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\nA Delta Force Army unit, assigned to find a batch of missing Green Beret bad-asses not known for going completely missing, will be in a fight for survival against a cloaked skeleton man, the supposed spirit of an ancient Indian warrior who was revived when archaeologists disturbed his grave. The Skeleton Man rides a horse and has the ability to propel to and fro using a type of dimensional portal, and seems unaffected by bullet-fire and explosives. The Skeleton Man's horse leaves no hoof prints and he can ride from behind and around his prey silently. The film's point-of-view through the Skeleton Man's eyes looks at his prey with a different color. In other words, he's not seemingly human, so how can Captain Leary(Michael Rooker, as grizzled and intense as ever)and his gang of would-be commandos stop this menace? For some reason, the Skeleton Man murders employees of a nearby chemical plant. What are the Skeleton Man's motives for slaughtering endless human beings? And, why is a blind Indian living in the forest our commandos inhabit spared if the Skeleton Man, as a human, slaughtered his entire tribe to prove himself?
As completely stupid as it sounds. Just unbelievable horrible. This is the kind of film that can deaden brain cells. Casper Van Dien gets second billing in the credits just under Rooker, yet is saddled with a ridiculously underwritten character who exits the film quite early. Rooker deserves better than this. If I were an actor, I wouldn't want this movie in my resume. The Skeleton Man is a reject Templer Knight from a de Ossorio film. He has a spear which can merely knock certain people down while exploding the head of a woman on impact. An arrow shot from the Skeleton Man's bow actually destroys the propeller of a chopper plane. For nearly 99 % of the film, bullets are shot at the Skeleton Man and he can go in and out of that portal thingee yet, at the end, all of a sudden, he becomes vulnerable to attack. Oh, and the horses also change as the Skeleton Man freely moves through the forest from that portal.The film is written and edited by clowns. The attack scenes are poorly constructed and the characters, who are supposed to be experienced pros, make really bad decisions throughout this film. The mind boggles with this film. Good for some laughs, and some gore scenes make this hunk of pure crap watchable as a trash 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\nWas this supposed to be a comedy? The black cape and skeleton mask are hilarious. There is like zero plot. The movie starts out with an archaeologist and his assistant. They make a small mention of their dig site being cursed. And then, lo and behold......in drops Halloween Costume Man, dressed in the shiny black cape, with a skeleton mask face, holding an axe. So, he kills off these two people. Then we cut to the woods with a bad imitation of Predator, only the commandos are being hunted down by Halloween Costume Man who is now riding a horse! More commandos show up, but these people are supposed to be disguised as a hiking group. Yeah, production probably ran out of commando costumes. Can you say, low budget? Anyway, they come upon a lone old Indian guy sitting in the woods. He's just too funny. And he starts babbling about something, but you really don't know what he's mumbling about, so they flashback to some Indians getting killed. None of it really makes sense. And then we go back to our commandos where more of them get killed. And that's really basically the plot. It's so laughably bad, you just can't really look away because you want to see just how low it sinks. You could make the same movie with a camcorder, a Halloween Costume and a bunch of your friends with fake guns. Don't see this thing if you want a horror movie. If you want a comedy, maybe? Or just skip it and get something like the real Predator.
\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 may contain ***SPOILERS***
Where to start on this particular empty wasteland? Well it would have been nice if they actually had a plot. Acting talent, decent dialog, suspense, humor, hey even gratuitous sex would have helped this flick. Unfortunately there was only a lot of gore, (even that wasn't done well), shooting automatic weapons and missing.
There seemed to be no reason to attach the basic premise, a Native American cursed to protect the bodies of the tribe he murdered, with his being tracked down by a Federal Special Ops team who dressed in civvies(?). Most of the time involved violating one of the basic rules of conduct in a Horror movie, separating from the group so you can be picked off one by one. You'd think this team would know better, especially because they are actually the third team sent to investigate, the other two teams disappearing without a trace. When they finally realize they're being picked off they make one of several stands and fire their weapons only to hit the trees a whole lot. Tree shot scene repeats endlessly in this movie to save money.
When they're not shooting trees they're tracking this spirit who leaves no trail, (who knows how they're tracking it), and spouting a lot of macho BS. By the way, did I mention that most of this team are women? Interesting listening to them talk tough. Not very entertaining, but interesting.
All in all, You can find better movies in the bargain bin at Kmart.
\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\"You got any beans? Beans is good. You just eat them and you go.\" I couldn't help but laugh at that bit of dialog. Beans are the musical fruit, you know. The more you eat them, the more you go toot, toot, toot.
