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 really wanted to like this film however after an amusing opening few minutes I hardly cracked a smile. I agree there was no chemistry at all between the two leads and the other characters were cliche ridden. The script totally wasted the talents of Bud Tingwell and Kim Gyngell.
It must be said however that there was plenty of laughter around me and even a smattering of applause at the end. Perhaps I just couldn't relate to it enough. I'm just glad I went on cheap tickets.
\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 glad I didn't pay to see 'The Wog Boy'.
I sat there hopefully waiting for something original and/or funny to happen.
It reminded me very much of those predictable English comedies of the 1970s.
I won't bother with a synopsis of the plot, I suggest you do something else for 90 minutes

\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\nHumour is a very individual thing and the audience at the sneak preview of The Wog Boy seemed to enjoy it more than I did. I found it an anachronistic affair, more representative of the old fashioned racial humour of the Australian cinema of the 1960s and 1970s. The boy meets girl plot never takes off because of a lack of chemistry between Lucy Bell and Nick Giannopoulos while I found laughs thin on the ground. If you want to spend your money on this, wait until it's on video.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is another of those films I can remember from when I was a kid and I recently managed to acquire it off ebay - 20 years on, it's nowhere near as good as I remember it being.
The story is 'vaguely' kick started, by a 'cosmic event' (there's another extra film-crew member in the credits for 'weak story development') which makes collective ants become super intelligent. Ant species who used to war with each other have ceased rivalries and are now working together. The thing I wanted to know throughout was, TO DO WHAT EXACTLY? You never find out what they want. Nigel Davenport and his sidekick travel out to the desert where bizarre ant activity has been noted, and begin to study the ants from an impregnable igloo shaped laboratory. Probably the most chilling scene in my opinion was when the two scientists visit the giant square in the crops (like a square version of a crop circle) a result of the ants chomping away.
This film was not very scary quite simply because you don't know whether to fear the ants or like them. All you know is that the ants want people to leave the area so they can get on with their hijinks - but you don't find out whether they are really baddies. It ain't a sci-fi because the 'cosmic event' explanation is too vague to be properly taken into account. It is deffo more of a chiller. TBH the flares, daft hairstyles, tight shirts with big collars and Nigel Davenports unnaturally big facial hair-do freaked me out more than the ants! Did you notice that there are only six actors listed in the credits? Yup, that right - SIX, and you won't see any other human beings in this film at all. Not even in the distance! This is a plainly obviously low budget film which is a bit watchable because you probably won't have seen one like it. I can't think of any anyway. The filming of the ants is pretty good, they must have done months and months of filming before they had the shots they needed to stick in the film. You may well say to yourself 'how the Hell do they get the ants to do that?' over and over, but it is all quite simple. You will also notice that the film makers sacrificed millions of innocent lickle ants to make the film too, so animal rights peeps STAY AWAY! Good for novelty value, but you may not watch it more than once.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf you really really REALLY enjoy movies featuring ants building dirt-mirrors, eating non-ants, and conquering the world with a voice-over narrative, then this is the movie for you. Basically, a couple of scientists working out of a bio-dome communicate with highly intelligent ants (the most intelligent actors in this film) in an attempt to try to thwart their plans of conquest and extermination. Throughout the movie the two scientists (and a girl they rescued from the ants) use everything at their disposal (computers, green dye, and horrid acting), but to no avail. I guess they just couldn't afford any pesticides because the movie would be over too quickly.
The title of the movie \"Phase IV\" is something of a mystery. This is not a spoiler, but \"Phase I\" starts right after the opening credits whereas you don't reach \"Phase IV\" until the end credits roll. Apparently the director knew the movie would be tedious to get through and so placed Phases 1 - 3 throughout the movie as a kind of progress report: \"Hang in there buddy! Only 1 more phase until final credits!\" As a MST3K episode, this one wasn't very good for two reasons: 1) This one is from the Season 0 on KTMA when they were first starting out so the riffing is not as good as in later seasons; and 2) This movie is so bad not even J&TB can lighten it up. There are one or two Gamera references as they had just finished riffing 5 Gamera movies.
The movie does have a trick/surprise ending, but I was so glad to reach the end the effect was lost on 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\nAnts are shown in cartoons as being able to carry away chicken legs, watermellons, people, etc. This may be an admirable characteristic because ants carry the film Phase IV. This is not because they want to, but because they have to.
