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\nThe quality you're likely to remember after viewing The Big Knife is how claustrophobic it is. It's pacing is sacrificed to a uniform texture of dialog. It's talky in the extreme. Modern viewers will feel every point has been made (and then some) but the movie will still not move on, or do the viewer a favor and change the scenery. It's very inert. At the 45 min mark I was sure I had watched two very slow hours. My beleaguered response was, \"Good God, where is this going?\" It feels like Odets was paid by the word...
This is a good place to note the decline of drama from it's high point in the 40s through the conceit-laden projects of the 50s and 60s until actual filmic merit was rediscovered in the 70s, only to vanish again. Here we get show-offy, conventional, emotional outbursts from Steiger, Lupino et al. and camera moves pre-arranged to meet over-practiced blocking. This is due to the rise of the Method; the regrettable trend of sacrificing every other merit of film, to grant actors their most selfish wishes. \"Great acting,\" ho-hum, has killed thought in movies.
Jack Palance's forehead & pompadour retract and thrust forward every time he reacts to something. It's disturbing.
This is awfully boring stuff.
\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 tried to watch this film 3 or 4 times, but I just can't get past the fact that everything about it is just awful. I'm sure it was a courageous move by somebody to cast Jack Palance as the protagonist, but there is not one single fiber of my being that believes that he could act at all, much less act against type.
Yes, I understand that Clifford Odets was a brilliant author, but it's not evident here. This odd and forced mish-mash of 50's hipster dialog seems to obfuscate any genuine meaning, which explains why none of the actors, even the good ones (Steiger, Ida Lupino, Shelly Winters, Everett Sloane) seems to know how to deliver their lines - it's as though they don't understand the meaning of what they are saying. And in the meantime, Wendell Corey and Palance stage a terrific contest to see who can be more stone-faced.
The direction is amateurish and completely overwrought. The physical interaction between the characters is as stilted as the dialog.
And can we discuss that hideous set? It's so busy, ugly and contrived that it adds to the robotic, disconnected quality of the characters, the dialog and the portrayals.
This film seems to suck the energy right out of me. It looks like everybody took an overdose of Valium each morning when they arrived on the set. It takes a pretty lousy movie to make Rod Steiger and Shelly Winters look bad, but this one succeeds.
I can see that it might have been effective as a play on or off Broadway, where intellectuals and beats could have congratulated themselves for appreciating the power of the plot and the artsy flourishes of the pseudo-hip dialog.
\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 Big Knife, a movie about the dark side of the Hollywood motion picture industry, is ironically far more like a filmed play than a film itself. Apart from a few very brief expository scenes, all of the action takes place in the living room of the film's hero, played by Jack Palance. He's a movie actor who wants out of his contract with his studio because of the lack of redeeming qualities in the films they put out. His on again, off again wife (Ida Lupino) is also fed up with the studio, not to mention her husband's philandering ways. Unfortunately for them both, the head of the studio (Rod Steiger) is a real bastard. He has blackmail material to force the increasingly tortured actor to sign a new contract. But it's only a matter of time before he pushes the man too far.
This film is not, I repeat NOT, a film noir. Rather, it's an exceptionally theatrical sitting-room melodrama. The plot proceeds at a snail's pace, and is so intricate and confusing that it is in violent disharmony with the static setting and carefully contrived blocking of the actual scenes. The acting is overwrought in the extreme, and veers sharply between out and out histrionics and softer, but no less unsubtle, soliloquies that are obviously meant to be poignant but come across as pretentious twaddle, especially in the hands of the woefully miscast Palance. Aldrich was obviously going all out for a stylized \"something\" here, but I doubt even he knew what it was, and certainly the audience never does.
I think the main lesson here is that films and plays are very different mediums. What might have worked in a play did not come across as even remotely natural or plausible on film. The result? A big waste of time. There's little to enjoy here.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is the slowest \"film noir\" film I've ever seen. Very weak script only provides opportunity for Jack Palance and Rod Steiger to deliver exceptionally well, lines that were made for an acting audition. Palance and Steiger both affirm they are indeed serious actors who can portray their respective roles with power, emotion and drama. The story itself moves at an incredibly slow pace, mostly taking place in a living room. The director obviously moved the actors around in a rythmatic circles as they delivered exhaustingly long lines, to keep the slow pace from becoming noticeable to the audience. The action doesn't pick up until the last ten minutes of the film. If you're one who's looking for more depth in a crime drama, this one's not for you!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAn excellent cast who do their best with an awful script, inept direction, and some of the worst score that I have ever heard. More TV movie of the week than serious drama. Which is sad when one considers that the source material is very serious and very real. The film makers decided that instead of building drama and character, it was better to just show the most graphic and violent bits and hope that the audience would be shocked into sympathy and caring. In my opinion, one the most blatant forms of cut and paste film adapting.
