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\nThis movie over does it on the cgi i mean sci-fi really they over did it the original '' BATS'' is better it does not use cgi like the sequel. in this movie its the simple people running from mutated killer bats. and really bats in Afghanistan?! the plot involves u.s army soldiers finding a terrorist and being attack by bats and dying<_< but the reason i gave this movie 3 stars is because the way the camera zooms in on the soldiers. the acting is bad and this doesn't even look like a horror movie. in all this movie is a fairly good TV movie for sci-fi channel. but if like sci-fi's movies you'll like this movie because you just like channel 43 oh and if you fall asleep during the movie don't be surprised. oh sorry i think i give it 2 stars 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\nA child-like puppeteer, for a public access children's show, goes over the deep end when he discovers kids he entertains at a hospital were victims of horrible abuse. This movie has some of the worst indescribably monstrous parents you could ever come across. Not an exploitation film as much as an afterschool special on the dangers of child abuse. Seemingly harmless, Mr. Rabby takes matters into his own hands when it seems the police are neutered by lack of evidence to convict loathsome parents of their terrible abuse towards their children. The children are emotionless and zombie-like(..due to the amount of abuse inflicted upon them), the parents loud, inconceivably harsh, contemptible, and belligerent. The mothers, in particular, are so obscene, you'll root for their execution. They are essentially miserable people taking out their frustrations on the kids. Our detectives are a tired lot, frustrated with the whole judicial process, how police procedure is often unable to prosecute those who beat their kids into submission. While the crimes themselves are heinous, the film doesn't explicitly elaborate the grisly activity on screen. I'd say the reason to see this is for Tom Basham's performance as the unbalanced man-child who slips into psychosis. There's quite a weird dinner table sequence between Basham's Mr. Rabbey and his guardian shortly after he murdered the parents responsible for the death of their child, regarding how he lives in a fantasy and how what he had just done has left an indelible mark(..notice the changes in behavior, pretty impressive work, going from innocent to creepy). Peter Renaday is Lt. Hayes, the detective in charge of the homicides cases, expressing on his face the strain that is taking it's toll on him. There's an early performance by John Ashton as detective Matthews, always raising the ire of Hayes because of his inability to follow directions, not to mention how opinionated he is regarding the parents abusing their kids. Awkward laid-back bluesy score that seems improper for a film such as this. Controversial conclusion establishing that even kids can only tolerate so much. A bit too slow moving for my tastes, but there's an effective use, I felt, of Basham's eyes before he takes care of business, waiting patiently as he prepares to strike.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhen this movie was made in 1980, I was a teenager in the football stands playing as part of the audience. This was done at Mooseheart, Illinois. The big letters spelling out \"MOOSEHEART\" at the top of the stands were covered up with a banner in the movie. The director would tell us to cheer loudly at certain points, as if a touchdown was being made. St. Charles juvenile correction center is a real place less than 30 miles from Mooseheart, although I think it may have closed down recently. During one scene, they show a black woman and a white man in the audience watching the game. Right below them, you can see my sister Noel's head (she was 11 at the time). In the VHS version, I can only see the top of her head, but when I saw it on TV in 1981 I could see her whole head and my sister Jacqui as well.
I thought the movie itself was OK for a made for TV movie. Since there's already a description of the movie here, I need not repeat it. It's worth seeing at least once.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI don't know if this type of movie was as cliché then as it seems to be now.
Considering how many \"Bad News Bears\" films had already been released by 1980, however, I think that this sort of movie was already a tired idea.
A former football player is partially paralyzed in Vietnam and is confined to a wheelchair. The Chicago Bears offer him a PR job but he wants to coach. At the same time, his underage nephew is picked up for armed robbery. We are told that he has already been arrested over a dozen times before and he must now serve some hard time...which turns out to be less than a year!
Of course, the kid is actually a good kid who only needs a tough male role model in his life. The same goes for all of the kids in the detention facility. Yes...even the one locked up for attempted murder! I'm sure you already know what happens so I'll try and keep the rest of this brief.
