empathielabs/imdb_v0 huggingface dataset:
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is another Alien imitation and not a very good one at that.Replace outer space with the South African desert,throw in the same ingredients,a group of people stranded in an inhospitable landscape, have them hunted down by an alien creature and you have the same old story of a very ordinary film trying to ape a classic film. A group of miners and scientists go on a hunt for some missing colleagues and find their bones in the desert stripped clean of flesh.Their vehicle breaks down and they head for civilisation while being stalked by the monster. The African location is pretty enough but that is basically all this film has going for it. There is a vain attempt to build up the tension but I found this didn't really work and made the film rather boring.The creature didn't appear much and when it did it didn't really install a feeling of horror.There is one scene where someone gets the flesh ripped from his arm but that was basically it on the gore front. In conclusion i found this film about as exciting as watching paint dry.I give this film 4/10 and that is only because of the interesting location which alone isn't enough to save this movie from being a total snooze-fest
\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 gave this movie 2 instead of 1 just just because I am a polite person. This movie made me loose 90 minutes of my life in which I could have done something useful for the human kind or just me.
The dialog is poor, the actors never look scared! Even if it's supposed to be a horror movie. For example the scene in which Kurt collects the bones of his former colleague. He should be frightened, but he looks quite normal. The chick of the movie is such a cliché. The one thing I liked about her is the dress she wore in the final scene.And, by the way, the end was extremely predictable with the cocoon blinking pinkly in the box. As a matter of fact, I was thinking more of an ant walking around on the back seat of the car. But it still didn't surprise 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\nI wasted 5 dollars renting this complete piece of crap. Dr. Zack is the most unlovable lead character i have ever seen. The movie was full of EVERY cliche you could ever think of and contained not a single OUNCE of originality. There was the typical sexism portrayed by rugged foreigners, all the guys had those 'too-proud to take advice' attitudes that are as stale as grandma's christmas fruitcake. The concept and deaths were really cool, but they lose all novelty once the monster is revealed. (read the SPOILER at the end) Nothing else is really revealed though, the ending is the biggest cop-out you've ever seen. I predicted everything before it happened, including who would die and how. The dialogue is lacking, and that's an understatement by far. There's mostly just random yelling, thoughtful staring, and chunky sentences. The actors are just GOD AWFUL! I don't want to talk about this movie anymore, it's making me angry. I just wonder if the director even watched it when it was done.
(SPOILER ALERT!!!! SAVE 5 DOLLARS!) the monster is just a bunch of ants that \"evolved\" so now they need bones so they can move around, (nevermind the fact that this serves no evolutionary advantage whatsoever, and that the ants just killed whoever was available, though the movie acts like they kill out of necessity. This movie made me dumber.) The end consists of the lead idiot killing the mother ant (a big blob thing) which destroys all the other ants. Pretty cliche eh? He almost wusses out at the end because of a sudden emotional attachment to the mother-thing that overcomes him. Give me a break.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhen I saw the poster at the theater, I thought that it is a \"new line\" of a horror story without a famous cast worth giving a try. But, after I went in, I wanted to leave after 20 minutes. There was a lot of non-sense and logical flaws. To me, it is a movie that is not worth putting in theaters. It is not even worth seeing.
\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***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Some bunch of Afrikkaner-Hillbilly types are out in the desert looking for Diamonds when they find a hard mound in the middle of a sandy desert area. Spoilers: The dumbest one starts hitting the mound with a pick, and cracks it open. Then he looks into the hole and sticks his head in and SURPRISE! something eats him. The other two dimwits are not seen alive again. Scott Bairstow looks like a Pizza Delivery boy but he plays some kind of expert scientist with a medical degree (which means he should be about 35 years old, minimum). Bairstow is supposed to join Camp C and help them find diamonds. The truck that picks up Bairstow to take him to Camp C has a handful of the kind of weirdoes that usually populate movies like \"PITCH BLACK\" \"THE THING\" etc. The truck happens to drive across the first truck and they decide to investigate (how come that truck did not see the other truck when they were driving to pick up Bairstow, since they were travelling the same road??). So they find the eaten bodies, and there are some decent special effects relating to bones with little bits of flesh on them. The main lunatic in the group, Karl, decides that they must find the killer. So the truck drives around in the desert following some tracks, and eventually it has an electrical short and the crew is stuck in the desert. The dumbest guy in this group had picked up a bunch of bones using his jacket to carry them around. When he takes a nap (wearing the same jacket) the creatures eat him alive, and another guy runs over and sticks his arm into the goo and that dummy loses his arm too. Sounds exciting so far, except that a few minutes later, Dr. Bairstow realizes that the creature is really hundreds of thousands of ants who are using the bones to hold each other together so they can travel to a new hive (because the miners cracked open the old hive). Now, last time I checked, ants could move around on their own, without having to kill people in order to use the bones for structure. If all they need was something hard, they could have put a bunch of sticks together and used those to create a form. The whole story is really, really dumb, and the ant explanation is the only one given. The rest of the movie is just about the group getting killed off until they find the new ant-nest, and kill the ant-brain (sort-of), and the hundreds of thousands of ants then walk away on their own itty-bitty feet. There is a spare ant-brain found (off-camera) and sent back for analysis thus creating a reason for a sequel.
