken Foree and Rosalind Cash along with Brenda Bakke are some of the featured players in this tale about a haunted health club. Goofy dialogue and some nasty gore effects make this movie watchable. Not bad but no great shakes either.
Recommended for the bad dialogue and acting. B-movie fans only.
B
\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 worst anime series I have ever seen. When I watched the manga review in a magazine, I thought it was maybe interesting, but when I got the chapters I realized it was a complete stupidity.
OK, the first 2 or 3 chapters are OK, and the series have an standard. But as the plot advances, it becomes totally incoherent. The series tries to show some mystical based upon the Christian mythologies, but it's a total stupidity. It features some demons and stigmata scenes... Totally nonsense. It seems the series tries to seem deeply-thought, complex or mythologically reviewed, but a watcher with a bit of brain and cultural references, will realize soon all those elements used don't have a real sense: THEY ARE PUT THERE ONLY TO IMPRESS THE IGNORANT WATCHERS!!
The final chapters are full of totally nonsense elements: battles with cat-eared demons, references to a supposed fight between demons, and demons who controls time (with no apparent reason). The final is totally nonsense; an ignorant watcher will see on it a floating final that gives them a place to meditate; but the truth is this: THE FINAL AND THE COMPLETE SERIES IS A TOTAL INCOHERENT AND INCONGRUENT NONSENSE.
\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\nTo start out with, the script is immitative and inane. The characters are shallow and formulaic. The plot has arbitrary reversals and non sequitors. Baldwin's direction is terrible -- these actors could do better on their own. The jokes and wisecracks fall flat. The shoot out scenes are clumsy and incredible. Baldwin directs himself as the wise courageous hero but spends most of his time in power struggles with women, particularly with the caricatured repressedwoman in their tunnel team who is always asking for and denying reassurance. The conductor suffer from absurd incompetence, being unable to effectively employ a pistol he has come by.Anomalies: a hooded man bristleing with guns stalks through a railroad car, startling people. The next time we see them they are going about their business sitting in their seats, talking, eating, reading, knitting.In the New York subways folks sometimes come on the train to do some musical or dramatic number --- maybe that's what they thought the \"happening\" was.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is perhaps the worst movie I have ever seen, and I have seen well over 300 movies in my lifetime. The acting atrocious, the only bright spot seems to be judging the anatomical prowess of the female castmembers. After watching this movie, it is suggested that the viewer not operate heavy machinery or go driving for a period of at least 24 hours. Also a bottle of Valium would be recommended so you don't feel so bad for the 100 wasted minutes of your life. The plot is nothing original, the dialog excruciating, and even the weapons seem sub-par. Do yourself a favor and go to your local Blockbuster and burn whatever copies they have of this horrid film.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nConsider \"I Know All\" Action hero is lighting a cigarette in the darkness. While tries to hide/seek the Bad guys. (Probably to give a signal light to say here I am coming)
That's one of the 100 scenes you can laugh at. (I think the movie should in the Comedy category.)
Awful directing, awful script, Bad Acting, Cheap special effects. (They used a tunnel so they can hide there acting in darkness)
3 out of 10 (that also for making me laugh looking at those pathetic mistakes)
\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 reviewed anything on here for quite awhile, but after having the misfortune to sit through this rubbish masquarading as entertainment I had to put forward my thoughts.
Normally, however bad something is, there is one redeeming part, whether it is an actor who was okay, a scene that was passable, an attractive cast member, or a general feelgood moment. Unfortunately, that isn't true here, as the film starts of atrociously, with a ridiculous shootout, which was so poor, I thought it was a practice, & two halfwits, otherwise known as the boys in blue chatting beside a school.
One of these idiots was Daniel Baldwin, who not only starred in this, but also actually Directed this garbage, & unlike his brothers cannot act for toffee. Not that he was on his own here, as everyone in it seemed to belong to the acting school of a trained chimp.
