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\nthe movie is complete disaster. i don't know who write scripts for movies like this one, but i would definitely love to meet one of them and talk to him a little bit. perhaps script writers really don't know sh*t about situation in foreign countries in present or recent past? or they just don't give a damn and write everything that they think it's interesting.
a great and everlasting formula with mad dictator + 1 lonely hero (an American of course) might seem like a good idea, but come on?! we had such a tyrant in serbia (milosevic) who did a lot of bad things to it's people, but i simply can't imagine him yelling \"shoot them, shoot them\" with such a barbaric passion, like in medieval times. maybe they wanted to show how evil he was, but it was a stupid idea. much better impression would be if he just did it in cold blood, like the real monsters do.
the list of nonsense is too long, but the funniest thing is: no matter how many national TV stations there are in Russia, Russian president watch American SNN (CNN) news?? OMFG!
give me a break!
burn this piece of rubish please!
AWFUL!
\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\nFREDDY FORSYTH has come up with a storyline which will suit the mood of the West's suspicions about Putin's Russia. Forsyth installs a nasty guy as the Ruski president who wants to return the country - not so much to Stalin's Communism but more to Hitlerian Fascism. In fact, his Political Manifesto could have come straight out of Mein Kampf rather than Marx. And, the loon has the latest weapons of biological destruction to achieve the ethnic cleansing pogrom of the Russian Federation. American mercenaries connive with the Russian Prez to realise his fanatical, genocidal dream, but then enter Dirty Dancing's Pat Swayze...and,yep,things get really down and dirty. He's a former US operative-turned-drifter,Jason Monk, who is enlisted by the British Government to see what the Russians are up to. As a corny sidebar, Swayze's character who is no Monk (!)has sired a Russian beauty Elena (played by the gorgeous Marta Kondova) on his previous missions to the former Commie state. Hardman Swayze does a passable job in setting out to defeat the evil Russians. But young unknown actress Marta Kondova steals the flick as his nubile, 18-year-old Russian daughter Elena who helps dad root out the terror threatening her beloved Mother Russia.
\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 not seen and heard the original version.
I am no Russian, but I am learning right now.
I also have no preferences for Russia, Bulgaia, the US etc.
But what I have to mention is:
In the German synchronisation in the whole film all Russians speak with Russian accent. Americans talk \"Hochdeutsch\" (without accent)! I have never heard such a stupidity! Besides, this is boring.
I hope the original is better.
The rest is a simple thriller, not really good ideas. Like a cheap version of a James Bond 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\nWhen I saw that Icon was on TV, I was surprised. I know that the first clue of where it was headed was the fact that it was on the Hallmark Channel - Has to be said - sorry!! I was hopeful when I saw that FF himself was the Exec Producer but very quickly saw that the only real way that the TV movie and the book were similar were in the name and the character names only. The TV plot was a ho-hum to say the least but I concur that in and of itself, the action was worth a 3 stars. In my personal opinion, Mr. Swayze could have portrayed a valid Monk, however I think that in order to do the movie justice, it would have been a far longer movie, and I don't think Hollywood itself would have gone for the plot of discreditation by subterfuge. A case in point is the terrible film version of The Sum of All Fears - need I say more?
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI would like to say something different about this movie. I saw comments how beautiful is Russia and the views from Russia have been great. Hey guys this is not Russia it's Bulgaria more specific the capital Sofia. So this is not Russia it's my country. About the movie - well in Bulgaria, maybe except the Grey Zone - all movies from American directors are in one word awful like this one of course. It's a shame that Patrick Swayze has to play in such a low budget movies. Most of the actors are Bulgarians but really this movie has no plot twist has no energy what can i say-weak and boring movie a cliché not more. Hey people remember it's not Russia in reality it's Bulgaria.
\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\nIts gonna be hard to make this fill 10 lines.... But ill give it a try (just to prevent others from making the same mistake as i did - to watch this (awful and boring) movie.
I like Patrick swayze - he did a excellent performance in films like Ghost - Dirty Dancing - Point Break - North & South (TV series), but in this movie..... ARGH....This movie is so booooooring, the acting is awful - the script sucks - well.. i cant even find ONE good thing, nothing, absolutely NOTHING. I was watching it with 2 other friends and we all agreed that this was one of the most boring films we had ever seen, and the fact that it lasts for more then 3 hours (which we didn't know) - when part 1 was over and it said \"to be continued\", we almost cried \"nooooooooooooo, do we have to watch 90 minutes more of this movie!!!!\".
