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\nOnce upon a time Theresa Russell made a few halfway decent movies, so I keep hoping that one of her efforts from the past decade or two will merit a rating of at least 6 or 7 (out of 10). However, DARK WORLD is just the latest in a string of disappointments. The first 90 minutes are very hard to watch. The lines are delivered by the lead actors as if they are being read at a first rehearsal or even a casting session (in which the actors are doing it for the sake of their agents, but do not really want the parts for which they are perfunctorily reading). The sets and props seem \"off\" somehow (what kind of a police department would allow a detective to have a whole living room wall shelved full of case file holders?). The screen is constantly cluttered with meaningless time and datelines, which appear with no rhyme or reason. Now, if the scriptwriter were standing here after the lights go up from a film fest screening, they no doubt would crow about how all these shortcomings are REALLY clever clues to the plot turning topsy-turvy in this misfire's final five minutes. Well, for those audience members whose only other movie experiences are TV: THE MOVIE and SURFER, DUDE; they might be bamboozled into nodding their heads in agreement. But it is hard to believe that ANYONE who has seen 10 or more movies in their life--and is not a close friend or relative of a DARK WORLD cast or crew member--could fall for such a lame canard. Despite what the d.v.d. box might lead you to believe, this movie has about as much resemblance to SUNSET BOULEVARD (dead narrator device) or Hitchcock (schizophrenic protagonist device) as a drained Jim Beam bottle refilled with urine has to booze!
\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 film starts out with a narration of the protagonist explaining certain crimes occurring all over the city and then we get to know that the hero is a cop who is either suspended or has probably retired. I did not have the patience or the interest to verify the above before commenting. If there is a stereotype for narrators to have a deep, sleep-inducing voice then, it is high time to put an end to it. I seriously fell asleep and did not bother to shut the movie down either. Am still trying to figure out what the movie was all about and why there were no outdoor shootings. A third rate TV Serial will have more number of sets compared to this crap of a movie and I still pity the actors and producers involved in this huge bullshit of a movie. It ought to have been produced as a normal TV serial or maybe even as a local theater drama instead of putting it out on the big screen. Total waste of time and money. The movie was supposed to be in production for a long time and it would have been better to have left it that way.With redundant sleep inducing dialogs and sets, this is the worst movie I have come across.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhen George Sluizer was told he could direct an American version of the book \"Het Gouden Ei\"/the movie \"Spoorloos\"(outside Holland, this movie has the name \"the Vanishing\" too), he was told that this would only go through if the ending was changed - He was told that 'the American Audience' wouldn't approve the original ending. Of course, the original ending is much better, and without it, the movie loses its impact. Because I have already put this in the trivia section, I won't give the original ending and keep my comment spoiler-free. If you want to know the original ending, watch \"Spoorloos\" or read the book. This movie is absolute rubbish, and the first Kiefer Sutherland movie I don't like. Watch the original Dutch movie, which is one of the best thrillers in the world.
\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\nSkip this Hollywood version, a real piece of garbage. A cheap insult to the brilliant original \"Spoorloos\", or by the English title also called \"The Vanishing\". It completely misses the mark in typical, grotesque Hollywood fashion, usually due to a bunch of talentless, corporate bean counters who haven't the vaguest idea about anything artistic, they just look for the \"successful formula\" and want it applied to everything to glean a profit. Much like the awful \"The Scarlet Letter\" made in 1995, which twisted the original story around so much to suit the MacDonaldsland crowd, that it became an aberration, not even a bastardization, but a pile of goop that has been sort of shaped similar but does not look, feel or even remotely resemble the spirit of the original. Except that movie at least had Gary Oldman, who is interesting to watch in anything he does. This dog has nothing going for it, even the usually very talented Jeff Bridges is an embarrassment. Great tragedy is not nor never should be \"the feel good movie of the year\" but rather takes one or more of the sadly much too frequent tragic events in life and allows the reader/viewer to draw meaning and insight into the human condition.
Do yourself a great favor if you're looking for a rental and skip this grotesque garbage and pick up the original made in a Dutch/French collaboration in 1988. That is a great film. This is a horrific mess.
\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\nGeorge Sluizer's original version of The Vanishing aka The Man Who Wanted to Know offers one of European cinema's most quietly disturbing sociopaths and one of the most memorable finales of all time (shamelessly stolen by Tarantino for Kill Bill Volume Two), but it has plenty more to offer than that. Playing around with chronology and inverting the usual clichés of standard 'lady vanishes' plots, it also offers superb characterisation and strong, underplayed but convincing performances.
