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 trouble with this film, like so many other films that fail, is the script.
The script is so unfocused it flounders around all over the place. What IS the story here? OK, it's a biopic but I think everyone will agree there is no way that an entire life can be condensed into 100 or so minutes. Some selection and editing is required but this script just didn't select or edit enough. It didn't render Hoffman's life down to one or two definable pivotal moments or themes that the audience could identify with and, through them, 'get' the bigger picture of the whole man.
The movie wanders from being a straight plodding 'troubled genius' biopic, to semi-docu/mocu-mentary (using new shots faked up to match archive footage), to sub True Life Sob Stories Movie of the Week (the whole \"I'm bringing up a son who doesn't know I'm his Dad\" shtick), to political conspiracy theory movie etc. etc. It just never makes its mind up what it wants to be, and the half-hearted Citizen Kane like narrative structure (reporter interviewing people from Hoffman's past) is soon abandoned which leaves the film even more unstructured and flabby than it starts out.
The movie is full of moments and incidents that contribute nothing to the story and could well have been cut to leave room to expand something more important. The whole scene in the psychiatrist's office after Vincent D'Onofrio pounds the window screaming \"I'm Abbie Hoffman! I'm Abbie Hoffman! I'm Abbie Hoffman!\" (\"I'm acting! I'm acting! I'm acting!\") could have easily been cut. All that happens is the psychiatrist says \"You have bipolar disorder here's some lithium.\", and the two women in his life say \"We could see you weekends more often.\" and bang! That's it. No more mental health problems. It is such a laughably pointless tokenistic scene it could easily, and should, have been dumped before it was shot. The scene where they all get high and watch newsreel footage from Viet Nam and Hoffman phones GOD? Pointless. Tells us nothing about anything. Yet, when it comes to a pivotally important moment like the drugs bust, the film making is so hurried the situation just comes out of leftfield and doesn't make any sense to the audience. Suddenly he's dealing in heroin? Where did this come from? Why? What is going on here?
I, being a middle-aged leftie, would guess I am sitting well within the target audience for this movie but even I got fed up with the portrayal of 'The Man', 'The Pigs', 'The Fuzz' etc. as brutal, be-suited, unthinking, hippie-hating androids. It may have been like that in 60's America, I don't know, I wasn't there, but in film terms it was cheap clumsy polemic.
Having said all that Vincent D'Onofrio was convincingly charismatic as the younger Hoffman and I could watch Janeane Garofalo in anything, even reading a bus timetable, though she just wasn't right for this part.
\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\nWant a great recipe for failure? Take a crappy, leftist political plot, add in some weak & completely undeveloped characters and then throw in the worst sequences a movie has ever known. Let stew for a week (the amount of time probably spent making this trash).
The result is 'Steal This Movie,' a cinematic experience that takes bad movies to dangerous and exotically low places never before conceived.
This movie utterly blew chunks at my face for its entire run time. Words cannot convey how painful it was to watch. This is not one of those bad movies that you and your friends can sit around and make fun of. This is not 'Plan 9 From Outer Space.' This is a long, boring and sad waste of time. 'Steal This Movie' is the biggest waste of energy and talent I have ever seen. It depresses me when I realize that people *actually* took time out of their lives to act in this tripe, if you can call it \"acting.\" But then again, when you have poor direction, poor writing, poor EVERYTHING - \"acting\" is the last thing to criticize.
This movie is like a huge, disgusting turd that you yearn to quickly flush out of existence, fearful that a friend or loved one might somehow see it. I really wish I could somehow destroy every copy of this film so it will not pollute the minds of aspiring filmmakers. Thank you, Robert Greenwald, for giving me newfound respect for every other movie I have ever seen. You have shown me what is truly awful and why I should appreciate all those movies that are merely crappy and/or 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\nThere is nothing good to say about this movie. Read Revolution For the Hell of It or any of his other writings. Abbie was often dismissed as the clown-prince of the '60's, but he was a man of ideas who used his cleverness, his sense of humor and pop culture, and his flamboyant personality to get attention to his ideas. The media too often concentrated on the man, not the ideas, and that's the problem with this movie, too. Later in his life he did suffer from depression. But this flick is like a National Enquirer version of Abbie. He deserves better. If you don't know Abbie or his times, this movie won't help.
This film lies. I give it a zero.

\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 one of the worst I've ever seen, it did not left out a single clichee one could imagine about a Hollywood-so-called-Thriller. The protagonist is a loving father & a private investigator who is engaged in a special task: finding out if a suspected \"snuff\" movie is real.