Its painful to see this movie: At no time do you get the impression that the actors are Russians, the action scenes are extremely bad. The ONLY good scene is when the truck explodes in the beginning of the movie! The rest is CRAP! GO clean your toilet, instead of watching this movie (and don't come running, crying if you do see this movie - you were pre warned!) Personally i would recommend Patrick Swayze to call his agent and have them recall this movie - its that 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\nalong the history of cinema, there's been a few films that deceived the viewer, such as hitchcock's \"stage fright\", alejandro amenábar's \"abre los ojos\", David fincher's \"the game\" and this one \"ausentes\" (\"absent\"). to begin with, i don't like this kind of films, i feel like somebody is trying to pull my leg.
furthermore, after seeing this film one doesn't know what happened, is such a confusing film. kubrick's \"the shining\" may be a better or a worse movie, but definitely is more honest than this load of pretentious and dubious situations.
technically is fine -nice photography, fair performance and so on, but the script is so poor i wonder what did the producers see to carry on and shoot this crap.
and this film remarks the 3 guys that wrote the script (calparsoro, loriga and quiroga) are lost in cinema trying to make a masterpiece -or trying to do something to fulfill their stomachs, awaiting for more personal projects.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n'The Shining' has wit, visual flair and an iconic performance by Jack Nicholson. 'Ausentes,' however, has none of these things; although it does borrow from its classic forebear; to wit, a man hacking through a door and a woman running around shrieking while clutching a huge kitchen knife. Unlike Stanley Kubrick's great psychological horror film, 'Ausentes' is a work which resonates with a singular lack of genius. It is magnificently, comically awful; it makes the Spice Girls movie look like a work of vital art. 'Ausentes' is the tale of a family that moves to a gated community in the suburbs. All is to be well with the world. They will live in peace and tranquillity; they will calmly go about their business away from those mean old city streets. But no. Ariadna Gill's character Julia starts getting spooked by those things that insist on going bump in the night, by empty supermarkets and doors that close themselves; and her husband Samuel, played by Jordi Molla, switches in an instant from laid-back family man to wild-eyed permanently unshaven nutter, injecting Julia with a drug to keep her under his sudden cosh. Molla, much respected as an actor, is absolutely dreadful in this. Comic rather than menacing, he simply cannot pull off a threatening expression. He just come across as a barroom slime ball who's had one drink too many. So is there anything to redeem this film? No. The script is clunky, the plot non-existent and the cast without merit. Completely without tension and full of be scared now moments, 'Ausentes' is an exercise in how not to make a psychological thriller. It is ridiculous and overblown, but as one of the most unintentionally hilarious films of recent years it's well worth a watch.
\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 first saw the trailer for this film, I really wanted to see it. I thought some of the director's other works were quite good, but I must say I was disappointed. The plot involves a young woman, who lives with a widowed father and two his two sons. They move into a well-guarded community, yet all is not as it seems; a sort of Twin Peaks. The woman begins to see, or not see, things an people. During the first reel, I had a hypothesis, and thought, \"this can't be the whole reason?\" Well, the ending lived up, or better DOWN, and gave us what I felt was a truly weak final act. The sound mixing and quality is excellent. Saw it in a THX Certified Theatre, and was impressed.. by the audio, and only the audio. The picture is missing substance.
\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 know why all the previous comments are approval of this movie. IT IS , well not by far but...,THE SUCKIEST MOVIE I'VE SEEN LATELY, full of clichés, bad acting, actually no...very bad acting and has a silly plot...If I would have seen it in a cinema I would have walked out after the first 20 minutes. I f you hate somebody , make him/her watch this movie...that's how bad it is. A girl who has an imaginary boy/friend that gives up a relationship with a real one because her imagination is jealous....but i think it figures...she takes after her parents who also have some mental issues...plus the character who is supposed to be I think the laughing stock of it, the thing that should make you laugh, cal's room mate is a serious nut case and just makes me feel sorry for him...and the whole movie
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI expected a lot more out of this film. The preview looked interesting so I decided to check it out. Bottom line is that \"The Adventures of Sebastian Cole\" only had one decent thing: Adrian Grenier.
