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\nObvious tailored vehicle for Ryan Philippe. It seem the studios were hoping he could play a lead tough cop and not look like he's eternally 16 (he can't).
Heavyweights Jason Statham and Welsey Snipes serve as bookends to Phillippe, but when they're not on the screen Phillippe flounders; his shallow acting style has nothing to bounce off of.
The script is a typical late 20th century potboiler good cop/bad cop with a ridiculously predictable plot and dialogue lifted out of 1970s TV cop shows, such as \"The Streets of San Francisco.\" Snipes reprises his role as the eternal black-hat villain, playing a slightly less crazed madman than his Demolition Man role. However, there wasn't much for Snipes and Statham to chew on. Statham's character announces he'd given up nicotine and caffeine - something this movie badly needed injections of.
Truly forgettable moment: Ryan Phillippe expounding on Buddhist dogma: Galloway: Are you a Buddhist? Dekker: No. It's just something I picked up along the way.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI have just watched this movie on DVD late this morning and was so disappointed that even thought it was a good joke for the audience. In other words - the creators planed to make comedy not drama. Howsoever, at the end I realized that Mr. Tony Giglio was earnest about this movie. It's a pity because: the dialogue is ridiculous, the acting is poor and lifeless, the story is a fishy tale! Poor Ryan Phillippe - despite of his efforts his character in the movie remains probably his worst performance! What to say for Jason Statham - lack of all kinds of skills to develop the role which is an imaginary fiction... For this reasons I vote: 3/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe film \"Chaos\" takes its name from Gleick's 1988 pop science explanation of chaos theory. What does the book or anything related to the content of the book have to do with the plot of the movie \"Chaos\"? Nothing. The film makers seem to have skimmed the book (obviously without understanding a thing about it) looking for a \"theme\" to united the series of mundane action sequences that overlie the flimsy string of events that acts in place of a plot in the film. In this respect, the movie \"Choas\" resembles the Canadian effort \"Cube,\" in which prime numbers function as a device to mystify the audience so that the ridiculousness of the plot will not be noticed: in \"Cube\" a bunch of prime numbers are tossed in so that viewers will attribute their lack of understanding to lack of knowledge about primes: the same approach is taken in \"Chaos\": disconnected extracts from Gleick's books are thrown in make the doings of the bad guy in the film seem fiendishly clever. This, of course, is an insultingly condescending treatment of the audience, and any literate viewer of \"Chaos\" who can stand to sit through the entire film will end up bewildered. How could a film so bad be made? Rewritten as a novel, the story in \"Chaos\" would probably not even make it past a literary agent's secretary's desk. How could (at least) hundreds of thousands (and probably millions) of dollars have been thrown away on what can only be considered a waste of time for everyone except those who took home money from the film? Regarding what's in the movie, every performance is phoned in. Save for technical glitches, it would be astonishing if more than one take was used for any one scene. The story is uniformly senseless: the last time I saw a story to disconnected it was the production of a literal eight-year-old. Among other massive shortcomings are the following: The bad guy leaves hints for the police to follow. He has no reason whatsoever for leaving such hints. Police officers do not carry or use radios. Dupes of the bad guy have no reason to act in concert with the bad guy. Let me strongly recommend that no one watch this film. If there is any other movie you like (or even simply do not hate) watch that instead.
\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\nBank heist / Cop thriller sounds OK right?
Chaos looks good: nicely framed, good production values, high concept action heist...
But...
The plot has the unique achievement of being both smart and incredidly, blatantly implausible in the \"how we actually got the money\" mode and overcomplicated in the \"who done it and why\" section at the same time...
In addtion, Ryan Philippe shouting is NOT, seriously NOT either tough or scary...and he is especially not tough or scary when throwing a tizzy fit. Honestly, his great outburst is the only really funny scene in the whole film. Must make him thrilled that he turned down the role of Anakin Skywalker and is now doing this....
Stratham is normally good as the tough but silent hard nut with the self-deprecating humor, but here, the extra relationship lines are so laughably bad that even he looks uncomfortable saying some of the clichéd mush required. More silent seems best?
Snipes is actually OK in a typecast way, but another nail in a talented actor's coffin: he needs an actor's role not an action hero rehash. Perhaps that business with his taxes will allow him to break that mold and the public and critics will let him on the sympathy vote. It would be good if he wasn't so typecast all the time.
The lines these guys speak when they're not doing the plot development and detective work can be summed up in one word.... pheeeuuuh.