Certainly, he get's involved deeper & deeper, smeary pornoshops (run by mexicans) & sex theatres are his field of investigation as he's searching for the murderers of the woman in the \"snuff\" movie. Assisted by a \"smart\" (he read a book) sexshop employee, he's catching up with a murderous bondage-film producer and his personal perverts who are responsible for the film... ...and what do you expect? They are portrayed as the simple evil, no need for explanations, backgrounds, history: they are the bad ones, and he's the purifier. Boom. Killer of the killers. End of film. Is it that bad? Yes, I'm afraid so.
Ironically, \"machine\" (the mega-pervert who did the killing) is even pointing at his ridiculous character: In the last scene, our hero forces \"machine\" to put off his leather mask (yep, of course he's wearing one) and recognizes that \"machine\" looks just like the normal 08/15 guy from the street. Then \"machine\" says: \"blablabla I'm not a monster, my parents never abused me, I had a nice childhood, I just love to do what I do!\"
I just love to kill people. Yeah, sure, \"everybody loves killing people\" (Bender). It's not only the total lack of character what made this film so boring, it's also it's ugly \"I have to kill these people\"-attitude which makes you sick. In one scene, our hero has tied up one of the killers and tries to shoot him...but he can't. So what does he do? He calls the mother of the killed woman, says that her child is killed and asks her whether she loved her child so much that she wishes to see the killers dead. The mother cries yes, she'd love her child, he goes back to the tied killer and slaughters him.
To come to the point: This film is breathing the foul air of lynchmob-supporters (certainly the police does not play any role in it), moralizes in a ridiculous form against pornography, does not take it's characters serious and wastes your time with a stupid plot. Probably the only good thing about this film is that it does not try to pseudo-psycho-analyze ... even that would be too much plot.
Don't waste your time with this.

\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\nThese days, Ridley Scott is one of the top directors and producers and can command huge sums to helm movies--especially since he has films like ALIEN, GLADIATOR and BLADE RUNNER to his credit. So from this partial list of his credits, it's obvious he's an amazing talent. However, if you watch this very early effort that he made while in film school, you'd probably have a hard time telling that he was destined for greatness. That's because although it has some nice camera-work and style, the film is hopelessly dull and uninvolving. However, considering that it wasn't meant for general release and it was only a training ground, then I am disposed to looking at it charitably--hence the score of 4.
By the way, this film is part of the CINEMA 16: European Shorts DVD. On this DVD are 16 shorts. Most aren't great, though because it contains THE MAN WITHOUT A HEAD, COPY SHOP, RABBIT and WASP, it's an amazing DVD for lovers of short films and well worth buying.
\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 short film on the dvd for Ridley Scott's film, The Duellists. There was no introduction by Scott before the film, it just started right up.
Boy and a Bicycle is hardly an example of Ridley Scott's other work, it bears no resemblance. The film shows a boy, played by Tony Scott, riding around on a bicycle. Guess what? That's pretty all that happens. The boy rides around, rambling on and on with pointless, confusing dialogue. The film was shot in black and white, and since it was directed by Ridley Scott, I expected some cool cinematography or visually-striking sets. Instead, I was treated with nothing. This film isn't even good for a first effort. However, I recommend that any fan of Ridley Scott should check it out at least 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\nTotal disgrace! Truly awful! The screenplay and dialogue is a joke, and combined with a director who doesn't have a clue about life in Saudi Arabia. It's not a surprise, quite Saudi film ha, the director is Palestinian-Canadian, the writer is Lebanese, the lead actress is Jordanian, and the shooting took place in Dubai, and all those elements show very well to make the film far from representing the Saudi society. Yes it contains some Saudi cliché's, the stuff we see in cartoons in the newspapers everyday, but that's about everything. The film had the opportunity to show real problem with Saudi society, or at least give us something new and genuine about the youth troubles and concerns in Saudi Arabia, instead it copied and pasted from here and there, and the result was a mess. Even the supposedly love story in the movie doesn't exist or at least we haven't seen it. The only bright side in this total debacle is some good acting from the supporting cast. The veteran Khaled Sami was funny in a badly written role as the grand father, which he is clearly got miscasted, for he looks younger than the actor who plays his son. Also the actor who plays the fanatic brother's role, Turki Al-Yusuf, has done well, in fact he was the best actor in the film. The rest of the cast, being professionals for long, did an OK job, but the lead actor Hisham Abdulrahman was just bad. He had one look of a little adorable bobby for all situations. He couldn't even say his lines in a proper manner. He has charisma that made him win the title of Star Academy, a very famous reality show, and he is good in interviews and TV shows, but he was just the weakest link of this film. The lead actress I didn't mind very much, but even she acted badly in some scenes and overplayed her sensuality in unneeded way.