\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 horror tale takes place in the Namib Desert of Africa. A Canadian systems analyst, Zach Straker(Scott Bairstow)is sent on an assignment for a diamond mining company. Although he hates field work, he finds himself in a truck with a rescue unit in the open desert fighting sand flies and whipping, blowing sand. Four diamond prospectors are found...well whats left of their scattered bones are discovered. During a long cold desert night a shape-shifting monster makes its appearance. Zach and his colleagues are terrified when their truck is stranded and members of the unit are dying horribly one by one. There is no character development; let alone dialogue to speak of. The desert set in its own way is beautiful and without giving anything away... the creature is as old as the desert sands. Also in the cast are: Rachel Shelley, Warrick Grier and Patrick Shai.
\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\nno really, im not kidding around here folks, and i so cant believe how many people here have given it really really positive reviews! oh wait, its the IMDB comments section, silly me. its interesting to note that at this date, there have not been enough votes to give this film a rating out of ten, yet there are dozens of comments that rave about the film. what does this mean i wonder? anyway, the script IS terrible. character change their personality and motivation and actions every scene, in order to keep the movie running along at something that vaguely resembled a pace. it wasnt even dumb behaviour, that was there too, but the pure idiocy of the script transcended any dumbness the characters displayed. for instance: karl is disobeying an order because there are two dead bodies in the desert and \"the killer is out here somewhere\" so he forces everyone to travel 40kms in order to find the killer, disobeying orders and p*ssing everyone off. when the hero spots something nasty in the darkness and warns karl, karl tells our hero to stop being an idiot and that there's nothing out there so they are all going home. next scene, he is refusing to let it go and must hunt down whatever it is. it is just a joke. yes, the monster is very impressive, but the crap that the humans say about it just tries to cancel out its interesting aspects, and the predator and alien rip off moments were very tedious. and the ending...the ending!?!?! jesus....the worst film i saw the year, and i saw bug buster!
\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 name of this film and the clips that I saw caused me to believe that this film would have excitement and interesting moments. I was disappointed. The desert sands were interesting but this film inched along at a snails pace. It started fine with an underground cave and something coming out but then tried to involve us with the lives of some very unlikeable human beings. As they found dead bodies, or should I say, skeletons with some flesh on them, they began a search for the reason why? At times it became somewhat different as something was following them in the desert. Some type of black ooze or something that would begin to eat the flesh of humans. As the flesh was munched upon, a bag of bones began to creep after the remaining humans. The reason for this black ooze as we find out was pretty bad, ants? Unbelieveable! Then the ending made no sense. I guess the motto of this film will be, when you have an itch and see an ant, quickly kill it before the ant's friends smell your flesh.