\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 idea behind this movie was great. The story of a little girl facing abuse (both emotional and physical) and trying to deal with it and survive. What makes the movie fall apart is the terrible use of voice overs and the corny dialog. The actors have to point out the most obvious things over and over again. Also, there is very tedious, almost funny, overuse of metaphors in the voice overs. The high point is the acting of the little girl. Nice try, but this one's a stinker.
\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\nPerry Mason: The Case of the Glass Coffin finds Raymond Burr defending David Copperfield/Rick Blaine like magician Peter Scolari from a murder charge involving one of his assistants. A trick involving a suspended glass coffin in midair goes awry and the body of Nancy Grahn comes a tumbling out.
Nancy was one of six female assistants who work with the act and we learn two things about her. First in a moment of drunken weakness, Scolari got seduced by her and she claims she was impregnated. Secondly she is living under an assumed name and had a secret from her past.
Billy Moses who probably never thought he'd be doing such rough stuff back in law school gets to tangle with a couple of good old boys when goes seeking the truth in Grahn's home town. A little more action than usual for Ken Malansky, he almost gets himself killed.
One big flaw in this mystery is simple forensics. The medical examiner's report should have provided concrete evidence that the victim was killed in such a way that Scolari could not possibly have done the deed. The police should have been looking in a different direction for the killer.
When you see who the killer is you won't blame the individual, but you'll also see how the investigating officer James McEachin got it wrong from the start. It kind of spoils this particular Mason 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\nIn Los Angeles, the alcoholic and lazy Hank Chinaski (Matt Dillon) performs a wide range of non-qualified functions just to get enough money to drink and gamble in horse races. His primary and only objective is writing and having sexy with dirty women.
\"Factotum\" is an uninteresting, pointless and extremely boring movie about an irresponsible drunken vagrant that works a couple of days or weeks just to get enough money to buy spirits and gamble, being immediately fired due to his reckless behavior. In accordance with IMDb, this character would be the fictional alter-ego of the author Charles Bukowski, and based on this story, I will certainly never read any of his novels. Honestly, if the viewer likes this theme of alcoholic couples, better off watching the touching and heartbreaking Hector Babenco's \"Ironweed\" or Marco Ferreri's \"Storie di Ordinaria Follia\" that is based on the life of the same writer. My vote is four.
Title (Brazil): \"Factotum  Sem Destino\" (\"Factotum  Without Destiny\")
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI have waited a long time to see this movie. IFC finally ran it one night. I thought it would be something like \"Barfly\" from Barbet Schroeder. Wrong. This film doesn't recreate that underworld of chintzy, dirty, smoke filled, character filled bars you associate with his stories. It also fails to capture that Bukowski attitude that Mickey Rourke did so well in the above mentioned film. That natural smart-ass attitude. Fans of Charles Bukowski will enjoy seeing scenes from his books on screen but those unfamiliar with his books could get the wrong impression about his works. This film looks like just another 'Movie Of The Week\" about a drunk and his relationships. If you want to get a better idea about Charles Bukowski's world watch \"Barfly\".
\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\nClearly this film was made for a newer generation that may or may not have had an inkling of Charles Bukowski's work. The autobiographical Henry Chinaski character in Bukowski's stories was brilliantly portrayed to perfection by Mickey Rourke in 1987's 'Barfly', also starring Faye Dunaway. Anyone who has seen 'Factotum' should certainly see 'Barfly' to get a better look at how Bukowski wrote his character. 'Factotum' lacks the greasy seediness of Bukowski's screenplay and the fearless hopelessness of his loner hero. The inadvertent humor that bubbles through in the dark desperation of Chinaski's misadventures doesn't work for Dillon as it did so admirably for the overweight filthy blood-soaked Rourke. Rourke's character makes the pain and pleasure of the previous night's misbehavior a place-setting for yet another grueling ugly day in the life of a drunken misanthropic unknown writer. Dillon's character misses these marks in favor of a strutting, handsome, relatively clean-looking wanna-be writer that scarcely passes for any moment in that of Chinaski's story. Dunaway's sleazy heroine Wanda is the perfect complement to the ne'er-do-well Henry. The women in 'Factotum' can't hold a candle to Dunaway's 'distressed goddess' and the use of more profane sexual subject matter in 'Factotum' proves to be more of a crude distraction than a tip of the hat to Bukowski's raw and unapologetic portrayals of dysfunctional relationships. I was stunned at how many of the exact same scenes were used in 'Factotum' (Marisa Tomei buying all the stuff and charging it to the old man is an exact rip-off from 'Barfly').