The film feels all out of whack and it never gels: I found it irritating for the first 45 minutes, and the tighter last part was passable. It should /could have been good but it just can't redeem the awful lines, the overwhelming score, and the general level of irritation with the levels of plausibility.
Overall I nearly didn't make it through: incredibly irritating, and Ryan.... please, please, please get rid of the goldilocks....
\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\nHow? I wondered why I hadn't seen this in theaters, or even a single commercial for it, and then after I saw the movie, I realized I was duped HARDCORE. I am a big Transporter fan, and a big Blade fan, so when I saw this I imagined some killer fight scene between two badasses, lots of gunplay, a whole bunch of stuff. Instead, I got the Ryan Phillippe movie with a brief cameo by Statham and Snipes. The guy that does the audio and video in the crime lab got more screen time than Wesley. It was like renting a Jackie Chan movie expecting a bunch of kung fu and getting Erin Brockavich. I expect bad movies from Hollywood, but actors like Snipes and Statham should treat the fan base better.
\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\nHow much can you really say about a condom with teeth? The plot was really out there, but it was something campy to see on a Friday night. The story has a lot of unexpected twists, and it's a great way to offend all you're conservative friends!
\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\nYet another \"gay\" film ruined by asinine politics. Luigi's final speech just about sent me running out of the theatre with its bumper-sticker epigrams. Read the comic book it was based on for a much more entertaining experience.
\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'd love to write a little summary of this movie's plot, but...there simply isn't one! If you just take a look at the plot keywords for this title, you pretty much know the entire content of the film: sex, breasts, exploitation, female frontal nudity and women's prison! 80 minutes of pure sleaze and nothing more. \"Escape of the Island Women\" (an alternate title that isn't even listed here) clearly wanted to become another notorious and controversial woman-in-prison classic, but it totally lacks the brutality of one. WIP-flicks are meant to blend graphic sexual images with shocking violence, but the violence here has just been replaced with more sex. Director Erwin Dietrich surely can't compete with specialists in the field, like Jess Franco or Joe D'Amato, and he should have sticked to making ordinary soft-core flicks. The only aspects that slightly look like cult-cinema are the resemblance of the tyrant-president with Fidel Castro and the group-rape of a (minor?) girl by soldiers. The girls are ravishing, though, and the Ibiza filming location looks very enchanting.
\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 example of the women-in-prison genre. This is not exactly a genre known for quality films, but this is a notch below most. A bunch of women are taken from the bordellos where they work to a prison on a rocky island. Once there, they are subjected to lots of poorly directed sex and atrocious \"dialog.\" For a film with an astounding amount of sex and nudity there is really nothing erotic about any of it. The sex scenes are awkwardly acted, and some scenes, like the shower scene, seem to drag on and on. That said, there are at least some minimal production values. On the W-i-P scale I would put it above Frauen fur Zellenblock Neun, but below Chained Heat.
\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 come to realise through watching this sort of film that I don't like them very much. Caged Women is yet another 'women in prison' film, and like the most of the rest of the genre; the plot is completely forsaken in favour of simply showing nude women. Now don't get me wrong; I love nude women, but I also like there to be some sort of plot thread to go with the nudity, and since this film has only the basic 'women are in prison' theme running through it (aswell as the essential escape, of course), I got a bit bored before the end. The film is good because there's barely a moment in it where the women are wearing clothes, but that's about the only positive element. Director (and writer, ha ha) Erwin C. Dietrich delights in showing close-ups of the naked female body, but it's never very erotic. The director was the producer on a number of trash flicks, including some directed by Jess Franco. In my opinion, he should stick to producing as his writing talents are non-existent, and he doesn't seem to know how to film a sex scene. This sort of material is rather dry a lot of the time, but I reckon Franco could have made more out of it. Overall, this might suffice for people that are really into this sort of stuff; but I can't say I enjoyed 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\nMuch like Tinto Brass (\"Caligula\"), the people who made this movie can't tell the difference between explicitness and eroticism. No build-up at all, just throw naked women on the screen; no, it doesn't work that way. If close-ups of female genitalia aren't your thing, prepare to be looking away from the screen at many points (I often did). The \"all women are whores at heart\" mentality of the movie is offensive, and the \"story\" is by turns absurd and boring (the escape is the most boring part!). But halfway through there is a random scene that pops out of nowhere and involves one of the (female) prisoners and one of the (male) guards in a nude wrestling match, which she wins with a couple of judo moves. Although the choreography of the fight is bad, the whole scene is undeniably memorable. In fact, that scene and the nice cinematography are the only two reasons I give this film * out of 4, instead of 0.
