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\nI'm not sure what it is but there seems to be some curse when it comes to films about the elusive Bigfoot. There has yet to be a film that intelligently approaches the subject, nor one that creates any real suspense. Both \"Legend of Boggy Creek\" (1972) and the first film entitled \"Sasquatch\" (1978) have become minor cult classics, but neither were very memorable. Both films were targeted at family friendly audiences, thus inhibiting themselves from actually trying to scare anyone. \"Harry & The Hendersons\" (1987) was the first big budgeted film to use Bigfoot, with a terrific creature design by Rick Baker. However, they too chose to aim for younger audiences, but this time as a comedy (as did \"Bigfoot\" in 1995). I've long awaited for someone to tackle the subject as a thriller, perhaps in the vein of \"Jaws\" or \"Predator\". When I saw this at my local video store I thought my dream had come true. Boy, was I wrong! Lance Henriksen plays a billionaire who leads an expedition into the pacific northwest in hopes of finding his daughter as she was on board a small plane when it crashed in the mountains. The premise is interesting and sounded promising. The truth is it never builds any real suspense. I never found myself at all interested in any of the characters as each of them were very two dimensional and rather bland. Even the always dependable Henriksen seems to be phoning in his performance. Every time he appears on screen he looks plain bored. He should be as there is no action to speak of for the first hour of the film. As for the creature, where do I start? I figured at the very least we would get a cool looking monster running around in the woods, but instead we get this bald (yes, I said \"bald!\") man with pitch black skin and patches of fur here and there. Picture a cross between \"Swamp Thing\" and Chaka from \"Land of the Lost\" and you'll get the idea. Nothing like the artwork on the cover box I assure you. Sloppy editing and careless direction also adds to the confusion as half the time everything seemed out of sequence, while the other half of the film was constantly used up with these long, slow fade outs (which made no sense or served any purpose). They even stole the whole infra-red vision P.O.V from the creature in \"Predator\", which just looked too silly and out of place to be effective. Maybe all this proves is that Hollywood should just forget about trying to make anymore Bigfoot films, as they have yet to make one that works. So far each one has been as scary as an episode of \"In Search Of\" 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\n*This comment may technically contain \"spoilers\" but it sure doesn't contain surprises*
My cousin and I rented this the other day hoping to get a good laugh at a typical amateur crappy excuse for a horror movie. Unfortunately, we didn't get too many laughs, and we certainly didn't get too many scares either.
Plot outline: A plane containing a company head's daughter and some weird piece of technology crashes in an area where our furry friend lives, so the company head assembles a team of personalities, rather than skilled hunters, to recover it.
For the first 3/4's of the movie, things get pretty boring. It mostly consists of shots of Big Foot lurking in the trees with the party members occasionally hearing him, and passing it off as nothing. We also see several shots of the party through Big Foot's point of view, and he apparently sees in thermal vision.
To set up the plot, we have to watch sequences of the group sitting around the campfire talking about possibilities to justify the sasquatches existence and actions. \"maybe he can dodge bullets...if he sees them coming\". Sure enough, we later see he can. \"There are many uncharted lands that the sasquatch may live in. Maybe this is one of them that was over-looked\". And obviously it is. \"Maybe the Sasquatch is angry because the plane hit one of his family members\". And sure enough, thats the case. Along with those scenes, there are a couple of \"Oh my god its the sasquatch oh wait its just you!\" scenes, and sadly, they are among the scariest.
Then, finally, people start dying. Well, 2 people at least. Plus, the bodies of past victims are discovered. The death scenes are pretty lame. It mostly just leaves it to our imagination by showing the Sasquatch grabbing them, then cutting to a different scene, but first, we are treated to some horrible screams off camera.
Then at last, we get to see the protagonist's final showdown with the monster. I gotta admit, I found it pretty exciting while it lasted. But alas, it's pretty short lived, and after we are treated to an ending that makes a half assed effort to seem cryptic. Then, some closing text with a rather boring conclusion.