Our protagonist becomes the coach of the kids' football team. He overcomes the delinquents' cynicism and earns their respect. His team faces off against a local high school team (yeah right!) and they get their butts kicked. Now determined more than ever to prove himself a worthy coach, he demands a rematch. Will these underprivileged, scrappy kids with hearts of gold be able to improve enough to win the rematch? Awful execution of the football sequences ruins any possibility of excitement in this film. \"Coach Of The Year\" should get penalized for roughing my brain. 1/10
\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 reviewer, my wife bought this movie as part of a 20 movie family pack. I guess you could say that this was a decent made-for-TV movie for 1980, but it is super-predictable and the acting, except for Robert Conrad, is generally sub-par. The football scenes are nothing special and seem to mainly act as filler for the movie. The movie is very dated now, but a decent remake could probably make this into a good movie. However, is that really necessary? I mean, how many \"underdog sports team works together for the big game with the undefeated guys\" movies do we really need? This is probably a good movie for your younger kids if you find it in the bargain bin, but a sports movie buff will find it lacking.
\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 received this movie in a pack called \"50 all-star Movies\" for $18 (45 cents each). Many are good. This one was terrible. It was a hackneyed retread done 1000 times before and each time better. A crippled ex-jock is dared to coach a team made up of juvenile delinquents. They learn from him that they can make it if they play by the rules. I'm sure the kids and the locals were thrilled to be included in a \"real TV movie\", but I can't imagine what the folks that launched and produced this project figured they could bring to this already over beaten subject. I kept waiting to see that 'new twist' or 'new angle' but, honest, it doesn't come. Avoid this movie. Forget about the 45 cents, I want the 96 minutes of my life back.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhat a truly moronic movie, all I can say is the writer must be very fond of magic mushrooms and LSD because this must be the result of one of his 'trips'.
You follow the whole movie thinking alright this is very weird but hey I'm sure at the end there will be a perfectly good explanation for all of this... Only to be disappointed to find erm no there's no explanation at all and the twist at the end makes it even more confusing. At the end of the movie you'll probably have the same facial expression as if you were standing in a Que paying for you groceries and the merchant told you, that'll be 11.95 please and proceeded to elbow you in the balls for no apparent reason. There are so many factors in this movie that go unexplained and I think it leaves it to the imagination of the viewer in an entirely bizarre way. Don't get me wrong I like weird movies, 'The Cell' could easily be described as weird and twisted but in my eyes it's a brilliant movie (despite casting J-Lo who I dislike to the maximum even that didn't manage to sway my opinion). This isn't one of those movies, and I think you should take in to consideration the characters of those who praise this movie. I can tell you they are probably the sort of people that would go to an art exhibition, see a splat of pigeon excrement on a white board and say \"Oooooh what a masterpiece, the artist has truly found a unique way to portray eternity\" when in actual fact all it is, is bird excrement on a board.
Keep that last bit in mind when watching this movie,
Thanks for reading!
\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 seems a little clunky around the edges, like not quite enough zaniness was thrown it when it should have been. But I mostly enjoyed it.
The storyline is more than a little bit preposterous, so no expectation of \"something real\" should be included in your viewing experience. Check your brain in at the door. It will not be needed and might be an impediment otherwise.
I quite enjoyed Clennon's performance as the real Dr. Baird. His role was spot on for giving Aykroyd's character a protagonist. What a putz the real Dr. Baird was.
And Matthau was quite good as the lead character's sidekick. Annoying at first, but ultimately lovable. Sort of. Kind of. Or at least something the use of a bar of soap and a lot of water would have been more than helpful.
Actually worth watching? If you're in the mood for a spoof on the psychiatric profession, sure, why not.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis was an 1970s-type irreverent comedy, poking fun at the psychiatric profession and at Beverly Hills. I didn't mind that but I did object to more that irreverence regarding marriage and religion: two topics which secular filmmakers (meaning about everyone in Hollywood and elsewhere) just can't stop trashing.
Walter Matthau plays a scuzzy character, \"Donald Becker,\" who walks around with a cleric's collar on, which offends me but when has Hollywood ever been worried about offending Christians?
Anyway, despite that nonsense the film has its entertaining moments and even some charm to it. Dan Aykroyd is good at paying a nut-case and Donna Dixon (\"Laura Rollins\") is a knockout. I am sorry she didn't have a bigger role.
\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 have known better..the clues were all over IMDB.com. This flick was written and directed by the same guy who has no track record. The cast is a bunch of unknowns with the possible exception of Joe Estevez who seems to specialize in bad movies. Etc. Suffice it to say, I can't see any reason why anyone would want to see this awful, amateurish attempt at film making. Turn on any broadcast channel at 3am and you'll see better movies. Nuff said.