If you want to see the best Bukowski stories on film, see 'Barfly' and 'Love is a Dog From Hell' (which also goes by the title 'Crazy Love').
\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 has some good lines, but watching Dillon's less-than-masterful Rourke impersonation just left me wanting to see the original. I like Marisa Tomei but she's no Faye Dunaway.
Also, in my opinion, the number one movie rule is to make the lead character someone you care about. You might not LOVE the character, but you should care what happens to him. This is achieved in Barfly with the hilarious running gag about the fights with Eddie the bartender. The main fight in Factotum is when, completely unprovoked, he stalks up to the Lily Taylor character in a bar, punches her to the floor and calls her a whore.
The whole thing just didn't work. Again, some great lines -- some laugh-out-loud funny -- but as a movie overall it's a fail. Mediocre attempt at reinventing something that was brilliant, and you can't get past that. Next? Let's remake Breakfast at Tiffany's with Kate Hudson.
\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\ndoesn't mean this movie is good. i was really frustrated by it on many levels. it's kind of the tip of the hat to bukowski. hey, i've read that guy in college--let's see what matt dillon does with him. and i like matt dillon. i thought he came close to looking a little like hank, but mostly just the ruddy cheeks. i have to care about a character, though, and there just wasn't much here to care about. i think time might be cruel to bukowski, and that bothers me a lot, because the writing was solid in a sort of post counter culture time. hard to sit through, scenes that went nowhere, and a soundtrack that made me want to vomit. i ask for very little, got less.
\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 boring movie about a miserable loser...that's Factotum in a nutshell. Matt Dillon plays Henry Chinaski, alter ego of author Charles Bukowski upon whose novel the film is based. As we meet Chinaski he may be a writer but he's certainly not a successful one. He floats through life, getting fired from one menial job after another and not caring a bit. The fact that he's always drunk may have something to do with his not caring. He meets a woman, Jan, played by Lili Taylor and a relationship ensues. Chinaski moves into Jan's apartment and now instead of getting drunk by himself he can get drunk with somebody else. Good times. Eventually he's had enough of this relationship so Chinaski strikes out on his own. Unfortunately he still can't hold down a job so soon enough he's broke. At this point Marisa Tomei shows up and for some reason her character, Laura, decides to rescue this miserable drunken loser whom she doesn't even know. We soon meet some of Laura's acquaintances and the film veers off into a sort of bizarro world with this rather eclectic bunch. Soon enough Tomei and friends are out of the picture and once again we're left with Chinaski and his drinking and his miserable little life. There's some more time spent with Jan but mostly there's just time spent being a drunk, unemployable loser. And then the movie's over and not a moment too soon. 94 minutes of absolute monotony and it seems infinitely longer as the movie drags on. Nothing happens. Nothing ever happens. If you want to spend an hour and a half of your life watching Matt Dillon drink then this is the movie for you. If you're looking for a compelling story, well developed characters or any entertainment value whatsoever then you've come to the wrong place. Dillon's performance actually isn't bad at all. Too bad the movie which surrounds him is in fact rather 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\nAfter Matt Dillon's phenomenal performance in CRASH, most will probably rush to pick up a copy of FACTOTUM to see if Dillon is for real or simply got a lucky rebound from a great script.
Well, Factotum certainly has its moments, but the plainness of ...everything will most likely turn viewers off. However nothing should be taken away from Dillon. His performance is wonderful and full of excellent deadpan humor, proving he's a solid actor with significant chops; it's just a shame about the directing and script.
The story is about Henry \"Hank\" Chinaski (Dillon) and his refusal to conform to anything resembling normalcy. He quits or gets fired from jobs in mere minutes, only to find himself back in a dreary pub meeting even drearier women while trying to write a nonconformist novel. We never really know what the novel is about except that it involves \"everything\" (cancer, movies, you, me).
Skipping from workplace to workplace and constantly returning to Jan (Lili Taylor, THE HAUNTING), a loser girlfriend who's just as dispiriting as himself, Hank tries vainly to discover what his life is supposed to hold for him. Whether he ever learns what that is is up for interpretation. Some may say that he never does, while others might argue that his life is simply a path to obscurity.