I can't say I recommend this movie. It's not quite bad enough to give the Mystery Science Theatre 3000, and its definitely not scary enough and boring to enjoy as a horror movie. Just don't bother with 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 can't believe how bad this \"film\" is. For starters, the movie deals with the legend of Big Foot and a group of people having a close encounter with the creature. The premise is interesting and having Lance Henriksen in the cast (ALIENS)gave \"The Untold\" a promising outlook. Unfortunately that's as interesting as it gets. This looks like a direct to DVD release...or so I guess. This is basically a production-less affair with probably the worst editing (with a constant \"fading to black\" in between every scene!!!)I've seen in my life and acting that will sure make you cringe. Why Lance Henriksen picked this is completely fathomless. And the movie takes cues from just about any other genre movie, from \"Blair Witch Project\" (The video scene) and \"Predator\", to \"Alive\". This is supposedly based on true events, but the only truth to be found herein is just how BAD this movie is. I'm usually not a harsh critic and believe me, I DID try to enjoy this trash but eventually did NOT. Do yourselves a favor and steer clear from this DVD.
I'll try to put it mildly: This movie is PURE garbage and it made me want to take my gun and shoot my neighbors... or ask BLOCKBUSTER for a refund!!!
And Lance, shame on you! 1* out of 10*
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAs I am a fan of hospital and medical shows, I have found this one gripping and sometimes humorous (especially the scenes with Dr Whitman) which brings a bit la light relief. However, I was looking forward to the last episode because I expected that the bad ones would be punished and the good ones reinstated. Instead of that, the hospital management are making even more fools of themselves in an unbelievable manner and it's getting worse and worse for the good ones. You can't help wondering what the unions are doing or doesn't Rob, Donna and Maria know what unions are there for ? Besides, never seeing the outside, trees, grass, sunlight is a bit oppressive. Anyone understood what the last words were ? i.e. the answer Rob Lake gave to Mrs Strawberry's children question \"Why are you telling us all that?\" It was very frustrating not to be able to understand 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 was hoping this would be of the calibre of Das Boot and echo the stark realism created by acclaimed German Director Leni RiefenStahl in her documentaries, sadly I was monumentally disappointed. The story line is implausible and defies credulity. An RAF airman is shot down and somehow finds his way to a hospital in Dresden. Anna a nurse whose father runs the hospital and is about to become engaged to a doctor she works with falls in love with the airman and they make love. The next evening at a lavish engagement party the airman turns up disguised as a German officer and dances with Anna. Although well directed and acted, to me it is soap opera of the lowest order.
\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\nDresden had great expectations because of its spectacular theme and its high budget. I was really looking forward to it and I really wanted it to be good... but it is not. The only good thing are the special effects that are very well done, but, like in a really bad Hollywood blockbuster, everything else is missing.
It is poorly written, the screenplay tries to fulfill genre-rules with standard suspense/love- story elements but there is no depth or originality at all. It's way below average. The next thing: It is also poorly directed. It has this uninteresting TV-directing-Style with lots of close-ups and wanna-be-great-action by fast editing where actually no action or suspense is. The actors are not bad but there is no performance that is touching in any way.
I don't know... they obviously try to do a typical TV-movie and not a film for the cinema, where its alway good to have some edges and a clear visual style. But why do they try to fulfill typical commercial Hollywood-rules? it really feels like the screenwriter did a weekend- class with some American scriptwriting-guru and then delivered this mess. Is there no producer who is responsible for the project who has an interest in dramaturgy/ visual style or plain in simple this magical cinematic moments that make some TV-Movies great ?!? Do they think that an TV-audience is stupid and doesn't need to get a high quality- movie experience? The Downfall was a very good example for a good TV-movie but there was probably some executive or producer who knew what he was doing.