Luckily, certainly for me, I only watched an hour of this masterpiece, as the DVD wouldn't work, & was probably made by the same fools who produced this. So if you have nothing to do but watch paint dry do watch this as it is just as boring, & ideal for getting rid of unwanted guests.
\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 really like Ryan Reynolds and Hope Davis and I actually had high hopes watching this last night on DVD. Mainly as I try to avoid reviews until I watch something myself and form my own opinion Big mistake! My 2 /10 is for the first segment which in fairness is actually quite decent and if they had made the movie about the characters in section 1 alone it may have risen above the 5/10 mark.Once it moved into TV 'reality show' territory it stank to high heaven. Ryan Reynolds captured the essence of an actor on the edge wonderfully but as a gay TV writer and famous games creator / devoted family man he was definitely less effective. From the blurb on the box I expected a flashback thriller along the lines of 'Memento' - unfortunately this is nowhere near that standard of 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\nFirst, what is really great about this movie:
- Ryan Reynolds, great acting! There are very few actors I really like and for now he is one of them. He has an amazing skill to impersonate characters.
- The soundtrack! Very good music played at the right time.
- The idea of a nine lost in his own world, incapable of leaving.
Still, I give it only a 3 out of 10 for certain flaws:
- Horrible second part. It seems that the director was very eager to make something new, but despite of the efforts it was really boring
- Very annoying character Melissa. I couldn't stand the scenes with her - i.e. it was constantly annoying. She represents everything that is wrong with American woman.
- Terrible explanation of the numbers. The director was so busy with character development, that he completely missed the point of a good story.. excuse me koalas? brr... terrible!
This movie had great potential. The filming is nicely done, the music is really good, but nothing more.
See it only if you are a fan of Ryan Reynolds, or have a lot of time to spare.
\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*****SPOILERS*********
This movie was truly awful. This woman deceives her employers right from the start and then selfishly proceeds to tear them apart. At the end you see her making a profession out of the trade she'd learned from the father of her \"pupil\". I put pupil in quotes because the governess never really seems to teach the child anything. She seems to hate her and can't stand being near her. I felt sorry for the little girl who simply wanted to be loved, absent that, it was understandable that she would say and do outrages things just to get attention but the viewer wasn't supposed to sympathize with the little girl, the viewer was supposed to sympathize with the governess who hated her pupil and manipulated and deceived her employers. I just couldn't do it. This was not the story of a self made woman, rather, it was a window into the mind of one who uses others at every opportunity with no other thought for anyone outside of her own family. I couldn't stand the governess! This was a really horrible movie. I only paid one dollar to rent it but even that was too much!
\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 wanted to like this one - the situation was rich, and the setting unusual and interesting. But the story is swamped with childish female gothic romance elements that are hard to swallow. The director is unfairly prejudiced against the 'goy' characters -- content to let them be grotesque cardboard caricatures -- and inexplicably indulgent towards the homewrecking behavior of the heroine. The potentially interesting power struggle between the inventor and the governess is not really dealt with.
Feminist film makers will get more credibility when they stop manipulating situations to throw all the sympathy to the heroine, and start dealing honestly with issues. This movie more closely resembles 'The 7 Pieces of Gold', another earnest failure, more than 'The Piano' - a real tale of passion.
\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 had an excellent premise, and could have been a fascinating look at racism, attitudes to women at work and male female relations in England early last century. However, it simply turned into a soppy love story. But what was worse, is that the love story was totally unbelievable. The acting was for the most part poor, the direction confusing, but most of all the screenplay and the story were non-existent. The only thing I liked about the film was how dark it must have been before electric lighting. I really got a sense of just how little light one candle puts 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\nTHE GOVERNESS is a moody period piece, the meandering story of a Jewish woman who, upon the death of her father, sets out to 1830's Scotland, posing as a Gentile to get work to support her family in London.
Rosina - or Mary, as she calls herself in a none too subtle piece of symbolic writing - is a rudderless child, a socialite with dreams of being an actress. She strikes up an alliance with her employer, and by accident solves a crucial problem in his research with photography. Giddy with success, they begin a halting and uncomfortable affair while the eldest son of her paramour falls hopelessly (and inexplicably) in love with her.