I really like Grenier and found his performance to be very pleasing. The character is designed well, but everything else sort of just drifts along through the duration of the movie. Clark Gregg is really good, but I don't think that his character was explained too well. I mean there's not too much to explain; he wants to become a woman. Still, something was missing.
The obvious low budget of the film was nice to see. I enjoyed that the movie was filmed on just a script (a bad one at that) and just a few actors. It was a nice change.
While the main idea of the film was actually okay, it became disappointing to see a lot of scenes that had nothing to do with it just thrown in here and there. Like I said, the script looked promising and I must say that I was interested where director Tod Williams was headed, but it was basically a very slow movie with not too good of dialogue.
\"Sebastian\" started to look good towards the end, but again, it fell right back down into a hole. The acting was mostly good, the writing is in need of some work, yet the budget of the film helped it out in the long run.
I would recommend this to someone if they wanted to watch a quiet movie with a strong lead character, but other than that I would stay away. Personally, I wouldn't watch it twice.
\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 Adventures of Sebastian Cole is about a boy named Sebastian (Adrian Grenier) who fancies himself becoming a writer at some point, given he actually puts effort into it. This movie is presumably the years where he gets his material for writing, the adventure years, hence the title and the previous quote. In it we experience the very typical coming of age stories and warnings of loves, drugs, and sex...changes. Yeah, there's a slight twist here that is very interesting, and that is that Sebastian's step dad (Clark Gregg) very early on makes a rough decision to get a sex-change that has a huge impact on Sebastian's family and his relationship with his step-dad.
Clark Gregg plays Hank/Henrietta, Sebastian's step-father and is very good in the part, very believable without being over the top, which is a route this film could've taken rather easily. Thankfully they didn't. Adrien Grenier, who I'm only familiar with from Entourage, is also very good in his part as Sebastian, and together, he and Gregg have a great relationship on screen. It's always quite engaging to watch these guys (?) relationship as it develops and is genuinely heartbreaking at times.
And that's the best of what this film has to offer. Unfortunately, it brings with it some mediocre camera work, direction, and cinematography. It's not bad, but it's a far cry from being good, or memorable in the slightest. The characters are also thinly written, and it's clear from the get go how most of the arcs will pan out. The only truly fascinating character through and through is Clark Gregg's Hank/Henrietta. I've already said Grenier did well acting-wise, but the character of Sebastian is not only not engaging, but is completely unlikeable. I don't honestly see why anyone in the audience would route for his character in anything he does. He mopes, whines, cheats, lies, and lacks any aspirations other than to be a complete slacker. It'd be different if he was maybe a side-character or comic relief, but to have him as the main focus and to be asked to take the character seriously? Come on.
And I don't really hold it against this film, but I just want to say...pick a different song in all these films, Hollywood! No more \"Where Is My Mind\" by the Pixies, we all know it's a good song, stop using it in every other film!
I feel like I could just keep tearing more and more of this film apart, but in all honesty I didn't hate it. I just didn't really care for it, and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. The Adventures of Sebastian Cole isn't a bad or boring film, it's just not a very good or engaging one either. It's very uneven and the script could've used quite a bit of work. I guess the point of the film is to be a loose sort of look at the life of a writer before he made it, and it worked...if that writer put out pieces of fiction that I wouldn't want to read.
\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 should be re-named \"Everybody Loves Sebastian\". The 1983 rural go-nowhere town high school junior (or senior? - they seemed to flip flop on that one) with weird hair and \"Leo-like\" good looks has a big plate full of issues. His step-dad announces definite plans to have a sex-change operation, upon which his mom calls the marriage quits; Sebastian is called the \"f\" word by everyone and their mother, all-the-while \"kissing around\" with various girls, getting high on Ready-Whip at a supermarket, and saving a \"strawberry\" prostitute from the clutches of her ruthless pimp.
Sebastian's \"buddies\" make Eddie Haskal look like a choir boy; bad association doesn't get much worse. Sebastian seems to go for \"Harold's\" suicide attempts record (although he won't admit suicidal tendanccies). For no apparent reason the genius level SAT scoring Sebastian MUST graduate a year early, although he has no clue about the future, nor does he want to attend college (what gives with this nonsense?).
This film is a look into a few weeks in the life of someone who is PRETTY MESSED UP. The final scene suggests that things will be alright, although the HOW is left entirely up to the viewer.