\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 think the \"Bone Snatcher\" should go after anyone associated with this movie. Watching this will seem like the longest 90 minutes or so of your entire life. The plot is boring and stupid. There were no scenes that were horrifying, even remotely. If you manage to endure this fine piece of cinema art all the way to the end, you're either going to be highly disappointed or die laughing hysterically. I bought this movie based on some other reviews I'd read. I wish I had my money back. What a skunker. If you're looking for a horror movie that will hold your interest, watch \"U Turn\". It may be based on a kooky plot, but it's full of those creepy scenes that keep you jumping from beginning to end.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSuch pain! Pain in the shape that it had promise in its central idea, but it never fully recognised it and goes on to blow a lot sand in your face. I wouldn't say this straight-to-video South African/Canadian/UK horror flick is awful, but its just too bland, predictable and there's just very little memorable about it. It's a guarantee you'll forget it, not too long after watching it. I tried watching it last night, but had to finish it during the morning, as I couldn't keep my eyes open. Even then I couldn't remember where I got up to, which left me watching it from the beginning again. The only thing that hit a chord was Andreas Poulsson's sharp cinematography of the vast, harsh and eerie desert locations. A nice glossy chic creates a striking visual sense, which can't save the film from that overall empty feeling. Everything else is below-par and almost comes off grating. Like the head-scratching revelation of the beast. Huh. The computer-generated special effects of the ominous monster are tolerable, and there are some grisly flashes of stripped flesh and bones. But there's too little, as there's no hiding the fact that the clichéd script wants to ponder on the generic character conflict to build tension and uncertainty. That would be fine if the wilted script was more than just basic, shallow fluff, because it never generated any strong, lasting suspense, but makes it uninterestingly labour on. The lead characters are superficial and the token support fall in the dispensable basket. It's your stereotypical bunch. Scott Bairstow and Warrick Grier's performances are colourless, and the beautiful Rachel Shelley tries but looks rather weary.
\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's a big struggle. As a story that is surreal, this movie could've been great (as great as it is rated by some here), but mixed with the acting (director and relatives playing major roles, due to financial reasons I reckon) found in here ... although calling this acting, is not only a stretch of that word, it's giving it a new meaning! A whole new meaning!
If you are into surreal movies (there are some that I do like actually, see the Japanese Strange Circus for example), you might be able to overlook the flaws (see above) and enjoy this more. There are great ideas here, after all! Many great metaphors and ambiguous scenes, but while watching this (with a group of friends) almost all of us, just couldn't stop laughing ... not the intention of the director of course! Again, everyone has their own liking, as one can see by the high rating of this movie, but I could only recommend the movie if you're aware of the work that Alejandro Jodorowsky has done and/or are a fan of his!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'm going to be generous here and give it a 3 only because I live in Huntsville and it was great to see how well the city was filmed. That said, this movie was pretty bad. It's like they started off with hardly any script and the director just told the actors to stare at each other meaningfully with a lot of music playing over it. And Billy D. Williams looked like he'd rather be anywhere but in this movie. It's just a mess. I think I could write a script better than the dislodge for this film, and I'm no writer.
There is one thing I've seen mentioned throughout the reviews and message boards--everyone is under the impression that the movie begins around World War 2 and actually it seemed more like it was supposed to start out in the late 1950's/early 1960's. While the military was not segregated by then, I'm pretty sure that any troops waiting to board a train would still be segregated in a place like Huntsville, Al. If the beginning of film was supposed to be the 1940's, then Billy D, Lesley Ann & Rae Dawn would have to have been in the 70's and 80's instead of their mid 50's or early 60's.
Don't waste your time unless you really, really like the actors because the story isn't very interesting.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie is absolutely horrible! I thought because it had good actors in it like Gabrielle Union, Hill Harper, and of course the infamous Billy D. Williams. The movie is long, and drags on with a documentary style of showing Gabrielle Union, who has died in the movie, talking about her family; which by the way is a confusing family because you never know who's who, and who's related to who. I would not recommend this movie to anyone, and I wish I could take it back where I got it from. I fell asleep from time to time because of the boredom. Do not waste your time or money on this movie. It could had been more true to life with more drama, and less boredom.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI don't care what anyone says, this movie is hilarious! It combines the bleak seriousness of Threads with an anarchic blend of alternative comedy, and the results are a severely dark, but outrageously funny satire on the brinkmanship policies of both the Western and Eastern blocs at the time. You gotta give the filmmakers credit for even attempting to top the real life lunacy of \"Duck and cover\" or \"Protect and survive\"!
Imagine someone made a movie based on the Dead Kennedys track 'Kinky Sex Makes The World Go Round', and you're pretty close to Whoops! Apocalypse. Add Rik Mayall on top form as an insanely OTT SAS commander and you've got it exactly. A worthy companion piece to Dr Strangelove, and that's saying something.
\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 an utter disappointment. Forget this abysmal film and get hold of the TV series instead. What on earth were they doing making the American president relatively sane? ALL the politicians should have been bumbling buffoons (Peter Cook is good as the British PM). It lacks the biting satire of the original, going instead for \"lowest common denominator\" slapstick. 1 out of 10 if I'm being generous! This is unfortunately yet another example of a remake which totally misses the point of the original, the difference with this one being that they were both written by the same people.