Unfortunately, I can only assume that when it came to the remake, Sluizer was so determined that no-one else was going to get the chance to ruin his film when he was perfectly capable of doing it himself, but few people could have anticipated how comprehensively he trashes his own work. His career never recovered from this disastrous misstep.
Chief culprit is an astonishing performance by Jeff Bridges that has been over thought through in every detail to a truly disastrous level. A friend who produced one of his earliest movies noted that Bridges was a great instinctive actor as long as you stopped him thinking about what he was doing, and this film is the proof of the pudding. Every movement is overly mechanical in its precision, making him look like a rusty clockwork toy, while his voice is a bizarre mixture of Tootsie, Latka Gravas from Taxi and a Dalek who have all been taking elocution lessons from Dok-tah E-ville. No banality of evil here, just a looney walking around with an invisible sign over his head saying \"Please. Let. Me. Kill. You. Thank you. For your. Consideration.' But the blame really needs to be shared out here. None of the performances are good: often, they don't even look good  Keifer Sutherland looks more like a baby hamster than a distraught man at his wits end in the hurried scenes at the gas station, Nancy Travis flounders badly and Sandra Bullock makes no impression at all as the object of his obsession. Not that they're given any help by either director or writer Todd Graff. The script is particularly weak. The chronology has been altered to put the focus firmly on Bridges at the expense of the couple at the opening of the film. Worse is the rush the film is in, draining the life and character from each scene in its race to get to the next. Rather than the high/low mood shifts in the couple's relationship or the apparently casual but careful establishing of the feel of the location, we just get a couple of arguments that give you the impression that he's probably better off without her. As for the new and improved happy ending  standard woman chased by nutter in the woods jeopardy stuff complete with lame 'let's end on a joke like a TV cop show' moment  best not go there which is advice that holds for this entire trainwreck of a movie. Even a shockingly bland and uninspired Jerry Goldsmith score can't do anything for 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\nI know it's hard for you Americans to find European films on video/DVD, particularly from the 80's but please seek out the original version of the Vanishing - title Spoorloos (1988) - and you'll see why the Hollywood version of The Vanishing screws up bigtime, particularly at the finale.
I really like Sandra Bullock, Kiefer Sutherland and particularly Jeff Bridges, but this is just so so lame compared with the original. What where they thinking? Can you imagine Seven with a happy ending with Gwyneth Paltrow running happily into the arms of Brad Pitt in the finale? The whole point the original was such a major international success was because of the shocking finale. So why do you accept this kind of shyte remake? Really, avoid this and GET THE ORIGINAL.
\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*spoiler alert!* it just gets to me the nerve some people have to remake (and i use the term loosely here..) good movies. in the american version of this dutch thriller, someone decided the original ending wasn't pasteurized enough for american audiences. so what do they do? they create a new one! a stupid, improbable, i-pretend-i'm-dead-but-come-to-life-again-so-the-good-guy-can-kick-my-butt- some-more kind of ending. do yourself a favor and get the original 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\nIf I had to pick the most depressing movie, try to be suspenseful I've seen it'd be this one. I know about how good the original is supposed to be, it had better be better then this one. The movie's so dark and depressing but it isn't interesting to watch either-I've seen depressing \"thriler\" type movies that were saved because of the suspense to counteratc and balence the dark quality. Vanishing didn't have that, This was so disturbing to watch to begin with and there was nothing positive to make this a classic type movie. I think another IMDb poster got it right in saying this genre has just seen thrillers done in a far superior way. I completely agree-I would recommend skipping this one-maybe I'll watch the original some day but I doubt it. I give this a 2 out of 10.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is the most frightening film ever made in Hollywood. It is a cautionary tale of how to take a European masterpiece and suck the life of of it until it is a dry husk like an insect carcass on the the windowsill. Frightening because it reveals how the world of Hollywood really works: ignorant money begetting dross. It makes me wonder how many great films could populate the corridors of my memory if the Hollywood process had not leveled them to forgettable mediocrity. Cry for the murdered children! See Spoorloos or read The Golden Egg, if you dare, because they will come back to you forever in the idle moments of your life: when you're walking along the street and you see a 'missing' poster; in ordinary-looking parking lots; when you hear the Tour De France on the radio; and, especially, when you you think \"what's the harm?\" in wearing a sock with a hole in it on a perfectly ordinary day.
If only I could give this a zero.