Don't waste you time with this one, rent \"downfall\" 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\nI only saw the first part of this and concluded that I wouldn't miss anything if I didn't watch the second episode. The cinematography was OK, but apart from this, the plot was just as commonorgarden and run-of-the-mill as any other war story. The actors and actresses play their characters without any passion, and the make up is really bad (Heiner Lauterbach with his white hair and Kai Wiesinger respectively, as if some dyed white hair could give them more dignity and common sense). I mean if you've watched more than two or three movies about WWII (as most of us have) then you'd only go to the trouble of seeing a third or fourth one if it promises some new insights or twists in the plot. But Roland Suso Richter seems to afraid of doing so, you can almost smell his fear of not living up to the bourgeois and jejune expectations of the conservative ZDF TV channel while watching this movie. Millions of Euros were spent to perpetuate boring and unimaginative German film-making. These millions of dollars could have been spent to make three or four independent movies, but no, let's give to some director who'll make a film that tells people that war can be explained by rational means. My advice: Read Joseph Heller or Kurt Vonnegut instead. They'll tell you what war is like! Or give me one million Euros and I make a better film than this load of BS! And another thing: Why is it that German movies only get to be nominated for the Oscars when the movie deals with WWII or the Holocaust? Probably because that is the only thing German film-making is good at. And that should get us thinking, shouldn't 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\nWhat a bloody nuisance! You can't get on subjects like these with TV budgets and some smartass director who can't tell the difference between a Lanc I, II and III. All the silly clichés are well in place; on the character and human level the story is so schmaltzy and unbelievable it hurts. And all those responsible get carried away with joy for the brilliant ratings. Tech details: rubbish. Lancs flying that close would have kicked each other out of the sky by the dozen. Single engined night fighters attacking line astern: ridiculous. As I said: made up by a director who I bet never even heard the name Lancaster before that project and some kid 3D guys who turned Lancs into waddling ducks. But these are minor things compared to the overall mediocrity of this film. Although it might be too harsh I dare say this hurts the memory of those who died on both sides. TV crap, entertaining the dumb masses who don't care anyway. Shame on those responsible. Use your brains next time. And enjoy the profit you made from 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\nAlthough unusually in colour for a second string oater, the vivid clothes of the lead females fails to bring any life to the flatly directed screenplay. The \"plot\" revolves around the Youngers newly released on parole attempting to go straight but being pursued by a vengeful ex-Pinkerton man (a scenery chewing Fred Clark) and a femme fatale determined to involve them in her bank robbery schemes whether they want to or not. As Cole Younger, Wayne Morris is big and hunky enough but his \" cool\" demeanour and wooden acting skills undermine things. The standard of action is frankly, no better than a Gene Autry or Roy Rogers TV episode with Colt .45's that never need reloading and uncanny shooting skills that allow a horse rider to shoot from the hip and wound a man from at least 50 feet...oh dear...
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is one incredibly standard western, that features some bad acting, dull storyline and silly action.
Biggest problem perhaps is how incredibly formulaic this movie is. It features all of the usual clichés, yes even a bar fight and the movie really doesn't has any surprises in it. It makes this a dull and a weak western to watch, also not in the least because it's such a poorly made one.
It's obviously a small production and the movie looks like it got shot in 30 days. The directing and editing can be called bad and all of the action sequences featured in the movie are incredibly silly. It perhaps almost becomes a bit humorous to watch, for all the wrong reasons.
Its story also isn't that interesting. It's a pretty friendly western (so also no blood), in which for some odd reason everybody seems to be against the Younger brothers, who in this movie are being portrayed as good and very friendly guys. The story gets sillier and sillier as it heads toward its ending. The Younger brothers really existed and were part of the James-Younger gang, of which the famous brothers Frank and Jesse James were also part of. Of course they were not as friendly in real life as portrayed in this movie. It just was custom for an early '40's to have likable man characters in it. It wasn't really until the Spagethi-western age really that the main characters became rotten criminals themselves really. Strangely enough that approached has always worked out better than those early western's in which the main character is on the good side of the law.
Thing that does make this movie original is the fact that it was shot in color. This was something pretty unique for an '40's western and still gives the movie something extra. You can wonder though, why they shot this western in full color. The movie is still done in the style of a black & white early western after all and I actually believe that this movie would had been a bit more credible if it got done in black & white instead.
You could easily do without this western.
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\nThis is one of those films with a great potential. Brilliant actors, a debut from a very interesting director and a haunting \"Survivor\"-ish plot.
But it does not work at all.
To start with the good thing: The cinematography is stunning. The beauty of the Namibian desert shows itself as a merciless surrounding, also in the pictures. And then there is the acting. Quite allright. Jennifer Jason Leigh has never been better. Bruce Davison also seems to have developed his character from Altman's \"Short Cuts\".
Then the disappointments: Janet McTeer. Romane Bohringer. And the plot. Why on earth does Levring pick \"Lear\" for their play? The whole idea of letting Shakespeare articulate their despair and inner longings does not work. It seems like a facade. And it is clear that the tragedies takes place because of the choice of \"Lear\". They just needs to fit in in the Script by Levring and Academy Award winner Anders Thomas Jensen.
And the sex. It takes about three days, then more or less all of the characters are sexually frustrated. Dahh!! Sex is always the easy way out when you are in need of a crisis in a plot. Janet McTeer's part totally falls apart, mainly because of that ridiculous idea. The sex makes the plot fall promptly to the ground. Instead they could have focused on the dialogue. There must have been conversation between all of the characters, but we mainly see them talking in smaller groups. Their talking though is as dead as \"Lear\" and the rest of the film.