\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\nTommy Lee Jones was the best Woodroe and no one can play Woodroe F. Call better than he. Not only was he the first and best, he was the only person that could portray his grief and confusion. It was a bad let-down and I'm surprised I even made myself watch it. I can even begin how how pitiful they made Woodroe. I understand he would be old by that time, but everyone knows that he would NEVER let that pull him down. The first movie was the best and the only one that I'll ever watch. I hope to God that no more directors plan on continuing or remaking the wonderful classic without Tommy or Duval. Without them, the movies are pointless wastes of time and money for everyone, including the director. IF YOU PLAN ON MAKING ANOTHER LONESOME DOVE MOVIE OF ANY KIND, take mine and billions of others, don't waste time. Continuing the movies is just grinding the first one into the ground. Thanks.
\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 probably my least favorite episode. I lived in Cape Girardeau for quite some time. I can tell you there is no ocean or shrimp boats, fresh crab or scallops anywhere near Missouri. Cape Girardeau is the only inland Cape, it's on the Mississippi River. It looked like the license plates were from Mississippi, which may explain why there was so much racial tension. Missouri and Mississippi are 2 completely different states that don't touch one another. There are many roads in and out of town and none of them are Route 6 or Route 666. This whole inaccuracy was very distracting. Also, Cassie did not seem like someone who would want to hang around Dean if she was well educated. I did not buy them as a couple and didn't enjoy the lengthy love scene. Jo was more Dean's style.
\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\nAndré Roussin was a specialist of what the French call \"Theatre de Boulevard\" : plays where you find the eternal triangle:man/wife/(male or female)lover .Many of his plays gave Elvire Popesco some of her best parts on stage....and the great actress was the main reason to watch them,for Roussin is not Sacha Guitry ,by a long shot.The French audience remembers \"Au Theatre Ce Soir' .
Still with me? Roussin's plays were not made to be filmed.And this one is pretty mediocre material ,even if the screenwriters call Lewis Carroll to their rescue .I like Stewart Granger and David Niven ,and Ava Gardner is eye candy .But this might be their worst film ,being crude, predictable -even the native's (Bola -Bola )intervention is ludicrous- a knockabout farce around a Menage à Trois on a desert island where Granger would be some kind of Robinson,Niven ,his Friday and Gardner his girl Friday.
\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\nLinda Arvidson (as Jennie) and Harry Solter (as Frank) are enjoying a romantic tryst, when in walks her father Charles Inslee; furious, he chases Mr. Solter out of the house. Undaunted, he goes to her balcony and begs her to elope. Ms. Arvidson is agreeable, and goes to pack. Then, burglar George Gebhardt arrives to rob the place. Though he doesn't get much in the way of booty, thieving Gebhardt manages to use Arvidson's trunk to escape from the police
A Contrived Comedy. Note, during the balcony scene, Solter goes off-camera, so burglar Gebhardt can enter the house undetected. And, Arvidson travels very light, since there appears to be nothing in her heavy trunk; perhaps she just wanted to buff up beau Solter? Director D.W. Griffith, Robert Harron, and Florence Lawrence are illustrious extras.
** A Calamitous Elopement (8/7/08) D.W. Griffith ~ George Gebhardt, Linda Arvidson, Harry Solter
\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, where to start....hmmm...well how about some of the stiffest, most unnatural, unbelievable and camped-up performances one can imagine? How about stereotypical \"characters\", situations and locations? Or what about a manipulative, cloying, utterly wretched script? I can't think of one element in this movie that was original, worthy of watching or interesting.
Note to all you Josh Hartnett/Chris Klein/LeeLee Sobieski fans - enjoy their collective fifteen minutes, folks, because they're not going to be famous much longer...