The Film was a huge hit, Saudi flocked in thousands to neighboring Bahrain and Dubai to attend it when it was screened there, and it made a tone of money, then it was screened in pay per view, then in broadcasting TV, and that was in a span of a few weeks. This was to cash on Saudis eagerness to homegrown entertainment, but alas; the film was neither homegrown, nor entertaining.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nwhat a shame our first movie is so bad .............................. hi sham , what did you do in this movie:( . . it is awful! and the director :( .. there is no story in this film . i had sleep when i was watching this film .. It is a disappointment, and the majority of the crew is not from Saudi Arabia. Supposed to be a comedy movie, but it lacks the essential elements in Comedy ,
I know it first experience of cinema in Saudi Arabia, but I expect better from Kaif Al Hal !! The only positive in the movie is the presence of some talented actors who did not help much text to explode their talents Finally.., iwant to know your comment about this movie guys... is it bad or what?
\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 as the 1st KSA's movie should be active to their people and show the good thing on them. Otherwise, we see in this as Rotana's cast want show religion's people in Saudi Arabia as Terrorist and stupid in fact their not they are very peaceful and smart. About the director is not even less good. The Grandfather in movie is very younger than the father, everyone notes that. And the girls who not Saudi by the way show our girls as pitches looking to man to satisfy their needs. Hasham was just another part of furniture at act he did nothing to imagine only when he said to his lover I love you and yell to his friend don't talk to strange girls >>>>>>> really funny or really stupid
The Father was so not moving only set their and he watch this movie as not one of cast and only word he said \"A5zo Al Shai6an\". The Weird Thing in this movie is when the girls were set in restaurant in family's part, there voice in behind young man talk to his girlfriends \"kiss me\" many times >>>>> Is that happened in Saudi Arabia when the girls and boys grow up good and Muslem not bitches and adulterer. Any Saudi have patriot in his heart will not allow to see this stupid 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\nThis film revival right march in a bad film industry and Saudi Arabia, I want to know how the director was able to stand in front of people of the industry after he making this film, work was so very bad, we do not know how cinema Saudi companies such as Rutana and other does not support yang Filmmakers in KSA like UAE We hope in the future to prosper film industry in Saudi Arabia But without such intervention Fools traders and idiots make us bad movies do not benefit the reputation of cinema in Saudi Arabia is like the Roman and Iranian cinema At the same time, please makers simple experimental cinema in Saudi Arabia such as Abdullah alayaf And others to achieve the dream of a good film industry to participate in festivals world away from the major companies interventions stupid
\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 piece of crap doesn't worth a critical review so I'll write some information for those who don't know the background of this movie. First off all it is not the first Saudi movie, they used this wrong info for commercial purpose (they lied!). Second they made it for money not for anything else so they picked the jerk (Hesham) who won Star Academy (like Big Brother) it is a popular show and the jerk Hesham is popular but dumb, cheesy & untalented then picked the famous Kuwaiti actor Mohammed Al Sairafi (also dumb & untalented) but has a popular (count how many times I'll use the word \"popular\" then email me to get your prize, however..) has popular show and the Jordanian actress Mais Hamdan who appeared in POPular comic show CBM (unfunny) so she is famous * PoPular! Then they picked some Saudi actors for .. blah blah blah. The funniest thing is the director! He is Canadian with Palestinian roots (I believe that the identity of the movie is the identity of its director) .. wait a minute! The screen play was written by an Egyptian screenwriter (very awful one!) with some help from Lebanese critic (famous as critic but actually he is a money collector!). This group of the multi races (money slaves) doesn't know anything about the Saudi culture they don't represent it but when we know who is behind this garbage all our questions will be relieved! Waleed bin Talaal is Saudi prince and (B U S I N E S S M A N) who doesn't care about the Saudi culture or Saudi people he even doesn't live in Saudi Arabia (even if he lives he will live in his own world, his world is far far far away from the real world the people world) so he doesn't know anything or care about anything except raising his endless fortune.
*Not Saudi movie(not anything movie).
Screw them all.
Beep out of 10!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe amount of hype and the huge success this film has encountered is evidence how desperate our people are towards a good independent Saudi film. In fact the huge success of \"Tash ma Tash\" is also an evidence.
I'm not going to start of how important film making is, as it is obvious to those with half a brain how films have changed the world.
And I'm not going to say how much our society needs a bunch of films to clear out a lot of issues we have in our country. Religion, politics, women's rights, education, general health, terrorism, Law and many many more.