\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\nMan, what an awful film. As with many terrible films, the structure of its awfulness lies in the script. This is such a pathetic attempt at a psychological thriller that it gives the entire genre a bad name. Okay, here's one major problem: Sandra Bullock's character is abducted by Jeff Bridges in his car at a busy convenience store in broad daylight. Somehow, her boyfriend Kiefer Sutherland doesn't find a single witness to this act and subsequently spends most of the movie completely clueless as to her whereabouts. Come on! Personally, I find this completely insulting to even the dimmest of audience members. Yet we are forced to buy into this nonsense. Of equal frustration is the poorly explained motive for Jeff Bridges's actions. His character is a bit of an eccentric academic, to be sure, but far from the sociopath who would do these things. He goes through about ten minutes, give or take, spilling his beans to Sutherland as to why he has performed his cruel actions. But the explanation itself lacks even the most elementary sense of logic. Therefore, no intelligent audience member can really believe in the possibility of his evil. And if you subtract that element from the story, the entire thing falls apart.
Also of major concern: -Jeff Bridges using a weird, pseudo-French accent for no reason.
-The entire boring subplot involving Nancy Travis, most especially her saving the day by turning the tables on Bridges.
-The crazy woman who somehow manages to remember Jeff Bridges' license plate number despite also thinking that the Lucky Charms leprechaun is real.
-Sandra Bullock's character's name, Diane Shaver, conveniently re-scrambles to form the word \"vanished\". Are you friggin' kidding me?? -The logistical impossibility of drugging, abducting, and burying (in a very remote location) a human being within the span of forty minutes (as Bridges specifically alludes to).
This is a movie that made me remember the fictional, impossibly stupid (yet very successful) Donald Kaufman character in Adaptation. Many screenwriters are brilliant, inspired artists. Some are just bozos who convince the nitwits running the studios to make their drivel. This particular script is so stunningly dimwitted that Donald Kaufman himself would have managed to sell it. Unfortunately for all of us in the real world, Todd Graff actually did.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI've watched this movie, after having seen the original \"Spoorloos\" a few times, in anticipation of the chilling ending.
I can't even begin to explain the anger and disappointment that I experienced when the ending came, and went, and the movie continued to have a happy ending. What a waste of time it was watching this US remake...
If you have a choice, please skip \"The Vanishing\" and watch the Dutch original \"Spoorloos\". The suspense is very well built-up. You feel the frustration of Rex, in search of any trace of what might have happened to his girlfriend Saskia, after she entered a gas-station and never returned to his car. The search takes him three years, and when he finally gets in touch with the person who knows the truth about what happened to Saskia, he must agree to undergo the same thing that Saskia has undergone. The ending leaves you speechless in your chair....
\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 couple are split apart during a vacation. Early scenes lead us to believe Barney, Jeff Bridges' character, has kidnapped the girl in an unexplained but premeditated abduction. The film plays out some years later where, despite a new love interest, Jeff (Kiefer Sutherland) is determined to solve her disappearance.
The storyline is definitely intriguing but there have been some really bad decisions made during the making of this film, culminating a pretty shoddy piece of work.
OK here we go. The abduction scene - aside from two major continuity errors there is a point where Sandra Bullock and Kiefer Sutherland are made to perform a little signed-pet-love-ritual that's drowned in over-sentimentality to the point of nausea. We know they're in love; the \"I do solemnly swear never to leave you\" speech only moments prior was ample thank you. Jeff Bridges' robot accent is another example. What is that for? Starman is back and it seems after a decade on the planet, he's turned nasty. The entire plot is then able to be resolved by the introduction of a needless character who, by a rather fortunate twist of fate, has quite miraculous powers of observation. The climactic sequence itself has essentially been done before only much, much better. It's riddled with further annoyances and another blinding continuity blunder. I could go on but something positive needs to be said. At a stretch, Kiefer Sutherland is the only one to save face with a fairly decent performance.
The 1988 original of the same name (changed from the Dutch title 'Spoorloos' for English speaking audiences) was recommended to me, only for an online rental company to send me this later Hollywood version by mistake. I was surprised to find both having been Directed by George Sluizer and would be interested to know his motivation for the remake. I am reliably and thankfully informed it is of a much higher quality in all areas including plot. Horah for that, but it really doesn't take much doing.
\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 real insult to the original \"Spoorloos\", which is one of the most genuinely disturbing films (and I intend this as a compliment!) I have seen in the last years.
Where the original is chilling and brilliant, the remake is flat and even boring, especially the \"happy end\" finale takes away what little suspense there was in this film in the first place.
