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 don't really consider myself a conservative, so I wasn't personally offended by this film, but it was pretty clear that the plot and the characterization in this film were secondary to the message. And the message is that all conservatives are either evil or stupid (or both). The characters are one-dimensional -- either good, freedom-loving Americans, or brainless, greedy, evil conservatives. There's nothing clever or creative, just anti-conservative. I don't really mind the political bias itself, but it shouldn't be the only purpose behind the movie. And clearly it is.
On the positive side, the cast is wonderful and Chris Cooper's impression of W is funny the first two or three times, but after that it's just the same old joke being told over and over again.
So if you really hate the conservatives, you'll probably enjoy this film, but if you're looking for something with realistic characters and a story that's less black-and-white, then you'd be better off watching something else.
\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\nGenerally political messages are done on television, so if you are a big fan of environmental correctness, watch to your hearts content. Most people go to the movies to be entertained, not sold some poppycock political nonsense. The hook here is the big name cast. Unfortunately the sum of the performances equals a whole movie that went absolutely nowhere. The two best performances, Chris Cooper, and Richard Dreyfus, have minimal screen time. In short, \"Silver City\" is to be avoided as entertainment. It is nothing more than a non documentary, rambling political expose on illegal immigration, pollution, and any number of other causes that do not belong anywhere except on the small screen. - MERK
\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\nHonestly, one of the worst written, directed and acted movies I have ever seen. Seemed like a made-for-TV movie. And a bad one at that. I cannot believe that people are still hiring Danny Huston after seeing him in this movie, or that they are still allowing John Sayles to make films. My husband and I came across this movie on TV one night and got so bored with it, we ended up cleaning the house while it was on . . . and it still bored us! It made me think that critics have been so gullible with Sayles' previous films, such as Lone Star, which was raved about at he time but didn't really add up to much in the end. Spend your time on something better. Anything.
\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\nApparently the film has a harsh anti-Bush message... If it does (I didn't get it), that's all it is. It's boring and useless, period.
It's too serious at times to be a comedy, too slow to be a thriller, not funny, not gripping, not exciting, not film. It's too everything to be the opposite, and vise versa. I was amazed at how bad a film could suck. Don't even think of watching it.
I have watched literally hundreds of films, and never have I been so obliged to write a warning on IMDb. Avoid at all costs. You have been warned.
Even \"The Making of...\" is painfully boring. It's just people talking gibberish with loads of inside jokes infront of a camera, sort of like a home movie. There even is a part where a guy takes you on a tour of the food that was consumed on the set by the film crew. Still, beats the movie I guess...
\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 horrible and the only reason it was even made was because the story appealed to the far-left. I consider my self a moderate, so I was able to see this film as the pile of garbage it was. While I'm not a Bush fan, your dislike for GW is not enough of a reason to see this movie.
To start, the movie was shot on such low-grade film that it comes off as cheap, rather then artsy. Additionally, the characters are seriously lacking in depth. Chris Cooper's character was a poor parody of George Bush; better suited for Saturday Night Live then a Dramatic film. The rest of the characters are walking clichés and are poor facsimiles of other characters from much better movies.
Avoid this movie 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\nSILVER CITY (2+ outta 5 stars) As a huge fan of John Sayles' work for many years now I feel safe in saying that this is the worst movie he has ever done. That said, the movie isn't exactly *terrible*... just very uninspired. Sayles throws in familiar elements from his previous movies (corrupt politics, illegal immigration, the selling out of youthful ideals) but fails to bring them together in any new or meaningful way. Even the dialogue (usually Sayles' strong point) is disappointing this time around.. sounding clichéd and forced in almost every scene. The movie looks and sounds like episodes from a TV series that didn't make it past its third episode. There are tons of big stars on hand... and they try their best to make their bit parts come alive... but the material just isn't there this time around. While filming a campaign spot a governor-hopeful (a poor and obvious George W Bush stand-in) fishes a dead body out of a lake. An investigator is hired to try and warn away people who may have deliberately set this up to discredit the candidate... but he soon finds out that there are deeper and darker (and more clichéd) secrets to be discovered. Sayles has made similarly-themed movies so much better in the past (\"Lone Star\", \"Matewan\", \"Return of the Secaucus Seven\", \"Men With Guns\"). It's a shame that he went to the well one time too many and came up with tainted water. One good line, delivered by Richard Dreyfuss: \"Danny, you're a loser. That's already been established beyond doubt. So just try and be a good one, okay?\"