Along came news about the fist Saudi movie which should've been a remedy to some of the issues we have, especially towards the youth. Instead we experienced a bald movie for that matter.
The ignorance and naivety of the script was obvious. It was as if a 13 year old had written it.
Now I've heard that the budget for this film was huge. I would like to know where the money went, huh? The effects were really ugly, the editing was poor. The script was \"kharabeet\". You really don't know what the story is and what the director aims at from this film.
A note on the actor who played the religious brother, his performance was good but with bad direction. Another thing with the role of the religious friends he had, that is not how religious guys act here in Saudi Arabia! They are not \"Evil\" as this film intends. In fact they are some of the nicest people you'll ever meet with some really uncommon way of living, and that is what should've appeared in the film.
The youth are following the religious here because of a reason, and that is the youngsters are the most passionate and sentimental. And with the well formed principles the religious live on, the youngsters follow them. Again, this is what should've appeared.
We need another \"First Film\" with a Saudi Writer, actor, director, composer, even cameraman. So that they all work with passion towards their experiment, not just for the money!
And we should do what Shakespeare did hundreds of years ago, we should include phrases from the Qur'an in the script of the movie. As the people in our society still see art as a form of sin, the challenge a Saudi movie maker is facing is changing the mentality in that angle.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI am a big MD fan. But, I call it like I see it. This film limped along. The plot was preposterous. Gaining access to heads of state in this movie is easier than gaining access to the the local grocery store. Come on! Tone Loc has the emotion of a wooden plank. Loosen up! The editing is choppy. The actors, and I use the term loosely, sound as if they are reading their lines on valium.
This movie could have been better. Dudikoff has potential, but he chooses scripts that just scream,\"Stinker\".
If you want to watch a good Dudikoff movie, may I suggest Crash Dive or Avenging Force. If you have never seen one of his films, this is not the one to introduce you to his work. You will walk away with a bad taste in your mouth and think all of his projects are this 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\nAs a bit of a Michael Dudikoff fan I sat down to watch one of his good old-fashioned actioners - I'm still waiting.
The film is based around a group of US commandos trying to get rid of a bunch of Syrian terrorists who have taken over a nuclear reactor. Maddie Reese (Felicity Waterman) was an English member of the commando unit and of course she became romantically involved with Tom Dickson (Dudikoff). I must ask since when have the Brits had female SAS members - as far as I know if they are ever needed they are got from other sources. Even if they did I can pretty much guarantee they wouldn't be as wet as Maddie Reese. I would also think that Tom Dickson would be a little more responsible in his position - or have I lost the plot?! I know there is always the romantic angle in these films as it helps provide the feelgood factor, but does it have to be throughout, especially when there's more important things to be taken into consideration - like nuclear warfare!
The signing of the treaty on the US aircraft carrier intrigued me. The \"sacred pen\" as carried by one of the supposed TV news crew - are there were no security checks to find out who or what goes on board one of these ships, especially with the calibre of people that was on it. Mind you if there was, I suppose there would be no story.
I could go on, but when it got to \"inner body bomb defusion\" in order to safely remove a bullet I gave up on the action drama movie bit and enjoyed it for the comedy it actually was.
By the way, would a news reporter really say \"Downtown Damascus\"??
\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 unbelievable on any level. It fails as an action film because no one would be fooled for a moment that the props, actors and scenery are realistic. It fails because even the most gung-ho would see through the hollow chauvinism portrayed by the film, a hypocritical might is right mentality.
\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 only watched the first twenty minutes of this movie and personally I think that this is the worst movie to be made in the recent years.
The plot was so bad that it might have been possible that a 10 year old kid wrote it. The acting was also sloppy with pretty much an unknown cast and not only that the action sequences especially at the first half of the film were so terrible it was unbelievable.
I don't know how the producers obtained the budget to film this movie but the production company must be regretting it by now.
To anyone who may come across this film in the near future, I advise you to steer clear of this joke of a movie.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIvan The Terrible is more a filmed stage play than a \"big-screen-opus\". Citizen Kane - a similar work in many ways - is quite the opposite (in the way we come to expect such fare) in that it has lots of location shooting for example.
Acting is meant to convey a character's motivations and thinking to the audience; if it succeeds in making you understand the character, what does it matter HOW it was done? And considering the low amount of action, how else is one to express events that influence the story, and consequently the characters' machinations and decisions other than \"exaggerated movements\"?
As well, there's a historical level why the acting style should not surprise. The rise of totalitarian regimes in Germany and USSR forced film-makers who stayed behind to make films the way they knew how. As they were prevented access to more modern works that showed cinema's evolution and techniques, they only used what they knew.