The makers of this film seem to bank solely on the undisputed appeal of the very attractive male lead. The \"story\" leaves a lot to be desired. Looking for \"what will this gorgeous kid do next...?\" doesn't exactly satisfy. The lackluster production values just don't measure up to other films, independent or otherwise. A low budget and weak story need more than a pretty face to carry it through. The \"results\" of this project are forgettable and an insult to intelligent cinema fans.
\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 love comedies and I love independent films, but this was much too slow and the humor was extremely regional. I guess It would have been better if the main characters were likeable, but they were just typical gen-x slacker types, just like the people that have been causing trouble in high schools for forty years... I can understand High Praise for a young indie film-maker when it is deserving, but this is an extremely average 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 saw this movie when it first came to the theaters in 1988 and though I knew it wasn't of award winning caliber...I kinda liked it. It tales the tale of 5 former cub scouts reuniting to take on the one task they never got to finish as kids - which is to climb Mt. Whitehead. Of course now the cub scouts are all grown up and have developed their personalities in a variety of ways, but none too differently than they were as children. Richard Lewis is still neurotic, Richard Belzer is still a playboy, Franklyn Ajaye is still sort of the Dear Abby of the group, and Tim Thomerson is still the surfer dude of the group. Of course the top billed star is Louie Anderson, a \"true believer\" in everything Cub Scout related. He still lives in the same house with his mother, still goes over the Cub Scout manual daily, is brave, reverent and clean, and is the one who reunites the others for one more grand adventure in Scouting. Compounding their task, however, is the Grunski brothers, two bullies drummed out of the Cub Scouts by the above mentioned. By coincidence they run into their old den and decide to harass them a bit, albeit harmlessly. Not so harmlessly is three escaped convicts, who think Pack 7 is from the FBI and are intent on wiping them out. All in all, the movie still has bits of charm. Observe Richard Lewis trying to get comfortable on a folding cot, for example, and you have a really funny bit going for you. Upon further review, the entire film needed more of that type of observational humor. It doesn't hold up well after all these years but still remains a guilty pleasure.
\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 absolutely the worst comedy I have ever seen. It's hard to explain though, because (unless you've seen this) I bet you've never seen a comedy that was not good or bad; it's just there (That's the original part-not good or bad, just there)!
Let me say that I have seen every comedian appearing in a main role, and like them all. That's what makes this such a mystery. The supporting leads are actually acting (although the dialog is bad). The only character that is fairly good is the one played by John Goodman. He does a pretty good job with what little dialog he has, and actually has one funny line (I won't spoil the only funny line in the movie, in case you decide to watch anyway. It involves a pancake.) The big mysteries are the main leads. I won't call them characters, because no characters have been developed. This script is so juvenile that they don't even bother to give the leads fictional names. They all just use their own. They don't even seem to be trying to act. It's as though they are all reading out loud to each other from scripts that the local junior high sent to them. I actually wrote a paper like this for my English class when I was thirteen-it wasn't funny either.
Bottom line, just don't bother to rent this. It isn't funny. It doesn't even have the kind of bad dialog you can groan to. I just sat there and stared through the whole thing. It was so boring I couldn't even work up any irritation at how bad it was. I can't imagine how this is even getting a rating of 4 here.
\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\nFive guys who were in the cub scouts together reunite years later to go camping. Were they run into their childhood nemeses as well as escaped convicts in this supreme unfunny supposed comedy. Most of the cast are content to simply phone it in, and don't really seem to care about the film in the least. The writers were so lazy that the names of the characters are, for the most part, the name of the actors that respectively play them. Richard Lewis's shtick gets really old REALLY quick. Even the late great character actor, Brion James can't save this stinker. (Even though he's one of the few actors in the film that doesn't totally embarrass himself) I hardly cracked a smile, much less had anything that would reasonably be even misconstrued as a laugh. Awful.
My Grade: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\nThis film is not one of those films so bad you get annoyed and mad because it seems to be so up its own arse and yet it completely not funny. It's just that there is nothing of interest in this film. There are no real jokes that make you amused, you just watch for 80 minutes, then turn it off. I bought this on very budget DVD and I'm glad because it's not worth much. This isn't even one of those films that's so bad you can watch it with friends when getting drunk/high and have a good giggle. I didn't hate it like I hate some films, but it is rather boring, and not worth investing any time in.