\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 music is totally out of touch with the film, showing up now and then as wagnerian bombast and Lone Ranger hurry-up, otherwise nonexistent. The acting, outside of the two principals, is nonexistent. It would have been an excellent student film. The Russian soldiers are just models trying to act. The constant interruptions with wow-explosive-camera angles and monocolor clips of pieces of people were quite irritating, but that's just a personal feeling. The story line isn't worse than others, actually not worse than most, completely ignoring logic and reason and reality. At least nobody walked in front of a machine gun for three minutes without being hit. The three top-level bad guys were campy.
\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 admire the effort of trying to reach out to the rest of the world with this tragic story. However, the movie is done SO BADLY that most people I know couldn't sit through it. The movie was relevant to me since I lived in Estonia when these events took place, but it is written horribly and fails to capture the attention of someone who knows nothing on the matter. The music choices do not flow well with the movie, it seems as if someone just turned a CD player on in the background to put the actors \"in the mood\". The acting... well, what acting? The only people acting are Jürgen Prochnow and Donald Sutherland, even though Prochnow seems uncomfortable in this role. As far as the relationship development goes between Erik Westermark (Jürgen Prochnow) and Julia Reuter (Greta Scacchi), it is like watching a train wreck. There is absolutely no chemistry and it is painful to witness their \"sincere moments.\" This is not a good movie. There is a difference between trying to get a message out (could've been a documentary!) and trying to make a good movie. This is a failure and anyone here who says otherwise makes me wonder if they are trying to promote it. As a matter of fact, as a native of Estonia I am offended by this miserable effort. This tragedy deserves more than just a homemade low-budget ghost chase excuse of a movie. This could have been much more!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nControversial German journalist Jutta Rabe who herself got divers to the Estonia wreck, put this silly \"thriller\" together to save her investment.
Donald Sutherland is of course always watchable - but he's only in three scenes. He delivers his material perfectly - as you can ask from a professional. Also, the main lead, Jürgen Prochnov, is at times very good.
The rest of the cast is, however, bad. The actress that plays the Swedish minister secretary (or whatever she was - she seems not listed in the cast) is EXTREMELY bad.
The script has some nice ideas, and the story is actually kind of interesting. The final screenplay should have been re-written a couple of more times though. Some scenes are plain ridiculous - especially the end scenes.
The film is almost 2 hours, which is about 45 minutes too long. Presented as a 60 minutes TV-film, this could have been really interesting. As a two hour feature, it's pretentious, boring, stupid and plain out silly.
Jutta Rabe might be a good journalist (her ideas about governments using Estonia to transport military items from Estonia to Sweden have been concluded as true recently, when the Swedish military officially said that they actually used the ship Estonia for this), but as a film producer she sucks.
The director, the writer and the actors suck more.
I give this film 3/10. I would've given it a 1, if it wasn't for the fact that the story is quite interesting at times, Donald Sutherland is in it and it has real stock footage.
But we don't even see the boat sink! What kind of movie about a ship that sinks is that? Like a werewolf movie without werewolves...
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI have to admit, I picked this movie just for the cast, and while Sutherland, Scacchi, and Prochnow were - as usual - great performers, the rest of the movie was such a let down. It feels like it was put together by a team of adolescents with low level scripts, that is, scripts lacking any depth, awful photography and editing, and hilariously lousy score! I can't believe I was able to watch this seemingly long movie until the end... the sad thing is, this could have actually been a great political thriller given the interesting plot. All the potential was there to make it a hit; that is, two main ingredients are there: a great story of national conspiracies, and a great core cast (even though many other actors are pretty much soap opera quality). But maybe I'm missing something; until then it's still not worth more than a 3 in my opinion.
\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\nClossius says that \"Baltic Storm\" is banned in Sweden. That is not correct! Instead you can buy the film almost everywhere, like in gas stations, shopping malls, internet (of course) and so on. Often to a very low price because this movie is so BAD and nobody wants to see it, despite all the tricks to keep up the interest. The movie only appeals to conspiracy theorists, psychos and other persons living in la-la-land and those who \"knows the truth\".
Working on a museum with the Estonia disaster as a theme I have meet them all! I have heard about every theory that exists like cocaine-smuggling, weapon-smuggling, biological warfare, nuclear smuggling, red mercury, aliens, the Russian- the American- the Estonian- the Swedish- and the Finnish intelligence, often in different combinations.
Some normal persons have asked why we don't show the film? A question only asked by them who haven't seen this terrible nonsense movie.
Once again, \"Baltic Storm\" is not banned in Sweden. It has some entertaining qualities but what a hell is Donald Sutherland doing in this movie?