The movie opens with a narrator cryptically explaining that some cosmic event has come over the earth, and that a fellow scientist has been working on the effect this disturbance has on the ant population. The movie is broken up in segments; the first part after the cosmic event is Phase I, and so on until the end of the movie, which is Phase IV.
What is Phase IV? Who knows? We don't get to see that part; presumably it has something to do with the bonding of one of the scientists studying the ants and a girl who lived in the area. The girl, who looks like a cross between Alicia Silverstone and Liv Tyler, is mad at the ants because they killed her horse, but except for one angry outburst, goes around the biodome with a blank (\"Clueless\"?) look.
These ants are pretty smart; or the scientists are rather dumb. I'll give credit to the ants. Why? Anything that usually ruins my picnics that can then build reflecting towers, blow up trucks, and adapts to poison with the greatest of ease gets my vote for being the smarter species, at least in this movie.
Sterno says stomp on this anthill.

\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 me, this movie was just plain confusing, slow, and uninteresting. Why did the aliens choose to communicate through ants? It makes no sense. The ending was muddled and made no sense whatsoever. In the end, I was hoping that the ants would kill everyone.
Avoid this one at all costs. Not even MST3K could save it.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'd heard this Japanese flick is edgy, creatively interesting, a \"cool new thang\" on the Asian movie-making scene ... maybe even something as innovative as Hideo Nakata's \"Ringu\" or Chan-wook Park's \"Oldboy\", especially the latter.
You can imagine my disappointment when, instead, I found the movie disjointed both narratively and cinematically (though not in a way that a film aficionado appreciates), cliché-ridden, even sadly silly instead of funny --- on the whole, a very bad knock- off of the \"Pulp Fiction\" style.
I stopped watching after 30 minutes, when I gave up on it becoming something more than it is.
\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\nLet me first state that I REALLY REALLY wanted to like this film. For the most part the actors and actresses looked their parts, and did fairly well in their roles, but the movie lacked any real plot. It seemed so wraped up in seeming 'wacky' that no interesting story ever shone through. Also, the camera work was often sloppy, attempting snatchlike camera work and failing miserably. Most of the time, shots meant to look cool ended up being confusing. Perhaps something was lost during translation, but some of the characters were just... stupid. The crazy pretty boy who sniffs people like a dog? Uhhhhhhh. OK. Overall, a fat stinking 1/10. Not worth your time.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAlthough I found the acting excellent, and the cinematography beautiful, I was extremely disappointed with the adaptation.
One of the significant portions of the novella is the fact that Ethan and Mattie decide to kill themselves, rather than go on. This is never presented in the movie, they show it as if it were a sledding accident.
The character changes in Mattie and Zenna are almost non-existent. While in the novella they almost change places, at the end of this adaptation it appears as if they are both invalids.
Lastly that Mattie and Ethan consummate their relationship fully nearly destroys the power and poignancy of the finale.
The change of the narrator being a preacher was one effective change.
Neeson and Arquette are superb in their portrayals. Joan Allen was also wonderful, however her character was much watered down from Whartons novella.
I do not expect films to faithfully portray novels, but this one went to far and in the process nearly destroyed the story.
Overall, I would not recommend watching this film unless you have read the book as you will come away confused and disappointed.
\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 bad movie. There is no denying it as much as I'd like to. Tommy Lee Jones is about as good as he possible can be with the script they gave him, and he had a couple of decent action sequences that felt really out of place due to their acceptable quality.
Somewhere along the line someone figured that all of the shortcomings of script could be counteracted if they were to hire every single workhorse actor in the business, unfortunately even truly, deeply talented actors like Goodman, Beatty, Sarsgaard, Gammon, Steenburgen, MacDonald, Pruitt Taylor Vince, and lest we forget Mr. Jones himself can't fix the wooden dialogue, and plot progression that went absolutely nowhere.
In fact at one point I looked up, sure that the movie had been running for the past 2 hours only to find that I was 51 minutes into it.
Perhaps the most painful point of the movie was the subplot about the ghost confederate soldiers that seem to be of little to no help to the story. Other than slightly detracting from the confusing business at the end with the picture. *if you haven't seen this movie disregard this past statement which may seem tantalizing and know that it is not, you will not understand it any better after having watched the movie.
The most interesting thing about this movie may be that it is actually a sequel to the movie \"Heaven's Prisoners\" starring Alec Baldwin in the same role carried by Tommy Lee Jones in this movie. I may have to watch it now, first to see if it is as bad as In the Electric Mist, and second because I can't seem to (no matter how hard I try) break my man crush on Alec Baldwin.