\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\nLife is too short to waste on two hours of Hollywood nonsense like this, unless you're a clueless naiive 16 year old girl with no sense of reality and nothing better to do. Dull characters, poor acting (artificial emotion), weak story, slow pace, and most important to this films flawed existence-no one cares about the overly dramatic relationship.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n******************SPOILER********************SPOILER******************** This movie stunk. Just let me say now that I totally agree with what carissaphillips had to say about this. What was Sam thinking? She was with a guy who told her he loved her (3 times in total), was EXTREMELY HOT, and stuck with her though her trying times (Josh Hartnett). But, she decided to break up with him, no, cheat on him with a snobby,ugly, spoiled, rich-brat jerk loser who never said he loved her in the entire movie(oh wait, he wrote it on the wall, does that count?), and left her in her time of need because he was scared (Chris LOSER Klein). Who would you want to be with? The only reason I sat through the entire movie was because it had Josh Hartnett in it and hoping that maybe she would die at the end. I wanted Jasper to get another girlfriend who was actually worthy of him. The whole \"your mom\" thing was funny. I enjoyed it. I hate it when people around here say it but I think that Kelley deserved it. Jasper should have said it to Sam as well, she needed a good slap. How the romance started is a mystery to me. They never said anything to each other anyway so I don't understand how they got together. \"I was thinking about the cheese sandwich you gave me...did it have mustard or mayonnaise or.....\" Oh what a come on. The supposedly romantic lines were so stupid. Plus he's sosososososososo UGLY! I must admit, I did cry in this movie. For a long time, really hard. Not because she died, but because she broke Jasper's heart. He cried in this movie so many times...he tried to smile for her but he couldn't stop the tears. He cried when 1) He told her he loved her 2) She got sick 3) Chris Klein came back and he saw how happy she was w/ him 4) she died. I cried when he cried because he loved her her entire life, and told her, and yet she was dumb enough to not care and love a guy who left her in her time of need, and who DID NOT CRY at the funeral. 1 1/2 stars only because I LOVE JOSH HARTNETT! Oh by the way Chris Klein, YOUR MOM! -Wiley's sis
\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 comes close to the worst movie I've ever seen. The writer starts you out in a way that you'll side with Jasper (Josh Hartnett). When he did absolutely nothing wrong, Sam (Leelee Sobiesky) leaves him for Kelley (Chris Klein), in a way that leaves you mad at Sam. You aren't let in on what she feels, so her feelings with Kelley aren't real to you, and their relationship is phony. It drags you in either direction, and it gets rather exhausting and annoying. The only good thing about this movie that I saw was the cast.

\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 not sure why I disliked this film so much. Maybe I'm too old or too male or too something. Just who was the target audience here? If you're it and you liked it, then I'm happy for you. Personally, I found it a bit of a pill. The characters were uninteresting and unlikeable, the script was just plain embarrassing and some, though not all, of the acting was uninspired. Mawkish, tedious and occasionally nauseating -- Surely there's something better on.
On a related issue: Why is it that whenever I see Chris Klein in a film I get an urge to slap him silly? Does anyone else get that?
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI watched this on cable because I was a big Leelee fan. Big mistake. What a horrible film. You don't care one bit for any of the characters in the movie. Chris Klein plays a guy who is a complete jerk in the film, and steals away Josh Hartnett's longtime girlfriend. If the writer knew what they were doing, this film would have followed the proven formula, and made Hartnett an ass, and Leelee as the girlfriend trapped in a bad relationship, from which she's saved by Klein. But Hartnett is a really cool guy, who shows a lot of emotion and love for Leelee.
You then hate leelee, because she cheats on Hartnett with Klein, who is a jerk to everyone in the town that's trying to help him and really stuck up.
It's also really campy, and the characters do everything but run around the kitchen dancing and lip synching, and using hairbrushes and spoons and fake microphones (although they come very close).
What a horrible horrible movie. You don't even care what happens in the end because the director never lets you care about the characters.
\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 rented this movie the other day b/c I love romance stories, but this has got to be the worst one I have ever seen in my life. I find it hard to believe that Sam would fall in love with Kelley after they've said hardly no more than 2 words to each other when she has a great long-time boyfriend who's devoted to her completely. I thought Kelley was a major jerk throughout the movie, and he never changed at all. The only good thing about the movie was Josh Hartnett. I thought he did a wonderful acting job, and I'm going to start watching more movies of his.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOne can always tell if I'm enjoying a movie by the number of times I cross my legs, switch positions, make slight rustling noises, etc., etc. The lesser = the better. I moved so many times throughout this movie that I succeeded in knocking over my friends giant tub of popcorn and getting a huge thigh-strengthening workout.
Sobieski, a young actress who at some points in \"A Soldier's Daughter Never Cries\" gave some promise for her thespian talents, played poorly in a poorly-written part. Depressing fact number one. Number two: Chris Klein was in it. Depressing fact number three: Chris Klein had lines. Number four: Chris Klein played a valedictorian. Woah. Dummies from rich families unite! Even worse, he actually tries to act, but only succeeds in sounding like a mentally disabled overactor in an increasingly sappy independent version of a Cecille B. DeMille film. Go back to humping your American Pies.