Regardless, there's not much substance to Factotum even with Matt Dillon's fine performance. The story meanders through Hank's life without much thought given as to where to take the audience. And that's a shame. Dillon's performance would've shone even brighter if given a decent script.
\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\nRented this from my local Blockbuster under the title SPECK - that may be the way to look for it if you still feel the need to see it after this review.
It's a movie about the serial killer Richard Speck, who killed several nurses in Chicago in the sixties. Watching the movie, one gets the feeling that it follows the crimes to the letter. Unfortunately, that doesn't make for a good movie.
Another problem I had was the near-constant music letting us know that this was a SCARY MOVIE, and some god-awful narration letting us know what's motivating Speck. The acting was average for this type of film; to give credit where credit is due, the movie is very beautifully photographed for my taste. Your mileage may vary.
Over all, if you're interested in the subject matter, it may be worth your time.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI watched the unrated version of this movie and as a person who has studied the life and crimes of Speck closely, I must say this movie is a flawed but ambitious take on the real story. While capturing the true horror of Speck and the murders this film makes the following factual errors. 1. Speck did not inject drugs at the crime scene as depicted in the movie. In fact he was mainly an alcoholic and pill popper who rarely took drugs via syringe. 2. The Asian nurse who survived Speck's massacre did not squirm her way down stairs and under the couch in the living room as depicted in the movie. This would have been impossible. In real life she hid under a bed while Speck methodically eliminated his 8 victims. 3. The movie depicts Speck as being violent and brutal with the women as soon as he meets them. Not true. In reality Speck was at first calm and gentle, reassuring the women he wasn't going to hurt them. This is how he was able to tie each of them up. 4. The real Richard Speck was not the deep thinker the movie depicts him to be. FBI profiler Robert Ressler interviewed Speck in the 80's and said that Speck not only DID'NT know why he committed the murders but that he wasn't interested in learning why nor could he shed any light on why. Speck was known to be of below average intelligence and not the philosopher king who narrates this movie. If the story wasn't so tragic and horrifying, the voice over would be laughable. All in all, Doug Cole's performance is adequately menacing and cold-blooded even though I don't think the real Speck was so forward in his violence. No doubt he was a very violent person when under the influence but he was also known, after all, for being a fairly slick con man who was able to put people at ease before victimizing them. Beverly Ann Sotelo's performance as the surviving nurse is the finest in the film. She is a very good actress. If you are at all squeamish, do not see this film. It's very graphic and 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\nWhere to start with 'Speck' the true story of Richard Speck, a killer of eight nurses in the 1960s. Director Keith Walley has worked on a few of the extremely low budget Full Moon Releasing movies (such as Birth Rite) and here works from a script by (at the time) Full Moon regular Don Adams. Unfortunaly whilst the film seems like a accurate portrayal of the horrendous crime the script isn't great, perhaps because the real Speck's ramblings were not terribly interesting!? Despite the care that has been taken to make this authentic it wreaks of a cheap cash-in of the acclaimed cinematic serial killer movies of the same period (such as 'Ed Gein'). Filmed in a dirty brown, not quite sepia, for the most part and narrated by star Doug Cole the film fails to present the horror of the crime because the narration is irritating, the colouring distracting from the story and the crime, though gruesome and upsetting to watch, is merely that and no editorial work seems to have occurred on what is pretty much a very poor quality camcorder viewing on the events. There is no examination of the motivation or of Speck's life really, just a cheap shot at a gruesome crime. Released by Full Moon there is little evidence of Full Moon's better output here, Charles Band ignoring his own rule that his films feature fantasy killings (e.g. dolls, monsters and so on) and not quite knowing what to do with this new reality. Incidentally Band introduced a special label for these films called 'Shadow Entertainment'. Band has said that he regrets the period of Full Moon output alongside Tempe Entertainment (whose Creator J.R. Bookwalter and regular Danny Draven also speak very badly of Charles Band). The Tempe era features uniform Apple Mac editing and brutal hand-held camera filming, very much like a home movie. Speck retains these qualities and whereas Witchouse 3, for example, managed to use these well, Speck is merely boring and gross.