\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 surprised over the number of folks that have rated this entry as their favorite \"Chan\" (didn't they ever see \"...at the Opera\" or \"...at Treasure Island?\"--- the latter ironically written by John Larkin, who dropped the ball here). This plot is a train wreck and overloaded with pointless characters. First, viewers are required to recall the sordid details of Steve McBirney's (played by venerable thug and HUAC squealer Marc Lawrence) 1929's murder spree. Let's not forget he escaped a capital murder rap at the courthouse with a lone policeman on his tail. There's also a victim that was fished out of a river 11 years earlier that no one ever seems concerned about. Then there's the suspension of disbelief required when all the characters are seemingly trapped in the wax museum (although Inspector O'Matthews manages to wield his fat wet rear end inside through a window). Why is Joan Valerie (as Cream's assistant) in this movie? She can't even handle pliers properly--- I realize Chan suffers the same boo-boo but yeesh, he's 66 years old here-- (and has less than 10 lines--- and her character's motivation is too weak to ever be adequately 'splained (excuse me, when I'm on a rant I write like Ricky Ricardo). The Mary Bolton (Marguerite Chapman) character is written to as a eager wide-eyed moron, apparently existing only for the vapid romantic interest of horndog lawyer Tom Agnew (played by the ferret-faced Ted Osborne). Why is Willie Fern a character? Why couldn't McBirney's henchman pulled the switch at 8:20? (not a spoiler, okay?!). One wonders how, with the IQ of lint he manages to dress himself or why he hadn't stepped in front of a bus years ago. Toler himself is given a little more acting rope than usual (a plus) and the real kudos go to set designer Thomas Little and cinematographer Virgil Miller who created some genuinely spooky atmosphere... but this entry has less logic than a Ritz Brothers film. I'm still boggled by how a toothpick can be used as a blow gun.
\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 synopsis of this movie led me to believe that it would be a story of an unconventional woman challenging the conventions of the society in with she lives. I like strong female characters and expected a movie much along the lines of \"Chocolat\" with a less fairy tale and more bite. What I got was a cast of despicable characters.
For a character-driven movie to be effective, I need to feel a connection or compassion for the people. There was no one with whom I could relate in the movie. Grazia (Golino, whose work I admired in \"Rain Man\") portrays a mentally ill, probably bipolar, female that is often rude, aggressive and violent. Her husband bickers and yells, when he is not hitting or slapping someone. The children are rude brats. They yell at each other and the females in the movie. They attack other children with no provocation. Violence begets violence. This seems to be an island of unfeeling, aggressive, violent and rude people all the way around.
The direction is not compelling. There are intermixed scenes that attempt to be art, but instead bore the viewer. The location is exceptionally gorgeous, but even that fails to be captured to the degree that it could be on film.
I would have to recommend that you stay away from this failure of a 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\nA lack of character development proves fatal for this movie. Valeria Golino's character Grazia starts out looking like a bipolar personality but quickly degenerates into a caricature and seems unreal. The other characters are thin, probably the writer's fault not the actors'. The only exception is Filippo Pucillo as the younger son Filippo: his energy and bravado are funny and convincing.
I suppose the children's petty cruelty is supposed to contribute to an atmosphere of bleakness and emphasize the pervasive primal spirits in the town, but for me, the gratuitous cruelty is redundant and contributes to the overall boredom of the film. Some scenes were amusing but not necessarily intended that way, for example, when the mistreated dogs turn out to be fat and healthy and look like they are ready to show. The pretty cast and setting make for an appealing trailer but cannot carry the whole 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\nI'm sorry folks, but these enthusiastic reviews on this prestigious site about this movie \"Respiro\" are very strange, to say the least. Is craziness picturesque, I ask and didn't find an answer. Of course, the movie is beautifully filmed, at part it's almost a documentary. But then, the fact is that when it comes to the women Grazia, she shows every sign of a deep illness and I was wondering throughout the movie what the heck she has. Her behavior is absolutely worrisome and the (shocked) citizens of the village are very right indeed in wanting to send her off to a proper institution to see what can be done about her condition. She needs treatment, urgently! Behaviour like hers is inferno to everybody around her, her husband, the poor children (especially) and the fellow citizens. Let's not be falsely romantic about this! I hated this condoning portrait of a mentally ill. WHY, for God's sake, should the husband not want to have her cured or at least try to do this? Why the horror of going to Milan (a big city, sure, but lots of possibilities of capable persons to cure her)? Narrowmindedness? Irresponsibility? Anyway, I inspired myself on this site for renting the movie on DVD and after seeing it I HAD to post this for others to make themselves an opinion on it. Frankly, I understand why the movie did not get any further as an INDICATION to the Cannes selection...