The Nazi's control of government in Germany destroyed the great German film industry of the 1920's, due to their total control over that film industry. And propaganda films can only \"entertain\" German troops so much; hence the need for popular German silent films of the 1920's, for example. So a lot of Ivan The Terrible film's techniques would have been derived from such captured German films supplied to the film crew (as mentioned in other comments).
There was no confusion anywhere and though personally it was found over-hyped, it is by no means a bad cinematic experience - and definitely NOT amongst the worse films ever. The acting is fine, and part of the cinematography excellent (even by today's standards; more below). Definitely not a popcorn flick; one can't leave their brain outside this one's door. Dated perhaps and very symbolic - only worth watching on the big screen if one is unable to view the films with the lights off at home, for many of the cinematic elements will be lost in these films' chiefly B&W experience. It all depends upon what expectations one walks in with...
WARNING - SPOILERS: Do not read the following comments, in case they influence your personal view of the film(s).
...and if one does not mind the obvious communist propaganda (as opposed to capitalist propaganda). For Ivan is how Stalin saw himself - obvious in his influence on the film's direction (see other comments) - and anyone with a world historical awareness outside the US perspective will definitely understand this. Maybe Ivan was an earlier incarnation of Stalin, or maybe not; this is more a diatribe on Stalin and his motivations, decisions, loneliness, promotions of lackeys, etc - using the persona of Ivan - than any true historical record of Ivan. Also note the obvious use of particular colours in the sequel: Red (for the USSR) in the banquet scene. And perhaps blue (for the USA) during certain shots when the usurper wears the crown?
But it has many excellent visuals such as the profound use of shadows, or the exterior shot of the populace coming to beg Ivan's return to Moscow.
\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\nWell I will come clean and admit that I was forced as part of my history degree to watch this film, and then write a short film review as part of my grade.
Yet even if I had watched the film alone, at my own discretion I found it extremely boring and absurd. The style is dated beyond its years, and the acting is farcical. Rather than use dialogue they instead exchange eye popping glances at each other, or sometimes into thin air. For me, such over the top acting does not convey any greater emotion, and after seeing an extreme close up Ivan's face for the hundredth time I was praying for the film to end.
The most disappointing though is how wrong Ivan's character is. This man was nasty, his bodyguard's murderous thugs and his character cowardly. For me the film was nothing but a piece of Stalin propaganda, inaccurate and dull.
\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\nWell, \"built\" Doris Day (as Ethel S. \"Dynamite\" Jackson) is mistaken for thespian Ethel Barrymore, and falls in love with dancer Ray Bolger (as S. \"Sam\" Winthrop Putnam). Older Frenchman Claude Dauphin (as Philippe Fouquet) also digs Doris. Honestly What were they thinking? - This wildly inappropriate musical does feature Ms. Day prettily singing the standard \"April in Paris\", and others. Certainly, there nothing as good as her Columbia recordings from the time; and, nothing approaches Day's stunning and forthcoming \"Secret Love\". Although the material does not serve him well, it's nice to see Mr. Bolger performing. Some of the musical numbers are obnoxious.
**** April in Paris (12/24/52) David Butler ~ Doris Day, Ray Bolger, Claude Dauphin
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSorry folks, I love Ray Bolger's work but the one thing he ain't is a leading man. Maybe if you pretend he's the last man on earth, this romantic plot might work but come'on now !
Here's a movie that exists simply to showcase the title song which was a big hit for the Basie Band the year before (1951). And some pretty nifty singing and dancing save it from being a total disaster.
However, the story line is pathetic, even by 1952 musical comedy standards. And the other songs are equally as forgettable as Evening In Paris cologne. The dialogue embarrasses the stars, Day & Bolger. Only Claude Dauphin's Boyeresque charms keep his character three dimensional.
So, how to enjoy this movie on video ?
A.) Fast forward through all the dialogue...
B.) Surrender yourself to Doris Day's vocals and Ray Bolger's loose-limbed footwork. And don't miss Dauphin's hilarious take on a rain-soaked, windswept reprise of \"April In Paris\"...
C.) Finally, keep a couple of bottles of Cabernet chilled and handy.
Bob Raymond
\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 one is a cut above the usual softcore T&A, with the spirit of a dead actress returning to claim the film role she believes is rightfully hers, and using the body of an aspiring young actress to do so.