\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 read and enjoyed many of James Lee Burke's Robicheaux mysteries. When I read 'In The Electric Mist With The Confederate Dead' was being filmed and Tommy Lee Jones was playing the lead, I was thrilled. After watching it last night, I ending up turning it off with about twenty minutes left, not wanting to see any more people shot or beaten up. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind blood and gore-I love 'The Untouchables' and 'The Godfather Trilogy'. Perhaps it was just that I had previously seen 'Birth' and 'What Just Happened' before watching this. I know that Burke's books are violent, lyrical, and especially in the case of 'In The Electric Mist', can be like the Cajun swamps he writes about, full of things that are never fully explained. In a book, that's fine. In a film, that's confusing. Many of the previous reviewers are also ardent admirers of Dave Robicheaux, which makes it more understandable that they really liked the movie. Or they are admirers of Bernard Tavernier or both. Even as a fan of all the actors (and especially Vince), I felt it was such a waste of their talents overall-they gave good performances in a film that didn't hold together. Now, I say this, having only seen the USA DVD and hoping that Tavernier's cut will make a huge difference. On the plus side: The soundtrack was wonderful. The scenes at Robicheaux's place were perfect-just as I imagined the bait shop to look like. Mary Steenburgen was excellent as Bootsie, as was Walter Breaux as Batist. If you read the books, you know why Robicheaux is an even-tempered person in the beginning of the film, and then starts whacking people with various instruments. Overall, I wish that they had filmed more of the 'Electric Mist and the Confederate Dead' and left out large portions of Robicheaux's methods of interrogation, explaining Elrod's gifts and his bond to Dave, as well as Dave's to the General. Then I wouldn't be feeling today as I did last night when I turned it off, \"What just happened?\"
\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 read all the Dave Robicheaux novels and consider James Lee Burke to be my favorite contemporary fiction writer. I've also visited New Iberia and much of Acadiana to be able to better visualize the setting in most of these books. Needless to say, I greatly anticipated seeing \"In the Electric Mist,\" especially since I thought Tommy Lee Jones would be terrific as Robicheaux.
I was greatly disappointed. The story was very choppy; the interplay with the \"ghosts of Confederate dead\" was shallow and lost the impact and nobility it added to the book; and Tommy Lee Jones was doleful, expressionless and difficult to understand as DR. The best way to describe this forgettable film is to add my \"ditto\" to an earlier user comment that this movie was like one of those old made-for-TV movies. I expected Jill St. John or Cameron Mitchell to show up at any time.
The location settings were accurate, and the photography at times captured the essence of the steamy bayous, smoky juke joints and eerie above-ground graveyards of South Louisiana. Too bad the story's disjointed presentation and Tommy Lee's sub-par performance interfered with the unique mood and spicy zest of the region.
Next to final comment: In the novels, Dave Robicheaux's nickname is \"Streak,\" because of the distinct streak of silver-gray hair on one side of his head. (Similar to how the Sopranos' Paulie Walnuts would appear if he were seen only in profile.) Tommy Lee had no such streak in this film, probably because the editors are James Lee Burke fans and they airbrushed the streak out after witnessing Mr. Jones's poor imitation of Dave Robicheaux.
Final comment: While I generally find Alec Baldwin to be pompous and obnoxious in most roles, he was by far a better Robicheaux in \"Heaven's Prisoners\" than Tommy Lee was in \"In the Electric Mist.\" Also, Heaven's Prisoners is much more interesting and exciting, with uniformly believable performances and more evocative atmosphere than this new movie.
\"In the Electric Mist\" is okay to watch when one feels like \"veging out\" and there's nothing better on TV. But then, so are infomercials.
\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 disappointing adaptation of the James Lee Burke novel \"In the Electric Mist of the Confederate Dead\". It is rather poorly acted mainly due to the miscasting of the principal players. Tommy Lee Jones, a normally fine actor, just doesn't capture Burke's \"Dave Robicheaux\". As Robicheaux's main nemesis, John Goodman does a sloppy job as the \"heavy\". The guy who plays Robicheaux's actor-buddy doesn't look like a former \"A\" lister leading man. The rest of the movie is mainly cast with no-name locals who just don't do justice to a big-time novel.
The movie and Jones' performance is way too hurried for one thing. Robicheaux in Burke's series of novels, gives one the feeling that he fits well into his environment most of the time, being laid back and slow-moving. This is just like the deep south and southern Louisiana. Then at times Robicheaux is nearly manic in his exertions. Jones just moves at a fast pace through the whole movie. He doesn't vary. Ned Beatty is wasted. Mary Steenburgen is out of place. About the only good thing about this is the setting. On the whole the movie gives one the impression of a TV movie.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf you've ever listened to any of the James Lee Burke books on tape or CD and the reader was Will Patton you may agree with me that Will is the personification of Dave R.