The only people who voted 10 on the votes for this film must have been connected to it somehow because I cannot imagine anyone actually liking this film other than small children passing 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\nBad, bad, bad. How do movies like this get made? Badly written, poorly acted; I could go on, but why bother? As an aside, note that the characters' first names are the same as the actors playing them : this is a dead giveaway that no one on the set is even interested enough in their role to bother learning someone else's characters names!
\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 heard that this film was stylish and intriguing, but I just found it annoying. It's been a while since I've seen it (and hopefully I won't find out all my memories are wrong and I'm unjustly condemning this movie), but my memory is that the filmmakers tried to portray Leopold and Loeb as victimized by an anti-gay society, and that this somehow caused their horrible crime. I totally disagree with this point of view, and think it's unfair both to homosexuals and to Bobby Franks, the real victim of the story. I can't imagine why anyone would want to claim those two as martyrs. I also thought L&L were portrayed as a bit more sophisticated than they actually were--after all, they were teenagers who lived at home. The film places them in a kind of fantasy world that seems like it should be scored by Morrissey.
I just read an interview with one of the filmmakers that implied the film's anachronisms, such as the push-button phones that characters used, were meant \"to add Brechtian distance\". They certainly do that, but I happened to find it highly irksome.
Apparently a number of people found this movie interesting, but I would have preferred a less \"stylish\" and more realistic examination of the part homosexuality may have played in the Leopold & Loeb case.
\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\nWatched the director's cut last night...glad it was free rental, even a dollar would have been too much for me to pay to watch this attempt at \"film noir\". The anachronisms (modern telephones) were annoying to me, not clever, seeming more like budget constraints than anything else. The \"non-traditional\" casting I also found distracting. If I have to stop following the story to wonder \"what the heck is the black chick/drag queen doing there?\" then the storyteller has failed me. Again, not clever in my opinion but annoying and irritating, and very film school final project-ish. And for pete's sake if you are going to shoot in black and white at least use some of the techniques used in old films that take full advantage of not having color. There was no use of nuance in the lighting, no shades of gray, no depth, no texture...just black and just white...boring!
\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\nSwoon focuses on Leopold and Loeb's homosexual relationship - a facet of the case that has been mostly (and unjustly) ignored since their trial, even by Leopold himself in his autobiography. But, even in its treatment of this Swoon over does it by far. Worse, it twists, combines, and straight out alters the details of the case which will irritate anyone who knows much about it while at the same time managing to confuse those who are not familiar with it. While it is an interestingly made film, Swoon stinks.
1 out of 10 - awful.
\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 desperately trying to stay awake while watching the movie Solomon Kane. I have about a 20 minutes to go. If it gets any better, I will come back here and let you know, but somehow I doubt that will happen. Solomon Kane looks like it is based on the video game Dark Watch, and it sounds like it is based on the video game Legacy of Kane, but unfortunately neither is true. I hear it is based on some comic book or graphic novel or pulp fiction or something else that I have never heard of, but whatever it is based on, there is nothing original in this excruciatingly boring movie. The atmosphere is stolen from the movie 300, which wasn't that great in the first place. The tedious overacting takes itself so seriously that it's nearly hypnotic, and to be clear I mean that in a bad way. The plot is practically non-existent: violent guy trying to be nonviolent meets friendly family, friendly family is murdered, violent guy becomes violent again. All the characters are stereotypes taken from Waterworld or Book of Eli or The Hills Have Eyes or, whatever, just choose another apocalyptic slash fantasy slash wizardry movie that you have seen and there you have it. Someone, somewhere, said, this is how to make a movie: use a blue filter to make everything look mysterious, add plenty of slow motion shots of horse hooves splashing in murky puddles, add snowflakes hovering around while two boring characters are speaking to each other, and oh yes rain pouring down dramatically to distract from the fact that nothing is really happening, and don't forget the black silhouettes walking toward us with fire blazing behind them, and lots of torches burning, and of course blurry fight scenes during which it's not clear what is actually happening because we don't have the budget for the gory special effects so just throw in the sound of metal clanking, and, oh, by the way, don't let any character live long enough for the audience to understand them, relate to them or sympathize with them, and cross fingers, hope that fans of sword and sorcery films will eat it up, even though it is complete doo doo, and go straight to video, do not pass 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\nAs a big fan of most modern fantasy movies, I was really looking forward to this. I was not familiar with the character, although after hearing some general stories about the style of the comic and good reviews of the movie, I thought I was in for a real treat...