While such a distortion (especially grafting a \"happy end\" which wasn't there previously) is quite frequently the case in \"Hollywood\" remakes of European art-house movies and could've been expected, the biggest disappointment lies in the fact that this inane mess was created by the very same filmmaker who did the original \"Spoorloos\"...
Why Mr. Sluizer decided to ruin his masterpiece in such a fashion is beyond me.
Avoid this abomination at all cost, as it might spoil the original for you even if watched *after* that, let alone the other way round...
\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 believe this movie has 6 stars on IMDb. This is one of the worst movies I've ever seen that wasn't an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000. The plot is predictable. I couldn't bring myself to care about any of the characters. The dialog is cheesy. Several moments in the movie actually made me groan out loud (including Kiefer Southerland's crazy neighbor and the incredibly lame joke that ends the movie). Jeff Bridges' accent is goofy - I can't tell what country he's supposed to be from. It has to be one of the least thrilling thrillers I've ever seen as well...after Sandra Bullock's character disappears, absolutely nothing happens to advance the story for a good 45 minutes. I would give this movie a negative amount of stars if I could.
\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 are just so many things wrong with this movie.
Jeff Bridges weird accent.
Rita's ability to crack the password code
The entire script
The ending - esp the last scene when two coffees are brought to the table for Jeff and Rita and the publisher. J & R laugh and say \"We don;t drink coffee anymore\". Well, why did they order it then??? They obviously did. If they didn't and the waiter brought everyone a coffee by default there would have been three coffees.
Total Tosh.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie was so poorly acted. What was with Jeff Bridges accent, horrible and unbelievable. Was it supposed to be French, Scandinavian?The script was lame. To have the heroine trip over the grave of her boyfriend while running from the Jeff Bridges character...are you kidding me? How convenient that Jeff brings his dirty shovel in the house after he disposes of bodies in his lawn. Do these people just not believe in calling the cops? Okay...I'll get into the car with you, why not? DUH! Why was Bridge's daughter obsessed with making her dad have an affair, is her mother that evil or just plain dull? I did not see the original, it would be hard to make myself after seeing 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\nGeorge Sluizer's remake of his own - superior - film is a complete waste of time. Why was it even attempted? Kiefer Sutherland plays Jeff Harriman, whose girlfriend (Sandra Bullock, who only has a small amount of screen time)is abducted at a service station by Barney Cousins (Jeff Bridges). Now, Barney is portrayed as the kind of guy that no one would trust in a month of Sundays - he lopes about like Frankenstein's Monster but without the sympathy, and Bridges' acting is totally awful. Sutherland comes across a little better when his character turns detective with the help of new love interest Rita Baker (Nancy Travis).
A major problem with this version of 'The Vanishing' is its obvious need to cater to Hollywood audiences by avoiding the bleak ending of the original film. Here the ending is happy which seems forced and unbelievable, and completely wrecks the story. However by this time the damage has been done as Jeff Bridges turns the bad guy into a huge laugh.
\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 American remakes of European films are pretty poor, but this is in a league of its own. In fact this might even be the worst (Sandra Bullock) movie ever made. I daresay I might have passed it off as just another innocuously bad Hollywood thriller had I not seen the Dutch original, SPOORLOOS. The altered ending here is stupid enough (and executed with particular ineptitude), but a far worse crime than that is removing all the intelligence and depth of character that marked out the original as a classic. The real horror to be found here is in the fact that the same man who directed SPOORLOOS is responsible for this atrocity. Will the real George Sluizer please stand up?
\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\nMore suspenseful, more subtle, much, much more disturbing....
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIn Thailand, the Americans Connor (Colin Egglesfield) and his girlfriend Amanda (Meredith Monroe) quarrel in a Muay-Thai fight, and Amanda leaves Connor alone. She asks the direction of the hotel to a stranger, indeed the mean vampire Niran (Don Hetrakul), and she is bitten and kidnapped by his gang of evil vampires in motorcycles. Connor joins to a clan of \"good\" vampires leaded by Sang (Stephanie Chao), trying to save Amanda from the claws of Niran.
I expected that \"Vampires: The Turning\" were a good movie. The locations and the cinematography are beautiful; the very heavy music score is excellent; Stephanie Chao is gorgeous and attractive; but unfortunately, the screenplay and the director are terrible and the very loose costume of Meredith Monroe does not help her fallen breasts. The story is very short, and the unknown Marty Weiss uses long scenes with motorcycle race, fights and boring flashbacks to complete a minimum running time for film. My vote is four.