Hmmmm... OK, i can understand why the actors were in this because they needed paychecks to pay their bills with, but i'm not really too sure what the intentions of the director and the writer were. Even after watching the making-of documentary in the DVD extras.
Mike Rooker gave this a performance it really didn't deserve. I've seen him in other movies MUCH better than this one. What would have vastly improved this movie was to throw everything out, keep Rooker and instead made another entry into \"The Substitute\" franchise. Rooker would have made for a terrific substitute teacher who instructs naughty and morally-impaired youth regarding the error of their ways and how they can become more useful and productive members of society.
Casper, you really shouldn't be just pushing through the undergrowth like that as you could get poison oak. Whoops. Never mind. I guess poison oak is the least of your worries now. Well, at least this time your croaking wasn't done by the tail of giant python. There are few things more embarrassing than being skewered through the chest by a giant snake. At least the death scene in this movie had a bit more dignity to it. As well as a more liberal smearing of karo syrup and red food dye. Nothing says sad and tragic death like the liberal use of karo and red dye!
First time i've seen a monster wear a shiny rayon cape with a fur collar ruff. First time for everything, i guess. Just to be nitpicky, though, if this was an Indian ghost, how come it looked exactly like a monster out of European culture and folklore? Wouldn't the monster have been more sort of more indianish?
While i did watch this all the way to the end credits, i don't realistically believe that i could in good faith recommend it to others.
\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\nSKELETON MAN was okay for the first 5 minutes but as soon as the so-called \"Special Force Agents\" hit the screen, it went down hill faster than a fat kid on a sled.
The opening makes us think we might have a corny, yet fun, horror flick on our hands but no...the film makers ruin any hope of that when the \"Special Force Agents\" show up. I wish the screenwriter took a different route and had the \"Skeleton Man\" chase down some dim witted teenagers until one of them finally gets the upper hand. Instead, the \"Skeleton Man\" chases down some dim witted \"Special Force Agents\" and offs them until their Captain finally gets the upper hand.
I know the whole \"stalking of dim witted teenagers by a killer\" thing as been done before but it would of been more suited for a movie like this.
When the \"Skeleton Man\" finally does meet his \"so called\" demise, in a building that blows up, the Captain of the \"Special Force Agents\" is asked the following by a police officer outside of the building: \"What the hell happened in there?\" My answer to that question: \"Who the hell cares?\"
\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 got this in The Horror Six-Pack from Echo Bridge Home Entertainment. This one is not the worst movie ever made, but it still sucks. In fact, this movie sucked so hard, I don't know how I'm gonna write this review, especially since 1. I popped it out of the DVD player because I couldn't even watch another second and 2. Hurricane friggin' Ike is coming and God knows how long 'til it take for me to get this review done.
The movie starts off with a scientist and his wife. The scientist receives a valuable artifact and examines it when this supposedly Urban Legend known as the Skeleton Man kills him, and later on his wife. Then...
I'm sorry, but there's really not much else I can say about this POS except don't bother. I'm currently using the disc as a coaster, and if you see this, you might want to do the same. Casper Van Dien and Michael Rooker must have needed cash...BADLY!
PS. I'll pretty much be reviewing the movies in the boxset and might do a new review on Ghoulies IV.
\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, God! Why didn't you give this money for charity? I thought I saw the lowest crap by now, but I was wrong! Who did this script, anyway? A retarded? Who did this cast? I can't believe that there are people that spend money and time to do garbage like that! I was under the impression that I'm watching a porn movie, only without sex scenes, that bad was the so called acting. Onestly, did this film have a director? I believe not and I'm convince that everybody had upon them a page with some lines and red it in front of the camera. I can't explain myself how all the characters in this garbage died without a fight. Nobody can do lower than this! Please, erase it even from IMDb! Bleah!