As always, the gorgeously sexy Amber Newman the is main attraction; her sensuous presence overshadows the mildly attractive, Shauna O'Brien
Plot: *1/2 out of ****
Sex/nudity: *** out of ****
\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\nThere are bad movies, movies that are horrible, and then there's a tiny, rarified body of movies that are so horribly bad that, even after seeing them just once, the sheer awfulness makes it impossible to forget them even decades later. This is exactly such a movie, and it's hard to believe that the original film in this series was actually quite good. Let's see, George Kennedy, the cigar chomping \"tough guy\" mechanic of the original has somehow been promoted to airline captain, and, after the Concorde comes under missile attack (don't ask), he resorts to stunts like shooting a flare gun out the cockpit window despite (presumably) flying at Mach 2, all the while doing the sort of wild high-G evasive maneuvers that would have ripped the wings off any real airliner, never mind the effect of the passengers! But the absolute worst part of the film, at least to dedicated airplane buffs like myself, is that this atrocity \"starred\" one of the coolest, sexiest, and most technologically remarkable planes ever to fly. The Concorde (or, just plain \"Concorde\" as its pilots refer to it) deserved far better, this abomination is the equivalent of taking a high class beauty like Audrey Hepburn and putting her in a \"Porky's\" sequel. Thankfully, the release of the ever hilarious \"Airplane!\" the following year brought the whole \"Airport\" franchise to a well deserved halt, as anyone even contemplating a fifth installment would have been laughed to death by studios and movie fans alike.
1/10
\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\nOK, here is the deal. I love action movies and generally have no problem suspending a great deal of disbelief over plot holes or other implausible actions. However, this movie went far beyond minor flaws and went straight to the ridiculous. Let me get this straight. The police send a notorious gangster and cop killer (along with a number of other prisoners) on a bus with a grand total of two guards. They then are forced to stop at a precinct where precisely two cops are working, one of which is a day away from retirement and the other is a burn out. Apparently the building was about to be shut down so somehow the police decided that everyone else in the entire precinct got the night off for new year's eve. Right. But wait, it gets better. Gabriel Byrne shows up to take out Fishburne before he can rat him and other dirty cops out. (although we never find out anything about their relationship or dealings). Interestingly, the cops launching the assault on the precinct are in full SWAT gear with night vision goggles, assault rifles, the whole nine yards. Later on they even bring in a helicopter with MORE people in full gear. I'm not a cop, but I'm pretty sure you can't just waltz out of the station with an entire swat platoon worth of equipment without someone asking what you are doing. And the police helicopter??? In the supposedly terrible winter storm??? Also, no one near the precinct happens to hear or see this major siege going on with flash grenades and heavy rifle fire going off? I mean seriously, come on. I know this is set in Detroit, but even there it would raise suspicion on a supposedly top secret mission. I also love the fact that they find a Tommy Gun in the evidence room and somehow the gun still works and has bullets that are still intact and usable.
I could live with some of these problems if there weren't other glaring issues also. For one, the opening couple minutes of the movie are shot nicely in a very frenetic and hyperactive way and I thought was going to set the tone for the rest of the movie. Unfortunately I was wrong. The remainder of the film has no sense of pacing or tension or drama. The \"characters\" don't relate to each other in any way which is probably largely due to the fact that they aren't particularly interesting. There isn't enough interesting action to make this a good action movie, and there isn't enough character development/storytelling to make this a passable thriller/drama. The \"relationship\" between Hawke/Fishburn is the only thing that the director even tries to make interesting or intense. Oh and by the way, the final scene in the wilderness? Uh, I thought this was in the middle of a run down industrial section of Detroit and suddenly we are in the woods?? The acting isn't terrible in this movie, it is just that the directing and writing are atrocious. I really enjoy some of Hawkes, Fishburne, Byrne, Dennehy's other movies but this one is terrible.
\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 for ATTACK on Precinct 13. There, the film is THAT memorable. Who is the star of this? Ethan Hawke or Matt Dillon (I can't tell who the lead actor is, that's a pretty big point against the movie right there) Gabriel Byrne (who could't have needed the money this badly could he?) Drea De Matteo is stunning but only because of her amazing body. It took me ages to finally work out she's Joey's sister off \"Friends\". I agree that the so called SWAT people attacking the station are pretty crap, as far as tactics go. We were even taught better basic skills than this in RAF basic training.
Avoid this, even the snow doesn't want to fall on a bus full of prisoners! Very bad continuity indeed.
Avoid like the plague!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n**Maybe spoilers** **hard to spoil this thing more then it is, but just in case** Gee's I don't see how anybody could have liked this re-make!! It was like a \"made for T.V\" show and still pretty lame for that. Lots of fake snow, bad acting by top stars, bad action and that crazy pine forest in Detroit. What the heck??!! I didn't really think this would be a great movie but I was hoping to be entertained. Nope, we fell asleep half way and had to finish it up the next day. I could have skipped the rest easy(but then I would have missed those great piney woods!) I'm so glad I missed this at the theater! Bad enough to have wasted $3.50 at the video store. And I am a lover of cop, action and drama films. This was a very stinky 1 out of 10 stars. Give me the original any day!!