\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\nSince THE MAGUS is a confusing puzzle that really has no solution, one should sit back and enjoy the scenery. Set on a \"remote Greek island,\" it stars a very uptight Michael Caine as a teacher working at a school for boys who gets caught up in mind games with local wacko/mystery man Anthony Quinn and his daffy girlfriend Candice Bergen. Quinn, looking like Pablo Picasso with white hair and striped sailor shirt, is actually pretty good but Caine looks like he's ready to explode. Bergen, although stunning, should NOT put on a British accent EVER. She's not very good at that type of thing. Guy Green's direction is fine, but unless you have infinite patience with the circular logic of the film, you will not enjoy it. A real sour note is the casting of the effervescent Anna Karina in the completely joyless role of Caine's girlfriend. After seeing her in the likes of A WOMAN IS A WOMAN and A BAND APART, her presence here is quite jarring.
\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 loved the gorgeous Greek scenery but the story, which is not something you can follow anyway, was even harder to follow in the movie. I cannot imagine how anyone watching the movie can get any kind of grip on it if they have not read the book, and then, like me, they would probably wonder why Australian Allison turned into French Anne, and many other seemingly pointless changes in the story. The mysteries in the book seemed to be chopped up or left out in the movie. I saw it when it first came out and had the same problems with it then, since I had read the book several times. I recently watched it with my granddaughter (very intelligent at 20 and usually into movies I like) who was mostly amazed at how young Michael Caine and Candace Bergen were in it, but otherwise could not imagine why one would watch it except for the scenery.
\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 always wanted to see the movie because I loved the novel, but was warned away because I'd heard that the movie was a stinker. It is. Fowles wrote the script and I could follow it fine, despite the fact that I read the novel over thirty years ago.
The soundtrack is execrable--jarring, jangling, and utterly inappropriate--breaking any attempt at mystery or mood in the movie. I suspect that the director must take a lot of the blame as even Michael Caine is terrible in it and he was already doing excellent work in ALFIE a couple of years earlier.
The \"Mysteries\" evoked by the book are not well-translated onto the screen. I'd love to see someone remake this one.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nDon't be taken in because the premise of this film is a good one. It is, but that, does not a good film, make.
Comedies require a well-honed script and masterful direction. Sadly, this poorly executed film has neither. Leconte, a good director in other genres, does not deliver in his comedic farces (Les Bronzes series being another example).
The comedic timing is terrible. Some jokes are telegraphed. Some are re-hashed from other movies. Others just sit there as if they were giving you time to laugh. The plot has messy subplots (the allergic daughter, the lesbian co-owner) and just does not develop or envelope the viewer. It isn't funny and it isn't believable for a second.
Compare this to any comedy by Billy Wilder (Some Like it Hot, A Foreign Afair, etc.) or by Leconte's compatriot, Francis Veber, a true GENIUS at French comedy (Le Diner de Cons, Le Placard, Les Comperes, La Chevre, La Grande Blonde, etc.) and you'll see the difference in their tight scripts, great comedic acting and timing, with each joke leading to the next one.
Watching Mon Meilleur Ami twice would be cruel and unusual punishment, not a good sign for a comedy.
\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\nWriter-director Patrice Leconte takes a universal and potentially bottomless subject - friendship - and turns it into a flat and meaningless farce, despite A-list actors, fine cinematography and elegant production design. It's all in the plot, and the plot is laughable. \"Teach me how to be likable\", art dealer François Coste (Daniel Auteuil) tells a random stranger (Dany Boon), and that about sums it up. We learn next to nothing about friendship, and Daniel Auteuil may be a fine actor, but not one minute do we believe he could be the cut-throat egoist the script depends on him to be. Just as we hope the travesty is over, Leconte pulls one of his usual cathartic third acts, fast-forwarding from damage to disaster. Like François's treasured Greek vase, everyone and everything in this movie is a fake. Leconte's only asset is Julie Gayet in the part of Coste's business partner Catherine, looking swell and sexy despite a major mishap of a haircut.