\"The King Is Alive\" still is not the worst Danish dogme '95 movie yet. But comparing it to the most recent of the homegrown dogme '95 films \"Italiensk for begyndere\" by Lone Scherfig, this one fails badly. It is not a good film. It is a bad one. But it is beautiful.
\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 movie is being televised as I write.
I simply forgot how horrible an experience I had watching it in the cinema.
The whole idea of the movie is flawed. The fact that intelligent Europeans and Americans stranded in the desert forget all concept of morals and civilization within a couple of days is laughable. The madness of Lord of the flies was longer in the making.
Details that annoy are plenty. One is the single African god-like character that mysteriously survives the horrible climate and have done so for ages without losing his mind and he seems to have no supply-problems either. Ridiculous. So too is the rescue attempt from the tour guide, an Indiana Jones look-alike, whose rescue attempt ends in tragedy and death a 5 minute walk from the hut. Then there's the choice of Lear, imposed onto the group by a guru-like joke of an artist. He reminded me of my hippie high school art teacher.
The worst thing though is Levrings choice of Lear. Obviously is an intellectual brain-fart. How that ever was going to be an pass-time is never clear to me.
Positives are few and far between. It's a beautiful movie, but that's never important.
High school intellectualism. Weird for the sake of weird. It's a complete waste of time unless you like thrashing useless art movies.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWell, they sent it on TV between midnight and 2:00 am - it seems like the right time to watch it, and then go to bed afterwards ...
No, it was not really living up to my expectations. I think the Dogma concept is good, because the film then gets closer to what's really happening between the involved characters when you cut all the unnecessary effects and mood-making music out. But then again, this concept requires some interesting action between the characters.
I cannot say, that I know King Lear (the Shakespeare version) very well, if I had known the play, I would probably have been able to predict much of the film.
Well, a crisis can bring the best and worst sides of a character on display - and we certainly see some bad sides. Oh yes, the paint of civilisation and culture can be very thin, and behind this paint you may find an animal.
If you then compare it with \"Italiensk for begyndere\" (Italian for beginners) or \"Mifunes sidste sang\" (Mifune's last song), you see the same but opposite thing: A crisis can certainly bring people to view their life in a more constructive way. And if you dare do, you may win.
When the film had ended, I thought to myself: \"Oh that's why I haven't seen it before ...\" The film has its own beauty. The quality of the work of the cameraman, actors, etc is good. But the script could need something more. A plot maybe wouldn't hurt.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI went to see \"TKIA\" with high expectations, which might have influence on my opinion on it. I have seen all of the Dogme films, and this TKIA, is by far the worst. The story intertwines with themes from Shakespeare's play: King Lear, but never succeeds in capturing the audience and making them care. The directing of the actors is very loose, even for Dogme style movies, and results in poor undefinable acting. The story lacks any dynamics whatsoever, and I lost interest very shortly. There are some scenes in the film which are there to shock the viewer, but I don't think they enhanced the story at all. Mifunes sidste sang and Festen are both Dogmefilms that proved to be well directed, and had good storylines, so I shall look forward to better Dogmefilms in the future. Perhaps Aake Sandgren's \"An Invisible Man-Dogme 6\" will prove to lift the quality again. For he is, like Vinterberg and S.K. Jacobsen a skilled and educated director.
\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 possibly the worst movie I have ever seen. Can somebody please explain the plot of this movie to me? Yes, I know the bus ran out of gas in the middle of the desert, after the driver never noticed that his compass wasn't functioning, but what then? And how did it end? Maybe I'm to stupid to understand this movie, but to me it was an absolute waste of time.
My recommendation? Do not bother, there are far better movies to be seen. This movie ranks with my other all time low-low's (Going overboard - Adam Sandler and Fire on the Amazon - Sandra Bullock)
\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\"The King is Alive\" is a flawed and contrived mess of a movie which comes off like a self indulgent auteur's excuse to transport a bunch of actors to a Godforsaken Namibian desert where he can play major-Dogme-domo and film his selfishly conceived, silly, overwrought drama with utter disregard for the real forces of human nature, market appeal, common sense, and even good art. In other words this is one dumbassed flick and if you don't believe that, your penance is watching it. Only for filmheads, critics, dilettantes, and the like. (D)
\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 bad movie, but with one reel that is worth savoring. For most of the film, the jokes are bad, the songs are bad, even W.C. Fields is bad. Then there is one sequence with Bob Hope and his movie-ex; the dialogue is witty and the song (a version of \"Thanks for the Memories\") light, cynical and delightful. Who parachuted in for this one bit? Yet it makes the whole thing worth the original 25 cents admission.