\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 many, this dung heap caught my eye while I was channel surfing. It's a horror film, set in the woods, it has a stupid title, but hey \"Michael Rooker\" is in it, and he has been a part of some great horror flicks, I know he wouldn't steer me wrong.... Ugh! The most insulting part of this, is that I actually watched it. I see director Johnny Martin is a stuntman, well this stunt simply sucks, and how he got some of the actors to do this watery bowel movement is the biggest mystery of all... I can understand Casper Van Dien, but shame on you Mr. Rooker. Your good name in the horror community has been forever tarnished, and your agent should be fired immediately. I'm sure this nugget of fecal matter is available on DVD, but if you enjoy the .99 cent menu at McDonalds, you'd get more for your money there.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nDear SciFi Channel: How have you been? How was your summer? I've been OK, but I feel like our relationship isn't the same anymore and we're growing apart. I don't understand why you don't love me anymore. I've just finished watching your SciFi Channel Original \"Skeleton Man\" and, once again, you've shown a blatant lack of respect for my feelings by KILLING OFF EVERY HOT GIRL IN THIS MOVIE!!! I mean, I understand that you're just in this for instant gratification. All you care about is producing a movie where people get sliced and diced by a homicidal Indian spirit/creature/legend/whatever. So you really don't have time to put some thought and effort into anything else -- like finding a costume for Skeleton Man that doesn't make him like the gay lover of Skeletor from \"He-Man.\" Seriously, his robe looks like a satin blanket sheet and his skull is smooth as a baby's behind, he almost looks like a killer Halloween-costume-for-a-6-year-old as he marches through the wilderness on a homicidal rampage. So we throw you a bone, because we're not looking for Oscar-winning performances, intriguing plot or realistic character reactions to the situations at hand. Because we realize that even though Michael Rooker, Caspar van Diem and all the girls are supposed to be trained Special Ops agents, they are all mysteriously transformed into Keystone Kops who can't shoot or see straight whenever Skeleton Man appears. And we also fully expect that nothing -- bullets, explosions, electrocution, nothing -- can kill Skeleton Man until there is one minute left in the movie and we need to find a way to tie things up neatly. We expect to see blood and guts. But you have a knack for taking the least attractive actress in the entire cast and making her the only female who survives. And quite honestly, I think you do it just to antagonize me. Because this movie, as silly as it is, has the potential to be a \"so-bad-it's-good\" classic and just killing off all the hotties ruins everything -- and forces me to lower its rating. All I ask is that once, just once, you take my feelings into account and let the sexiest girls survive the movie. Please.
\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, like so many others on here, bought this movie at my local WM in the \"Two for $11.00\" cheap-o bin. I love cheesy B horror and sci-fi movies, and this one definitely fits in that category. Pretty much what everyone else on here said is dead on. Yes it was bad, but that was to be expected. The \"main\" problem I had with this movie is that it was just basically BORING. I mean serious yawn-o-rama. The acting was bad, the costumes (K Mart Skeletor outfit circa 1982) were worse, and the editing was awful. No continuity whatsoever. Mr Skeletor ultimately dies in an explosion of sorts...uh, although he encountered multiple explosion throughout this move. I guess the last one just took its toll on him. Apparently earlier encounters with this \"military\" group (cough) took its toll on his horse....it would change from red to black throughout this crap fest. Even for a B movie, do yourself a favor and skip it. The only good it serves me now it to add to my DVD collection. Hopefully no one will recognize it when they look through my movie collection. Thumbs down, big time.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nMost of the other posts beat this movie up, and deservedly so. I've just got to chime in on the technical ineptness of the film makers. It would have been nice if the director had at least had lunch with someone who knew what a gun was, because he had no clue.
SPOILERS AHEAD!!! YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!!
Stupidity:
Spec Ops team assembled from various military units whose members have never met each other before.
Maybe two people in the unit had weapons that used the same magazines, parts, ammo, etc.
The sniper school instructor uses a sub machine gun (pistol caliber) as opposed to a rifle which we would assume she would be more proficient with.
One poor team member's night vision optics weigh more than the rifle does. You can tell when he handles it, that it is SERIOUSLY top heavy.
The team leader sends out a team member to \"challenge\" the Skeleton Man when they first confront him. Challenge a 200 year old reanimated Native American skeleton with a long spear and an attitude riding an undead war horse with a severe nosebleed? I think not, Bubba.
Bullets do not spark when they hit trees, Mr. Director. (a couple of people have already mentioned this.)
The teams \"air support\" consists of a ubiquitous \"black helicopter\", only this one has a couple of sidewinder missiles slung underneath. Someone forgot to tell the helo crew that the Skeleton Man doesn't fly, and they are over the American heartland where there won't be any enemy aircraft. They should have carried some air to ground missiles instead.
The helo's air to ground ordnance consists of a door gunner with a semi-auto AK-47(or 74?). Needless to say he only hits dirt. Should have brought a belt fed light machine gun.
Door gunner later finds out that a grenade launcher is pretty useless as well.
A wooden arrow from a freaking recurve bow does not down helicopters, Mr. Director.
I pretty well could not take anymore after this point (about 30 minutes) and gave up. You seriously need a morphine drip to make it through this flick, it is just that painful.