\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 could have been a breakout role for Valeria Golino but the film instead decided to shift its attention to another area. The film is about a woman named Grazia (Golino) who is married to a fisherman and the mother of three. She is a free spirit and prone to outbursts so the rest of the village and her family decide she should be sent to Milan and see a doctor. The story takes place on the island of Lampedusa off of Sicily and it shows the everyday life there with the teenage boys in rivaling gangs and just trying to find something to do on the sun baked rock. Grazia's oldest son Pasquale (Francesco Casisa) adores her and is always trying to protect her during her bouts of depression. The daughter Marinella (Veronica D'Agostino) is a blossoming young girl who becomes infatuated with a local policeman and the youngest son Filippo (Filippo Pucillo) is very sassy and mocks the policeman's accent. Upon learning that she is to be sent to Milan, Grazia runs away and Pasquale helps her by hiding her in a cave while everyone searches for her. This film could have really made more of an impact if it could have concentrated its focus to Grazia. We do see some outbursts and irrational behavior on her part but their is no follow up to these scenes. Nothing comes of it. The film looks great and is beautifully photographed so give director Emanuele Crialese credit for that but the story needed to focus on something more substantial. The film does a good job of showing us what life is like on this island and what is going on in the lives of the three children as they grow up. Their is some speculation that Golino's character gives a hint of being a mermaid like creature and that is why she is having difficulty existing on land. I also sense that the island itself expects its inhabitants to behave in a certain manner and if you don't then you can be subjected to the harsh realities of its rules. All speculations but I do think the films attention could have stayed with the character of Grazia. After she hides in the cave she really has nothing to do. In a sense, the character becomes stagnant. I wish Golino had more to do because I've always liked her and whenever she is onscreen you just can't take your eyes off her. She's a bundle of fury, passion and raw energy! What a shame Crialese didn't write a more complete role for her to act in. When the film ends your left feeling empty from an incomplete story.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nTo judge a movie just for the landscapes,decor,costumes....it is just not right , you are missing the core : THE STORY
A movie has to narrate something , to tell a story something that impress you . Yes , I was pleased by the sea , cliffs , clear water and all that but ... There is the plot ?
They are more interesting movies with mad people , such as : FLIGHT OVER THE CUCKOO\"S NEST...etc...etc. This one is about a crazy woman who is more attached to dogs than his children or his husband. Just a clear psychiatric case !!!! Nothing extraordinary.Unfortunately a waste of time . And there is all that rage coming from ? Fish smell ? Sea ?
\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 the worst movie I have ever seen. It's a thriller with a rather ridiculous ending. I watched this movie hoping for the best and instead found something truly bad. the movie starred two actors that I like very much, Rebecca DeMornay and Antonio Banderas. Sure they had decent chemistry together but for what? The movie's premise was bad to begin with and the execution just made it even worst.
Miss DeMornay plays Sarah Taylor, a psychologist trying to analyze a convicted serial killer whose defense hinge on multiple personality disorder. That pretty much will give you a hint to where the movie is going and the identity of the killer. Early in the movie she gets an unexpected visit from her father. This being made in the 1990's when the bad daddy was the in thing in Hollywood is another clue to the ultimate conclusion.
Mr. Banderas plays a mystery man named Tony Ramirez, who comes into Sarah's life. The whole first meeting and first encounter between Tony and Sarah is so badly done and so unconvincing it makes you wonder how it even got shot. And there's a sequence where the two of them are supposed to be knowing each other that is so sappy it doesn't seem to belong here. One thing that I would admit was that there was a sex scene that's very hot. Anyway creepy things start to happen after he arrives, weird packages arriving, things falling off the wall that could kill Sarah, incident that say things aren't normal anymore.
Overall the movie was badly conceived, the editing at times seem jumpy, and the conclusion was laughable. Another thing that bugged me about this movie was the whole Orchestral music playing in the background. A more subtle musical score would have been better. I have to say this, no matter how bad the ending was, Miss DeMornay was very good in that sequence. It's sad that she never got first rate materials in her career. She's that rare combination of talent and beauty.
\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\nRebecca De Mornay can be a fascinating beautiful actress but as for the parts she's given to play,if you cannot say something nice...