\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\nPauline Kael gave this movie a good review but it is terrible. It is very outdated , the humour is silly and the music is forgetable.In fact it is so silly it is almost embarrassing. It might have been some fun in 1938 but I can not imagine anyone enjoying it in 2003.
\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\nSuper Troopers was an instant classic. Club Dread, while disappointing to many, had its moments. Puddle Cruisers has fewer moments. I saw this movie on the shelf of my local video store and saw at the bottom that it was made by the Broken Lizard group who made Super Troopers, so naturally I picked it up. I only found one scene to be laugh out loud funny. A far cry from Super Troopers. All in all, I was very disappointed. I would not recommend this to anyone, unless you have an abundance of free time, and really need to kill some time. However, you're better off playing video games, or watching something that might make you laugh or think.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nEven though this is the first film by the broken lizard group, it's the last one I saw. Having mildly enjoyed Super Troopers, and managed to sit through the crap that is club dred and beerfest, I was surprised to hear they did an earlier film. Now i didn't sit down with high hopes, but was hoping for a funny campus romp. My friend asked me to keep in mind they are younger (obviously) and its their first foray into film. I did and was still disappointed. Not taking away the acting and comedy skills of the BL guys, they were OK. The whole film was tiresome, clichéd and frankly boring. Some of the other actors in the film were really poor at acting. And the Rugby game didn't even resemble rugby. Poor showing. They improved drastically with Super Troopers and have declined since. Lets hope they get back on form with Super Troopers 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\nman was this hard to watch! it was not at all funny, not well made and it had no point or plot to it whatsoever. the acting was horrible. it was not well made at all. it looked like a bunch of kids my age were just screwing around and making a pointless movie. it is by far the absolute worst broken lizard movie. if you are a broken lizard movie like myself you will disappointed and bored to your death. please skip this pointless movie about ugly guys looking for chicks. you will not regret m advice. by the way, don't say you didn't find this review helpful just because you didn't agree with it. thats stupid, like this movie. the only OK scene was when the main guy was playing rugby and got beat the crap out of. i liked that cause i found his character pretty damn annoying.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie was the worst movie I've ever seen. No story, no point, it wasn't even funny at all, not sure why people say this movie is hilarious because it sucked SO much!! Felix Bean the main character sucked. Susanna sucked. This movie was made in 1996 and it really was set in the 80s. What else, I'm never letting my friend pick movies ever again. Hmm, the movie cover said it was from the producers from super troopers, who kidnapped them and stole their identities. Wow, what a waste of time. The only minute thing that was funny was Freaky Ricky, he was funny, especially when he and Emily ended up together. That was funny. All and all, it sucked, waste of time and sleep. Wow, never thought a movie like this could be made, so dumb for watching for watching it to the end.
\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\nOh My Gosh!!!! This was the first movie Broken Lizard made as a group (although it just recently came to video), and I have never been more disappointed in my entire life!!! I tell you what, if I had seen this movie before I saw Super Troopers (which by the way, is a kick A$$ movie!!!), I never ever would have watched it!! I had read several reviews online, as well as on the cover of the DVD, that raved it as being,\"Broken Lizard's funniest movie ever!\" Now if they were referring to Super Troopers as being their funniest movie ever, I would agree nonstop, but not this one. Talk about dry. It took the movie a good 45 minutes to even get going, and by then, I was so out of the mood to watch it, that it wasn't even worth it. Maybe you gotta be high for it to really be funny? I dunno. I love these guys, I really do, but that movie is by far the worst one they've made. Club Dread was a pretty good movie, but this one, just wow. I'd highly recommend Super Troopers if you want a good laugh, but if you want more of a romance, drama, with a few funny spots, I'd say go with Puddle Cruiser. Just my opinion though, everyone is entitled to their own! :)
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI found Super Troopers only mildly amusing at best (seemed like a glorified Police Academy ripoff to me), and I rented this movie in hopes of it being better. It wasn't.
The writing is absolutely horrible and the pacing of this film is even worse. It doesn't feel like a whole lot happens in this film, or that it really gives us a reason to give a damn about any of the characters.
The actor who plays Felix is totally uninspired, though possibly due in part to the dialogue he had to work with. In short, this movie just went wrong in so many places.