\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\"Speck\" was apparently intended to be a biopic related to serial killer Richard Speck. There is, however, not much killing to be found in this movie, and none of it is explicitly shown. The most disturbing scene in the entire movie is perhaps when Speck stomps one of the eight unfortunate nurses to death in her own bathtub, yet even this is merely implied, and not shown, save for a few unconvincing downward thrusts of Mr. Speck's leg. The most entertaining part of this movie is most likely the voice-over, which should be a testament to the mind-numbingly boring nature of this movie. Every aspect of this movie is horrible. Unless you have a fondness for boredom, don't bother. This movie only clocks in at 72 minutes, but it feels like an eternity.
\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 terrible. A true hockey fan would have to assume that the people that appeared in and produced this movie never played or watched a real hockey game. I got this hoping that it would be a \"guy movie\", but the only people that would probably enjoy this movie are females between the ages of 13-17. The hockey scenes are terrible, defensemen playing like they're 5 years old, goalies diving at shots that are 10 feet wide of the net, etc. It's so difficult to predict the end of this movie, though!! For those who have seen it, who would have guessed?? For those that haven't seen it, don't waste your time!
I figured it out less than halfway through the movie. To call this movie a drama is ridiculous!!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI should know better. I've seen too many of Rob Lowe's early work to expect anything good from this movie, even if it is about Hockey.
Here we have, yet again, another tired sports theme. Kid has potential for greatness, has the apparent to go far if his cocky attitude doesn't screw things up. And, boom, he comes out of it as that helluva player kind of champion. Is that all that can be said of sports movies? Surely, there must be other feats that athletes undertake.
Nonetheless, this movie has got to be one of the biggest cheeseballs. Everybody's interactions are just downright silly, and not in a stupid-funny kind of manner. And I can't think of any ancillary qualities that could enliven my position. Not the actors (certainly not Swayze who plays Lowe's reluctant mentor), not the story, not the music, and very little from the skating sequences.
Normally, I'm a sucker for 80s movies, even if they do tend to be a little fishy (i.e. North Shore, the Karate Kid), but this doesn't even make for good 80s trash. For a good 80s sports movie, check elsewhere. There's plenty of them 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\nGive me a break. How can anyone say that this is a \"good hockey movie\"? I know that movies tend to do a pretty p***-poor job of portraying hockey to the general public. And yes, this was made back when the U.S. hadn't embraced our sport to the extent is has today, but really. I have played hockey all my life and have watched even more, and this my friends is sheer lunacy. The scenes on the ice were stupefyingly bizzare... the particular instance to which I am referring is the \"sword fight\", er I mean the \"stick fight\" at the end of the film... during which everyone is just standing around and watching, not with fascination that this is actually happening, but in wonder as to who will win the duel between Youngblood and his nemesis Rakkie. Yes the story off the ice is a little better, I do stress LITTLE.
I don't know, maybe there is no point in going on... I mean let's face it: the film is right. Hockey is just one big battle on ice... oh yeah with a little piece of vulcanized rubber bouncing around- occasionally into what is loosely termed a \"goal\". Youngblood is either appalling or hysterical, I can't figure out which... maybe someone else will have more luck.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAnother awful movie about hockey. I if never watched hockey and saw Hollywoods version, I would hate the game. This movie doesn't make Canada look that great either. I can laugh at it and not take it too seriously. All the same this movie is awful, with every thing you can put in a 80's movie. In the end don't even watch it on TV. 4/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe game of hockey I play and watch has something called \"speed\" which the actual hockey scenes in this limp movie never even come close to capturing. Add to that a storyline that is cliché, predictable and stupider than stupid with some of the lamest '80s music numbing your senses in every scene and you have \"Youngblood\". Oh, Keanu as a French Canadian, yeah, whatever. Gimme Dunlop, Braden and the Hansons anytime... ONE out of TEN.
\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 goes into my \"Worst Films Ever Made\" file. I have a copy of this film which I watch when I want a good laugh, and this isn't even a comedy. I am disappointed that such great actors agreed to be in such a piece of garbage. This film is inaccurate (in its portrayal of hockey), offensive (to Canadians), and I wasn't even all that impressed with the acting. Even the story was a bit weak. If you have never seen this film, you're lucky. If you have, I'm sorry.
\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: A trucker (Kristofferson) battles a corrupt sheriff (Borgnine) by getting his fellow truckers to band together and form an unstoppable convoy that stretches for miles and soon creates a national media frenzy.