Tommy Lee Jones is a native Texan (or so I've heard) and no one portrays a Texan better IMHO, but he's not a Cajun. His delivery is all wrong. I lived in the state for several years and I can still hear the strange patois that a Louisiana accent contains. TLJ doesn't have anything like that.
I thought Marry Steenbergen was a good choice for Bootsy, but I missed seeing Cletus (who will be cast in this role? The Rock? Mickey Rourke? whoever, he'll have to be big).
Overall, I thought the movie was only a 4 - the plot flopped around like a fish out of water and didn't have the normal interesting, yet non-linear continuity that the book typically has.
Hopefully, Hollywood will try another JLB book, \"Last Car to Elysican Fields\" would be a good choice. We'd get to see some of the best villains from JLB ever.
\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 to be honest and admit that this movie did basically nothing for me except baffle me completely. It's burdened with a plot that revolves around the mysterious murders of several young women, which then gets linked to the discovery of a body over 40 years old. The story never really seems to make much sense, especially when Robicheaux (played by Tommy Lee Jones) starts having his conversations with Confederate General John Bell Hood (I never really did figure that out.) Jones was OK in his role, although I thought he was really starting to show his age here. Horribly miscast was John Goodman as Julie \"Baby Feet\" Balboni, who I guess is supposed to be some sort of local mob figure. I simply didn't think Goodman worked in this role, although I'll admit that just could be because I'm not much of a John Goodman fan. Somewhere in the mix appeared Justina Machado as an FBI agent, although I never really did understand what the FBI was involved in, which could mean simply that my attention kept wandering from the screen. If it was explained, though, I missed it completely. Fortunately, this is a fairly short movie, so you won't waste too much of your life on it. 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 saw this movie last night at the Berlinale as part of the competition. It was billed as the \"world premiere\" of the movie by the host (though it seems that people here have seen it previously). I have to say, I still don't really know what to make of the movie. I am unfamiliar with the book, purchased the ticket only two hours beforehand and had only limited knowledge of the plot. Not enough, as it seems, as I had problems getting into the movie. The movie is sometimes being narrated by Jones' character but somehow that perspective did not fit for me. And I really cannot say if some of the laughs the movie got were calculated or not. The cuts were abrupt and disruptive, the scenes seemed somehow slapped together and the storytelling did not always make sense right away (even leaving out the supernatural parts) - the actors were really good but could not really save the movie somehow. It was entertaining but sometimes only in the sense that I sat there thinking about technical details of movie making and what went wrong with this one. I still do not know what kind of mood the director intended the movie to have. It was a strange mix of light, dark, supernatural. It sadly did not draw me in at all and I rather watched it with a technical eye. But thinking about what is wrong with a movie while watching it is the best sign that a movie somehow has failed. I would have definitely expected something else with these actors involved...too bad!
\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\nDetective Dave Robicheaux is trying to link the murder of a local hooker to New Orleans mobster Julie Balboni. But during his investigation Robicheaux is led into a series of surreal encounters with a troop of Confederate soldiers??, What a awful plot and it was worser than i had expected. it was real slow and had minimal skill in the acting i could not watch through it it was waste of my time. Another FLOP, i would give it under 1 if i could please people don't waste your time its 1:42m of wast-full time. Actor Elrod Sykes and his girlfriend driving under the influence. As Dave takes Elod to the station the actor tells Dave he found some skeletal remains while on the set of a movie he is filming
\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 tedious movie. The real villains are the clunky adaptation (it's embarrassingly easy to tell that the source material was a novel) and witless screenplay.
On the credit side, considering the budget was tight due to wartime austerity, the look of the film isn't at all bad. And the performances are, by and large, OK, except for Phyllis Calvert, who is terrific - a miracle considering the potential for winsomeness, a pit into which she most definitely does not fall. Ms Calvert, with a lot less to go on, is as accomplished as Olivia de Havilland in Gone With The Wind.
The one absolutely unbearable aspect of The Man in Grey is the dreadfully conceived depiction of a black serving boy. No matter that he's meant to be a sympathetic character. Played badly by a white boy in black-face make-up, it is impossible to by-pass this example of condescending racism.
Grim.