I get the impression that since films like Clerks, independent filmmakers seem to think that they can make movies like this with long, rambling scenes of dialogue where characters are trying to be funny. But, where dialogue in Clerks pushes the story forward, in this movie, it hopelessly weighs it down. Films are supposed to have a decent balance of action and dialogue, and as tempting as it is for filmmakers to try to have tons of snappy, funny dialogue, it just doesn't always work. Especially if they're not that good at writing dialogue. I hate to say it, but even \"Extreme Heist\" was more interesting than this movie- and that movie was so low-budget it was shot on video.
\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 because the DVD cover made it look like it was going to be a ridiculous college comedy like van wilder or animal house. I took it to my friend house to watch for movie night. We ended up stopping it 15 minutes into the film, and watched Copper Mountain instead. I don't know if any of you have seen Copper Mountain, but it isn't great either. However, I would have to say that the Alan Thick Jim Carrey Duo made it a more enjoyable watch.
I later finished Puddle Cruiser. This movie was slow and the humor was forced. This movie reminded me of some stinkers that I saw in some of my earlier production classes in college. I was left wondering \"was this the film that enabled Broken Lizard to make Supertroopers?\" Also how could this movie suck so bad? Supertroopers was good and Club Dread was decent. Don't see 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\nIf you would have asked me 1 month ago how this movie was I probably would have left most of this out, but I am a fan and as any fan I visit the movies sites often well when Super Troopers came out I visited that site after the release on DVD and was hooked yea it's a difficult site to stay on, but the good ones normally are like good families they stick together. What a story this company/comedy troop has.BEGGING people to come and see there movies on street corners,universities, anywhere they can and all for free and after all that to develop a great fan base after a few years THEY CRAP ON IT And decide to close down there website that helped them and was created for the fans, but the worst thing about it....THEY DIDN'T TELL ANY OF THEM. They just decided that they are better than us they want new fans not the fans that helped them get where they are....you know the same fans they begged years ago. Still the smart crew they are they released the best movie with Super Troopers and got everyones attention and thank God for that because after that they have sucked with everything else. Good for you guys way to go mainstream, just remember when you realize your material isn't that good and you have no new fans left you are the ones who crapped the original ones away. FANS MAKE YOU WHO YOU ARE NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. Never burn your bridges
\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\nAs Anthony Bourdain said... \"I wanted to stick my head in a bucket of lye, pull my eyeballs out and jump off a cliff.\" This summarizes my feelings about this pathetic waste of human effort. Artless, self- indulgent, thoughtless, and just bad. Bad beyond comprehension. What else can I say? If you are unfortunate enough to be in an area where this piece of idiotic trash is playing, please, please have mercy on soul and avoid at all costs.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFirst off, I'm in the U.S.
When I first saw this, I thought it was an obvious - and loathsome - rip off of \"The Office\" (UK). I would have thus awarded it zero stars, but lo and behold, it came out long before the Ricky Gervais series.
Still, it's hard to watch this or any other show with a similar dynamic (including the American \"Office\") without comparison. It just isn't even close to being the same thing.
I will give it some credit for being original, and ahead of its time. I'll also say that it - and the U.S. \"Office\" and \"Larry Sanders\" - are actual satires. The UK \"Office\" is something grander and more transcendent, as if populated with real people in events that felt like they actually happened. However, unlike this or the shrill Christopher Guest \"mockumentaries\", it isn't really a satire, while \"The Newsroom\" definitely is.
Be that as it may, \"The Newsroom\" still isn't very funny. It's aloof, and self-aware, but with a cast and crew not nearly smart or talented enough to heft the goods. It's weighty comedy being carried on weak shoulders. Commendable, but ultimately not recommended.
--- And what's with the lack of an anamorphic DVD?! I know it was shot in anamorphic widescreen, because I saw the pilot episode on one of our HD channels. CBC, get with the programme. ; )
\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 show has been performed live around the country with a wide variety of casts. I saw it first in the Provincetown production the first summer it was in P-town (2001)--before it was, curiously enough, banned in that overwhelmingly gay resort (the codes which resulted in its closing have since been amended). I saw it again later in the off-Broadway, long-running production in New York. Oddly enough, the P-town production was far better than the New York one--fresher, cuter, more spirited and funnier--but that was only in the 2001 showing; subsequent attempts to clone the production (\"Bare Naked Lads\" in 2007) were definitely third-rate. This filmed production features a Los Angelos production cast, and it is, as other comments have suggested, not the best. I would rate it somewhere in between the top-notch 2001 P-town production and the third-rate \"Bare Naked Lads\" P-town show from last summer.