\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 corny. James Agee is rolling in his grave.This movie was nothing at all like the book and made a mockery of it. No one should see this movie unless they want to gag.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAs I watched this movie, I felt as if a plastic bag was slowly closing in around my head. The acting was horribly stifling, and it was Bad Acting. The most brilliant piece of acting in the entire film was the guy who had to play laid-out-in-state-in-a-coffin. I felt nothing but relief when it was finally over. I was expecting that this film was going to be some real tragedy, with some deep psychological intrigue in the aftermath. All around it was stupid, no beginning, no climax, no ending, just rambling on and on, and the plastic bag kept getting worse. Let's get real here. This is an awful 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\nTeenage Exorcist is one of those God-awful films to video that makes the viewer give up any expectations of decent entertainment for low brow sexual antics, adolescent humour, and empty writing. This film delivers exactly what its was trying to deliver. It is about a girl moving into a house where a Baron de Sade(hmmm) once lived and finally being drawn to him through her own inner demon. Her sister and brother-in-law, along with an Irish priest, her boyfriend, and a pizza delivery boy, try to save her and exorcise her demon. Well, not much here in way of horror or suspense. In fact, one line from the film pretty much sums up what to expect. Mike(the girl's brother-in-law) has tied her(the name is Diane by the way and she is played by Brinke Stevens) up after trying to chainsaw her sister. He removes a gag from her mouth and says something like, \"This won't be the last gag we see tonight.\" Indeed, it was not. The special effects are cheesy and poorly crafted, and the film makes use of this by playing on its comedic appeal. Some of the lines and situations are funny. Robert Quarry, old Count Yorga himself, really steals his scenes as an Irish priest. He hams it up wailing Biblical verses and crooning Irish songs. You know you are in trouble, however, when Eddie Deezen gets top billing. Deezen does his schtick and has a couple nice moments as well, but the material is just too threadbare than to be anything more than teenage sophomoric time filler. Michael Berryman, from The Hills Have Eyes, also has a brief but interesting cameo in the film. As for the other thespians, well, they are all pretty good at being pretty mediocre. Stevens is lovely in fishnet stockings and French-cut panties, but beyond that don't expect too much more from her. Her sister is played by Elena Sahagun, and she shows a bit more than Brinke(a very lovely young lady by the way) and out acts Brinke by miles. Her husband, played by Jay Richardson shows off his ability to act and be funny amidst mediocrity. Again, not a bad film to waste a little time that involves NO thinking on. If you are a Robert Quarry fan, watch it for his performance at the very least.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nGoing into the movie with the right expectations, I somewhat liked this movie. Like most reviewers who have seen this movie, I fully agree that the plot was razor thin, clichéd, and I could predict every plot twist from the very beginning of the movie. But, the dancing sequences were VERY well done, and I really enjoyed the fusion of classical and hip-hop dance (both which I enjoy watching). The music/soundtrack of the movie was also very good, which made the \"drama\" scenes more bearable. The leads (Jenna Dewan and Channing Tatum) were OK as actors, but their dancing throughout the movie was impressive and mesmerizing.
All in all, a movie worth watching if you like to watch good dance sequences, and this movie is MUCH MUCH MUCH better than \"You Got Served\" in terms of the plot and drama. Then again, that doesn't say much, does it? =P
\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\nStep Up is a fair dance film about some kids that get their big performance break. The film is average in every way with little more for the viewer. A jock fights external prejudices to become a dancer with an accomplished partner and a teach who sees something special. The acting was fine, but the dialog and directing had little to add to overcoming a predictable story. None the less you still feel quite good about the outcome of the film. There were some dark scenes and some typical generalizations about dancers that went a little overboard. This is a class B+ film with moderate continuity errors and dialog mishaps. The scenery was good and the characters held true to life. It is worth the watch if you like that kind of film.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI wasn't really interested in seeing Step Up, but my friend just kept bugging and bugging me to see this film, especially since she is so in love with Channing Tatum, I tease her constantly about it saying how that's the only reason why she loved the movie. But she somehow convinced me that it was a movie worth seeing, that if I loved movies like Dirty Dancing, Take the Lead, and Save the Last Dance, that I should love Step Up, eh, what the heck? I guess every movie in some way has it's right to a view.
Well, you know those movies I just mentioned up top? Dirty Dancing, Take the Lead, and Save the Last Dance? Well, put them in a blender with some gangsta love in it and that's what you have. Not to mention if you've seen those movies, well, frankly, you have seen Step Up. Because Channing is lower class with street smarts who just naturally feels the music while that snobby up class girl must follow step by step, how will they ever fall in love if they are so different? After all, this is their chance to \"step up\" to the passion, the mystery, and the lust of the dance!
OK, that was a silly plot explanation, but like I said, as long as you've seen those movies I mentioned, or even if you just saw the plot, you get the movie. I don't understand how it actually has a 5.5 rating, I bet it's those Channing lovers! LOL! I'm kidding with you guys, but it's all good, I guess I just didn't get what others did with the passion, the mystery that is the dance! Oh, Antonio Bandares, where are you when we need you?!