\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\nConquerer of Shamballa shows what happens when creators of an Anime fail to understand what their fans want. I as a fan did not want a 1920's Evil Nazi movie. What I would have liked to see is a real final showdown between Ed and Dante, as we don't REALLY know what became of her. I also would have liked to get Ed back to his world much sooner and have him stay there, to finally get a chance to be normal. You know, raise a family with a certain blonde mechanic, that sort of thing. No, instead I got a convoluted plot involving Nazi mystics, Fritz Lang and about ten minutes of Al, a joke of a Cameo by Roy Mustang and only one Armstrong joke, one short joke and no Winry hitting Ed with a wrench. Above all, it just didn't feel like Fullmetal Alchemist to 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\nFirst off, I am critical of this movie because I really had high hopes and instead, this movie sucked.
*possible spoilers* (if you haven't seen the TV series) Where to begin??? Well, let's start at the quality. The movie was barely better than the original TV series and the two fight scenes were very nicely crafted. However the CGI was horrid.
Then there is the plot holes and questions that still remain after the whole movie is all said and done. This movie does not close off as a successful conclusion to a very broad universe known as FMA and only returns to expand the universe more before leaving us with nothing but our imaginations to decipher what would happen in the future.
And then there is the stories biggest fault. Adding WWII and Hitler... WHY ?? The series was perfect... and didn't need Hitler. It didn't even need Germany.
Overall the entire movie was sorely lacing in what a true FMA movie could have been and if I were the directors, I'd scrap CoS and make a new, more \"ending\", ending.
\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 came as a huge disappointment. The anime series ended with a relatively stupid plot twist and the rushed introduction of a pretty lame villain, but I expected Shamballa to tie up all the loose ends. Unfortunately, it didn't. It added more plot holes than it resolved, and confused more than it clarified. The animation and voice acting were great, but with an idiotic plot, dull setting (most of the movie doesn't even take place in dull WWII Earth rather than the Alchemy world), and disappointing ending (Ed is useless for the rest of his days in a world with no alchemy, and he ditches Winry?), it was altogether pretty lackluster. Do yourself a favor-- disregard the last half of the anime as well as this movie, and read the manga.
\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 plot involves a new, hipper franchise barbershop that is moving across the street from Calvin's barbershop. So, he feels like he has to change and improve his shop by getting newer stuff and such. Sounds real exciting huh. As for the rest of the film, a lot of it involves the same material from the first film. The people that work at Calvin's stand around, talk loud, and mouth off to each other and the customers. Once again Cedric the Entertainer was mildly funny, but it is more like he's doing a stand-up routine than anything to do with the movie. And Calvin is faced with another moral issue involving taking a large sum of money. He's already shown that he will do the right thing in the end.
FINAL VERDICT: Nothing new. I don't recommend it unless you thought the first Barbershop was the best thing since sliced bread.
\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 first movie of this series was well written and original. This show drags on, poorly written gags, boring flashbacks, not the comedy that I expected. Even the young folks found it boring. There are certainly bright moments, historical elements and some good acting, but overall I can only recommend this for DVD/tape at home.
\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\nBarbershop 2: Back in Business wasn't as good as it's original but was just as funny. The movie itself lacked little things which the original held which made it much more enjoyable. Back in Business seemed to be just another worthless sequel made to bring in money with a very thin plot. Cedric the Entertainer's terrible excuses for flashbacks ruined the movie and seemed to be a bad way to try and get the audience to adapt more with the character. Overall Barbershop 2: Back in Business was a sequel not needed, without the originals charm, soul & spark.
\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 completely stale and uninspired. The central premise of this movie was basically a bunch of stereotypical black people sitting around a barbershop exchanging painfully unfunny repartee. I did not laugh one time during the entire movie. I could have sat in any barbershop in America and have heard this banal banter, and maybe have even come out with a decent haircut. I cannot understand why this mess got any favourable reviews, much less why so many people have wasted money on this. None of the characters here were funny or worth caring about. I really didn't care whether the rival barbershop across the street would cause Nappy Cutz to go out of business. Don't waste your money on this one, folks, as that is the only way to get Hollywood to stop churning out these shambolic pieces of rubbish. 1* out of 5
\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 first film was quite hip and had amusing moments, this film doesn't exactly have the same standard. Calvin Palmer (Ice Cube) is still trying to keep his barbershop going, but this isn't just against stylist Gina (Queen Latifah) with a beauty shop next door, but soon enough a big barbershop chain called Nappy Cutz opening across the street. Calvin, along with co-workers and friends Eddie (Cedric the Entertainer), Jimmy (Sean Patrick Thomas), Terri (Eve) and Isaac Rosenberg (Troy Garity), they are doing everything they can to keep regular customers coming, and ultimately their business running against the competition. Also starring Michael Ealy as Ricky Nash, Leonard Earl Howze as Dinka, Harry Lennix as Quentin Leroux, Robert Wisdom as Alderman Brown, Jazsmin Lewis as Jennifer, Kenan Thompson as Kenard and Bad Company's Garcelle Beauvais-Nilon as Loretta. I didn't like this film as much as the first because of the unnecessary flashbacks about Eddie, and it isn't as witty, I just got bored of it. 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\n...this one just isn't worth the cost of a movie ticket. What these filmmakers have done cannot properly be called filmmaking; rather, they just chose sixteen students of some diversity (though not quite as much diversity as the reviews have suggested) and set them loose. The results are, to be brutally frank, far more often boring, self-indulgent, overwrought and off-puttingly grainy than truly insightful.