From the moment that the lead character started to talk in his forced husky voice, I could tell straight away that I was not going to enjoy this movie. I found the story weak and predictable, the acting poor, the effects were very good for a small budget film, but did nothing for the overall plot.
Maybe as a fan of the Comics you may get something more from this, otherwise I would suggest that you skip it and not waste you cinema fare on this boring adventure.
\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 looking forward to this flick. Being an old Robert E Howard fan, mainly from a Conan stand-point.
I was not expecting a great deal and thought they could not mess it up too much.... Oh dear - how wrong was I....
The main flaw was it was fairly dull. It needed to zip along with a nice helping of supernatural goings-on, sword-fights and the like.
You got some gore, but everything else was just pretty life-less. The middle section just seemed to involve 40 minutes in a muddy forest with slow plodding horse-drawn carts and even slower dialogue and character development!
On the plus side = Costumes and effects were fine, but not enough to keep your interest.
I think it would have been better to tone down the gore, up the tempo, and go for a 12A rating. As a Ten Year old boy, I may have liked this movie. Probably about the age I was first reading the Conan stories funny enough. Perhaps that says a lot about my anticipation of the film?
Or....... Go really \"Art-House\" with tone, direction, etc. But that's fairly high-risk as far as Box Office is concerned.
Oh well.... Perhaps the next Conan movie will make up for 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 just went to see this movie with a friend. I quickly looked and read a short synopsis and thought it sounded interesting. We came out the movies not feeling very sure if we liked it not.
The acting was good enough and connection with characters was OK. The main character I thought acted a lot like someone like Van Helsing. Yes it was pretty entertaining.
But the plot I felt like it was used from other movies. The script was a bit weak, I'm not sure why every time something bad happens, the main character says \"Oh my god\" every time.
The special effects worked well, but (sorry for this spoiler) the main monster at the main climax reminded me a lot of the Balrok out of Lord of the Rings.
Overall, the movie was OK but I felt like it's been done already. Go and see buy all means but don't expect too much.
\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\nJust saw this at the cinema. I haven't read the books. There is nothing new about this film at all.
the bad guys seem to die with a couple of slashes no matter how many times our hero has been stabbed with a big sword he keeps on going looking the same (ish)! There are several action scenes but they are very fake. filmmakers seem to be under the impression that whenever they cant be bothered to choreograph a fight scene they just move the camera up close, move fast and turn the music up......... This leaves me feeling conned yet again.
I admire them for attempting to tackle a dark storyline without the normal Hollywood cheese but I'm sorry to say the filmmakers have failed miserably. The characters are 2 dimensional. We hardly get to know them or feel for them at all. The lead has a charming farmers accent oo arrr..... though it seems he hasn't got much to say...
Don't bother watching this unless you are bored and got it half price from blockbusters....
\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 called \"Solomon Kane\". Which it isn't. The main character wears a hat, but that's all he has in common with Robert Howard's character Solomon Kane as known from early pulp magazines and lots of publications ever since these days. It is a fantasy movie, not really that bad and it might easily have passed with a rather good review - if it hadn't been called Solomon Kane. The hero is a newly invented character who definitely is not SK. The story is not Robert Howard, neither.
As a fantasy movie it is one more movie following the traditions of the genre: simple story, poor CGI, poor actors, poor directing. Yet it can be fun, you know: 'the cheaper they are, the better they are'. But since it is called Solomon Kane, I cannot accept it. Imagine a Lord-of-the-Rings movie with a hero Bilbo who fights the black sorcerer Saugalf with the help of his dwarf friend Aragorn and the beautiful heroine Shadowfax. And with a final fight where the three use a magical ring to kill the evil sorcerer who has transformed into the dragon Gondorian. Imagine that. This is exactly what this movie has done with Robert Howard's character Solomon Kane.
I'd give it a 4 stars review if it was just another horror movie, but since it is called Solomon Kane, I can only rate it 3 stars.
\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 realize most people don't know who Solomon Kane is and that the film is pitched at that much larger audience. But then why bother to call it \"Solomon Kane\" in the first place when the name has no marketable value? The characters certainly has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the R.E. Howard character. Except he has a big hat. That's where the resemblance ends.
It's always a bad sign when any superhero/fantasy/sci-fi movie lingers over an origin story, but when you invent one whole cloth like this for a character who didn't have one at all, you've already missed the point completely. Kane is no longer even the fanatical Christian warrior of the stories, but rather a formerly bad guy who is trying to save his soul (this part is in the opening scene).