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is a really obnoxious show. It is in fact an example of how low television has fallen since 'reality' got in style. Tanya is pretty but she is also extremely rude and has awful taste. Is a house show the place for sex appeal? Apparently some males like the show because they find Tanya attractive. The other boss is not pretty but he's fully as rude and also has awful taste. It is unfortunate that so many houses have to be shown while someone is still living in them. Most of the people who are allegedly viewing these houses before changes are made should be moving into brand new houses or completely empty ones so they will not be insulting anyone. Most of them ..like the 'crew'..need to be taught manners. I can imagine how awful the British show is since the British reality shows tend to be even worse when it comes to manners and taste.
What happened to the Arts and Entertainment channel? When it started out (and for some years afterward) it was filled with treats. Now it's one big trash machine.
\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\nAngel-A is a change of pace for Besson; monochrome, mawkish and rather mediocre. It is well photographed on location in Paris, although subtitle-readers should note: quick-fire dialogue AND good cinematography may make for frustrating viewing.
This film is no \"Wings of Desire\" or \"Wonderful Life\". Despite its shared themes (heavenly intervention averts suicide, angel/mortal relationships ensue), Besson does nothing to enlighten or inspire us. Even the well acted, teary moments, rapidly descend into toe-curling sentimentality.
The film's flawed ideology irritates; an Angel whose message of love and respect for self is constantly undermined by her own violent and promiscuous behaviour; a \"happy ending\" which negates the hero's supposed journey from helplessness to self-esteem and independence.
Verdict: Quite nice to look at but confused moral and philosophical messages tarnish the film precisely where it should shine. 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\nHaving spent the six years previous writing and producing, Luc Besson returns to the directors chair with Angel-A. I'm a huge fan of Léon, and quite liked the prospect of a black and white French film from the same chap.
André is a liar and gambling addict, owing money to almost every loan shark in Paris. Unable to repay his debts, and fed up with being held over the edge of the Eiffel Tower, he decides to kill himself. He happens to do so at the same time as a mysterious woman, who he decides to save. Determined to thank him, she begins to help him fix his own life.
The film starts with some laughs, which run well throughout. The visuals are quite nice and work well with the sights of Paris. But that is it. That's all the film has got going for it. And these mere two facets can do nothing to hold back the torrent of terrible film-making the movie unleashes. Though I can't hugely fault the main character (his inconsistencies are close though), the eponymous one is ghastly. A terrible screen presence and bitterly annoying. The plot is ridiculously inconsistent itself, and at times bizarrely silly, particularly the ending; an ending which completely bloodied the fledgling redemption engendered by the scenes immediately prior to it. Perhaps the most ridiculous scene I've had the ignominy of observing, it is stupid, indulgent, melodramatic, and considerably too awful to be \"so bad it's funny\". The overall premise of the film could conceivably have once held potential, but it is brutally massacred by the unendingly terrible implementation of its ideas. The film really was a task to watch, and one which had me screaming at the screen the whole way through.
Massively and immeasurably flawed, Angel-A is just plain bad. Though its occasionally fun dialogue manages to draw out chortles at rare intervals, by the end it is clear that this film is nothing more than repugnant.
\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\nMr. Moto's Gamble has a fairly straight forward plot - when a boxer is murdered in the ring with a mysterious poison, it's up to the even more mysterious Mr. Moto to solve the case.
I'm shocked at the number of positive reviews for Mr. Moto's Gamble on IMDb. Because to me...well, I found it extremely disappointing. I enjoy Mr. Moto and I enjoy Charlie Chan, but I can't say I cared for this mish-mash of the two. For those unfamiliar with the story behind Mr. Moto's Gamble, it was originally intended to be a Charlie Chan film. But when Warner Oland backed-out, some of the scenes and action were rewritten for Peter Lorre and Mr. Moto. As I indicated, the end result left me underwhelmed. Mr. Moto is not Chan. He's more mysterious, he's more athletic, and he's more exotic. So trying to put Moto in a Chan film is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole - it doesn't work. And listening to Lorre/Moto try to deliver one of Chan's trademark euphemisms just ends up sounding silly. Add to that the fact that almost 10 minutes of the already brief 72 minute runtime is made up of boxing scenes (something that I never seem to enjoy) and you end up with a movie that I couldn't help but dislike. If I have to say something positive I would point to the performance of Keye Luke. But even he's not near enough to save Mr. Moto's Gamble in my eyes.