De Mornay portrays a woman who had terrible traumas as a child with a father she can hardly stand now that she's a grown up and has become a -of course brilliant- shrink.She has an affair with Banderas ,whom we suspect of being (ouch!how original!) a serial killer.Sometimes she recalls Banderas's mother-in-law Tippi Hedren's character in \"Marnie\" .But I wouldn't count on it:Hitchcock died twenty-four years ago ,and a lot of regents desperately try to replace him .Here the director pulls out all the stops to make a thriller with an unexpected end,but that ending is so far-fetched it is absolutely impossible to buy it.The movie includes the obligatory \"conversations with a serial killer\" in the \"silence of the lamb\" tradition,murders (human beings and cats),split personality,and open ending in case the crowds should call for more.Apparently they did not,and they were 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\nSorry I couldn't be more expressive in my summary, but those two words seemed to describe the movie perfectly. This is not only a bad film, but a bad film with bad acting and a plot that will be inconsequential to most watchers.
See it only for a naked Rebecca De Mornay tied to a chain-link fence and moaning with 'ecstasy; supposedly 'erotic', but actually hilarious.

\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 so many good movies coming out in 1995 (particularly \"Mortal Kombat\" and \"Seven\"), unfortunately, there had to be some bombs as well, and this film indeed falls into the latter category with a boring, predictable plot and a lousy ending. It seems that Antonio Banderas hasn't been able to find a decent script since \"Desperado,\" the only remarkable film he's done. Anyone with an eighth of a brain could tell who DeMornay's stalker was from the beginning. Her flashbacks of the death of her mother did nothing but muddle an already paper-thin story. Pity that Dennis Miller was wasted in this film; this part resembles his eerily similar role in \"The Net.\"
The convoluted ending had me shaking my head, as I pretty much did throughout the entire movie. Plus, any film that depicts animal cruelty in any shape or form, no matter how fake it looks, automatically gets the thumbs-down from me.
To make a long story short, if you want to enjoy a good thriller, then avoid this at all costs. Never talk to strangers...especially those who recommend this movie. 2/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI thought Sliver offered the most boring and trivial \"trick\" ending in movie history, but of course I was wrong. I had no disillusions that this movie was going to be good. Unfortunately, it was worse than I expected. The worst part is that the obvious ending is so ridiculous and horrible that you can't believe it until it actually happens.
\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 derivative erotic thriller remains watchable most of the way, mainly because a viewer is casually curious about how it will turn out, and because the director, Peter Hall, manages to stage a pretty hot (and quite bold) sex scene. But the finale, though unexpected, is preposterous, and the whole plotting (complete with childhood traumas and multiple-personality disorders) reveals itself to be unbearably cliched, especially as far as motivation is concerned. (*1/2)
\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\nWhat a stinker!!! I swear this movie was written by a computer that took a whole pile of other movies and merged them all together into this platypus of film. Ouch!
\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\nForgive me, but this work of director Peter Hall is horrendous. If you can't get to us with the plot, why not kill someone's cat or dog. That surely reaches the audiences. This viewer is tired of seeing animals sacrificed for the plot of a movie. And, believe me, I saw it coming before she opened the package. How predictable can you get. Take a cute animal then kill it in a gruesome way. I have never been a fan of De Mornay and this performance tells me why. Overacted and somewhat stagnant in interpretation, I found her rather silly and definitely boring. I did like Banderas, but felt bad that he had to play opposite De Mornay. He has done much better in other films namely \"Philadelphia\" where he had some honesty in his dialogue. In this chestnut he did his best to keep his character real. But the writers, Green & Rush, did a good job in preventing this with their trite storyline and insipid dialogue. Please, let us not be subjected to this kind of entertainment. Some of us aren't fooled by corny plots, bludgeoning animals and generally long winded dialogue. Seeing her get away with it, made me furious.
\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 few minutes in: \"NOT credible. What idiot wrote this?\"
But, \"What's going on...who's the bad guy...then there's that Rebecca De Mornay.\" Time passes....
THE END.
\"NOT CREDIBLE. What IDIOT actually watched the whole *@#! thing!\"
\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\nweird.this is a TV movie,yet the rating on the box says it's rated R.there's nothing in the movie that would remotely qualify for an R rating.aside from that,though,the movie is very slow and pointless.i mean the idea was good,but nothing was done with the storyline.it just wasn't developed.it's mildly creepy,and the acting is actually quite good,better than the movie deserves.i don't see myself watching it again anytime soon,if ever.there have been other movies dealing with the same concept which are better made than this one.i haven't seen too many Wes Craven Films,so i can't really compare it to any of his others.as for this movie itself though,i think it is poorly conceived and poorly executed.for me,i can't give Chiller a higher rating than 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\nAfter his success with A Nightmare on Elm Street in 1984, director Wes Craven for some reason decided that his next project would be this TV movie. I'm not a big fan of this director on the whole; early exploitation flick The Last House on the Left as well as his modern slasher Scream sit well with me, but the rest of his work is very hit and miss and I'd hesitate to call him the master that others have labelled him as. The main theme here is cryogenic freezing, although it's more a springboard for the plot rather than an important part of the movie. The main influence here is obviously the excellent 1974 zombie film Deathdream and we focus on Miles Creighton; a businessman cryogenically frozen for ten years before an accident that means he has to be thawed out immediately. Miles is a part of a project for people that are ill; they pay to be frozen in the hope that they will be revived in the future when their illnesses can cured. Miles is successfully revived and it's seen as a miracle...but the person that wakes up is not the person who was frozen, as Miles returns without a soul.