\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 was definitely worth viewing, I don't regret that. But also it was kind of ordinary. Something, that I would expect from a movie titled like that. Love story was nice to watch. Humour was involved, but nothing surprised or spooked me. Shooting, \"tough guys\" etc. ain't worth it any more.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film may be great, but it is a complete ripoff of Bill Forsythe's Comfort and Joy. c&j is one of the sweetest films I've ever seen without becoming diabetic.
It's OK if you do like it, but realize that EVERYTHING in this film is a direct rip-off.
The original is http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0087072 I can recommend almost anything by forsythe - Local Hero, Gregory's Girl, That Sinking Feeling. I better go rent some tonight. Local Has a young Peter Capaldi, and an old Burt Lancaster.
Unfortunately he's given up film-making after some really crappy Hollywood treatment. Sad.
\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 hadn't heard of Soap Girl but I saw a poster with a five star review from Film Threat outside the theater so I figured, how bad could it be? Well, I soon found out. My god this film was awful. The most wooden acting I have ever seen outside of a porn flick. Absolutely agonizing dialogue. I just can't understand how this was made and why anyone agreed to be a part of it. And I find it completely unfathomable that this was actually being shown in a theater and money was being charged to see it. How did this happen????? And most importantly WHAT THE WAS THE GUY FROM FILM THREAT THINKING?!?!?!?!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe worst movie I've ever seen in my life. From the amateur directing to the porn-quality acting, it looks like a home movie somebody decided to shoot becuase they had nothing else to do with their time.
Unless you have no hope left in life, absolutely avoid this crap.

\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 recently went to a free screening of soap girl where the filmmakers were present. before the movie they strutted around, laughing, taking pictures. i was excited to see them dressed up in real life, and couldn't wait to see the movie on the big screen.
during the movie, the audience errupted with laughter. it was clear to me then that they weren't laughing with the picture, but at the picture. this is purely a grade B movie with no logic behind it. throw in some nudity, some blood and whala! you have a movie!
after the movie i approached a bunch of the filmmakers and asked them why they wanted to make this movie. they all acted so serious, like they were serious filmmakers. they each told me something different: to make a controversial movie, a funny movie, an uplifting movie, a socially responsible movie. everybody mentioned something different. it was clear to me that none of the filmmakers knew what kind of movie they were making, and they were now trying to recoup their money by publicizing this movie any way they could to get people to see it.
Let me warn you: don't buy into the hype! unless you seriously have nothing else to do, it might be worth a film student's time to study how a film should not be made. otherwise you are better off saving two hours of your life.
\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 an artistic standpoint, the movie fails to entertain or provide any moral resolution. The plot is hard to follow, if there is one at all. The acting is tough to stomach. The dialogue is cliche and clearly written by somebody who doesn't know English. Only the cinematography was worth watching in this movie, although you can still see flaws in the picture.
As an Asian-American female, the movie angered me because it proved how narrow minded people can be. Politically speaking, putting Asian women in such disgraceful roles should be outlawed. Perpetuating stereotypes of Asian prostitutes is not only bad for the self-esteem of Asian women, but also to the country as a whole. I feel for the lead actress who played Maya and the exploitation she must have faced in playing such a role.
As Americans, please avoid this movie. Art should be used to develop our tolerance and respect for one another, not hold it 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\nI enjoy films of various kinds and qualities. Whether it's your typical standard Hollywood action movie or your Oscar season tear-jerker, movies that meet a certain standard will almost always be enjoyable for me.
In Soap Girl, I received nothing but confusion. First, we meet Maya, a massage parlor worker who seems to attract all the customers in the parlor. A virgin poet named Harry comes in one day and they fall in love. After that, there are various twists and turns thrown into the plot which seem to lead nowhere.
Although many have commented on the controversial issue of an Asian prostitute being exploited by the white man, keep in mind that this film was made by an Asian director who wanted to bring light to the issue. But whether he succeeds or not does not matter, for the issue at hand is whether the movie is enjoyable or not.
For me, Soap Girl fails to meet the standard I expect from movies. It was hard for me to get involved emotionally with this movie, given the loose plot and the mediocre acting. Worse, it seems as if the director wanted to make a drama, when the tone falls more towards comedy.
A movie such as Soap Girl which fails to trap me into the magic of cinema will always leave me bored. Throughout the movie, I couldn't help but think, \"What is this really about?\" A movie has to answer that question before it is made. If not, what you'll end up with is an empty push to captivate the audience.
Grade: 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\nI agree that this film wasted my time and my money. The poster mislead me to thinking it was a different type of movie. I should have known given the unprofessional look of the poster. Someone should sue for false advertising.