Sorry, but a 4/10 is about the best I can give 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\nThis isn't a dreadful film, merely insipid. The plot is deeply flawed and implausible. It tries to be a number of genres and fails at each. It fails as a comedy, as a suspense thriller and as a horror movie. It almost succeeds as science fiction. The direction is uninspired and Katie Holmes, cute cherub face that she is, should be modeling teen clothing, not acting. The only thing that keeps this movie from being a 1 out of 10 is Helen Mirren. Her performance is fabulously nefarious and is (almost) worth suffering through the rest of it. Her ability to transmute from imperious to faux sympathetic to deviously manipulate and control her prey shows masterful range. Other than Marissa Coughlin's delightful Exorcist rendition, Mirren is the only reason to see this movie. A solid 3.0.
\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\nSorry for any spoilers that this contains. But if you want to read on anyway: I really wonder why so many people are so high on Kevin Williamson. Let's just take a quick look at his work as a screenwriter, shall we? There's Scream 1 and 2 (plus the story for the next one), which I think are pretty funny but very overrated. Besides, by making Scream into a franchise, it ceased to become a parody of horror movies and simply became another one. Then there's I Know What You Did Last Summer, which is essentially the same movie again. He co-wrote Halloween: H20, but even he had the sense not to take credit for what he did on that monstrosity. Then comes The Faculty, which I can only say was god-awful. (Lots of fun to make fun of, though). Don't even get me started on the ridiculous, soap-operatic Dawson's Creek, I could rail about how bad that is for hours. So then we get to Teaching Mrs. Tingle. First of all, there are tons of little implausibilities in this one. For example: in most high schools that I know of, the valedictorian is NOT the only one who gets to go to college! This idea that Katie Holmes's character would never go anywhere unless she was valedictorian was absurd. Haven't you ever heard of financial assistance, damn it!? Also, I don't think you get expelled from high school or don't get into college because of cheating on one test. There are a bunch of other ones, but I'll skip to the big one now. The ending really bothered me: they committed a crime, but it was ok because the teacher was a bitch. Great. Do you know how many of my teachers I could kidnap based on that logic? I'm sure the police never took any statements to find out the whole story, either. That sure wouldn't be necessary. Helen Mirren was good, she added some nice flair to a character who (as a previous commenter noted) had NO reason for anything she did. And has anyone else noticed that Katie Holmes absolutely can't act? Her self-righteousness became incredibly annoying. \"You wanted me to fail. Blah blah blah.\" Her last two scenes with Mrs. Tingle were the worst. The only reason I don't regret losing $8.25 on this disaster is because she got beaten up a bit. No, wait, I do regret losing the money: it wasn't real, and she survived. Mr. Williamson, if you're reading this, you've made the same movie (some violence and/or scary stuff offset by wise-ass kids who make sarcastic jokes and references to other movies) just a FEW too many times now (I count 6 so for, not including Scream 3 and whatever follows it), and I would really appreciate it if you would stop. Otherwise, I might just have to kidnap you and threaten YOU with a crossbow. Ok? :-)
\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\nHistory teacher Mrs Tingle seems to have it in for student Leigh Ann Watson, who has her heart on achieving a writing school scholarship. She receives another low grade from Tingle, which doesn't help. When one of her classmates Luke steals the paper of the final history exams and pops it in her bag, Mrs. Tingle finds it sticking out. She threatens the three that she will go to the principal about it, but he's not available. So before she reports it the next morning. Leigh, her friend Jo Lynn and Scott head to her place that night and try to convince her not tell the principal. However due to Tingle's stubbornness, that find themselves reverting to drastic measures to stop this getting out.
Wasn't fan of it when I first saw it, and after another viewing, I'm still not one. Writer Kevin Williamson was on a roll after penning the successful contemporary teen horror films; 'Scream (1996)', 'I Know What You did Last Summer (1997)', 'Scream 2 (1997)' and 'The Faculty (1998)'. He was riding the success (also not to forget the TV show 'Dawson's Creek), but this project would be the final bump. The difference there, compared with this entry was other then writing the screenplay, he was also making his debut in directing. The strange thing though, was that I found his direction to be competently done, but material he stormed up to flavourless and tired. It seemed to get caught in playing both a black comedy and straight-out thriller, without making it gel. The script is cluttered with quick-wit, on-going gags, trivial stretches and gimmicky references towards other films, but the problem is that it's too watered-down with so many contrived developments and sappy moral currents disrupting the flow. The fractured script had to be more strong and potent, since it's a small-scale production that feels like you're watching a stage show because of its mostly confined sets. It tries to play mind games with the characters, but these moments are there to only serve the story's poor progression into a puddle of stupidity and senselessness. The film's ending takes the cake. Williamson's polished direction is sound, but more so in a pedestrian way and therefore it lacks suspense and the pacing even with its taut surroundings can really plod on. You eventually feel it after the halfway mark, and it shows up how minor the story is. The performances are tolerable enough, although if it weren't for Helen Mirren's classy, icy portrayal of manipulative prowess as Mrs. Tingle and a buoyant Marisa Coughlan, we would have been stuck watching a vapid goody-to-shoes Katie Holmes. Barry Watson is modest in his slacker part and Molly Ringwald has a lesser role. The soundtrack packs enough energy, but I found it terribly overwrought and shapeless in its choices.