This film could actually have been quite decent judging by the idea behind it, but instead we're given a plot that doesn't really have a lot to it and it has to be said that Craven doesn't make the best out of the potential of the film. The 'soul' is the main focal point, but it would seem that not having a soul and simply having a murderous intent/no compassion are the same thing, which feels a bit unimaginative. The film was made for television so it's not particularly nasty and it's obvious that not a lot of money was spent on it as the whole production feels very cheap. Michael Beck never became a very popular actor and that isn't surprising judging by his performance here; while he is passable, he largely lacks charisma and is not formidable in the central role. The plot doesn't flow too badly but there's a real lack of suspense and/or tension and things slow down too much too often, which results in the film being rather boring on occasion. It all boils down to a predictable ending also. Overall, I have to admit that I was not impressed at all by this film and as far as Craven's filmography goes, Chiller would have to go down with Shocker, the Scream sequels and The Hills Have Eyes II as a miss.
\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 purchased a DVD of this film for a dollar at the big dept store. That's probably the best and kindest comment I have to offer on it. At least it didn't cheat me out of the cost of lunch.
The problem with \"Chiller\" is Craven's problem as a director. The man has his apologists who claim his traveling papers prove he's a really smart guy and all-around sharp conceptualist. But it's no secret that, as a director, he has never possessed one iota of the visual and story-telling sense of a Hitchcock. As vigorously attested by \"Chiller\", he's much closer to that legendary flat-foot Hershel Gordon Lewis. What Craven lacks as a director is the main ingredient that would lift him from director for hire to a higher plane of film- making.
Let's be specific. The transitional moments of this film are sleek. The establishing shots give it the feel of a quality production. The film looks professionally put together, in the way a film shot by a TV commercial director would. (A thought: The films only visual distinction, these transitions that at least look professionally handled may very well be the work of some second unit directors.) It's the parts between the bridges and smooth transitions -- the drama -- that fall flat.
The core of the proceedings are invariably perfunctorily handled. The critical shots (after, say, the departing car drives into the well-positioned camera, then we cut to the night exterior of a hospital, then to the waiting area and hallway, then to the phone booth in the corner that will figure in the next bit of action) are quickly dispensed so we can hurry up and get to the next part. Craven never comes anywhere close to exploding the dramatic or visual possibilities of any moment. The net result of all this misplaced attention to the least important parts, and the fumbling rush to keep things moving, is a film that feels like the work of the fledgling art student who sharpens all his pencils, fussily adjusts his easel and lighting set-up, grinds all his pigments, stretches and primes his canvas ...and then has nothing to say. Craven, like the art student, never gets to the meat of the exercise.
For Craven apologists who will point out that this film was made for TV, I will point to Spielberg's \"Duel\" and say no 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\nInteresting topic. Pathetic delivery - script and direction.
Our hero, Miles, thaws out and has his emergency world-first life restoration surgery. This is where the fun begins. The underlying issue is that Miles has NO SOUL!!! This is used to explain his quasi-erratic behaviour of being indirectly responsible for two deaths (I believe this to be the total number of deaths in 104 minutes).
On the livlier side, Miles prefers the odd glass of brandy, blazing fireplaces and his young, maturing female cousin. The finale does indeed do justice to this film.
Some thoughts: 1. Producer $$$ were parted with to create this tripe. J.D. Feigelson was the script writer and a (or sole) producer. Looks like he did not learn a lesson on \"how not to bring an interesting idea to life\" when one views his other writing credits. This will support the credibility of this script.
2. Now available on DVD!!! This IS truly scary. Should be forever \"Bottom of the Shelf\" in VHS format.
3. A re-incarnated human without a soul will default to an evil entity.
4. The score offers minimal support. Not even an in-form Jerry Goldsmith could save it.
5. Deserved the 0230 time slot on TV and a touch more entertaining than the infomercials + test patterns it was competing against at the time of my viewing.