\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 writing this as I watch the DVD. I grabbed for the laptop and went to IMDb during the first song. I didn't know anything about the movie except that a friend said that the show was supposed to be good. It has a decent Netflix rating too, so here I am.
Maybe on the stage this worked. But I have to say that the sight of chorus boys dancing and singing completely naked just seems silly. And the lip syncing to a prerecorded score adds to the strangeness.
Most of the songs and routines are about aspects of male nudity. This is my idea of nothing, sorry. The score, so far, is generic show tune music. Nothing memorable, or particularly melodic. Everything is to serve the lyrics. Which, I have to say, sound like they were written by a committee. Each song is essentially one extended joke. If the jokes were ten seconds, they might work. These single several-minute-long jokes don't.
I'm now watching the movie by chapters--a few minutes until I get the gist. Kind of in the hopes that one of them will be different, or entertaining enough to keep me from going on to the next scene. Nope.
Okay. I'm finished. So here's what I think. If you have any experience or long-standing appreciation of musical theater, avoid this--it's just not quality. If, however, you're a gay twenty-something and have never seen or heard a musical comedy, you might be entertained. Or maybe this would hold your interest if you've never seen a lot of attractive naked men.
I have.
\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 absolutely could not believe the levels of ineptitude on display in this production. I honestly thought gay men had better taste than this. I know I do.
The bulk of the blame doesn't lie with the cast, but let's get them out of the way first...the only one with real talent was Joe Souza (plus he had the best bod in the cast). He had a nice, clear theatre-style voice. Okay, and Jaymes Hodges' voice was so-so, but he had a vacant expression in every number. The rest couldn't hold a note in a bucket, even though the music was obviously dubbed in after the fact. Must have been really dreadful hearing them live. They were also all girly-boys except for maybe three. If I wanted to see naked WOMEN onstage I could go to the titty bars. Not sure why anyone would choose to film the L.A. production instead of New York. I would imagine NY has more readily available singing talent, though one would think in L.A. they would be able to find better-LOOKING guys. Apparently not.
But I digress...the real blame here lies with the creators and producers. This score was the most banal, insipid tripe I have ever heard. It sounded like some theatre queens took all their musical cd's, threw them in a blender and poured the goo onto a page. Sadly, I'm sure there are many who can't tell the difference between good theatre writing and whatever this is. I mean seriously, I was laughing my ass off through the whole thing but not at the lame jokes. I think the morbid 'my-lover-has-died-of-AIDS-song' entitled \"Kris, Look What You've Missed\" was the most hysterical thing in the whole show. Genius writing...Kris / Missed...wow...they ALMOST rhyme...must be a good lyric. And Jesus...the END of that song...\"Oh Kris, Ohhh Kris, OHHHH Kris...\" OVER AND OVER!!! My other favorite was \"You gotta be a Pumpy Junkie Boy to be a Humpy Hunkie Boy\"...WTF??? The whole show was full of the most arbitrary lyrics JUST BECAUSE they rhymed. Where did these people learn to write songs? Apparently they listened to Sondheim and said \"He's not so great, I can do that\"...as evidenced by the retarded \"Bobby, Bobby, Bobby\" reference from COMPANY in one song. Another irk: why are 20-somethings singing about Robert Mitchum and Tab Hunter? Obviously coming from the mouths of the lyricists and not the actors...again, bad writing.
If you love torture and pain, and I know many of you strange fetishists do, go ahead and watch it. But you've been warned.
\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\nThat's the worst film I saw since a long time. Historic accuracy is totally non-existent. For example, James Wolfe, who his depicted as an anti-French Canadian, is shown in London during the summer of 1759. Natives are like Indians of a bad Hollywood movie of the 60's : They wear deerskin clothes and ride horses (The Montagnais had never ride horses). The film is taking place in Quebec City, but footage is set in Louisbourg, showing the Atlantic Ocean.
The original scenario was supposed to include the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, but the producers drop this idea saying that costs for uniforms and participants would be more than 4 millions dollars ! I think they never heard about re-enactment.
All the movie is planned to be a new Titanic : an impossible love during an historic tragedy (the fall of New-France). There's even a song performed by Celine Dion at the end of the movie (Yes, I stayed till the end of the movie, but I deeply regret). But the worst thing of all is that this movie cost 30 millions dollars. I just don't know how they spend all this money.
Sorry for my anger, but I'm just too irritated.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is the one major problem with this film, along with a good deal of québecois' biggest movies: Done in a pretentious way by pretentious people.