THE NEGATIVE: The film's setup is weak and the ending even weaker. It has all the good-ole-boy/trucker clichés without adding anything new in the process. It ends up making SMOKEY AND THE BANDIT look brilliant and inspired. Kristofferson is much too laid back for a leading man role and cannot carry the picture. Borgnine's character is portrayed awkwardly. At the start he is made to look like a real jerk of a sheriff who overacts to a minor contrivance that starts the whole thing rolling. Then at the end he is made out to be a little more sympathetic and even secretly siding with Kristofferson, which doesn't work at all. In either case Jackie Gleason is a much better actor for this type of role. The worst part about the movie though is director Peckinpah's attempts to throw in a 'serious message' into this silly action flick that does nothing but slow it down and bomb in the process.
THE POSITIVE: The only good scene in the whole film is the fight sequence inside the truck stop restaurant. Director Peckinpah puts a funny spin to his trademark 'slow motion' violence and the result is amusing. Unfortunately he starts putting all the action into slow motion during the rest of the picture until it eventually becomes tiring. McGraw is always a pleasure to look at, but unfortunately she is given very little to say or do.
THE LOWDOWN: If you've read the synopsis than you have essentially 'seen' the movie. The song that this movie is based on is pretty good, but the movie adds nothing to it and should never have been made. This is all very uninspired stuff for such a maverick director.
THE RATING: 3 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\nLike another user I got this cheap - I thought. 85 kroners (£8). Although not worth that amount of money it is a total classic that I - like the other users - first saw when I was a kid and was looking forward to seeing again some 20 years after. The story is amazingly thin (which is why it might have worked for kids), but all the radio language and trucker stuff makes up for it. It'll look good on my DVD shelf in years to come. First viewing (1980): 10/10. Second viewing (2002): 4/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThey have taken a story dear to the people of Edinburgh's heart, a true story and changed it as Hollywood has done before to many a tale. The end result is a movie however well done for those how do not know the story yet totally different and inaccurate. The original movie of this tale that Walt Disney himself oversaw used the right breed dog that is crucial for this tale and did not make that John Grey was anything special he was a poor Shepard who died in poverty at the inn. If you like the story, watch the Disney original for a better heart- warming story. It's a Shame the cast and the potential was there for a terrific remake of a classic tale. Read the book for an accurate occurrence of the story. And if you really like it, you can visit the real Kirkyard in Edinburgh.
\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\nBut like the Disney film of two generations ago, this film fails as well in the accuracy department. But at least Disney used a Skye Terrier.
Is the true story to mundane for movie producers? I don't think so. There is ample documentation to accurately portray they true story instead of the fictionalized accounts we have had to suffer through.
Some day, a movie will correctly portray Bobby's owner, John Gray, as the Edinburgh Policeman that he was, and correctly portray Bobby's license a being paid for by the Lord Provost. When that happens, I'll be at the theaters.
\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\nGreyfriars Bobby was NOT a westie - Bobby was a skye terrier. A highlight of my childhood day trips to Edinburgh was to go to the monument to Bobby. I grew up with the story of the valiant and loyal little dog, as every child in my generation did, and I remember lining up with my mum outside the cinema - with many, many other Dundee children and their mums - to see the wonderful Disney film. How could a movie based on such a wonderful story have been made using a Westie, for heaven's sake. That's like making a movie about the life of Robert Burns, for instance, and portraying him as an Englishman. I say,give Bobby back his breed!
\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\nLiving in Edinburgh, and have a great thirst for history, I was very put off by the \"libertys\" taken. Wrong breed of dog for a start!! Bobbys owner Old Jock was an old single man, who came to Edinburgh and died a pauper in lodgings, not like in the film at all. For anyone coming to Edinburgh and hoping to see sights of the film,you will not find the graveyard in Princes St Gardens!! There were a few moments were a tissues would have been great. The actors were fantastic at padding out a rather flimsy script. I don't feel the poor wee Bobby actually got enough screen time, possibly due to being \"lost\" at one point. All that said, the film was fine and any 8 yr old will enjoy.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nJust saw the film tonight in a preview and it's a film for kids only. It does not improve or add to the original Disney film in any way. There is a corny Scottish pastiche style throughout, not helped by weak writing (where motives are lumped in by the spadeful) and acting that is uneven and often unengaging (despite what reads like a decent cast). I have no problem with the wee dog - although there is a certain \"Skippy the Bush Kangaroo\" (see below) quality about his shots.
* For those that don't know, \"Skippy\" was an Australian kids' TV series from the 1960s where the kangaroo would be an essential part of all the stories. It is said that to get poor old Skippy to \"act\" they stuck an elastic band round his muzzle that he then tried to get off with his paws - sort of appearing to be communicating with the human actors!!! Bobby has a similar range and you just don't buy his series of heroic rescues at all.