There are, of course, moments of recognition and identification of the sort only possible in documentary film, but overall there's not much more truth here than in \"Bully\" or, for that matter, a decent TV documentary of the same sort. Though full of talk about sex and sexual diversity and racism, the film brings nothing to the table that will be of use to anyone who has thought about any of these issues with any seriousness. And while certain segments serve absolutely no purpose other than to inject a bit of (admittedly welcome) comic relief, most often the five-minute limit keeps up from becoming emotionally involved with any of the students. An interesting idea, but thumbs down for CHAIN CAMERA.
\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 one of the victims of the whole Enron scandal, my mother forced me to watch this movie with her. How many times can I say awful? The script was so weak, using cliche after cliche. It seems as though the writers pieced this story together with a few articles on Enron. Watching the movie, we honestly were able to complete about half of the one-dimensional characters' lines and thoughts. I realize this was supposedly adapted from a book, but was the book this bad? I don't know what to say. Just terrible. The best thing about the movie? Shannon Elizabeth actually kept her clothes on. Other than that, this movie gets a big fat F.
\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 watched this movie last night. Within 30 minutes of the start, I was hoping it would end.
It had a promising beginning; the first 10 minutes. The premise of this movie (friendship that goes nowhere after they've spent days (and Years) together in \"Separate\" beds in hotel rooms) is just not believable. He does kiss her somewhere along the way, and she feels Ohh, so terrible about it.
Very little substance to grab your interest. The acting just does not hold up. He is very passive. Regardless of how much of the movie is shown, the viewer never develops any type of a caring connection with the characters on the screen. You learn that her next utterance will be as boring as her previous one. (\"Do you have a cigarette ?\", He doesn't smoke, He wants her to stop smoking, Doesn't she know this by now.)
She calls him in the middle of the night to visit him after a year's absence, she comes in through the door, they don't even hug or kiss or express any type of emotional connection. He doesn't even lean forward to lift her suitcase to help her in. That is not how real people behave, This is not how best pals behave.
When he receives her phone call in the middle of the night (she is in town for one day), he shows little interest to see her face, acts more like she will be a burden for the night. At this point they've known each other for two years and he hasn't seen her for a year. Not Believable, not real.
Supposedly, he has written a book on Entropy and Enthalpy, yet we never see him write or read or discuss any of his interests in Physics with her, not that she would be able to handle the discussion. We learn that a watermelon in L.A. costs $50, (It wasn't the Silicon Type mind you) he has no problem affording that Fruit. We also learn that the airport shuts down when a few really really fake snow flakes fall off the sky. I'm Sorry but was that in L.A. too?
We never see how these two characters survive, we never see them at work. We never see them struggle, They are always on vacation. They have infinite time, they have no worries whatsoever.
Nice life. Unreal life. Unreal Characters. Bad Title. Bad 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\nWhen this show began it was fairly interesting: we got to see what crab boat fisherman had to go through during the crab-catching season. Soon after, however, it lost focus on the fishing and focused almost entirely on the drama in the lives of the fisherman. Episodes became nothing more than 'the captain doesn't like the new greenhorn' (this one happens way too often), 'someone is injured or sick', 'a fisherman gets word of some problem at home and is frustrated that he is stuck on a boat', repeat. I don't know how people can find the newest seasons watchable, as every episode seems to be essentially the same as those before and after it. This show should be moved to a different channel and renamed to \"Crab Boat Drama\", or, even better, it would have made a perfect one-time segment on Dirtiest Jobs.