This movie was terrible in almost every sense, save Josh Hartnett's mildly endearing performance as LeeLee's stiffed boyfriend Jasper. Luckily, he refrains from trying to have too many \"moments,\" unlike all the other characters. Of course, this is why he's much better than the rest and he actually shows some mettle here. If you like Josh or are thinking of casting a kid who knows a few things, he's your man.
Hartnett is a sharp actor, but the rest need no further lambasting.
2 out of 10 (for poor Hartnett in this terrible 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\nWell, if you set aside the fact that this movie features abysmal acting; and, if you set aside the fact that the story is muddled and wanders off in about five different directions without ever deciding which way it really wants to go; and, if you set aside the fact that I didn't find a single scene in this movie that was remotely interesting; well, if you set all that aside, this is still a REALLY terrible movie!
I take it that this is supposed to be a love story about rich guy/poor girl. I never really understood for a moment how this romance between Kelley (Chris Klein) and Samantha (Leelee Sobieski) ever got started. The inexplicable romance is made worse by a complete lack of chemistry between Klein and Sobieski. The screenplay (by Michael Seitzman) is dull to the point of stupefying. How Seitzman managed to write the thing without falling asleep is a miracle; that he would think anyone would want to pay to see this is unbelievable.
Did I mention that this is a REALLY, REALLY terrible movie?
I'd give it a ZERO, but the IMDb doesn't provide for votes of ZERO. So I give it a one while holding my nose.
\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 been waiting eagerly to see this movie, but when I finally got the chance, I was very disappointed. I had to stop half-way (or was it quarter-way?) because of the poor script and directing. Not to mention the poor cast! Josh Hartnett is the only one who can act, and he's much more suitable to be the hero of the story.
Well, basically the story is just about a loose girl from the country who cheated on her long-time decent boyfriend only to have meaningless sex with a spoiled rich brat. This movie failed to draw my sympathy, not even when the writer intended to. I wonder where the moral values go?
The actors are so stiff that when I resume the movie (few weeks after it was interrupted due to its boring nature), they still failed to make me pay attention. The spoiled couple can only disgust me! What a movie!
I think all the people involved in this production need to sit down and review it together so that they won't make the same mistakes next time round. And next time they might consider Josh Hartnett as the protagonist...
\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\nHo hum. Rich good looking kid gets in trouble, poor girl falls in love with him, jealous ex-boyfriend causes tension.. yadda yadda. I actually laughed out loud in many parts of this movie because the next scene was so predictable and just plain stupid. As one scene moved on to the next, I often found myself wondering just how we got there, like I had skipped a few chapters in a book.
The script was pretty pitiful and didn't have me or my wife caring much about any of the characters, except the jilted boyfriend. Now, if the ex boyfriend had gotten an axe, and hacked apart the girl and rich kid, then.... then we would have a movie, and all the stupid dialog and leaps in plot could be acceptable. But, since this movie attempts to be touching and totally misses the boat (and ends up resorting to the romance equivalent of divine intervention to try and jerk a tear)... it just falls very very flat.
Avoid this movie. Clip your toenails instead, you will have more fun.
\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\nAll I have to say is one word...SUCKS!!!!. The only reason I gave this a 2 is because Josh Hartnett was in it and he's cool. Should have beat that Klein guys ass...stupid dumb and brainless. By the end of this movie you can't stand Klein and you really don't care what happens to Leelee. Hartnett was the only good thing about it.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nDid you ever watch a really bad movie and get mad about it? Even a movie you didn't have high expectations for? Well I just rented the movie \"Dead Line\". This is the US video title for \"Interferencia\". Now I have seen a lot of bad movies, and watched a lot of \"B\" titles, but this is in another league all its own. It was put out on \"The Asylum\" label, and anyone that rents a lot of direct to video horror films knows this label. When you rent one of there's you know what your getting. A lot of marginal acting low budget horror, but usually still pretty good. Not this one. The acting by the three leads was beyond bad. Even fast forwarding couldn't help. The tag line on the front of the box says\"..in the tradition of DePalma's Body Double. The nerve to compare this to that classic movie. The only true comment is \"The screams you will hear are real\". Yea you will be the one screaming if you rent this.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf it wasn't for Colin Firth, the movie would be ready for the dust bin! So foreseable, so silly and so badly acted!! Only Colin Firth, as always, shines through this mess as single light on the end of the tunnel!!