\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 examines the now infamous Wannsee Conference where top Nazis gathered to discuss the organisation and implementation of the \"Final Solution\" First off, I want to say I was amazed to see Kenneth Branagh play a Nazi. With the slicked back blonde hair, he certainly looked the part but he didn't really act the part well. There was none of the menace & cruelty and in the end, he came out looking like a grinning cheerleader, keeping the meeting going. The real Heydrich would not have let the conference get out of control the way it did in the film.
The best performance of all was undoubtedly Colin Firth who played Dr William Stuckart, the man who wrote the 1935 Nuremberg race laws and who gave \"legal respectibility\" to everything the Nazis did. Firth's performance was stunning, the main vocal opponent to what Heydrich was proposing. The best part of all was when he was verbally dressing down one of the Nazi thugs. The thug muttered \"I'll remember you\" and Firth replies \"you should! I'm very well-known!!\" The film is historically accurate but let's boil it down to what it really is - 90 minutes of a group of men around a table discussing, shouting and bragging. There's no excitement, no real conflicts (except the brief argument). It's just 90 minutes of talking! Same room, same table, same people.
I'm not sure if the DVD is worth the money. I for one felt short-changed.
\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 yet another pseudo-intellectual \"let's make the Nazis look real bad\" movie. The Nazis were pretty bad, no doubt - most of already know that. However, that does not necessarily make every movie on the theme good. A Discovery Channel presentation of \"The Wannsee Conference\" would have been much more interesting.
\"Conspiracy\" falls on its ass between two categories: documentary and drama. It doesn't cut it as a documentary, the movie is too `staged' and the presentation too `common'. It doesn't cut it as a drama, the characters are too shallow and conflicts too easily `solved'.
Another thing is the tagline: \"One Of The Greatest Crimes Against Humanity Was Perpetrated In Just Over An Hour.\" As the movie shows the Wannsee Conference the meeting had nothing to do with reaching a consensus on the final solution. The decision on the solution had already been taken by the SS. The sole purpose of the meeting was to make all significant stakeholders commit themselves to an already established plan. There were no decisions or plans made at the Wannsee Conference. There was only threats and coercion (some needed less than others).
Finally: One thing the movie does show (although in no exceptional manner) is, man has a tendency to turn to culture and aesthetics in an attempt to hide for himself the fact that he is committing appalling atrocities. This is seen in most powermongering `leaders' and politicians.
\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 yet another pseudo-intellectual \"let's make the Nazis look real bad\" movie. The Nazis were pretty bad, no doubt - most of already know that. However, that does not necessarily make every movie on the theme good. A Discovery Channel presentation of \"The Wannsee Conference\" would have been much more interesting.
\"Conspiracy\" falls on its ass between two categories: documentary and drama. It doesn't cut it as a documentary, the movie is too \"staged\" and the presentation too \"common\". It doesn't cut it as a drama, the characters are too shallow and conflicts too easily \"solved\".
Another thing is the tagline: \"One Of The Greatest Crimes Against Humanity Was Perpetrated In Just Over An Hour.\" As the movie shows the Wannsee Conference the meeting had nothing to do with reaching a consensus on the final solution. The decision on the solution had already been taken by the SS. The sole purpose of the meeting was to make all significant stakeholders commit themselves to an already established plan. There were no decisions or plans made at the Wannsee Conference. There was only threats and coercion (some needed less than others).
Finally: One thing the movie does show (although in no exceptional manner) is, man has a tendency to turn to culture and aesthetics in an attempt to hide for himself the fact that he is committing appalling atrocities. This is seen in most powermongering \"leaders\" and politicians.
\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 was an absolute disgrace! The worst dramatisation I have ever seen. German officer's with a spotless English accent, they didn't even attempt to be German. How were we supposed to take them seriously? Garbage garbage garbage! Leave the German acting to the likes of Ralph Fiennes & Liam Neeson in future.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFor a movie that was the most seen in its native South Korea for most of 2004, it was a huge disappointment. Shows that Hollywood is not the only place where people can make over-emotional, melodramatic movies. The film was over 130 minutes long but not a lot actually happened and everything that happened was pretty much what one expected, the plot was that transparent. Granted if one himself was Korean, one would perhaps get into it more, but for me it didn't do much anything. Suffice to say that as the case tends to be with Korean cinema, the plot revolves around the relationship between the northern and southern parts of the peninsula. South Korea decides to recruit and train an elite assassination squad from death-sentence prisoners to kill Kim Il-Sung.