Shouldn't the Discovery Channel have learned their lesson after American Choppers?
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI was wondering if there was a place or a link that someone can send me or post for me so i can watch this show . it seems to be a missing show i have been looking for years now its about oz and a girl who has to help save it . it was really good . but i found a good oz type thing on the web but i cant find it again or seem to remember a lot of it due to being years and was thinking that this one maybe it and from reading all this it sounds good and maybe the missing show that i really liked please someone help me thanks so much so please anyone that can help me or give me a link that would be so helpful again thank you so much....or if anyone has an oz based good videos please post 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 have just given a 10 for Thieves Highway, I mention this for two reasons one to prove I'm not a git who only gives bad reviews but 2 because the theme of the film has the same thread namely the falling in love with a woman of the night.
We all know pretty Woman is a chick flick but you can't avoid them all, they'll eventually get you. Pretty Woman for me does two things, two terrible horrible ghastly things, firstly it portrays prostitution as a career more akin to that of a dancer, you know with absolutely great friends, leg warmers lots of giggling, borrowing each others make up. You see in the reality of Pretty Woman the prostitute and this is a street walker Prostitute we're talking about here, has a great life, she's healthy happy with only the occasional whimper to explain her predicament. My feeling is this 'happy Hooker' type protagonist is a lot more palatable than an even nearly realistic character, which for me begs the question if you make a movie about a type of person but are too chicken scared to adorn that player with the characteristics familiar to that role then why do it? If I make a film about a chef but don't want him to cook or talk about food or wear a white hat then why make a film about a chef in the first place? By bailing out and turning the hooker into a respectable dancer type the story misses the point completely and consequently never indulges in any of the moral or social questions that it could have, what a cop out, really really lame.
Secondly, 'Pretty Woman' insults romance itself, Edward Lewis played by Richard Gere has no clue how to seduce or romance this 'lady' that is without his plastic friend, yep don't leave home without it, especially if you are a moron in a suit who has no imagination. 8 out of 10 of his romantic moments involve splashing cash in one way or another, even when he first meets her it's the Lotus Esprit turbo that does all the work, necklaces here diamonds there limos over there, money money money, where's the charm? where's the charisma, don't mention that attempt at the piano please.
Girls who like this film will also be girls who like shopping more than most. Guys who like this film will not even have realized that old Eddy has less charm than a calculator, as they probably don't either so it wont have registered. More importantly anyone who likes this film will hate 'Thieves Highway' a wonderful story of which part is based on the same subject.
I'll finish on a song:
Pretty woman hangin round the street Pretty woman, the kind I like to treat Pretty woman, I don't believe you You're not the truth No one could spend as much as you Mercy
Pretty woman, wont you pardon me Pretty woman, I couldn't help but see Pretty woman, and you look lovely as can be do you lack imagination just like me
Pretty woman, shop a while Pretty woman, talk a while Pretty woman, sell your smile to me Pretty woman, yeah, yeah, yeah Pretty woman, look my way Pretty woman, say you'll stay with me..and I'll pay you..I'll treat you 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\nIf a movie can't hold your interest in the first 25 minutes, it's over as far as I'm concerned. This concept that you have to simply deal with a slow first third of a movie and be rewarded later is nonsense. A good movie has to start and end strong. It all seem interesting and some decent shots and lots of promise, but ultimately muddled and irrelevant. There are so many other movies from Asia to watch, many of which I am sure most of you have not seen, that I would really skip this one and look elsewhere. Why exactly does IMDb require a 10 line minimum for reviews? I said my piece and I hope this helps a few of you move on to the next 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\nIn London, the Venetian Carla Borin (Yuliya Mayarchuk) is searching an apartment to share with her beloved boyfriend Matteo (Jarno Berardi). She meets the lesbian real estate agent Moira (Francesca Nunzi) and rents a large apartment. When the jealous Matteo finds some pictures and letters from her former lover Bernard (Mauro Lorenz) in Venice, he hangs up the phone and the upset and amoral Carla has a brief affair with Moira and intercourse with an acquaintance in a party. When Matteo comes to London, he concludes that his lust for Carla is more important than his jealousy and her behavior.
\"Transgredire\" is another \"soft porn\" of the sick director Tinto Brass with a shallow and ridiculous story where every situation is a motive to expose the intimate parts of the women in the cast. The amateurish camera exposes the body of the beautiful Yuliya Mayarchuk in every possible angle and her character is abused, touched and licked in every part of her nice body, but without showing explicit penetration. This flick is only recommended to fans of this director and as a voyeur experience seeing Yuliya Mayarchuk naked in erotic situations. My vote is four.