Title (Brazil): \"Vampiros: A Conversão\" (\"Vampires: The Conversion\")
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nEven though this was set up to be a showcase for some kickboxing and swordplay, \"Vampires: The Turning\" (VTT) could have aspired beyond that. Because it doesn't even aspire to be a good vampire movie, VTT fails to deliver any punch that it may have been attempting to.
Using the idea of an 800-year-old thai vampire was interesting, but the story about progeny she mistakenly brought into existence (and now must wipe out) actually reminds me of Gizmo and his plight in \"Gremlins,\" and that isn't a good thing when it come to a vampire flick.
Stephanie Chao is attractive and serves as the \"good\" vampire very well, but her lack of any accent grates when you realize that she's an 800-year-old vampire. Added to that, when she tells Connor he's \"a young soul,\" she doesn't deliver the line with much of the weight you would expect from an \"old\" soul. Attractive, but not believable.
Meredith Monroe was more believable in her role but, for a \"Dawson's Creek\" alum, you would think she would have more screen time. The question of whether Amanda succumbs and \"turns\" is the most compelling reason to continue watching this movie, and you never get it. You get a tease of it, but you never actually get any type of development out of the characters for that plot device. It's a cheap way to play your audience, folks.
If you want something that is a good vampire movie, go find Lugosi's \"Dracula,\" and if you want a sexy vampire movie, you have dozens of flicks from Hammer with a lot more strength than this one. In the end, if you want good or sexy, this isn't the place. This is just forgettable.
\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 \"Vampires: The Turning\" isn't even really worth the 2 out of 10 I'm giving it. The movie, is very predictable from beginning, up to the very end when our hero kills the leader of the Vampire Slayers. The use of music in this movie was even bad, it kept playing as if you were to expect something significant to happen at any second, though it never did. The acting, was B-Rank at best... And the movie was just, dull. The only reason I give this movie a 2 out of 10 is because the story, had potential though it ended up unable to deliver. Oh, and did I mention the wardrobe? The wardrobe for this movie was obviously cheap to \"non-existent\" because our hero, and his girlfriend (whom he's trying to save throughout the entire movie) wear the same outfits through the entire movie. I'd suggest this film only if your really bored, and don't have a good wall with fresh paint to watch dry. ~Dave, the Horror Cowboy
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThere's a good story well hidden and never really used!
The film is short and overly dependent on action and thematic photography; somehow, character and story development have been forgotten. What is left is muddled and superficial.
Turn off your brain and watchyou will probably find that the time goes quickly enough, but unless you are the sort of person that finds soaps deep and meaningful, you are going to get no real satisfaction from this film.
Watch only if you have nothing better to do and then only if someone else pays for the video rental.
\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\nAn in-name-only sequel to John Carpenter's Vampires, this movie takes place in Thailand and involves a sect of bad vampires, who enjoy killing people, and a sect of good vampires who do not. While it's an interesting idea to set a vampire film in Thailand, the writers don't seem to do a lot with the exotic locale. This film could just as easily have been set in Los Angeles. Which brings me to my next point, which is that this seems a lot like Blade Lite. We've got the rock soundtrack, the martial art battle scenes, a dance club bloodletting and, of course, lots of sharp objects going through vampires. What we don't have is the budget and talent. Yes, the hero is a good martial arts fighter, too bad his acting wasn't as good, and there's plenty of decent wire work, and tons of revved up fight sequences, maybe too many. The problem is they just don't have the same impact as the ones in any of the Blade films. Perhaps it's just that the film has a \"been there seen that\" feel to it.
However, for me the biggest problem was that the filmmakers didn't take enough time to establish the relationship between the lead, played by the buff and bland Colin Egglesfield, and his girlfriend. She gets snatched at the very beginning of the flick after a whiny exchange with her boyfriend. We have no vested interest in her welfare at this point and no reason to believe that her boyfriend would be willing to risk his neck to save her. Now that's a major drawback when that's the major thrust of the plot.
In the end, you could do worse than waste 85 minutes of your time with this, but I can think of a lot better things to do with your time, like renting any of the Blade movies.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI watched this movie tonight and I do need to say that it is horrible! I expected it to be great, because you know, usually we don't have many movies about Asian vampires mixed with Asian culture; but already in the beginning it started in a bad way: the introduction of the movie seemed not to have an end! The plot is so weak and if you take the fights and the soundtrack off, you really don't have anything useful at all! The director of this film doesn't look to have some important notions about how much time to spend in introduction and flashbacks for example.( not to mention some other things)
For people like me, who wants to watch a great vampire movie, I really recommend to watch ''Lost Boys'' or ''The Interview with the vampire''.