4/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nthe actors cannot act. all dialoague was plagued with bad accents and loss of character. Channing Tatum never moves his lips or changes his facial expression... EVER.
the story is nothing new at all. some kid from the street gets involved in a professional world of dance and it turns his life around. that coupled with the whole incident involving the little kid is taken straight from You Got Served and Save the Last Dance (I'm not saying that those movies were any good either, but that is to say that this movie brought nothing new to the table).
and the dancing... THERE WERE ONLY 3 DANCE SEQUENCES IN THE ENTIRE MOVIE AND 2 OF THEM WERE TAKEN STRAIGHT FROM THE COMMERCIAL. perhaps i'm being overly critical because i am a dancer, but maybe thats what needs to be heard. Channing Tatum is NOT by any means a b-boy. his little solo in the parking lot had little style, technique, or any wow factor, all of which are part of a street dancer's criteria. All of the jazz and ballet in the movie had nothing to offer except bad technique and a few acceptable twirls, but nothing more. the grande finale left me thinking \"... OK, now they're gonna get serious\" all the way through the end when i realized it never was going to happen.
i'll admit that im sure it is difficult to make a good dance movie, but Step up is no exception to the rule. You Got Served, with the exception of its inconsistencies with street dance culture at least had the dance aspect. Save the Last Dance was garbage, and so was just about any musical from the past 10 years (although i was impressed with Moulin Rouge)... look to Center Stage for Ballet, look to Beat Street for Hip-Hop
\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'Take Fame' and 'You've Got Served' and roughly jam them together and what do you got? This God awful movie custom made for dull-normal adolescents. The plot very closely follows 'You've Got Served.' Three ghetto afro-teeners, this time living in John Water's Baltimorenot far from 'Peckers' homespend their time getting failing grades in high school and dancing in dilapidated 100-year-old buildings with hoochy-mamas. To finance their expensive baggy hip-hop clothing tastes, they steal cars and deliver them to the local chop shopnot unlike John (Tony Manaro) Travolta who worked in a Brooklyn paint store so he could purchase his polyester disco clothes.
Tyler Gage, one of the black three musketeers, gets caught trashing the local Fame High School and is forced to perform janitorial duties. He meets Nora Clark, a 26-year-old white high school student and discovers he's Irish-American, much to the chagrin of his black buddies Mac and Skinny.
As in 'You've Got Served' crime doesn't pay and Skinny, the youngest member of the trio gets shot by a Bad Bad Leroy Brown typebut that doesn't stop the musicand heart-stopping finale.
\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\nSeriously I don't get why people are all like \"Oh my God Step Up is the best movie ever!!!\" It's a bunch of junk! The acting, first of all, is ridiculous, and let's not even begin to talk about the dialogue because it was terrible...Movies are supposed to be entertaining, and this, let me be the first to say, was *not* entertainment. I was actually laughing because I was so embarrassed watching it. The music and dancing didn't do anything for me as well. And what's with the Channing Tatum \"hotness\" that all the girls talk about? Whatever. The movie was pathetic. Don't waste your time - or your money. Unless you're a dancing movie freak, but movies like that are *not* movies...they're jokes.
\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 just saw this movie. I liked the soundtrack.I saw first the trailer and was magnificent, like all Hollywood movies, they know how to sell.But the movie is almost awful, first 30 minutes are interesting, but then.... like almost all new movies they blow it up. I don't get the idea, why that kid died??Is a cliché, every nigga' movie must have a kid to be killed, and everybody must become good after his death.LOL.I don't understand what is the connection with the movie... And is so predictable, you know the end from the very first minutes.Nothing new in this movie. I saw 'You got served' same idea but also... something new... this is something like 'Honey', but is not a little bit difference between them.If you have no other option watch this movie, but be sure is the last option you take. And the choreography is worst than everything before. This is NOT a must see for sure...
\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 beyond a shadow of a doubt the absolute worst movie I have ever seen. It's been a long time since I've seen it, but the jokes are NOT funny, the plot is painfully forseeable, calling the main characters stupid is to vastly upgrade their intelligence...uggh! I just wanted to punch Tom Arnold and make him cry because he wasted two hours of my life when I was done watching this piece of cinematic filth. I don't even know why I ever wanted to watch it, but remember if you see this movie: DON'T SAY I DIDN'T WARN YOU.