Title (Brazil): \"A Pervertida\" (\"The Pervert\")
\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 just caught this Movie on TCM, and can understand why George Murphy went into Politics if this was the best MGM could serve up to him. It is so slow-moving that the attempt to make it a real film-noir effort does not come off. It featured two of my favourite
players in Eve Arden (completely wasted) and Dean Stockwell(the best actor in the Film), but what really hit me was that the leading lady Frances Gifford went through some 90 minutes (it seemed longer!) without changing the expression on her face--her fainting scene was comical. John Hodiak played his role OK, but the script let him, and the rest of the cast, down very badly. I gave it 4 stars mainly because of the photography. It would have been on the first half of the Program when double features were the go.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI had to watch this movie for a film class, I suffered the whole time through. I am not Asian but was still greatly offended by this film. The film's basis is racialism, overall minorities (Rex Harrison isn't even Asian!) are depicted in narrow-minded manner. The banning of the film in Thailand illustrates the degree inaccuracy and subjective portrayal of Asians. In addition, there has been critical attention given to Biography of Anna. Many critics argue that Anna added many fictitious events to her story to project herself in a good manner. Some critics of the film and biography have even stated that Anna made up the whole story. An awful film but good for discussion of BioPics as form of meta-narrative fiction rather than a work of non-fiction.
\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\nSo when Bob and Marion Boxletter see a guy at a hotel, Marion believes it is her long lost brother Brian, but when she approaches him he appears to be someone else just with the exact same face. Marion manages to get his fingerprints and takes it to the police and when the identity is confirmed that it was in fact her brother Brian she and Bob leave for New York after tracing his whereabouts. They get a hold of Brian, but still he doesn't know what they are talking about, but all the couple really want to know is where Brian has their 8 maybe 9 year old son Joey... and even when they see Joey he doesn't know them either. The plot thickens and they find themselves one day thinking that they are someone else as well. Experiments made out on people only to make the perfect assassins yet the question of why they would bother putting Bob and Marion in the same building as each other is beyond me. Personally Gregory Harrison played his 2 parts great, but I have no clue what was wrong with the other actors, they seemed bored and lost. 3 out of 10, a little suspense yes but that's it.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film is replete with sentimentality, unprofessional flying that makes a pilot like me cringe, and irrelevant material. Why introduce Rachel, for instance? She has absolutely nothing to do with the film except to permit her \"Follow Me\" truck to run wild and crash into Dorinda's fence. That has got to be one of the stupider sequences among many in the film. Another is at the end when the aircraft (was it a B-26 or an A-26? --both designations are used in the film) is left with props whirling and no chocks in place. That serves the plot, of course, but to reveal it would be to commit a dreaded spoiler. As it is, the aircraft would have begun to taxi sans control. The ending (again, avoiding spoilers) involves much too much talk -- as at the beginning of sound films in the 30s with all those final speeches. Here, Dreyfuss just babbles on and on. The ending also incorporates other radical violations of aircraft protocol and a couple of improbabilities/impossibilities that I won't describe. What a dull and disjointed effort!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe worst part of all is the poor scripting, leading to superficial acting.
Dreyfuss' character is intensely repetitive and annoying, and Dreyfuss himself has the annoying face to match.
Holly Hunter's character is exaggeratedly self-centered, and Hunter herself indulges in serious overacting, as usual.
Brad Johnson was wooden. John Goodman made the best of it.
Furthermore, the whole death / ghost thing has since been somewhat overdone, and now appears rather lame.
Barely watchable only if you like old aeroplanes.
\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 yrs ago, I remember reading an essay by a feminist film theorist who briefly mentioned Rosalind Russell. This theorist wrote that the 'strength' of the 'strong women' that Rozzie R. played lay partly in their ability to stand by their man (even when he wasn't worth it).
I thought of this essay after watching 'Crimes of Passion'.
Kathleen Turner exudes the same strength and style as Russell in her portrayal of prostitute China Blue. She's the object of affection for two men: the loony priest played by Anthony Perkins, and a bland whitebread boy who's marriage is slowly fading. And she won't let either of them have a piece of her until ...
I won't give away the ending - but I will say that this is ultimately Bland Whitebread Boy's fantasy. No matter how hard Ken Russell tries, he can't disguise the fact that this movie is basically a 1940s melodrama for the MTV generation. Except its retrogressive class and gender politics make those old black-and-white films look revolutionary by comparison.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"