And like a child, she fails to understand the consequences of her actions - in the end, betraying those she deceived in order to make a life for herself.
Many claim this is something of a feminist manifesto, but I disagree. Whether intended or not, this film only resonates with me if I think of it as a cautionary tale. In the end, Rosina's greatest disappointment is the truth - that she lied, happened upon a way to help a man she wanted to be both her father and her lover, and in the end contributed nothing but destruction. As such, the end of the film gives me the impression that nothing she did, no one she used, made her happy - and that is exactly as it should be.
Did I need a movie this long and langorous to teach me this lesson? Not at all. On the contrary, had it not been for excellent cinematography, unique score and my hope that she'd get her come-uppance, I wouldn't have stuck with it to the end of the film.
Fans of Minnie Driver will likely be disappointed by her uneven performance but may wish to see it anyway; I doubt young female fans of Jonathan Rhys-Meyers will be able to stay awake for the payoff they expect, and I can't help thinking this holds too little cultural detail to be of interest, even to photography buffs. The 3 points I award the film are solely for its visual style and score. On the strength of their other work, I assume the actors' performances are so disappointing because of a poor script and worse directing, but they are, in the end, unremarkable.
\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\nDespite strong performances by Minnie Driver and Tom Wilkinson, this film fails to ignite the imagination of the viewer.
By the way, what has become of Ms. Driver? She had such a potential in the film industry.
This to me was almost like an 1850s version of Yentl without the musical fanfare. With the death of her father, Driver takes a position as a governess to a Christian family, hiding her Jewish identity.
While I realize that this is a period peace, it was awfully dull even for 1850 England and Scotland.
The lady of the house is most irritating with that sing-song voice of hers. I expected her to refer to Driver as dear at any moment. What kind of name is Mary Blackchurch? I know that Driver is trying to pass herself off as a Christian, but does this name signify all the way?
In the interim, Mary finds love with the young charge's father (Wilkinson) and his emotionally unbalanced son.
In the end, the only thing that we see accomplished is that Mary has found a profession to provide for her family-photography. Did we really have to be subjected to what was happening throughout the film?
The early scenes of Judaism practiced in 19th century England and the cholera epidemic at the end could have been played up more. There is a definite underlying feeling of anti-Semitism by the Wilkinson family but that's never allowed to come 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\nIf I heard the male lead say \"This is madness!\" one more time I would have barfed. The film is one big cliche, with fake \"grind him under your heel\" attitudes. Not one male in this movie has one redeeming quality; reminds me of Soviet-era films with strongly politically-oriented messages. I couldn't even understand WHY there was attraction between the leads, nor could I wait for the ending.
\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 good. Mostly because you don't give a damn about what happens to all these people. Some comments : 1. I am tired of seeing governesses who never talk to their pupils, never teach them anything and take a tired and annoyed look whenever the said pupil, who of course has been won over in the space of 4 seconds, says something 2. Fine, so Rosina has a father complex and therefore is attracted to her employer. But Charles is completely different in all aspects from her father - if anything Henry is much closer as a sensual, exalted person 3. How could you ever believe that she would be more attracted to Tom Wilkinson than to Rhys Meyer. 4. Hard to believe, if she had been in fact raised as a deeply religious girl, that she would be so careless about sleeping with a gentile after knowing him for 5 minutes.