\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 plot is simple: an American couple is in vacation in Thailand. Somehow they are attacked by the 'almighty' Chinese vampires, and the girl is kidnapped by the big boss of the vampires. This is OK till now. The girl's partner is left to search for her. And now the horror begins. He comes upon a strange group of semi-vampires or something (they only drank animal blood). These vampires are in conflict with the bad guy for about...800 years. However, with the help of the 'good vampires', the guy begins to search his girlfriend.
Now the fight scenes begin, what a karate movie without fight? Another thing i have noticed is that the vampires are very ugly guys. I mean....a vampire is an old-fashion guy(he is alive since...for ever), he's got style. There are also modern vampires, but in this movie, the vampires are....weird. Like, come on, they ride a bike, they are all dressed in leather and they destroy everything in their way.
The worst thing is that you can clearly see that this movie it is an low budget one. The script is boring and the actors aren't too talented. The music is pretty good, but the effects are not that great.
To sum up the movie it is not that great, but if you have a free afternoon, watch it and tell me if i'm right or not.
\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 watch tons of movies and this one really sucked ... BIG TIME. I am sure we are all sick and tired of the low budget ploy to make Vampire Movies using some \"Martial Arts Teacher\" turn \"actor\" type of movies. I am also so tired of the guy knowing some form of fighting technique and then able to fight his way through a somewhat boring Movie. I forced myself to watch it and one of the main reasons were that the Lead Actress is quite Pretty (Ha-Ha) Well I hope this helped a bit and if you have time and want to give your Brain a rest Watch it!!! Well hopefully one day this type of movies will not be released but then hey where will all the Low Budget actors go :-)
The movie also contains many Bloops but that I will leave to you to find because it adds quite a bit of fun while watching and also if you a bit of a perfectionist it will bother you ;-) Cheers!!
\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\nFirstly, I'll admit I haven't seen Vampires: Los Muertos, but I've seen the original Vampires film and love it. I rented this film having heard nothing about it. I didn't expect to be impressed. I wasn't.
I love the idea of shifting the action to the far east, which should have opened up a lot of new avenues for the action sequences as well as the story line, but not enough was made of this. The fight scenes and the motorbike chases were painfully boring.
There were some parts I liked, like the way the slayer team weren't shown as heroic good guys, as they were in the first movie.
I'd been hoping since I saw the old Hammer movie Legend Of The 7 Golden Vampires a few years ago that someone would one day make another good Asian-based vampire film. This was not it.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie is really bad. The hero can't play. You see too much that he learned his walking moves by heart. And believe me, he walks a lot. For 45 min, nothing happens. He only walks to places and gets out..... Like if the story was so short that they had to extend it by adding useless and boring \"looks-like-a-suspens\" scenes.
Dialogues are very poor. I counted around a lots of \"hello's\" and few \"hang on\" on the 1st part.
Blood is orange like the Mercurochrome you put on kid's blisters. And scenes are not following themselves. A bloody neck on a scene, a clean neck on the following.
The story could have been improved. Yeah I mean what the hell is the story?
Martial arts? Where? Is that martial arts? Watch how hesitant and slow are the moves!!!!! If giving a kick and receiving a punch is called martial arts, then I am Bruce Lee!!!!
The only good point I have found is on fight scenes : They don't play with zoom and fast switching scenes that gives you headache in most of action movies.
There are plenty of low budget movies that are great. That one was just to make money. Nothing else.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nMan oh man, this was a piece of dog sh#t. I read a few reviews on here after seeing the case in the local video store, and thought to myself........ Ah this seems like a half decent movie.Vampires.Swords. Thailand.How can you go wrong? Right? No,no,no way f*cking wrong. Jesus, if only I could gouge out my eyes and not remember this film, I would be happy. The lead actor had THE whiniest, gayest voice ever.Man!It really was bad....\"Amandaaaaaaaa....\",\"I gotta save my girlfriend....\" F*ck off! My buddy and I actually changed the Audio Track on the DVD to Portugese just so we didn't have to hear the guy's voice. Subtitles and all...and this IMPROVED the film. I'm serious, if your anything like me and wondered what this film was like..STOP WONDERING. I have the answer. WORST VAMPIRE MOVIE EVER! No good action, no good gore and only the smallest smattering of nudity. Just pure sh*t for 90 Mins. Don't rent this,buy it,think about it,or watch it at 3:00am. It just doesn't cut the cake......at all....in any way. F*ck this movie and watch All Anal 7: Real Deep Cover. You'd have a better time. I'm sure.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI watched the world premiere of this on the Starz Action channel. They call it Vampires: The Turning. The plot was a little confusing. There is a voice-over in the introduction about an 800 year war, and I didn't quite understand. The movie is about a young couple somewhere in Asia (maybe in China, I don't think the movie specifies). The couple has an argument and Meredith Monroe runs off and is kidnapped by a biker gang of Vampires. The boyfriend finds a group of vampires that don't kill humans, and enters into a battle with the bikers. A human group of slayers somehow get involved, and the final fight sequence takes place during a solar eclipse. This movie is not related to either Vampires or Vampires: Los Muertos. Confusing, but decent action. Four out of 10 stars.