PS Tom Arnold's character sings a song in this movie called \"I'm My Own Grandfather.\" Nuff said.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWould it be too trite of me to create a review of just me saying the word \"STUPID\" over and over again? Probably.
This is arguably the worst movie I've ever seen. Seriously. There are better movies on Mystery Science Theater 3000. I saw this movie for the first time at a friend's birthday party when it was still in theaters. Even though it was actually *with friends* and at one of their *birthday parties,* I had to leave. I actually had to leave. I just excused myself and walked out. Fortunately, some of the parents were doing the same thing, so I didn't look like a total jerk... Anyway, this film is awful. There is nothing to like about it. It's painfully (as in actually causing physical pain) slow, and sickeningly (literally does induce vomiting) unfunny. You almost feel sorry for Tom Arnold, but then you don't because you remember he was actually IN the movie. It really does pain me to even THINK about it.
It was on TV a few months ago, and I decided I had to watch it all the way through, just once. I remembered then why I walked out in the first place, and felt guilty for boosting its ratings by even one viewer. The gags aren't funny, the characters arn't interesting. it's just a senseless mess of pratfalls and stupidity.
There is a small crowd of then-eight-year-old kids who watched the movie when it came out and considered it \"brilliant.\" If you think that having your face removed piece by pece with an ice cream scoop is brilliant, then by all means, go rent it. But if you have any dignity whatsoever avoid this big STUPID mess altogether. SCORE: 0/10 ... maybe a negative 1, actually.
\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 chosen, quite frankly as a pig in a poke from our local Video store. It turned out to be quite a pig. The plot line-such as it is-was disjointed, inconsistent and predictable. The actors constantly looked embarrassed to be mouthing the poorly written lines. The only funny moment in the entire film revolved around the dangers of smoking and the inadvertant deployment of an airbag. The remainder of the film lacked the punch to amuse either of my young daughters (aged less than ten years), myself, my wife, my mother-in-law, or even the cat or the dog. My advice, if you are tempted to borrow this turkey, is to save your money and your time. Look for 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\nI don't care what anyone else says, this movie is the worst piece of trash committed on film. What was John Landis thinking?
I know it's based on a series of children's books, but c'mon! Even kids hate this movie. It's pointless and boring. Tom Arnold once again amply demonstrates that his only talent is wasting production money.
I think the only reason The Stupids hasn't appeared on the 100 worst films of all time is that only 20 or so people will admit to watching this garbage. At least Hobgoblins made it on MST3K.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI couldn't even sit through the whole thing! This movie was a piece of crap! I had more fun watching \"Dont' Tell Mom The Babysitter's Dead\"! It was just too painful to watch. Say, besides \"Austin Powers\", has Tom Arnold ever been in a hit 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 vaguely remember this film. I do remember it for the one solid reason that it is the only film that I have ever walked out on!! and since then I have never seen it available to rent ANYWHERE!! I can't spoil it for anyone cos I can barely remember it!! To think, looking at the cast, it seemed a winner, with John Landis directing, but good god, they must have been paid a whole lot for this drivel!! All I can seem to recall is that the dad goes missing and the family try to search for him, by trying to put an actual photograph into the disc drive of a computer. I walked out after about half an hour of this. I must confess though, I'd love to see if I can get a copy, just to see if it really was that bad!!
It wouldn't surprise me if this was on every actor's black list! I mean Christopher Lee was in this?? The legend of all bad guys, who'd been in Star Wars and Lord of the Rings?? As I said - black listed movie, The Stupids!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nHow this character ever got hired by the post office is far beyond me. The test that postal workers take is so difficult. There is no way that a guy this stupid can work at the post office. Everyone in this movie is just stupid and that is probably the point of the movie. How they could go their entire lives and not see an elevator is also puzzling. I didn't take this movie too seriously but it was so stupid. Then he tries to start the car without his keys? Lots of horrible scenes and horrible acting and this movie is not funny at all. It's just a sad stupid mess. I liked the moms dress though.
Send it back to sender as soon as possible.