6. Thankfully did not spawn any sequels ala Wes Craven's \"Nightmare\" franchise. Chiller Too: The Return Return of Miles, or something like that.
Despite my rating of 1, I still recommend this movie as a great example of how to kill an acting or script-writing career. This should apply to directing, however Wes Craven will eternally be exempt due to his sole good piece of \"A Nightmare on Elm Street\" 1984.
\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 was Wes thinking making this dribble? It does not jive well with any of his other work but then again he seemed to fall into a slight slump after making a A Nightmare On Elm Street. This can be seen by his follow ups 1.Invatation to Hell 2.Chiller 3.Hills Have Eyes II 4.Deadly Friend 5.Serpant and the Rainbow 6.Shocker all of these films were either mediocre our crap it was not until People Under the Stairs that he gained his momentum back and started to kick butt again. Chiller it'self has none of Craven's regulars and none of his suspense. The only good scene in when the old man has a heart attack on the stairs after graveling for his job.
\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 saw this movie for the first time on NBC Friday 11-29-02. It was a pretty good movie, but I don't think it would be the kind of Muppet movie Jim Henson would make. I mean first of all, Pepe' using the word \"sexy\" every now and then, and Pepe saying \"it would suck?\" And I defenitly know Jim Henson wouldn't allow Kermit yelling \"I WISH I'D NEVER BEEN BORN!\" thirteen time a minute. This movie just isn't like a classic Muppet movie. Sure I can understand Nicky Holiday stealing the baseball diamond from \"The Great Muppet Caper,\" but a business lady cheating the Muppets in a contract for their theater to turn it into a smoker's nightclub. If Jim Henson was here today, he would HATE 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\nI once saw a bit of this film, and was interested to see the full thing just to see why the critics give it two stars, the result being that I agree. Basically the film begins with Kermit the Frog (Steve Whitmire) telling all his Muppet chums that they have lost everything, and he ends sitting depressed (and possibly thinking about suicide) on the bench. Meanwhile, in another world (Heaven) angel Daniel (David Arquette, who had already been in Muppets from Space) visits the 'Boss' (Whoopi Goldberg, another reason I wanted to see the film) to show that Kermit really needs help. In the flashbacks, it shows Kermit, Miss Piggy (Eric Jacobson, not the original and better Frank Oz), Gonzo (Dave Goelz), Fozzie Bear (also Jacobson), Pepe the Prawn (Bill Barretta) and all the other Muppets have prepared a stage show for many people to see in the Christmas holiday, and it all seems to be going well. But the really mean Rachel Bitterman (Joan Cusack) is determined to either shut the show or the theatre down, and Kermit is doing everything possible to make sure that doesn't happen. Of course, Kermit fails the last time, and Bitterman tells him that they are finished, and she can officially take the theatre. This is where Daniel is sent as Kermit's guardian angel to try and help him, but Kermit is not in the mood, and eventually ends up saying \"I wish I was never born\". Obviously, you can recognise the spoof of It's a Wonderful Life, with Kermit as the George Bailey, and Cusack as the Mr. Potter, and in the end, obviously Kermit realises how much he means to everyone, and goes back to find the theatre saved as historical landmark. Also starring Whitmire as Rizzo the Rat and Beaker; Goelz as Dr. Bunsen Honeydew and Waldorf; Barretta as Dr. Teeth, Rowlf the Dog and Swedish Chef; Jacobson as Animal and Yoda (the only character who sounds similar to Oz's version), William H. Macy as Glenn, Matthew Lillard as Luc Fromage, Carson Daly, Molly Shannon; Scrubs' Zach Braff, Sarah Chalke, Neil Flynn, John C. McGinley and Judy Reyes, Mel Brooks as Joe Snow; Brian Henson as Scooter and Janice; Jerry Nelson as Robin the Frog, Statler, Pops and Floyd Pepper, and Kevin Clash as Sam the Eagle. The most memorable moment for me is the stage spoof of Moulin Rouge, besides that and the well known faces in it, not fantastic. It was nominated the Emmy for Outstanding Music and Lyrics for the song \"Everyone Matters\". The Muppets were number 47 on The 100 Greatest Pop Culture Icons. Adequate!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI've been a fan of Jim Henson and his characters since the very beginning. The most beguiling thing about them was the love and innocence and camaraderie shown. Kermit was a role model of deep thinking and problem solving. A spiritual character, yet sweetly and believably so. All the other characters were slightly eccentric but it demonstrated how different kinds of beings can co-exist in a caring manner together, respecting each other's difference.