Watchable, but mechanical all 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 heard this movie was badThey even warned me it was terrible, but for some reason (probably Katie Holmes) I still watched it when it came on national TV. Watching Kevin Williamson films means torturing! His scenarios aren't funny, definitely not scary and not the least bit creative. Teaching Mrs. Tingle breathes the same irritating atmosphere as his brainless series `Dawson's Creek' and it's probably meant for the same target group as well. Before the credits even started, 5 people already wanted a hug and they stated that eerie `I love you'-sentence. It doesn't get any better as the soundtrack is filled with annoying pop/rock and the storyline is ultra-thin. Three students on the verge of graduation get caught cheating by the wickedest teacher in school. Every high-school has a teacher like that, you know To save their skin, they try to convince Mrs. Tingle that it wasn't their intention to cheat but this attempt goes horrible wrong. The typical high-school humor is completely lost on me, the overdose of sentiment is pathetic and the acting (with the exception of Helen Mirren) is abominable. I'm sure Katie Holmes can act  that's a fact proven by her role in `the Gift'  but she urgently needs to stop accepting frumpish girl roles. As said before, the only positive comments goes out to the brilliant casting of Helen Mirren as the shrew. It's like Kathleen Turner in `Serial Mom'! The role suits her perfectly and you can't imagine anyone else playing her. Other than that, this is avoidable teenage nonsense.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI made it about halfway through this movie, and at that point realized that I absolutely didn't care how it ended. It is basically a bland teen comedy that I only watched because I like Helen Mirren, who is in fact very good as an impossibly cruel teacher.
The basic idea of the movie (or let's say the first half of the movie, since I don't know - or care - how the second half goes) has been done before, most notably in 9 to 5, and a comparison between the two shows how thoroughly Tingle gets it wrong. You need to feel things are spiraling out of control in a way that makes you feel events are inevitable, and you need well-defined, interesting characters who you care about, and you don't have that. Not the worst movie I've ever seen, but it never grabbed me for a second.
\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\nYou know, I'm getting really tired of all the generic music being used in these type of movies (see Jawbreaker, Disturbing Behavior, etc). Every scene of genuine tension here (and there is some) is immediately undercut with some cheesy pop tune, completely diluting the suspense. Why do they do that? To sell some soundtracks, of course, but in this case, mission unaccomplished - did anyone buy the CD?
And yeah, Ms. Mirren attacks her role with zest and relish (with some cheez-wiz to add kick). But what are Molly, Leslie and Vivica doing here? Their roles (they're so underused that I cannot use \"characters\" here) have no purpose in the storyline, so I can't figure out why three well-known actresses had been cast.
Oh, and the ending is so unbelievably hackneyed and irresponsible. The kids get off scot-free and act as if nothing happened - all smiles at graduation. They're criminals, people! No consequences for their actions (kidnapping, assault, grade tampering) - nothing.
Little things too - was Tingle's tale about her husband true? What's with the crossbow? Would the virginal Katie character loose her cherry on a whim like that? (Great message, guys.) Why did McKean go to her home? How did Kate's academic nemesis walk through the door at that exact moment? How do students even obtain teachers' home addresses? WHAT'S WITH JEFFREY TAMBOR?? On what basis did McKean fire Tingle? She's bloodied, battered and held hostage by students, fer cripe's sake!
Oh well, I'm spending way more thought on the script than Mr. Williamson apparently did, so I'll stop here.
