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\nAs a Genghis Khan \"fan\" I was looking forward to this movie. After devouring Conn Igguldens epic novels about Genghis and reading up on loads of historic records I feel I know something on the subject and was thrilled to share my knowledge with friends via this movie...
That turned out a deception. This movie is practically made up from beginning to end. There are a few things that seem correct but mostly it is pure make believe of the writers. That does not have to be a problem, I like good entertainment just like anyone else unfortunately it is mostly boring. Nothing of the greatness comes forth in this movie.
I would NOT recommend this movie if you know anything on the subject.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI watched this film a few nights ago and it was awful!
Awfully long - even though they managed to skip through the majority of his life!
Awfully boring - the parts they included were long-winded, and for some reason the director chose to cut away from some of the action and left huge parts of the film unexplained!
Awfully inaccurate - the whole'mystical' side to this film was a joke, and last time I checked Ghengis Khan wasn't exactly a nice guy!
Awfully acted - I found several of the characters hard to believe, they were very two-dimensional and lacked and kind of depth!
A saving grace of the film was the cinematography. That is why I gave this film a 2 star-rating rather than the bare minimum! However, if you want to look at something pretty I would recommend buying a picture instead!
All in all this film was an awful waste of my time and money! Please do yourself a favour and give this Mongolian turkey a miss!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI was waiting for this movie for a time. In the first day of the air in Turkey, I watched it. It was totally a disappointment for me. I was planning to watch a historical movie, but the one in the screen was a fictional one. First of all, the main character of the movie Cengiz Han, the great conquer was portrayed like a soft, calm, even a loser one. You can not feel the power in the movie. Historically, the war machine he created was conquered ¾ (even more) of the world know in those years. To do that, Cengiz first unite the Asian tribes. However, in the movie, this loser man is in one scene poor-alone man, and in second scene, he is commanding armies. War scenes were incredibly week. In the final battle, the Mongol horseman were using double swords on their sides and cutting the enemy. : ) As a consequences, me and my friends just laugh at that scenes. Mongol army means Mongol archery horseman. You can not see that in the movie. Another ill thing was the use of fantastic elements in the movie. I do not want to go into the scenes which was portrayed Cengiz as a prophet. We can say in the integrity of the movie, it is acceptable. However, the scenes when the old monk saw the future and go to find the wife of Cengiz Khan after Cengiz gave him a mission is really funny. When the monk died in the desert, Cengiz's wife feel this dead and she find the corpse in the continent. We are talking about the Asia Again we laughed. There are a lot of more things to say but, I don't feel that this movie has value to talk 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\nThe narrative was clear and concise but overall the film never caught my interest- scenes felt flat and uninspired.. Ghengis khan, historically speaking, had a very interesting/epic life but the film failed to capture that- instead focused on small skirmishes as a youth and a love story I think I've seen disguised in a slew of other films. I never felt sympathy nor empathy for the lead- yes he had to overcome slavery but then seemed to have an easy ride to khan- pillaging, killing and double crossing his way to the top. The one redeeming quality was the photography- the landscapes certainly helped the bleak atmosphere of the film, unfortunately combined with the bleakness of the story- I left unmoved, and disappointed..