The worst was Jennifer Rubin's acting, for sure! Maybe it was because of this script (did they actually have really written one or was it just made up \"on the way\"???).
To cut a tooo long story short:
It is a MUST SEE only for Colin Firth Fanatics (like me) since he is incredibly sexy and good acting (struggling hard against this \"mentally challenged\" script). These minutes of Colin-Screen-Time make up a lot of this movie.
Don't spend too much money on it, though. Try to see or get it as cheap as possible (an auction or something like that) and then do stick to the Colin Firth scenes.
The rest of the movie might be dangerous for anyones mental health.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf you need a clue as to whether Playmaker is decent or not, look to its star, Colin Firth, who refers to it in an interview as \"absolute rubbish -- I sincerely hope no one ever sees it.\"
The script and plot are ludicrous, the female lead is unconvincing. The only thing worthwhile is Colin Firth, and he seems slightly embarrassed throughout.
For diehard Firth fans only -- the shower scene alone is worth the $3.99 you might have to shell out, should you find it in a video cutout bin like I did.
I'm happy for Mr. Firth that his days of taking projects like this one are over!
\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\nPlunkett and MaCleane are two highwaymen that rob from the rich in order to give to ... well, the rich; comparatively, they ARE the rich. But we know they're the good guys because the chap behind the forces of law and order, a Mr. Chance, is just so evil. He rapes women - or tries to. He beats up his underlings. He commits murder. He has bad breath. He doesn't shave properly. He has no fashion sense. He tortures puppy dogs. That last one is just an inference of mine: we don't actually SEE him torture puppy dogs. But I'm sure he does. Little of Chance's villainy has much to do with his pursuit of Plunkett and MaCleane. It's just something he does in his spare time, a kind of a hobby he takes up to make absolutely certain that we don't like him. He needn't have tried so hard. No-one in this film is likeable.
Let's take stock. Appealing characters? There aren't any: I believe we've covered that. Swashbuckling? Not a swash. Instead we have a kind of grimy heavy-breathing. Dash? Sparkle? Vigour? All gone the way of swashbuckling, I'm afraid. Realism? None of that, either. I think they were TRYING for realism, since everyone was so filthy, but the characters and action had all the plausibility of Errol Flynn - with no sense of exhilaration to back them up. Beauty? Nope. Fine camera work? For a TV crew, perhaps. Humour? You might giggle once or twice if you're in a benevolent mood. Then again, you might not. Dialogue? See `humour', above. Music? Don't even get me STARTED on the music. The music in `Ladyhawk' was, by comparison, uncannily apt; and at least the misguided aesthetic of that score was a consistent one.
Ugh. I apologise to `Ladyhawk' for even THINKING about it in this context.
To sum up: there's much positive badness here and NOTHING good - unless you count Liv Tyler, which I'm in two minds about doing.
I feel as though I've just written a review of the pox. `Not very good,' the review says. It would be much more interesting if I could somehow DEFEND the pox, to claim that critics of the pox have got it all wrong - but I don't know how I'd go about doing that.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf you have few expectations, then this will entertain for 90 minutes. My problem is that they've dumbed down this tale for the modern audience. Highwaymen are already sexy, exciting characters. They don;t need the techno soundtrack and snappy dialogue.
\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 this was a woeful excuse for a film.. a plot line so holey it resembled a block of swiss cheese and a butch of characters who seemed to me to be utterly devoid of inter-personal relations.. Well except of course for Carlyle and Lee-Miller who i could have sworn were meant to be in love.. Unlike the union of Tyler and Miller who were for the most part, like the rest of the film, utterly unconvincing.. although the end product was uncaptivating and amusing for all the wrong reasons, the production values were high and deserve some acknowledgement..but unfortunately the end result was rubbish..what was everyone involved thinking..? they definitely should have packed up early on 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 was one of Christie's later stories. Throughout her long career, she was interested in the shifting narrative and the notion of conflicting agents. Both are essentially the same thing and boil down to questions of who it is that controls or creates the situation.