With the most basic character elements changed or simply ignored, the use of the name Solomon Kane is simply perplexing. Is it just so they can say \"From the creator of Conan\" and hope to plug into a budding franchise if the new \"Conan\" movie gets off the ground? Ignoring the complete departure from the stories, the movie is competent if utterly generic for the first half but then devolves into sheer stupidity in the climactic scene which involves multiple super baddies (think three \"boss levels\" at the same time), none of whom is the least bit interesting or menacing.
If I wasn't a Kane fan who was disappointed that they completely ignored the source material, I'd probably give the film a 3 or 4 instead of a 1. Even for the (majority of) viewers who will come into this knowing nothing about Kane, it's pretty thin gruel.
\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\nIs it really possible that so many people in this film believe that the girl is a witch? Just because she has dark hair and wears dark make up she is supposed to be a witch? And I got the impression that the film tries to present her as someone who is \"different\", someone nobody understands... She is just a teenager and some dumb girl in her high school says she is a witch and everyone believes her. Besides, Brandi is either portrayed very badly or the character itself is made to be so... Fake. She didn't convince me that she is not a witch, not that I would believe it in the first place. Everyone accuses her of being a witch and she acts like she is not entirely sure whether she is a witch or not. And the way they dressed her for the court - I see old ladies every day who wouldn't wear that even if it was the last outfit in the world! Brandi's brother also wasn't very convincing... But, you see, the important thing is, that \"she put that bad, bad girl back on to the ground at the end of the film\". \"She has won the battle, proved to everyone she is different\".
This is probably one of the worst films I've watched in may life, way too shallow. I only watched it because there was nothing else on the TV at the moment, so I was condemned to this trash. Please, do not waste your time watching this film. When I saw the 7-star rating, I nearly fainted... It doesn't deserve it, compared to some other films which are also rated with 7 stars.
\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 sequel to the above - and the final entry in the \"Kharis\" series - is slightly more enjoyable on the whole but it's also more contrived (hell, we even get a singing barmaid/hostess!): Peter Coe is easily the least charismatic of the various Egyptian high priests we've seen during the course of these films, and Martin Kosleck as his henchman seems uninterested in the proceedings; Kurt Katch, then, is saddled with a ridiculous accent as the man who discovers the newly reincarnated Princess Ananka: the latter, in the form of Virginia Christine (later a much-used character actress) gets her most substantial 'role' and, indeed, the sequence of her resurrection from the swamps is a highlight not only of this film but the entire series. Unfortunately, here too, Chaney has precious little to do as once again the emphasis is on Ananka, as I've said; his Mummy (to which he returned most often at Universal - apart, naturally, from his signature role of The Wolf Man!) remains, without a doubt, his least memorable monster for the studio.
\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\nUnfortunately, this film is typical of the watering down of a good film by numerous sequels. Universal made several serial monster films in the 1940s, which were pale imitations of the original. The intelligent Egyptologist Imhotep has been replaced by a leg-dragging Frankenstein in mummy wrappings, who exhibits no signs of intelligent life. This film is entertaining in spots but if you have seen The Mummy (1932), you will be 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\nThe Mummy's Curse is the last in the series of the Kharis mummy films, and it seems that creativity had run somewhat dry by the time they made this one. Kharis and his mate Ananka both end up in the bayous of Louisiana, and on his resurrection, he searches out his beloved princess. How they end up in Louisiana isn't made entirely clear, but with various people trying to find them, the viewer can be assured of some mummy murders.
The Mummy's Curse was watchable, but it really wasn't anything special. I had the feeling throughout the movie that I'd seen this before. Quite frankly, apart from the original The Mummy with Boris Karloff, the Mummy movies are not my favorites among the old Universal horrors. They're not bad, but they do get a bit repetitive.
There are some great scenes in the movie (the scene with Ananka coming to life in the swamp for instance) but overall this didn't do much for me.
It's worth seeing if you want to be completest and see all of the mummy movies, but otherwise you might want to pass on 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\nI'm glad this was the last of the '40's Universal Mummy movies. The movies were all of variating qualities and this movie was definitely one of the lesser ones.