Following movies have somewhat kept the same vibe. Yet this \"It's a Very Merry Muppet Christmas Movie\" would have Jim Henson spinning in his grave. These characters have been completely re-written to be horny, nasty, selfish, and cheesy.
The cast goes on to portray God as an uncaring corporate head, with a mean streak. Angels as spineless, non-spiritual corporate staff, and the movie was so bad I had to stop watching. I had bought it for my great-nephew but fortunately I preview anything I give a child.
This movie deserved the trash bin instead and has no socially redeeming content or charm.
Shame, shame on the people who re-wrote the characters and departed from Jim Henson's original heart-centered, socially conscious version. It does a terrible disservice to a great hearted man who is no longer around to defend his creations.
\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 too slow paced and complex for children, and too lightweight and dull for adults. None of our family (6 weeks to 66 years) could be bothered watching it all the way through.
Are there jokes in it? I couldn't really tell. There was certainly some unnecessarily adult innuendo. There was probably a bludgeoning message of sorts, but I wasn't engaged enough to care.
The live talent are just stumbling and mugging their way through it. I have to wonder if they were actually being paid, or whether it was some form of community service or plea bargain.
\"Please, keep watching,\" whines Daniel; honestly, I wouldn'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 am and have been a serious collector of Christmas related movies, TV shows, holidays specials, etc., for over twenty-five years. Please heed my warning and do not be mislead by sterling reviews & media hype about this movie. This is not a Muppett movie as we have come to know them, and is certainly NOT for children. The fact that this was produced for a major TV network is/was no surprise considering their level of operation at this time. What is hard for me to believe, is that The Jim Henson organization stooped so low to become involved in this travesty of Christmas.I wish there had been reviews for me to read that would warned me before I wasted my hard earned money on this piece of trash.
\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 am still waiting for that dark muppet film where we won't know how it ends from the beginning. I think Linklater could do one hes experimented with animation. This time I was intelligently not expecting such a thing but deeply wishing.
Joan Cusack sucked. She moved to a made-for-tv level lazily acting this one with cliched cynic. The muppets were more life-life than she was. A disappointment.
But then the entire film was, bar Pepe. I loved him. He was the only one to ever get me laugh(while Goldbergh as God got me choking and cursing). If we can't see a dark muppets than how about at least a PG:13 one with more of Pepe's controversial jokes and Animals metal-head, egg-nog-chuggin persona.
The worst Muppets I saw even the boring Christmas Carol beats this one out. The muppets need to avoid this over commercialized holiday.
5/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI used to love the Muppets. The Muppet Movie, The Great Muppet Caper and The Muppets Take Manhattan were good family movies, cleverly written and fun to watch. I never thought I would see the day when they would jump on the Hollywood sleaze bandwagon, but here it is: Scooter as a caged rave dancer, Pepe making lewd and suggestive comments every five minutes -- this is not your father's Muppets. It's not Jim Henson's Muppets anymore, either.
This \"It's A Wonderful Life\" themed movie has its moments, but not enough to save it. I cringed while watching this with my children. I still have hope for their next movie, but this one was certainly a disappointment.
\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 this film extremely disturbing. Treadwell is delusional and disturbed, to the point of probably suffering from a mental illness. The footage shown is him and not an actor, but yet it is showing behaviour that ended in death. Is it appropriate to show actual footage of a suicide? Let's not mince words. The film shows footage of behaviour that directly led to his death.
For those who think that Treadwell is some kind of hero, think again. The footage he shot is about him and not about the bears and foxes he claimed to be helping. He did no meaningful research into their habits or numbers and did nothing to actually protect them. All he did was run around in the bush and convince himself that he was better than everyone else. Reality is, by helping to desensitize the animals to humans, he exposed them to great risk. His self indulgent behaviour not caused his own death, but also the death of his companion Amy plus exposed his beloved bears and foxes to greater harm.
But I'm also concerned about Werner Herzog's actions in compiling this film the way he did.
A friend and I have had a long argument about this film who loved this film. He believes that seriously disturbed people make for interesting subjects and he cites the movie Downfall as an example. But in Downfall they use actors. We didn't see the real Madga Goebells put cyanide capsules into her own children's mouths.
There was something about using the real footage in Grizzly Man which reminded me of that horrible football stadium tragedy where people were being crushed to death and the photographers who could have helped, elected to simply keep recording the horror.