\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....so why on Earth would I see 'Sex Lives of the Potato Men'? Answer: Johnny vegas and Mackenzie Crook. Vegas I have seen live and thoroughly enjoyed. I think he is an intelligent and unique intellectual comic who manages to retain extreme oafishness. Crook I know only from probably the greatest comedy of the last 10 years along with 'Alan Partridge', 'The Office'. As Gareth he was simply hilarious, and I was interested in how he would convert to another character on the big screen.
OK. So me and the boyfriend went down to the multiplex last night and the film was very funny, only because the mediocre nonsense dialogue and banter Ferris and Dave had was delivered with aplomb and enthusiasm by the talent of Vegas and Crook. They are destined for better things (have done better already infact) and I even believe Vegas would make a decent straight actor. The trite scenes where he says he misses his wife came almost close to touching, although the **SPOILER** tacked on scene at the end where he is taken back by his wife needed to be lengthened, it just wasnt believable. And throughout the film Vegas only appears to miss his wife 2 or 3 times.
The film became grotesquely unfunny and plain old, well, grotesque, when sex was mentioned. Not, I add, when it was shown on screen. Tolly's gratuitous explanation of what was in his sandwiches and why was not even slightly funny, and just made me feel a little bit ill. Also totally unneccisary was the inclusion of the character of Jeremy picking his nose, before showing a close up of the bogey on his finger. Just him picking his nose would have raised a smile, he was a pathetic character and it would have just made him look as low as possible, but showing the snot close up was just not needed and was rank.
One scene I did think was hilarious involving sex was Vegas in the threesome. His blokish conversation with the second bloke just highlighted the fact that threesomes arent always endless ecstasy. Not that I'd know.....
That's about all I can say really. I will end with this, and this is actually my main critique of the film. This is supposed to revive the British film industry. It is no 'Trainspotting' that is for sure....it isn't even a 'Love Actually' (you'd have to have a heart of stone not to throw up at that one), and 3 million pounds really could have been put into a better project. 'Mike Basset England Manager' was a wonderful little known British comedy and was made for far less than 3 million. I only hope that the BFC will learn from 'Sex Lives of the Potato Men' and not get so gratuitous in future. Although the terrible reviews this film is getting are only enhancing the box office takings. :-)
\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\nSex Lives of the Potato Men is about the sex lives of several men involved in delivering potatoes. So there are no surprises there. It is, in fact, pretty much what you might expect from the title: that is, it's a quirky comedy involving sex and potato men. At times the film works. It's an edgy, sometimes uncomfortable comedy about the lives of some rather unimportant and rather average men who are having problems of various sorts with women. Where the film clearly does not work, and why it failed at the box office, is that the quirky, uncomfortable parts are perhaps just a shade too quirky and uncomfortable. Instead of laughing during the scene of a man suspended from a basement ceiling masturbating over another man while he makes love to his wife, I think most of us just kind of groan awkwardly and wonder what Andy Humphries was thinking. Well, perhaps we are shown what he was thinking all too clearly.
\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\nEver watched something so awful you just have to keep watching to be sure it really is as bad as it looks? This is one of those films. It was slammed by the critics on it's release, not least for the way it was funded. I caught it on TV last night and gave in to curiosity.
In the event, it is what it says on the box, no more nor less: low level humour, crudity, very much in the 'Carry On...' vein but with 'adult' language. Indeed, it harks back to the 60s/70s UK porn industry, cheating punters by promising real sex and not delivering (spot the nipple?) That whole tawdry era is lovingly recreated here but with modern cinematography.