Problem is that it's a very slow moving movie, in which basically nothing interesting or exciting is ever happening. Perhaps it would had all been better if the mummy had made his entrance earlier on in the movie. Instead now the movie once again spends its first 20 minutes explaining what had all happened in the previous mummy movies, by also once again using archive footage from this time \"The Mummy\" from 1932 again, to which this movie is the fourth mummy movie following the 1932 mummy story. The movie just never knows to find the right pace and even though the movie is barely over an hour long, it still feels a bit like a drag.
It of course also doesn't help that the movie has a rather simplistic and actually very little interesting story. The movie also feels quite disjointed. The first and second half of the movie don't really connect to each other and they seemed like two separate movies on their own.
At least Lon Chaney Jr. is still in it. He once more reprises the role of the mummy Kharis, for the third time. Too bad that he has such limited screen time this time. He gets unfortunately very little interesting to do, which is also a big waste of the mummy character itself. The movie is further more filled with dozens of silly actors who are playing around with silly accents. It seemed so totally unnecessary to me that most of the characters had to speak with such an accent and it actually gets quite distracting and annoying at points.
The mummy movies that's least worth seeing.
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\nNot all films made in 1931 are this creaky, and the fact that this was \"Best Picture\" must have given even greater impetus to the development of television.
Typical of all Ferber novels, it isn't possible to bring the entire story to the screen, to say nothing of developing character. Dix -- so stolid in the first third of the movie -- does an about face, but no one knows why and it makes no sense. And what is there about Dunne that makes makes her so stoical? Edna May Oliver's scenes are priceless, as usual.
This film has a role to play in the history of cinema, but it is long and boring.
\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 dated in so many ways, it's sensational. You can either laugh at it or shake your fists in rage.
This movie deals with many problems of American history, but with the typical white-male-Christian-American paternalism: The main character is one of those I-can-do-it-all-and-you've-got-to-love-me-for-it-kind-of-guy. He is so pompous and not to be taken serious at any time. What a horrid creature! His wife is a weak little woman for the first part of the movie and a still very weepy, but stronger character in the end. Too bad she still forgives his cocky ways after he's left her for the second time. It's just sad that the character didn't really change at all. Even though she is supposed to portray a strong and independent woman in the end, she is consumed by worry about her adventure-seeking husband. So 2 out of 10 points from the feminists among us (and those are only for the good intentions...)! The problem of Indian suppression is dealt with quite nicely, but there is that patronizing story-telling again. And the fact that all African-American characters are the typical stereotypes makes the movie even more hypocritical. I was so enraged most of the time! So one point (for trying) from the civil rights movement.
I know, that the movie was done at a different time. I love old movies and I have a lot of patience with some of those dated point of views. But this was just disgusting!
What saves this movie are the parts without the main character. Mr Dix's acting is way over the top and smug. Maybe that's why his character is so disagreeable... I liked Mrs Dunne's performance, even though her character enraged me at times.
But I must say the famous land rush scene was incredibly done. And the way that the Oklahoma settlement was portrayed made the movie worthwhile. It's just amazing how civilization rose out of the dirt and dust of the 19th century. And I don't understand the problem some have with that church scene. I thought it was quite funny and amusing. Maybe it wasn't supposed to be, but I liked it. So 9 points for those scenes and the impressive storytelling of the development of the Oklahoma state. That makes about 4 points altogether!
\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\nCimarron was painful to sit through. Although Irene Dunn does a good job with the heavy-handed script, Richard Dix' pompous and overacted role is brutal. The passage of time has not treated the character of Isaiah, as well as other racial and religious notions, well, although the movie is somewhat progressive on the roles of women and the mistreatment of Native Americans. The editing is especially weak. This is, without a doubt, the worst of all the \"best\" pictures.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nLike a lot of films from the early sounds days, Cimarron must be viewed more for historical interest than as compelling entertainment. The hammy acting of lead Richard Dix, nominated for best actor, can be excused as a relic of the silent-film school of acting. However, even giving benefits of the doubt, Cimarron is a badly shaped piece of drama -- a bloated film that moves from unrelated sequence to unrelated sequence with little dramatic impact. Offically, the film is two hours and four minutes; it feels like four hours when you're watching it. There is no reason to waste your time on it unless you want to see every Best Picture winner or have a keen interest in the early sound days. In my opinion, Cimarron is the worst choice for best picture in Academy history and the award should have gone to City Lights or Little Ceasar. Cimarron is barely remembered today, and would have be remembered at all if not for its Oscar win.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"