\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 director has no clue. I know ... That is the obvious comment. Maybe, we should delve into the story ... the relationships ... how about the quality of the actors?
The story is ... well, idiotic would be a simple yet honest answer.
The actors are ... they tried very hard. Can they be faulted for the director's choices?
All I can say is ...
Why was this made?
Well, isn't this an embarrassment to the Korean-American film industry?
Should we be selective about who we support?
Am I being too harsh? Check it out for yourself.
\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 ticket buyer I saw a nice cute poster about this film, it's five star review, and awards won. Thought what the heck, let's by a ticket for myself and my two sons. BAD IDEA. The movie was not a family film, it was gratuitous, and it contained nothing worth watching.
\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\nOkay, sure, this film will never win an oscar. Citizen cane this film is not... BUT why does every film have to be scrutinized? when was the last time you saw a film that was funny not becuase it was good, but because it was goofy? doesn't anyone remember roger corman, king of exploitation?
well, I had fun. I liked the cheese. just go in not expecting to think, and prepare to throw popcorn at the screen.
\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 suppose I should be fair and point out that I don't believe in ghosts. That said, I'm very interested in the subject and I enjoy a scary story as much as the next guy. I am a fan of Ghost Hunters because they at least try to give their investigations a scientific angle. Even early episodes of Most Haunted had a camp entertainment factor to them. Paranormal State has neither of these qualities. The cases themselves have the potential to be interesting, but as with so much \"reality TV\" these days, it suffers from overproduction, poor acting and silly scripts. The makers of the show freely admit that writers \"guide\" the stories. I hear they are even going to shoehorn in a romance subplot to appeal to the young female demographic. The show has many other flaws too. As others have stated, the narration quickly becomes like nails down a chalkboard. Over the top visual and audio effects quickly become just as irritating. I'm willing to suspend some disbelief for the sake of entertainment, but this whole \"demon with a vendetta\" story arc is just ridiculous. Given that the producers of this show are also responsible for brain dead fodder like MTV's Laguna Beach and Newport Harbor I suppose this is really no surprise. If you are a die hard fan of Ed & Lorraine Warren or a big \"reality\" show junkie I guess you'll find much to like in Paranormal State. For the rest of us....I recommend you avoid.
\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\nSTAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning
Unorthodox journalist Mike Sullivan (Vinnie Jones) flits away his time winding up the local constabulary and trying to romance a member of police personnel. But everything changes when the landlady of the Thames side pub he frequents is found murdered and a transcript of an unpublished novel cum confession by legendary writer Charles Dickens is found. As he digs deeper into both mysteries, he is plunged further into mystery and danger than he bargained for.
In 1998, former footballer Vinnie Jones shot out of nowhere and took everyone by surprise with his gangster cult classic Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. Okay, no one was blown away by his acting ability, but his presence as a hard man looked set to ensure a decent career as a movie tough guy. But it all proved to be a one hit wonder, and all he really achieved after this was supporting role status amongst far more acclaimed actors in films like Gone in Sixty Seconds and Swordfish, before descending into the realm of straight to DVD hell, the latest being this muddled and labourous thriller, which might have been okay had he not taken other acclaimed and promising new talent stars like Derek Jacobi, Julie Cox, Vanessa Redgrave, Jason Flemyng and Mel Smith along with him. What caused him to fall from the dizzying heights of success so quickly (apart from maybe being a one trick pony) is anyone's guess (a dodgy personal life being a possible guess) but here he is.
A script as far fetched and incomprehensible as this would have been a task in anyone's hand, but with a miscast looking Jones in the lead, it's even more of a task to fathom. Jacobi's juxtaposing roles as a former thesp tramp and Dickens himself talking directly to the camera through-out are obviously hints building up to something and the script is predictable in other areas too. Add to this cheap looking production values through out and debut director (also writer) Brendan Foley has made a bad first impression.
What exactly did I expect with something that came free with The Daily Mail? *
\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 RIDDLE was written and directed by Brendan Foley in what appears to be an attempt to pull the mysteries of the Charles Dickens' novels into a contemporary story, but that attempt is thwarted by electing to use the two periods of time format in which the 'riddle' is unraveled. Despite a cast of well-known actors, trying their best to pull off this direct to DVD movie, the end product is a long, tedious, amateurish mess that can only be considered as entertainment if viewers are fans of the cast as remembered from other films.