3/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe only reason I watched this movie a second time, was to learn the name of the \"second banana\" girl playing opposite Katie Holms. Her name is Marisa Coughlan. Never heard of her before. She is lovely. Captivating. With an animated face, and cute bod, she is highly watchable... She's got real, \"Poisenality\"... More than a passing vibe of Grace Kelly... with youthful exuberance. I think she is Irish in gene pool, (my favorite female DNA) so it makes some sense that she would resemble the most beautiful Irish American. The movie is unremarkable, Katie Holms is classic beauty in the flesh. But Marisa Coughlan is the one you follow with your eyes. In 1999 when this movie was made, she was around 25 years old, in her prime. This reminds me of another silly, worthless movie with the only redemption being the Pretty Girl in it. It was \"Career Opportunites\" with the first time I saw Jennifer Conoly. Or \"Grease II\" the first time I saw Michelle Pfeiffer.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt is such a shame when actors and actresses of high quality get involved with pure crap, probably because they were offered a great deal of money. Not one of Helen Mirren's better career moves. The acting of the \"teens\" is simply appalling, not helped by a script that is in parts simply inept.
Most of Kevin Williamson's work is above average box office dross, but this is really below par.
This is the sort of movie that you watch on TV when there is nothing better on and you have had half a bottle of wine to drink and are waiting for the Pizza to be delivered so you can drink the other half.
\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\nRidiculous thriller in which a group of students kidnapped their bad and neurotic teacher (Mirren) just to prevent her action against them. Interesting premise could render a good movie but this one is just lame and far fetched. Boring with an ending embarassing, just to say the least. Mrs. Mirren tries to give some dignity to this misfire but even she - a good actress, no doubt about it - could save this garbage. I give this a 4 (four).
\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\nGoing into Teaching Mrs Tingle, all I wanted was a fun, enjoyable teen comedy that would entertain me for it's running time. Despite a rather good first half hour, the film quickly subsides into a dull, clichéd mess that's about as entertaining as pulling out your eyelashes with pliers. Rusty pliers, at that. 'Scream' writer Kevin Williamson wrote and directed this movie, and proved that Scream may well have been a fluke. Most of the elements of this movie have been seen a million times already in other films; and while it was OK for him to steal elements from other movies in Scream, due to the fact that it's meant as a slasher tribute; here, it just looks like he's completely ran out of ideas. The plot follows the cleverest girl in school, played by Katie Holmes. After being caught cheating along with two of her friends; the three decide to take the teacher that caught them hostage in her own home. However, this isn't just any teacher; it's Mrs Tingle, the meanest bitch in school. She isn't taking being tied to the bed lying down either, as she begins to play mind games to turn her captors against each other.
The plot is very similar to the 1997 flick 'Suicide Kings', and a whole host of earlier films. It's actually not a bad idea for a movie, and if Williamson could have populated the film with interesting characters; it could have worked really well. The character of Mrs Tingle is the most interesting in the movie, but she's massively one dimensional, and like all the other characters in the film; is merely a caricature. The acting is largely diabolical, with the exception of Helen Mirren in the title role. She's suitably evil in the role, and while she doesn't have a lot to get her teeth into; she clearly enjoys herself playing the central figure. The teenage cast isn't worth mentioning, with only Katie Holmes standing out; and that's only really because of her star profile, not her acting talents. Williamson has draped nearly every scene in dull soft rock music, which would be really annoying if the film wasn't absolutely terrible anyway. Honestly, this movie does have a few moments that are rather good; but basically, if you want to see a good example of the teen comedy - this isn't the movie that you want to see.
\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 just one of the hundred million movies where the directors try to shove too much drama into a movie that's not dramatic at all. Like in the beginning, the part where the monk dude shoved the arrow into his own hand, then shot that same arrow into the gargoyle five minutes later--no sense whatsoever.
The only thing worse than the plot line is the CGI, which would be greatly rivaled by a homemade flash movie. The actors look like they're doing their hardest to portray a bunch of 70's robots; the dialogue makes so little sense it's not funny.
Many things just HAPPEN with no explanation as to how or why, such as a lady suddenly wandering around a zoo that had shut down hours ago. And when she sees this THING flying towards her, her first reaction is to take a picture, rather than what she does a full ten minutes later---power-walking (not even running) like her life depended on it--which, obviously, it doesn't.
Overall, not recommended. Makes me wish they still did new episodes of MST3K.
\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\nYou know that mouthwash commercial where the guy has a mouth full of Listerine or whatever it is and he's trying really hard to keep from spitting it up into the sink? That's a great metaphor for this movie. I kept watching, even though it was really difficult. But keeping mouthwash in your mouth will leave you with a minty fresh feeling. This movie left me with a bad taste in my mouth. I should have spit it out when I had the chance.