It's really sad, but \"big shots\" movie makers (driving Dodge Stratus...) from this province believes They Got the Thruth, They Know What the Little People Like.
We're not a rich province, every time a big movie like this (30 millions?!!?) is made, it's cutting off a lot of others who won't see their movie made because of lack of governmental help. So it generates mediocrity; only movies from \"friends of the family\" are going to be made.
I sound angry and I am. I went see Nouvelle-France expecting a journey in the lives of my ancestors, but i found myself stuck in a pool of inconsistencies: french accent (we gotta please our cousins, so f*** our québecois' language)and lack of historical research is only a few. Add a campy love story and the same music score playing again and again and dumb québecois' viewer is gonna open up and ask for more. I'm glad this pretentious piece of s*** didn't do as planned by the Dodge stratus Big Shots... It's gonna help movie makers who aren't in the very restrained \"movie business\" of Québec.
Rent Cruising Bar instead and have a real good time.
PS: I'll never forgive them for ruining such an awesome title.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nPlease, do not waste your time and money with this stinker of a turkey.
This is an over-the-top melodramatic love story set against the background of New France (aka Quebec in the 18th century). Or is it an historical saga of New France with an epic romance thrown in? I don't know, and at this point I don't care anymore.
There is a rich story to be told out there about the intrepid French adventurers, rogues and other assorted characters who settled Canada and parts of the US. This is not it. The characters are total clichés, the story is overblown, breathless and devoid of any charm, and before long all the viewer wants to do is get the heck out of the theatre, have his or her head checked, and get hold of his or her anger at being taken in by the hype.
This film was the biggest disappointment of my year in terms of cinema, especially since, as an historian and a French Canadian or Canadian of French descent (or whatever) I am a) a believer in the fact that the story of my people in this country has yet to be told as well as it could on film b) interested in this subject c) a film-lover who thinks cinema these days could do wonders with this grandiose and tragic story.
As I said, do not waste your time with this frustrating bit of claptrap.
\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 film about an interesting and sensitive period of history, filmed in beautiful surroundings, managed to present an appallingly trivial and clichéd production, grossly clumsy script, poor continuity, intrusive slushy music, sugary casting, and pallid acting.
It was a toss up between the script and the acting as to which was worse. The script probably won - the historical background, backstory and character descriptions were spelt out in painful detail in the dialogue. .. actually words can't describe quite how bad this film is.
In a pre-release screening there was a massive exodus from about thirty minutes in. At about an hour many of those who remained were laughing loudly. I should add I am a Francophile, I am fascinated by Canada, and love historical film. This really was a one off.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt's really a shame to see so many talented people involved in what's happen to be a very waste of talents. The plot is cliché. The directing is too self conscious and the characters are almost caricatures. One of the most disappointing aspect of this film is Gerard Depardieu's performance in the English version (this movie was shot in french and English at the same time). Although he is one of the best actor in the film, he gives the worst performance of them all. I must say that Bianca Gervais come very close though...
On a more positive note I must say that the newcomer Juliette Gosselin gives an amazing performance in both version. Unfortunately that the only good thing I remember about this film...
By the way I must apologize for my not very good English...
\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\nFrom the title, the tag-line, the plot summary on the DVD etc..., I expected something at least slightly epic, with the historical fiction and the romance concurring to thrill you; that's what they did in Last of the Mohicans for example, and I think they did a superb job. Maybe I had standards too high for this movie and didn't give it a fair chance. But the scenery was barely OK (how could they not come up with something more beautiful when they have such landscapes to work with?), the two lovers had no chemistry whatsoever, and the plot was just so predictable it felt like it had been drafted in 5 minutes by a twelve-year-old -- and not a very imaginative one. Nouvelle-France is a love story set in an eventful historical age. But the history of Nouvelle-France is hardly a side note, and the love story is banal and fails dramatically to make the viewer care for the lovers' fate. Surprisingly, the only good parts about the movie came from something completely unexpected and unadvertised: the relationship between Marie-Loup, the heroine, and her children (one natural, one adopted). If only they'd concentrated on her family and forgotten about the love story, it would have been a much better movie. Marie-Loup's parents should have been given more screen time and character development, the politics going on in Britain should have been more than a three-minute scene with barely any connection to the rest, the rotten baddie should have been either more developed or removed from the script completely (why hire actors like Vincent Perez, Tim Roth or Jason Isaacs to misuse them so badly?) Bad work overall.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"