In detective fiction, the game is a matter of conflicting realities. The murderer intends to change reality to fool the detective, the writer intends to do the same to the reader. Both the reader and the detective are in similar battles to create what they see. That's why her stories often include a writer.
In her works, she explores every combination of tricks she can think of that deal with this. Along the way, we often have bodies that are not who they seem, and times, and intended victims and such. But the real magic of the books is this notion of control. In 'Bertram's' it was literally a building.
Here, it is a dead man. Well, sometimes that happens, but not like this. It is as if the writer were the famous Mr. Rafiel. This is particularly sweet to Marple readers who remember this same character from the 'Carribean Mystery,' which in a way was also framed by her nephew. In that story, Rafiel was the conveyor of the story to the authorities.
The producers of this series have an almost wacky commitment to using a different creative team on each one. Sometimes it produces bland work. The 'Bertram's' episode was rather brilliantly staged. This one is the most lavish of the lot, and has an active camera. But unlike the 'Bertram's' work, it has nothing to do with the story.
The camera moves and captures merely because it can. The 'Citizen Kane' quote at the beginning was a little too literal and blunt. This story is good, but the adapter took out some pretty critical stuff, and that irrelevant camera annoys.
Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhat a frustrating movie. A small Southern town is overflowing with possibilities for exploring the complexities of interpersonal relationships and dark underbellies hidden beneath placid surfaces, as anyone who has read anything by Carson McCullers already knows. This does none of that. Instead, the writers settled for cutesy twinkles, cheap warm fuzzies and banal melodrama. The thing looks like a made-for-TV movie, and was directed with no particular distinction, but it's hard to imagine what anyone could have done to make this material interesting.
The most frustrating aspect, though, is the fact that there are a lot of extremely competent and appealing actors in this cast, all trying gamely to make the best of things and do what they can with this--well, there's no other word for it--drivel. A tragic waste of talent, in particular that of the great Stockard Channing.
\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 very carelessly written film. Poor character and idea development. The silly plot and weak acting by just about the ensemble cast didn't help. Seriously, watching this movie will NOT make you smile. It may make you retch.
\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\nGod, did I hate this movie! I saw it at a sneak preview 13 years ago, and I STILL have bad flashbacks. It was, without a doubt, the WORST movie I ever paid to see. It was badly written, badly directed, and (surprisingly considering the cast) badly acted. I would rather be thrown off a rooftop onto razor sharp spikes, and then have my skin peeled off, than to sit through it again. Can you guess I didn't enjoy it?
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI watched the version with pathetic American over-dubs, maybe this made it much worse, but from what I could make out the film was pretty bad anyway. It seemed low budget. The visuals reminded me of a second rate TV movie, random white dog substituted for Dogmatix, embarrassing 60's BBC costumes, etc. Mainly though, I feel like the characters in the movie did not behave anything like the characters in the comic, and as a result I never felt willing to even try to forgive the poor look of the film. It is always going to be hard to capture the feel of the comics in a film without using animation, and I didn't feel this attempt was worth it ultimately.
\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\nWhereas the movie was beautifully shot and reasonably well acted, the script was dull. plodding and nothing we have not seen before. Not once in this film did I ever get the feeling that these people were really in danger. No noticeable climax and a very standard resolution. I believe these type of movies have been overdone and should be given a rest. After all, didn't EVERYONE on the planet see \"Schindler's List\"?
\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\nYes, this bizarre feature was written by John Sayles. Shot in Toronto, it's yet another '80s era feature about the dangers of the urban jungle, where the police fear to go and the homeless and the criminal classes are the only inhabitants. Into this mix comes the myth of Wild Thing, a feral young man raised by a bag lady after his parents were murdered by a dirty cop on the take (Maury Chaykin) and Chopper, the local crime lord (Robert Davi). Stir in the local do-gooders (priest Sean Hewitt and clueless social worker Kathleen Quinlan), and you have a recipe for some rather unexciting action sequences. Davi is the standout amongst the cast, and cinematographer Rene Verzier does a pretty good job. Otherwise this is a rather lumpen action pic that won't satisfy action fans and will leaves Sayles' admirers slack-jawed.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI can't believe they do this kind of filth out of a serious theme. Totally unrealistic (they seemed to want it to be HIGHLY realistic but all the elements are based on clichés), real propaganda stuff. After seeing this, an addict probably just want to continue his/her career :-) I gave it 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'm not picky with movies, oh I've seen so much crap I could watch anything. Maybe that was the reason I watched this one to the end. Im big fan of RPG games too, but this movie, its a disgrace to any self-respecting RPGer there is. The security-camera footage of a game-play would make it feel more realistic than this movie does. The lines, the cuts, the audio, everything is wrong. In some scenes you can see that it was filmed in some photo when !!!!!(spoilers ahead)!!!!!people running around does not disturb people sitting near computers. I mean would you continue your work if you got ninjas around you? oh and the jokes about pirates, that's the worst one yet in movies!!!!!(spoilers end)!!!!! At least first one felt like a documentary, now it looks like someones home video experiment. You can find better movies at youtube. Top line: Don't waste your time and money on this one, its as bad as it comes.