The premise is corny enough to be fun. For the first time in like a thousand years, Gargoyles have returned to Romania, and all of the priests who knew how to fight and kill these things are long dead. It's up to Michael Pare and some other secret agents to get to the bottom of things before the Gargoyles run amok. Unfortunately, the premise is completely lost in bad dialog and less than enthusiastic acting on the part of the human leads. The best acting is done by the CG Gargoyles.
In the end, this movie feels like a poor man's Van Helsing. If you check your brain at the door, this might get you through a dreary Monday night. I gave it 3 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\nThis movie is like porn with all of the good parts removed. It's like all of the porn stars that didn't want to fulfill their obligations banded together around this awful, trite, useless piece of gargoyle abstinence.
This is a helpful movie if you're in the mood to torture a loved (or no longer loved) one. It's important that, if you choose to use this movie as a method of torture, that you put in earplugs and put on a blindfold to keep yourself from going insane.
If I had a choice between this movie and The 700 Club...I'd choose Girls Gone Wild.
Overall, better if you've been drinking. But only because it becomes a drinking game of epic proportions.
\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 acting was flat (at least none of the actors sounded like they'd just got the script that morning) and the film and sound quality made me think of the 70s movie of the week bombs. The only thing that told me that it was indeed not a 70s movie of the week was the reference to DNA testing. But for me, being Eastern Orthodox, the most egregious thing about this....film.....was the total Romishness of the religion. Romania is 88% Orthodox but you'd never know that from this movie: Father Soren is Irish. And I'd have known this even if I hadn't seen the actor play the Irish pub keep, Michael Sullivan in Star Trek: Voyager's \"Fairhaven\" episodes. The Bishop was wearing Roman vestments (and for the record not even Orthodox bishops wear their vestments unless they're saying the liturgy, especially if they live in a monastery). About the only non-Romish paraphernalia I saw was the 3-bar cross on the door of the church, and even then I had to squint to see it. The first reviewer said the producers had done their research. Well, if that's true they messed up on the religious aspect of the 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\nthere is only way to describe this movie.
so bad its hilarious.
the acting is so bad i laughed my ass off throughout. The male lead in this movie trying to use a gun is so ridiculous you would think he was trying to copy a toy action figure, i know this sounds ridiculous but when you see it for yourself you can't help but agree.
the monster looks like a cgi guy trying to recreate the clay monsters you get in old Sinbad movies.
in short this movie is good for only one thing a really large laugh at how bad movies can get.
If you want to see bad acting bad script and special effects gone wrong
THIS IS THE MOVIE FOR YOU
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI will not spoil your surprise by mentioning any of the hideous plot lines, I'll just say that this movie suffers from poor animation, over acting, obvious tag lines these are some of it's good qualities. if you are deserted on an isolated island and the only link to civilization you got is this movie throw it to the fish. I can't tell you how much I'm sorry I saw this horrifying ghastly movie. Speaking of which, this movie supposedly a horror movie cannot be classified as such for the simple fact that the only horror in the movie is the playing capabilities of some of the actors.
Take care.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nTo this day, Malcolm McLaren is telling anyone daft enough to believe him that the Sex Pistols were his idea and that the band members were his puppets to be used to make him money. There is a good reason for him doing this, namely that he is a liar.
Here are some real facts.
* McLaren was actually approached by the band to be manager, not the other way round.
* The Pistols were a proper, organic band and not created by McLaren or anyone else. Jones and Cook were childhood friends. Rotten and Vicious went back a long way too. This is something that has led to unfair criticism of the Pistols down the years as they have been likened to manufactured boy bands.
* The band and no one else wrote the songs, recorded them, played live, created the publicity and gave the interviews.
* McLaren did not instigate the Bill Grundy incident. The Pistols only appeared on the programme because Queen had pulled out. According to the band, McLaren was cowering in the back in case arrests were about to be made.
* Johnny Rotten walked out of the band. He was not sacked.
* Far from outwitting the Sex Pistols, John Lydon (Rotten) actually successfully sued him in the 1980s for control and a considerable sum of money. Some of the evidence used by Lydon's lawyers was from McLaren's boasting in 'The Great Rock & Roll Swindle'. This would suggest that McLaren is none too bright despite his affectations.
* The sackings and subsequent pay offs from A & M and EMI were, again, not engineered, it was merely the way things panned out.
* McLaren boasts about the money he made from the band. If he had been competent, he could have made a great deal more. It seems he coudn't even organise gigs properly.
* McLaren's claim at the start of the film that he invented punk rock can be disproved in about ten seconds. The Pistols were not the first punk band, merely the most high profile.
This is a terrible film. The only parts worth watching are the genuine footage of the band, later put to much better use in 'The Filth And The Fury'.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"