Advice would be to take kids aged 8-12. Below that, they might be scared. Above that, if they or you love it, good luck to you, but this is strictly cardboard cut-out film-making for the undemanding. It's a missed opportunity since there is real pathos and cuteness in the story of Bobby and this film fails to deliver 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\nEnough talent and sincerity went into making this film that I wish it turned out better. Everyone is clearly doing their best to be true to an intriguing premise, but it's too deep a vision, too involved attempt at disentangling mental delusion to survive a transition to the screen. It is an attempt to capture the dimensionality of gossamer patterns on celluloid -- the result is muddled and slow. I give it a 10 for effort, but a 5 overall.
\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 defines the word \"confused\". All the actors stay true to the script. More's the pity, because the acting is fine, but the script is a confused pastiche of pseudo-psycho-analytic random ideas. The pacing is mind-numbingly slow, and the soft-focus-lens cinematography gets on the nerves quickly. I give it 4 out of 10.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI had the misfortune to catch this on a flight recently. I had the bigger misfortune of having it played on my RETURN flight as well. Obviously Demi's attempt to get some \"arty\" cred, the movie is a shambles because of her lousy acting ability. A better actress might have made this work, but a simple look at the face of Moore shows the emptiness within. At least she's not ruining American literature this time 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\nI went to see \"Passion of Mind\" because I usually get a kick out of the genre of alternate reality romances, i.e. \"Sliding Doors,\" \"Me, Myself, I,\" etc.
But this was the worst one I've ever seen! I had to force myself to sit through it. I didn't even stay through the credits which is unheard of for me.
The magical realism was completely missing because Demi Moore was grim and the lovers she was two-timing were guys who usually play villains, though each was kind of sexy and appealing.
There was actually a psychological explanation provided for the dual lives, with a distasteful frisson of The Elektra Complex; maybe the magic shouldn't be explained for this genre to work.
(originally written 5/28/2000)
\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\nBefore I speak my piece, I would like to make a few things clear: 1)I am a chick who's not into chick flicks (\"Kate&Leopold\" and \"Someone Like You\" are EXTREME exceptions- Hugh Jackman's ass). 2)I only picked this one up because I am a Fichtner fangirl who looked forward to see him in a bathtub. 3)I am not a Demi fan, though I think her performances in \"Immortal\" and \"A Few Good Men\" were sublime and have earned places in my vid library- also I think she's a little crazy (no way is she NOT still sleeping w/Brucie).
If this is a character study of an unfulfilled woman living dual lives of independence and happiness, then I'd say we have one narcoleptic melodrama. Marty: Literary agent. Makes 6-figure salary. Lives in an upscale Manhattan penthouse. Easy for her to read several hundred manuscripts and fall asleep at her desk for some highly suggested nocturnal escapism. Or perhaps stepping through an interdiemsional portal? She has the career, the looks, a cool car, a great pad, now where are the man and kids? In steps our boy Aaron- some real escapism. What are architects? They're artists who can do math, dreamers that make real money. Aaron gives Marty the dream of security and fills a void where she, obviously has no self confidence.
On the other side of the coin, there's Marie, still living out her schoolgirl fantasies while she muddles through motherhood. Her children are her career and life. But what about Marie, does she only exist through her children? In waltzes William, a Parisian stranger who helps her focus on the one thing she has lost touch with: herself.
A supposed journey of self-discovery and late a coming of age thrown in some with angst and some resentment to Marty/Marie's own mother. This gets a 3/10. All I could say is thank God for the BPL multimedia division, I wouldn't waste my $2.99 at Blockbuster on this, put it toward a Harlequin Blaze title.
\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 year still has three weeks to go but unless a really horrendous turkey shows up before then, Passion Of the Mind may be the winner of my lousiest movie of the year contest. An interesting idea badly executed. And, for that matter, badly acted. Demi Moore is very good at curling her lip and smoking cigarettes, but is that all she does? And why so many cigarettes. Did Ligitt and Myers or one of the other bad boys of nicotine have some of their illicit profits invested in this production. It's confusing, silly and moves at the frantic past of a arthritic earthworm. I gave it a 3. Should have been a 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\nI love oddball animation, I love a lot of Asian films, but I didn't love this particular product of Japan. The Fuccons are supposedly an American family (they're all mannequins) who have moved to Japan, and they're somewhat a 50's sitcom type family, with slightly more modern sensibilities at times. The DVD features several very short episodes (like less than 5 minutes each?) and I did not find it to be either funny or entertaining, not even in a weird way. I'm not sure what the appeal is of this. I did pick up on some satire here and there, gosh, who wouldn't, but satire is usually somewhat humorous, isn't it? And nothing I saw or heard rated even a little smirk. I picked this up used and it certainly SOUNDED appealing, but I guess either I'm missing the point or it's just plain LAME. The box even says it's Fuccon hilarious, right there on the front, but I beg to differ. 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\nI wouldn't call myself a big fan of the genre inventive silliness, so i might not be the best audience for this show. Although, being a critic i do have a sense for what i personally like and dislike, this being the later.