\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 guess the previous \"House\" movie was a hit, prompting Universal to wring a few more drops from the monster cash-cow. The creative team must've been in a recycling mood, starting with the opening theme lifted from 'Son of Frankenstein' and some of the stock footage dispersed through the film, like one unintentionally funny bit of business where footage of Glenn Strange as the monster is mixed with clips of Karloff from 1935's Bride, and compared to how robotic Strange moved, Karloff seems to move like a cheetah in comparison.
Previous film continuity is thrown by the wayside, concerning the miraculous death-cheating abilities of the Wolf Man and Dracula, but when Dr. Edelmann & Larry Talbot discover Frankenstein's monster with the skeleton representing Boris Karloff , Edward T. Lowe does at least acknowledge some of the past movie history, though Talbot curiously never mentions having met Karloff's Dr. Niemann.
Since this was to be the last of Universal's horror cycle, the supernatural elements of The Wolf Man and Drac get(unconvincingly) morphed into medical ailments. Drac is told he suffers from a blood disease, a very rare sickness that allows him to transform into a bat or evaporate if sunlight touches him. >:-] And Larry Talbot just has a little pressure on the brain. Of course all of this is painstakingly explained with a 'lot' of medical jargon being related in many scenes throughout. This proves to be the biggest hindrance, as somewhere along the way the filmmakers seem to forget about actual horror or entertainment in favor of giving the monsters conditions that seem as treatable as a flu.
As a huge fan of the old Universal horrors, it's rare that I feel so bored while watching one. The whole thing just feels like a movie that was made just because it could be, but if this mess hadn't been slapped together, the monsters might never have met Abbott and Costello, so I guess some good came of this.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI have not figured out what the chosen title has to do with the movie. This is another gathering of monsters just like the HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN. Not exactly a masterful plot, but Universal needed to capitalize again.
Dr. Edelman (Onslow Stevens) is either very ambitious or over the top in the ego department. He is working on the cure to keep Larry Talbot from turning into the Wolf Man. Somehow Count Dracula happens to drop by to get a fix on his vampirism. And rounding out the good doctor's experiments is the restoring of the Frankenstein monster's energy. Along the way, the kind hearted doctor's blood is tainted with that of Dracula.
John Carradine plays Dracula again. This time he is more convincing. Lon Chaney Jr. as usual is the soulful Wolf Man. Glenn Strange is the Frankenstein monster, who has very little to do this outing. Also with mentionable roles are Lionel Atwill and Martha O'Driscoll.
\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 been a classic horror fan my entire life. Many nights stretched until the early hours of the morning watching the Universal films on \"Horror Incorporated\" and \"Creature Feature Night\". Sadly, I viewed this film in the early evening and yet it still almost put me to sleep.
I don't think I've ever seen a \"horror\" picture where everything was so matter of fact. Dr. Edelmann doesn't seem to believe in the supernatural, yet before long he's medically treating Dracula and watching Larry Talbot change into the Wolfman while hardly blinking an eye. He and Talbot discover the Frankenstein monster like it's an everyday occurrence. Edelmann is all fired up to bring the monster back to life, but after Talbot, Miliza and Nina protest he's like \"Aww, you're right. No big deal\". After realizing Dracula's treachery, he opens the Count's coffin to sunlight and POOF!, he's gone, just like that.
The only person who didn't appear to just be phoning in her lines was Jane Adams as Nina. Her reward is getting bounced off the hump in her back into a pit by the Frankenstein Monster at the end of the film...and no one even tries to rescue her! She, Dr. Edelmann and the Monster all perish, while Talbot and Miliza casually leave the castle.
Definitely the low point for Universal during it's classic horror years.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"