Mike Sullivan (Vinnie Jones) is a journalist confined to reporting on dog racing events while he dreams of important reporting assignments. A series of similar murders happens to include an old friend of Mike's - Sadie (Vera Day) who runs a pub on the banks of the Thames, having just discovered an old valuable unpublished manuscript by Charles Dickens, and has a heart of gold, giving sandwiches away to such pathetic creatures as an old tramp beachcomber (Derek Jacobi). Sadie's murder attracts Mike to the role of detective journalism and with the help of policewoman Kate (Julie Cox) he begins to tie the investigation to clues he finds in reading the Dickens manuscript. Disrupting the flow of this rather simplistic story is the use of flashbacks to Dickens' time as Dickens (again Derek Jacobi) narrates a rather personal story of peculiar murders. The parallel between stories and the cross casting among actors may have worked in another's hands, but the finessing of this kind of venture escapes writer/director Brendan Foley. He draws his story to a close (at long last) with a tired Hollywoodesque ending.
In addition to Jones, Jacobi, Cox, and Day, the film somehow attracted the attention of Vanessa Redgrave, Jason Flemyng, PH Moriarty and Mel Smith: their contributions are minimal but happily distracting. This is a flimsy bit of treacle leaving the viewer wondering how films of this quality ever find funding. Grady Harp
\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\nSPOILERS FOLLOW - and I haven't even seen it.
Let me guess... the murder is related to the evil property developer wanting to develop the riverside, and Dickens was murdered because he was trying to uncover a similar dastardly plot. If anybody who's seen it could let me know if I'm half right, you'll have saved me the time it might take to watch something worthwhile and the rest of us will know to steer clear of both this film and its enthusiastic reviewers. On the other hand, it *sounds* intriguing; but if it was any good would it *really* be given away with a Sunday rag? And what sort of track record does Foley have anyway?
...So, as a public service, I managed to sit through it. It's worse than 'Swept Away'. Really. I've read stories by eight-year-olds with more drama than this. Truly awful. And I was half right.
\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\nFamous as the British film so bad it had to be given away for free with a newspaper, the quality of this sub-Children's Film Foundation \"thriller\" can be guessed from the abnormal number of 10/10 votes it gets and the large number of rave reviews from posters with no posting history and no other reviews to their name. The regulars know what this mean, the gullible might be conned. If they do dip into the waters of this one they won't last long before it drags them under. Technically inept with the boom mike getting into shot or the reflections of the crew visible it just goes on forever in a forgetful sub-DAVINCI CODE on $5 a day way. The end is just insulting but don't worry. It's not as if you'll get that far!
\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\nultra cheezy soundtrack. vinnie tries really hard. very tiring script that flashes between past and present. cheap editing... saw the boom twice. don't bother. ultra cheezy soundtrack. vinnie tries really hard. very tiring script that flashes between past and present. cheap editing... saw the boom twice. don't bother. ultra cheezy soundtrack. vinnie tries really hard. very tiring script that flashes between past and present. cheap editing... saw the boom twice. don't bother. ultra cheezy soundtrack. vinnie tries really hard. very tiring script that flashes between past and present. cheap editing... saw the boom twice. don't bother.
\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 seen this film 3 times. Mostly because I kept thinking while watching it, \"have I missed something here?\". Is there some reason this film was made? Was it trying to say something and I just missed it? Well after 3 viewings I failed to come up with an answer.
I guess the worst thing I can say about any film is that it bored me, and I did not finish it. I will admit there is plenty of eye candy and fast editing and hip music to keep my attention all the way through but is that all a movie should be?
I am not against extreme violence, it is almost non-stop, but it seems there should be some sort of inspiration. Something that is highlighted by it. The word gratuitous comes to mind but it is worse then that somehow. In the first part of the film we are all given insights into the motivations of the characters. And yes the 3 principles are very good in their roles. But the roles are completely unbelievable. So in the first part we get to know the characters, and in the second part most of em die and use sadistic glee in killing others. That seems to be the whole movie. And the first part has nothing to do with the second.
For example. How could a nice smart guy like Zed agree to join a bunch of junkies and amateurs to do a job like this? It makes no sense. He is portrayed as smart, yet he goes ahead with this suicide mission. The fact that he survives is totally inconsistent with the rest of the hyper-real violence and mayhem. So what are we watching here a Hollywood romance with a happy ending or a super real, super violent blood bath? I recall having the same reaction to two other films this director was involved with: True Romance and Reservior Dogs.
Needless dreck!
\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\nQuentin Tarantino's partner in crime Roger Avary (co-writer on \"Pulp Fiction\") ventures out on his own (Q.T. goes exec. prod. this time) for this over-boiled French thriller.