A tedious plot doesn't bother me much if the characters are good but unfortunately that is not the case this time around either. They are stereotypes and most of the acting is mediocre and too often just over the top as it tends to be in Korean cinema. Too much time is spent on the numerous montages and the characters remain distant, one dimensional cardboard cuts. They should've spent more time establishing the characters and less showing us how tough and cruel the training and the soldiers are.
One thing it does remind us of, is that a lesser of two wrongs is still wrong.
\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\nWhere do I start? The plot of the movie, which is about a love between two high school students during wartime, while one is a living weapon, and their struggle to maintain that love is a very good plot. It is based on a manga by Shin Takahashi which was also turned into an anime in 2002, both of which I have yet to read or see.
This review is about this live action adaptation however. Sadly, this honest to goodness was a terrible movie. It isn't as if one could site certain aspects, and say, for instance, the budget is at fault, or the acting is to blame. It is, sadly, a series of underwhelming and ineffectual elements that bring this film down.
The acting is poor. Not to say Aki Maeda and Shunsuke Kubozuka are bad actors, but they didn't have much to work with, and seemed miscast. Neither seemed to have the physical range to draw the viewer in the story as well as being too old for their parts to a distracting degree.
The script was weak, the leads act unrealistically, and behave irrationally. The film also plays for the heartstrings, but ends up being predictable, all the while not being compelling, and under-developing the characters. There are also pacing issues.
Visually, it is unremarkable. The film uses green screen heavily and unnecessarily in too many scenes. The other special effects also have a cheap look to them, especially where minimalistic practical special effects could have been used. There is also no visual flair, as if there were no cinematographer or art designer to make the scenes look consistent and stimulating.
The music and sound effects were fine, but unremarkable.
Overall, the movie isn't devoid of enjoyment, and fans of the series shouldn't be discouraged to see it at least once just for the sake of completion. People unfamiliar with Saikano, this probably isn't the place to jump in as it isn't a very good movie or melodrama. It isn't the movie or the cast and crews fault, it just isn't inspired, and that is what kills 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 movie is so stupid that I want my $2.99 back that I paid for!! First this movie starts off with a bunch of wooden actor geeks with fill in talent like they got picked off the street somewhere because the \"real\" actors either did not show up because of the laughable script or they just couldn't get anybody desperate enough to do this movie! The music in this movie is enough to put you to sleep, flute music made for faerie's dancing in the wilderness wouldn't even be good enough for this movie! And the guy dressed up as Satan looks like he's all dressed up in a K-Mart Halloween special costume! There are no dead scenes except a few lame scenes. When I saw what the terrible killers looked like in those bath robes with Nosferatu faces I just laughed! This is what the whole town is supposed to be running away from once a year! This movie is one of the worst demonic movies I have ever seen. Avoid 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\nThis movie is... horrible and wonderful at the same time. I first saw it when I was about 13 or 14 years old, so it has a great deal of nostalgic value for me. In this movie, Cesar Romero actually plays the character of Octavio, the man who \"discovered\" Santana. There are also two other actors, Monte Markham (plays Sam, who is trying to save his daughter) and Peter Mark Richman (plays the priest), who have large filmographies, and these are the only performances that are okay. The rest of the acting and the movie itself have all of the B-film qualities that some of us cherish.
I recently spent 2 years trying to acquire a copy of this movie, and it is almost nonexistent. I am assuming that it was discontinued very shortly after its release. But I did eventually find a copy and paid a pretty penny to acquire it. If you happen to come upon Judgement Day in a video store (unmistakeable with a cheesy green \"satan\" on the cover), count yourself among the blessed who live near one of the few video stores that still has a working copy. A must see for those of you who like to laugh at cheesy attempts at a scary 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\nMovies like these do not need sequels. Part of the advantage of Don Bluth moving away from Disney is that he didn't need to suffer their endless tirade of straight-to-video, poorly animated cash-in sequels. But apparently it was someone's brilliant idea to make a sequel to \"All Dogs Go to Heaven,\" so we get this.
Charlie Sheen replaces Burt and he's not really as good. Most of the film is just a poor excuse for a sequel and it isn't nearly as dark, different or entertaining as the original.
I feel sorry for future generations who are going to have to suffer endless sequels like this without ever knowing what it was like to have a time when Hollywood didn't totally rely on successful films as a crutch to release banal crap.
Please, no more sequels to kids films that don't need 'em.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"