Some good things about the film : At least she didn't end up pregnant, not knowing who the father was... The whole description of life in the Jewish community in London is good
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie had potential. If it had been handled differently. What it needed was a different director. That's certain. And perhaps a different leading lady. I just can't understand the Minnie Driver character - or at least how she played it. She was completely unbelievable. I cannot believe she would have liked her performance in this movie either. She was probably abandoned by the director or incapable of delivering what the director was trying to get her to do. I am writing this as I am still watching it. I'm thinking I would have hated to be in her shoes trying to 'act' something I didn't understand. Well, we've just proceeded to the affair she begins with the son (I'm still watching). I'm now beginning to be profoundly embarrassed for everyone involved in this enterprise. If you enjoy watching movies that miss their mark in a big way, then watch this one.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nJane Eyre with full frontal nudity! I was not surprised to see that a woman had had a hand in this awful \"woman's picture\" and I mean that in the worst possible way. The trouble is, it could have been so good if they had only left out the Jane Eyre stuff and stuck with the vastly more interesting scenes involving the Spanish/Portuguese Jews in early 19th century London. When the sound track music is better than the film, you know you are in trouble. When you fast forward the video because you can't stand the film, just to make sure you don't miss anything, you are in even worse trouble. This film will end up on the romance TV channel where it rightly belongs.
\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\"Hardbodies 2\" is harmless, aimless and plot less. I would add \"brainless\" to that list, but the movie-within-a-movie gimmick, although not done very well, helps it to narrowly escape that label. The scenery has changed from the California beaches to the Greek islands, and the only returning cast members from the first film are Sorrells Pickard (the bearded guy) and Roberta Collins (who at one point falls into a mud pit, bringing back memories of her classic catfight with Pam Grier in \"The Big Doll House\"). All the other actors are new, but apparently Brad Zutaut is supposed to be playing the same character (Scotty) as Grant Cramer did in \"Hardbodies\". This sequel lacks the energy and appeal of the first movie, and doesn't come close to matching it in the \"hotness\" department, either. Of course Brenda Bakke and Fabiana Udenio are both very pretty, but the Teal Roberts - Cindy Silver - Kristi Somers team is unbeatable. \"Hardbodies 2\" is not the worst of its kind by any means, but if you only want to see one of these movies, the original is the one to get. (*1/2)
\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 was produced and released as a successor to a ghastly - although fairly popular - slapstick Californian beach comedy called Hardbodies, but it has little or no connection with the earlier film and is better assessed completely in its own right. It is certainly better than Hardbodies I, and is more closely related to films such as Venus and Summer Lovers which were also filmed during summer in the Greek Islands. The combination of blissful beaches on blue bays with beautiful bare bosoms makes for seductive viewing, but (except for travelogues just designed to help plan your next holiday) even such films require an adequate story line if they are to hold a viewers attention for more than a very few minutes. Venus was underpinned by the legend of the re-incarnation of the goddess, and Summer Lovers had the viability of a \"menage a trois\" as its theme. In my view both these films were much more successful than Hardbodies II which has a very tenuous story line and depends too much on simplistic semi-slapstick comedy. The use of slapstick quickly becomes tedious, it usually leads to a series of very short self contained cameo sequences that are hard to integrate into an ongoing story line. Mel Brooks achieved this brilliantly with Silent Movie, but few other films have succeeded in the same way, and Hardbodies II unfortunately does not. There is also the problem that the slapstick sequences do not co-habit happily with the idyllic and peaceful scenario in which the film is set. The final airport sequences were no doubt intended to provide a hilarious ending for this film but in my opinion they are an example of the worst type of overplayed slapstick pseudo-comedy. They are also grossly overlong, so I left the cinema with a bad taste left in my mouth. This is a film which could have been much more successful with a stronger story line and with most of its slapstick sequences very heavily pruned. As it was released it certainly does not warrant a viewers rating higher than 3.
\tThere is little memorable in the acting, but the cast does its best within the limitations imposed by a meagre story line and poor direction - it is in these latter areas that the failure arises.

\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 just when a band tours, and only has one original member. It's not the same as the classic line up. All new actors playing the main roles of Rag, Scotty, etc, with Ashby as virtually the only returning face from the first movie. And he was of only minor note of the first flick, serving as the only redeemable group of the three guys that Scotty was trying to assist in meeting females. The film is poorly written, featuring the dumbest dialog this side of Armageddon. Even for a T&A movie, this one is a turkey. Not even die hard low budget 80's films fans would want to sit through this movie, which has no plot, and plenty of bad acting. This film would have been better off never being released. Just plain 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\nThe '80's were the best of times and worst of times for James Karin, he starred in one of the best cult horror-comedies with \"Return of the Living Dead\" and a year later he acts in this piece of.... this bad movie. A sequel to Hardbodies (but not really), has a group of fairly unlikeable characters attempting to make a movie in Greece. Through design or sheer laziness the line between the film and the 'film within a film' is not only blurred, but throughly non-existent from scene to scene (which would be confusing if I were just interested in anything happening in the movie in the first place. Unfunny would be too generous a term.