Eric Stoltz is Zed, safe cracker extraordinaire who has drifted over to France from the U.S. at the request of an old friend. There he teams up with a motley crew of drugged out hippies who, with little or no planning, think they can knock off a bank vault full of gold bullion on a French national holiday.
Avary has reworked the robbery gone wrong theme that Tarantino developed so well in \"Reservoir Dogs\", only \"Killing Zoe\" is not good enough to survive on the strength of this alone, so Avary has thrown in a rather beautiful distraction. Julie Delpy is Zoe, a student come call girl who entertains Zed on his arrival in Paris. A stunning distraction she certainly is, but nothing more.
I guess our director wanted to add a different angle to this basic theme, but sadly the move did not help to add the depth his shallow plot so desperately needed. There was never a story in this idea, which was nothing more than that, an idea. Even the surreal journey into the seedy dives of Paris is uninspiring. I figure one would have to concede that there was never much of a movie in the story of a bunch of gangsters shooting each other up over a botched jewellery heist either, that is until you add intricate characters and snappy dialogue. \"Reservoir Dogs\" had it, \"Killing Zoe\" did not.
Stoltz's strong interpretation of the doubtful Zed and Jean Hughes-Anglade's mad portrayal of the obsessive ring leader do nothing to lift proceedings. In short, Avary has unsuccessfully attempted to conjure entertainment out of nothing.
Friday, September 15, 1995 - Astor Theatre
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAnother film to punish us for the crime of enjoying \"Pulp Fiction.\"
If you like watching people get killed by machine gun fire for an hour and a half, this'll probably fit the bill. Fans of the debut episode of \"Aeon Flux,\" wherein the title character slays literally thousands of seemingly faceless soldiers single-handedly, will really go for it.
Otherwise, it's not exactly a clever movie. In fact, all it is is an excuse for a bunch of young people to act rude and shoot people. Sometimes an entire scene goes by, and the only thing that happens is, you guessed it! someone gets shot. Or, to spice things up, twenty people get shot. First, they're just sitting there, the next minute, they're sitting there dead. Yahoo!
Rough plot: A young American goes to Paris (An American in Paris, get it?), hires a prostitute (the ethereal Julie Delpy), gets in touch with some old French buddies, one of which has AIDS, they plan and attempt a bank heist. Of course, movie convention states that no bank robberies on film go off w/o a hitch, and this hitch takes up about three-quarters of the running time (it's like \"Dog Day Afternoon\" without the Sidney Lumet's wit, patience, or humanity). While at the bank, things go wrong (surprise!), and the Parisian with AIDS, goes wacko with his Uzi several HUNDRED times. No spoilers here, but suffice to say that you're at such an emotional distance from these characters that it's not likely you'll care who lives and who dies by the end of the film.
Some have called it stylish. Perhaps it is, but it's someone else's style, it's a movie that's already been done, and \"Killing Zoe\" is trapped by convention. Nowhere in the course of the movie does the director (Roger Avary, co-winner of the \"Pulp Fiction\" screenplay Oscar) do anything really original, stylish, funky, or outrageous. Unless you consider the fact that no movie that has taken place inside a bank has had such a high body count, there isn't anything else to set this one apart from the multitude.
\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 watch the documentary extra, you'll note that the director is totally inexperienced and was actually a co-worker bud of Quentin Tarantinos in a video store. Put two and two together and you realise Quentin is doing a favour for his old bud, despite the bud being rather talentless. Was that harsh? Well see this film and you'll realise it isn't. Too slow in the beginning, too nonsensical in the middle, and too slow to end. That about sums it up. Eric Stolz & Delpy were the only two showing some charisma. And Kemp actually put in an OK performance. But the rest was real bad. One instance of plot stupidity was when \"lead robber\" accidentally leaves his mask off during the raid. So what happens? Well the other robbers decide they may as well remove theirs too! What great thinking. The violence was relentless and insane. But not in a \"cool\" way. Rather in a farcical way. I wondered if this was meant to be a comedy. More fool Tarantino for having his good name connected to this garbage. More fool me for watching 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\nWho wrote this flick? An uninspired 15 year-old?
Could have been written by one of the kids who did the Columbine shooting.
Totally nonsensical, not funny all, boooooooriiing...
Plus this: the French do not put their flag everywhere. You do not walk into a French bank and see the tricolore flag displayed like that. Even on Bastille day.
I have nothing against the blood bath thing. It's just that none of this is either credible or funny. Or parodic, or anything like that.
Ok, those who liked this flick will tell you I must be some type of fascist, so forget about my comment.