It has the benefit of Mackenzie Crook (The Office, Pirates of the Caribbean and much more) and also Johnny Vegas. The chip shop girl is genuinely sexy. Beyond these unexpected positives, it does leave me wondering what happened to England. Junk food, low paid work, council estates, desperate lives. As a bonus, there are some nice shots of leafy Birmingham. Foreigners might find it informative about British attitudes and aspirations. Overall, though, I still feel disbelief that I sat through it.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI watched this film with a sort of dangerous fascination, like a hedgehog trapped in the headlights. There is no doubt that (even if you enjoyed it) it's a bad movie, but the important question is why? It has a good cast; it's lively; it's prepared to tackle sex head on, with some of the characters actually getting some of it here and there, which is unusual for a British comedy. It also has Johnny Vegas and Mackenzie Crook, Marmite performers agreed but they've have had their moments in the past.
What it's principally lacking is charm. The characters are impossibly idiotic, unbelievable and alienating, so that instead of a film of Men Behaving Badly the producers have made Game On. Any mediocre writer wanting to make a film about the sexual attitudes of dozy, sexist British men would have got hold of a few copies of Loaded, Zoo or even Viz to read Sid the Sexist and the thing would have written itself. Instead, the producers clearly tried to make up some moronic, difficult to care about, characters. Character comedy - as opposed to slapstick etc - only works if the audience can recognise some human truth to the situation. But watching this film is like being told an annoying joke that you know is not going to end up funny but you can't stop it.
Sadly, the film is also poorly made. The plot structure is weak, there's little character delineation or development, and many of the scenes aren't funny. Time after time the same lame reggae chips in to divide scenes, pointlessly and gratingly. There's a lot of needless repetition - when you've done one joke about parking outside a sex party you don't need to do it again. One wonders what the UK Film Council saw in the script.
This is a world where most men are rakes, and most women are continually up for it. The Apartment and Alfie satirised much the same world view, but the producers of this film accept it without criticism. Thus they've ended up with a kind of inferior update of Confessions of a Window Cleaner. Somebody British needs to have another go at this kind of thing, and do it properly  a good next project for Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright I think...
\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 found myself watching Sex Lives Of The Potato men with a furrowed brow, puzzled why so many talented and witty comedians decided to be involved in a film so totally devoid of humour.
Poo and wanking jokes are funny when you're eleven. Eighteen plus and you begin to lose friends around the water cooler.
Maybe some enjoyment could be had from this movie if you're the kind of person who frequently plays practical jokes involving dog mess, brown bags and matches, or maybe partake in 'man' competitions on nights-out by imbibing companions' vomit/urine etc when you're not back at your parent's basement punching your teenage wife.
Even then \"Sex Lives...\" it's hard to recommend. Perhaps if you're really weirdly into masochistic cranial surgery and spend your evenings happy slapping the elderly or watching toilets flush, you might think a close-up of a bogie is worthy of cinematic distribution.
I'd discuss characterisation, narrative or performances had I not zoned completely out following the lengthy tuna-paste/vagina comparison.
\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 are no spoilers for this film as nothing could be written that could make it any worse! The dictionary definition of \"puerile\" should now read: \"sex lives of the potato men\"! Unless, that is, you like dog poo and mucous; in which case - this is the film to see! Johnny Vegas et all - what WERE you thinking!
\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 when a film is panned by the critics one just has to see it to see if it is really as bad as the claim, well in this case it was. I believe it was meant to be a sex comedy but it was neither sexy nor funny, I think I chuckled once when Johnny Vegas failed to vault a roadside fence and that was it.
The film follows the lives of four men who deliver potatoes for a living, each of them has a problem with their sex lives; Dave has left his wife and seeks out an old flame who once invited him for a threesome a few years before, Ferris is living with his mother in law who treats him as a sex object, Tolly has an obsession for involving strawberry jam in his encounters and Jeremy claims to be in a loving relationship but is in fact stalking some poor woman.
The tone of the jokes varies from tasteless to \"I don't believe that anybody could write that\" an example of the the latter being when they tell a small child his father has died in a car crash, then for the punch line when the boy asks how his mum is they tell him she is in a coma. The blame for this all lands squarely at the feet of the writers, the actors obviously made a poor choice agreeing to be in this film but I didn't think their acting was all that bad... not that it was all that good either. Surprisingly for a fairly sleazy film about sex there is no nudity and the sex is never erotic.
I certainly wouldn't recommend seeing this for any reason other than morbid curiosity although judging from other reviews this seems to be a love it or loathe it film, I suspect it would be better watched after a few beers and with your mates.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"