Eye Candy: Nana, Fabiana Udenio, and many numerous extras get topless; Brenda Bakke shows some T&A
My Grade: F
DVD Extras: Just trailers for \"Hardbodies\", \"American High School\", \"Strike\", \"Virgin Territory\" (comes in a double-feature DVD with the first film, for the masochistic)
\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\nPointless movie about making a movie. No where near the flesh shown in the original, which was quite enjoyable and even had fun music. Not here.
It's always fun seeing the Pathmark guy though.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nBelieve it or not, this was at one time the worst movie I had ever seen. Since that time, I have seen many more movies that are worse (how is it possible??) Therefore, to be fair, I had to give this movie a 2 out of 10. But it was a tough call.
\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\nWow, did this episode start on a STOOOOOPID premise! The Enterprise is chugging along when all of the sudden, Abraham Lincoln is floating around in space and welcomes the Enterprise!!!!!!! Is it just me, or is this a really lame-brained idea?! Lincoln comes aboard and they welcome them. Abe suggests they beam down to some barren planet, where they meet other famous dead folks--both good and evil. It seems that a really cheesy-looking rock monster has assembled a team of GOOD and EVIL people to battle it out for supremacy. The whole thing seems really daffy and inherently unfair, as the GOOD side is saddled with Surak--a Vulcan who makes Gandhi seem like Rambo!! Despite a totally AWFUL premise, the action is pretty good and it's great to see overhead shots of obvious doubles fighting it out in this grudge match. But, don't mistake this for high art or deep sci-fi. The bottom line is that the series was on its last legs as a first-run series and this really looked like they dusted off this turkey and filmed it regardless of the absurdity of the premise.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film follows the life of a great guitar player, who wants to make it big but acts irresponsibly almost to the point of self destruction.
I was expecting the usual Woody Allen witty dialogs, sarcasm and humour, but \"Sweet and Lowdown\" failed to provide any. The main character, Emmet Ray, is an egocentric, rude, irresponsible and hurtful man. He is so unlikeable, that I do not want to now about him, or care about him. I wonder why a film about him has to be made. The pacing of the story is slow, making the film a terrible bore. Even Sean Penn's great acting fails to revive the film to a watchable level.
I like Woody Allen's films a lot, but \"Sweet and Lowdown\" is a major disappointment.
\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 first Woody Allen film I've found not worth watching. I think Woody has tried many different genres to interest results but this movie just left me irritated and bored. The music is lovely but don't bother watching this hopeless mock-umentary.
\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 think I've finally seen my last Woody Allen movie! I read the review in the newspaper and went to see this movie with the expectation of having a good Woody Allen experience (as I've had many times in the past). Well, that was not the case. This movie has nothing to offer. Even with the wonderful performance by the talented Sean Penn - this movie failed. One of the features of his other movies is multiple characters - variety, witty dialogue. This movie basically consisted of only one character - very one dimensional. It had almost no laughs. It probably looked good on paper! I think the only thing special was the performance of Samantha Morton. Now I'll be looking for her movies in the future. So, in conclusion, this movie was a major disappointment. >
\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\nWoody Allen (who I have to confess at the outset I have never been a big fan of) directed this quasi-documentary about the life of Emmett Ray (Sean Penn), a 1930's jazz guitarist whose star apparently shone for a while, then quickly faded. Penn does a credible job in the role, portraying a complicated and somewhat neurotic man (not unlike Allen himself, which perhaps explains why Woody would be attracted to this project) who can't maintain relationships, and whose twin passions (aside from guitar playing) were shooting rats at the dump and watching trains.