\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\nStanley Stupid (Tom Arnold) and his wife, Joan, like to sleep in bed with their heads under the covers and their feet on the pillows. They have two equally challenged children, Buster and Petunia. One day, Mr. Stupid notices their garbage is gone again....there must be someone stealing it from the curb. He goes off in roller blades after the garbage truck. When he finally gets to the dump, he is startled to learn not only that \"other folks garbage\" has been stolen, too, but that there is a secret organization meeting at the landfill. He is determined to defeat the garbage nappers of the world, it seems. Meanwhile, Petunia and Buster visit the police station and a Chinese restaurant in search of their parents, for Joan comes up missing, too. Will they bumble their way through their problems? This is just a stupid, stupid movie, with the culprit being the terrible script. The books by Allard and Marshall are hysterical and only a couple of situations from the books ends up in this film. Arnold is actually quite nice as Mr. Stupid and the other cast members try very, very hard to make the film work. The production values are very high, with the dog and cat belonging to the Stupids adding a little oomph to the film. But, it is all for naught, as the plot is wandering and weak. Perhaps, someday, someone will take another stab at translating the very funny Allard books to the big screen. Therefore, if you love to laugh, rent something else while you await a new production and, by all means, go get the books, too. But, stay away from being stupid yourself, as anyone who watches this movie to the end could hardly be called intelligent.
\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 stupid movie. When I saw it in a movie theater more than half the audience left before it was half over. I stayed to the bitter end. To show fortitude? I caught it again on television and it was much funnier. Still by no means a classic, or even consistently hilarious but the family kinda grew on me. I love Jessica Lundy anyway. If you've nothing better to do and it's free on t.v. you could do worse.
\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 you out there really disliked this movie... you were right. A small minority of you really loved the movie... can't say you' re wrong. For me, this movie was too stupid. I have seen many dumb, silly comedies but this one surpasses every one of them. As I was watching I couldn't stop rubbing my eyes, not believing what I was seeing and trying to decide if I should laugh or cry, as *REALLY STUPID* stuff were going on on the screen, and people were leaving the theater.
According to the leading characters, time travel is accomplished, just enter any museum and you will actually travel to the past. Plus, if you are seeking an after death experience, just go to the nearest planetarium, there you shall meet Lord - sorry, Loydd and be given important commands... All te above doesn' t really make sense, right? Well, go ahead, watch the movie (I almost never regret the movies I watch), you probably won't like it, but you will be intrigued by the writer's ability in producing the ultimately STUPID script...
I' m giving it a 3 out of 10, not good, far from being the worse...
\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\nPerhaps it's just me, but this movie seemed more like sequel or follow-up than the separate project. Why? When it was filmed (just few years after the war) most of the viewers probably knew why Rommel was so famous, why his death was so important to Allied, why he was Hitler's favorite general, but now, 50 years later, it isn't so obvious anymore.
\"Desert Fox: The Story of Rommel\" is a decent war movie, but it's just isn't in any way explained how Rommel did get his nickname, what was he doing that Allied considered him as their best general, why their soldiers were so afraid of Afrika Korps? That's what is missing in this movie - we see his fame, his character, his way to treat soldiers and enemies, but f.e. we also see that Hitler was complaining about his achievements in Africa, calling him coward, etc. So, we're missing the big picture here - it is \"The Story of Rommel\", but unfortunately the \"Desert Fox\" part is missing.
\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\nFor me this movie was a disappointment. Somehow I expected that it would explain the reason for General Rommel's popularity and his success as a military strategist in WW II. But there is none of that, it deals with the last year or two of his life and tries, in a way, to whitewash him. So I just have to suppose that Rommel was primarily an amoral and apolitical technocrat in the conquering and killing business, without any particular charm or notoriety in behaviour. Such real life people just do not make good movie material. I almost feel sorry for James Mason, really one of my favorite actors, who had to impersonate a pretty wooden character. Actually, a good director and a lot of great acting talent was wasted on this movie  with the exception of Luther Adler who gives a really memorable and weirdly naturalistic portrayal of Adolf Hitler.
There might also be a cultural problem for people like me who are part of the German speaking world. Famous British actors impersonating Germans are just not credible. Rommel, for example, is perceived here not just as a German but as a typical Southerner\" from Baden-Württemberg. You immediately think of a certain dialect, a certain kind of wit, a certain way of seeing the world (the total opposite of eg a Prussian junker\"). I also think that there are now mixed feelings about the assassination attempt of July 20th, many of those who were in on the conspiracy were not democrats and just wanted the German troops to join the Western Allies against the advancing Bolsheviks (thus prolonging the war forever).
The best movie portrayal of an intellectual, intelligent military mind is in my opinion still Patton (1970). Incidentally, General Patton can be glimpsed for a short moment in the ample documentary footing used for this movie, a low angle shot while he is inspecting passing vehicles. The open holster and the revolver with the mother of pearl grips are clearly visible!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"