Lack of humor is a big turnoff when it comes to comedy, things can be catchy, cool and perky for about 4 minutes and after that you start getting bored unless its the badger animation from a couple of years ago (?) This is the exact opposite, with a stiff script and all overacted voice-overs its just plain silly and very very boring to be subjected to. Unfortunately, since it did have a big market ahead of itself, and a lot of potential.
A waste of time.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI watched Cheats a few years ago with my friend. He hyped it up as a great funny film that is one of the best comedies ever. I think he was on crack or something. I just recently learned that this film was not released into theatres, I can understand why perfectly.
THe basic plot involves a group of guys who cheat on pretty much all of their assignments in school to get good grades. That is the main problem of this film is that the morals are all bad. There are other teen comedy films where students do bad things but it is most often stuff that does not take place at school. So I think that the concept of having a whole movie that basically has kids cheating on everything is pretty bad.
I did not like the characters in this film either. The main character guy is a completely smug arrogant idiot who is not a good protagonist. Actually I am not sure if you could say that there is a protagonist due to the fact that they all are cheating at school which is wrong. THe other supporting characters were not funny at all and basically the cast blows in this film.
This film has a bad message and even worse acting and characters. There are other teen films that are way better than this film. So you do not have to see this one and that is a good thing because I do not recommend this film at all.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAndrew Gurland's \"Cheats\" is his fictionalized \"true story\" about four high school friends who maneuver to cheat on tests. The quartet are: supercilious school-hating Trevor Fehrman (as Handsome Davis), his likewise good-looking pal Matthew Lawrence (as Victor), their chubby school-hating chum Elden Henson (as Sammy), and crooked geekster Martin Starr (as Applebee). The adults include high-strung North Point principal Mary Tyler Moore (as Mrs. Stark) and pornography-loving father Griffin Dunne (as Mr. Davis). The high jinks begin with Mr. Fehrman and Mr. Lawrence supposedly urinating on a teacher's grade book. Put this one at the bottom of the pile; and, be thankful it doesn't go on anyone's permanent record.
*** Cheats (2002) Andrew Gurland ~ Trevor Fehrman, Matthew Lawrence, Elden Henson
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'm generally not a fan of high school comedies, they rely heavily on humor in bad taste and rarely stray far from clichéd story lines and characters and downright dull dialog. However, I've had my share of guilty pleasures, particularly when I was still in high school myself. Seeing the oh-so-recognizable teacher figures get their butts kicked always cheered me up and an occasional laugh could also be the case. These movies only work if at least one of the characters is an instantly likable one, this was not the case in 'Cheats', especially not the protagonist. Of course, it didn't help that the actor in play was one of the most irritating, no-talent, arrogant kids I've ever seen in a comedy.
To act in a comedy is no joke, it's hard to be funny: the delivery has to be just right or the material goes to waste. In this case there wasn't much good stuff to begin with and the jokes that were half-funny were screwed up professionally by the cast.
This movie felt 3 hours long, the director never heard of pacing obviously. Stay away from this one, there are many other enjoyable teen comedies out there such as 10 Things I Hate About You, Who's Your Daddy and Superbad.
\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\nTotally un-funny \"jokes\" that fall flat, amateurish acting (with one or two exceptions), boring characters and dialogue that's, at best, mediocre. After watching this movie, one must wonder how on earth a producer could come across a project like this and think, \"I MUST make this film.\" No wonder it couldn't get a theatrical release.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSo.. what can I tell you about this movie. If you cheated a lot in high school, you do recognize some cheattips...
This is the best thing i can tell you about this film!
If you like American-teen movies, maybe you also like it!
But i don't see this kind of movies as something funny.. sorry to say but if you are older then 10 years, i shouldn't advise you to watch this.
Because there is one shot with a couple of beautiful women (girls.. in this movie) i'll give it a rate of: 2!
so.. deal for yourself! good luck
\n
assistant\n0
\n"