There isn't a great deal of consistency to the story. It's narrated in a sense by a series of modern-day jazz \"experts\" (one of whom is Allen himself), who relate their various theories and interpretations of different events in Ray's life. The end result is a wildly inconsistent account of the life of a fictional man who seems to have been given a fairly interesting life story by his creators, who probably should have done a better job with it.
Jazz fans and fans of Woody Allen will probably enjoy this. As for me? The best I can give it is a 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\nOnce again Woody Allen seems to be completely devoid of any inspiration other than recycling himself. Here we have a mock documentary (like Zelig), the structure of the film is a series of anecdotes (Radio Days, Broadway Danny Rose) set in the 30's (Zelig, Purple Rose, Bullets over Broadway) about a low-life (Deconstructing Harry) who believes being a genius absolves him from being a jerk (ditto). Given this film and Deconstructing Harry, one wonders if this is Allen's justification for his own actions with Mia Farrow's adopted daughter; yes, I was a jerk, but I'm a genius so you gotta love me.
Allen has only produced two good movies in the past ten years; the fine but overpraised Bullets over Broadway, and the excellent but largely ignored Manhattan Murder Mystery. His other efforts range from trifles (New York Stories, Mighty Aphrodite), to edgy yet experimental (Husbands and Wives), to pure drek (Alice, Scenes from a Mall, Shadows and Fog, Celebrity, Deconstructing Harry). His films no longer even try to have a narrative arc, and his humor seems to aim at wryly amusing, not funny. After Deconstructing Harry I stopped seeing his films in theaters; after Sweet and Lowdown I may stop renting them as well.
\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\nCAMP BLOOD
Aspect ratio: 1.33:1 (Nu-View 3-D)
Sound format: Mono
Whilst hiking in woodland near the deserted Camp Blackwood - site of an unsolved murder ten years earlier - four young city-dwellers are targeted by a masked psychopath who kills their guide (Courtney Harris) and stalks them through the woods with murderous intent...
Low-rent time-waster, filmed on camcorder utilizing the Nu-View field sequential 3-D format. There's a plot, at least, but the script adheres closely to an established blueprint (with obvious nods to the likes of \"Friday the 13th\", \"The Burning\" and \"The Texas Chain Saw Massacre\") without adding anything even remotely new or interesting to the formula. Director Brad Sykes - also responsible for similar 3-D efforts like THE ZOMBIE CHRONICLES (2001) and BLOODY TEASE (2002) - cites the early works of George A. Romero and Sam Raimi as key influences on his career, but while those filmmakers challenged the mainstream with their no-budget efforts, Sykes uses video technology merely to imitate his cinematic heroes, resulting in a home movie with delusions of grandeur. Aside from the 3-D format, there is NOTHING here to warrant anyone's attention. Followed by CAMP BLOOD 2 (2000).
\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\nApparently the writer and director of this direct-to-DVD slasher movie is a fan of Friday 13th and other summer camp slashers. This movie has everything - a group of teenagers who want to spend the weekend with fun, alcohol and sex in an abandoned summer camp called \"Camp Blood\", the old man who warns them not to go there; and of course the crazy killer with the machete who keeps on slashing and hacking at the teenagers without any reason at all... The whole thing could have worked if it had been shot on 35 mm film with acceptable Special Effects. But instead the Special Effects are poorly done. The killer walks around as if he's out on a Sunday afternoon stroll, and the only good things about this movie are the acting of the talented main actress and the sex scene at the beginning. Other than that - dull and forgettable. Jasper P. Morgan
\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 cover case and the premise that write there is so promising. As slasher maniac I expect much from this. But, what the heck is going on. The movie is awful. The direction, the plot, the suspense and the act of the casts is so amateurish. I even thought that they are using a home video camera to shot it. Lucky that it still manage to deliver some good moments to me that make me have to like it. Thanks for the bad package of so-called \"Camp Blood\".
1/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"