Herzog's film shows us that Treadwell's footage is more about Treadwell. But Herzog has done the same. His own personality and opinions are aired in this documentary, which is supposedly about someone else. Scenes such as the one where he listens to the tape are not necessary. We already knew what was on the tape because the coroner had told us. We didn't need Herzog shedding a tear with one of Treadwell's former girlfriends. It didn't add to the film.
The film showed us that Treadwell was very self-indulgent, but it also showed us that Herzog is as well.
\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 haven't reviewed on IMDb before but this documentary is so overrated that I felt compelled to vent. I wouldn't have even finished watching if I hadn't been a guest at someone's house. The film was poor on many levels: First - Treadwell's video footage was contrived. The more I watched, the more he seemed to be acting as a person desperate to be famous instead of one acting out of conviction.
Second - The others in the film, with the exception of Treadwell's parents and the airline pilot, were just as contrived and corny as he was. God, they seemed artificial.
Third - Treadwell's mission to protect the bears doesn't even make sense as he did more harm than good by making the bears grow accustomed to human presence. I believe that Treadwell really did love the bears but there is much research which indicates his efforts were misguided. Sometimes we have to sacrifice our enjoyment of wildlife to really help.
Fourth - The film's entertainment value wasn't half that of other wildlife films such as \"March of the Penguins\" and \"Winged Migration\". The filmmakers, in my opinion, did a poor job of sequencing scenes and gave little incentive to keep watching.
As a person who loves Alaska, bears, and other wildlife, I would love to see more people dedicated to the preservation of our wildlands. Hopefully their efforts will be less people-centered.
\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 really seldom give either one or ten stars to any movie, but this was so awful, I had to make an exception.
I am a SciFi fan and have seen a few comedic takes on SciFi that I genuinely like. There just wasn't anything here to like.
I realize this was started with an extremely small budget by a film student. But even considering that, the sets and effect are bad. The cinematography is mediocre, but may be the best part of the movie.
The acting is bad. A sad state when the female voice-over for the computer is the best actor. The dialogue is bad. The script is very weak and the plot is incoherent and almost nonexistent.
The humor is not just subtle and sublime; it's nowhere to be found. As an example, a whole 20 minutes, of the 80 minute film, is spent on a lame 2 punch combo joke with the alien mascot and the elevator.
This was supposed to be a parody of everything from bad 50's SciFi to 2001. What we end up with though, is just a slightly updated version of an old 50's SciFi C-movie. At least those movies were funny because they took themselves seriously.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is probably the only movie I have ever not been able to make it all the way through. Not only was it annoying and boring, but the low production values made it hard to make out the action and in some cases the dialogue. Avoid this one like the plague.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI watched a movie called Dark Talon, dated 1974. The credits to this movie are exactly the same as Dark Star, so I'm going to presume it was an alternate title. Dark Talon was nowhere near as funny as everyone else here states. The acting was lame, the editing slipshod, and overall stupid. At the beginning there's an annoying 1970's trucking song called \"Benson, Arizona\" that has absolutely nothing to do with the movie. Basically the plot revolves around a small crew of an interstellar bomber that goes around bombing places that are unstable. The bombs are sentient and respond to people. The obligatory disaster disrupts communication between the bombs and the crew. One of the crewmen goes out and has an absurdly idiotic existential conversation with the bomb that made no sense whatsoever. The movie I saw was done in under an hour and a half, with commercials thrown in, so I suspect that Dark Talon is an overedited version of Dark Star.
The alien is an inflatable red beach ball spray painted with a pair of monster hands that it walks on. It was silly and unconvincing as an alien.
It's hard to believe that John Carpenter had a hand in this. His other movies were so much better.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is a student film and it's a piece of crap. I would use much stronger language to describe it but then the review wouldn't be posted and the world needs to know- beyond any possible reasonable doubt- this movie REALLY SUCKS.
There seems to be a different ruler used when measuring an already famous director's early work. Like somehow it was genius that we were just too stupid to comprehend since he finally got it right now today. I'm not buying it. The early movie \"Bad taste\" made by the LOTR Peter Jackson's sucks and this \"early work\" from another famous director really sucks the same way too. These \"early works\" are representative of crappy everything, from budget to scripts to actors etc.. it all is bottom of the bucket trash. Don't be fooled by the big name.
If you like watching a handful of male 70's hippie burnouts pretend they could ever command a ship with the worst special effects you have ever seen- this is your movie.
I can't f*37449ing believe this thing won a golden scroll award for best special effects. That is a joke right? Or a joke award?
If you want to watch what this movie WISHES it was rent a season or three of Red Dwarf you smeghead.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"