\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\nwith this film being directed by Roger Avery and Quentin Tarantino doing the screenplay i was sure this was going to be a gem. i was wrong. i don't hate this film but in no ways do i like it.
i love Roger Avery because of his amazing direction in rules of attraction and his screenplays to pulp fiction and silent hill but he made a mistake making this. do i really need to comment on Tarantino, we all know hes a genius.
this movie is just set around a gang robbing a bank but fails due to silly people participating in the robbery
i'm disappointed in Tarantino and Avery for doing this film but doesn't change my mind on how amazing they both are. everyone makes mistakes......... 3/10...........j.d Seaton
\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 movies that go out of print and are very expensive on eBay. This movie is a little-known, fairly amateurish flick that has the strong advantage of being the only movie that Shannon Doherty appears in multiple nude scenes (looking very seductive, I might add). It also has the minor advantage of being popular in the fetish Shannon Doherty and smoking fetish arenas. It's a fairly mediocre attempt at a horror/drama/whodunit movie. It tries a little misdirection, but you can see what's coming a mile away. Shannon does a decent job with her role, but the woman playing her sister is straight out of amateur-night, as is Shannon's husband character. Avoid, unless you're one of the groups I mention above. Now, let's hit eBay and see if we can unload this thing. 8)
\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 type of late-night cable flick usually associated with Andrew Stevens or Shannon Tweed. Though unlike most of Tweed and Stevens' T&A fueled vehicles, this is lethally dull!
Let's cut to the chase. The real reason for watching this non-thriller is to see Shannon Doherty's breasts. Anyone who states otherwise is a LIAR! However, most of her steamy sex scenes appear to be all smoke and mirrors.
Notice that all the shots where her head and chest show at the same time are quick peek-a-boo flashes. The frames where the camera lingers on her nude body, there's little or no face attached or she's behind a dripping, wet shower door.
All you boob-watchers out there know what that means - Body double!
I must admit though, that the finale where Doherty is bound, blindfolded and menaced with a knife, provided a certain fetishistic thrill.
If you find a VHS copy anywhere, buy it! As all involved are probably too embarrassed to ever let this come out on DVD!
\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 for one was actually expecting this movie to be pretty good, maybe my expectations were a bit to high, but the fact is I love Judd Nelson. In fact he is the only reason this movie is worth watching and really his role isn't all that great. The main highlights of this film are raunchy sex scenes and boring dialog. If those are the highlights I'm sure your getting a pretty good idea of what kind of film this is. There is definitely a reason this was a made for television film. Only see this one if you have nothing better to do on a Friday night or just like to waste money on video rentals. Save your time and rent The Breakfast Club!
\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\nDespite a great soundtrack and the presence of the ever amazing Rappaport and Woods, this is another one of those moronic comedies where New York throws itself at the hero in an effort by the writer and/or director to show what a zany place it is. Yeah there's some other stuff in the movie that sucks too, but that's what's important. The trend for New York independent filmmakers seems to be \"I don't need to be talented, I have NEW YORK!\" Okay, to be fair, the movie has its moments. The flashback bit about why the one guy is called Wacky Jack was pretty amusing. The script isn't a story or a plot, it's a bunch of not-good scenes tied to each other by featuring the same character.
One of the worst things is that there's no motive behind what the characters do. Uncle Sam has the kid deliver the drugs, why? If its so important why didn't Sam do it himself? Then the lead character lies his ass off in scene after scene with absolutely nothing to gain from lying. The guy falls in love with a flight attendant with neither of them having any reason to fall in love. The characters are a bunch of pawns for the writer to move around to see if he can get anything zany to happen.
If you're easily amused or like watching bad indie movies because they make you feel smarter than watching bad mainstream movies, watch this. If you want to see what a GOOD light hearted crime movie looks like, watch Takeshi Kitano's \"Brother\". \"Kicked In The Head\" is the perfect example of why so many people hate offbeat indie movies: A LOT OF THEM SUCK. And a note to the director: Don't be afraid to excite, amuse, enlighten or entertain the audience now and then. Being boring doesn't make you a better filmmaker than the ones who can interest me.
\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\"Kicked in the Head\" is all about the Corrigan character, a twenty something man on a quest to find himself, and his involvements with a handful of quirky characters. This thin and ambiguous story, which was written by Corrigan, has a make-it-up-as-you-go feel and a screenplay which smells like an uninspired low budget indie. In spite of that and some annoying Hindenburg scene interjections, the film has an off beat, quirky kind of charm which may appeal, in some small way, to people with a similar sense of humor. Not for everyone, not for most, but maybe fun for some. (D+)
\n
assistant\n0
\n"