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe worst film I have seen in the last 12 months. The plot of the story was uninteresting, the movie ended when he became gingesh khan, i always thought there happened something really interesting afterwards. i knew that Mongolia and all the areas where the movie played have beautiful landscapes but the movie didn't profit from that. The jokes where really poor. The narrator, gingesh himself, could have told a bit more about Mongolian history, traditions etc. My co-viewer knew nothing about that at all so he was a bit lost. I was so looking forward to see this film but was really disappointed after all. It was one out of 3 movies I have ever seen in cinema where I considered to leave before the end.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'm really amazed that this got an 88% on Rotten Tomatoes and a nomination for best foreign film at the Oscars. The 7.3 rating on IMDb... that's not so much of a surprise, seeing the way IMDb users have been voting recently. I just can't get into a film in which the actual facts about its main character have clearly been distorted, and not at all in a way to make the movie artistic, but rather to make it melodramatic and less boring. Which, it turns out, actually makes it very boring for anyone who was expecting to see a serious and credible interpretation of the life of Genghis Khan. The far-fetched and over-dramatized Mongol often echoes the likes of 300, a film that couldn't be happier to be ridiculously inaccurate; but unlike 300, Mongol takes itself seriously. It's stoic seriousness, mixed with the obvious inaccuracies, is what makes it truly the most boring film I've seen this year; possibly the most action or biopic movie I've EVER seen. The characters were pathetically written. Honestly, I doubt Genghis Khan was as boring and passive as shown in this film. Which is funny to me, because if there's anything that I'd think should be changed for the sake of theatricality, it's making a boring person into an interesting person. The romance between Khan and Borte is similarly boring, simple, and stupid. Also, without giving anything away, Mongol contains the single stupidest scene I have seen in a LONG time- where there should be a good 20 minutes of plot development, the film just skips forward without any explanation. It looked like something out of a Saturday Night Live skit that parodies epic action movies with horrible pacing. (Did I mention how seriously Mongol takes itself?) Meanwhile, it drags like no film I've ever seen before. Even now, I could swear it was three hours long. About 45 minutes into it, I checked the time, being pretty certain that it was almost finished. Besides some pretty scenery and quality acting from Asano (naturally), Mongol is honestly just a disaster. It completely failed to entertain me or enlighten me in anyway. I would never give this film a second chance. And not to sound racist or patriotic or whatever, but give me a trashy and mindless American epic over Mongol any day. At least then I know what I'm getting, unlike with Mongol, where the reviews and ratings led me to believe it was actually something worth seeing.
The saddest thing about how much I hated Mongol is that I have friends who I know, without a doubt, would simply love it.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film did not excite me. While on vacation in Turkey I noticed that it was playing at the local cinema and decided to take the chance to go see it. The action sequences in the film are well choreographed, however, the story drags during the middle of the film.
One thing that I did not quite follow is how Borte was able to get the money to bribe the guards.
The other thing that I did not particularly like was the missing segment of Khan's life. It did not go into detail as to how the bad guys were able to find him and re-imprison him after he had gone missing for so long.
Overall, I rate this movie a (4) because I enjoyed the action sequences, but they were too few to justify a higher rating as the dialog left me less than impressed...
\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 Native Mongolian speakers the film lacked emotion and emphasis. Used too many non Native speakers especially Jamukha. Too many diversions from the actual history. Terrible terrible subtitle!!! I wonder where and who did that subtitle. It was both in English and Thai. I wonder how bad the subtitle was in Thai if the English subtitle was soooo bad! Described the one of the greatest leader's life very uninteresting. There are better films made by Mongolian directors with very low budget from 1980's. Honestly, I'm wondering if the film critics of Academy award is that lenient or what? Only good thing was some good CGI in some fighting scenes only moderately... not over the top CGI
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFirst of all I dunno if I was supposed to use my imagination in this film or the director was trying to save money or low on budget! Here we go....
Basically there were so many years and gaps that I don't understand, its like the movie was jumping from 9 years to 20 years to 30 and so much gaps that makes you ask questions how the hell did this happen? and why? I think this is a big flow. Forget the reviews who keeps whining about the history , this movie doesn't have only history facts issues, but also has so many flaws. So most of the people keep saying watch this in cinema you will lose all cinematography like rivers, deserts etc.. thats true they are beautiful thats why I waited for BluRay release 1080p. OK! beautiful scenes but whats the point of that? I turned off the movie after 1 hour and half, I just lost Interest. The movie kept on doing the exact same things jumping in years ( At least Mr. Director put for example, after 2 years after 10 years!) I mean i couldn't watch the movie I lost understanding of whats going on! Anyways i wish i could include spoilers but when u decide to watch this movie, just ask yourself how did this happen? you will know what i mean! Don't watch this movie its a waste of 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\nThe best part of this DVD is the cover. It goes down hill from there. There was no chemistry between the leads, the kisses looked like something I traded with my grandmother.
The sound was so bad that at least I was spared some of the dialoge.
\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 Folks, this is another stereotypic portrayla of Gay life however, the additional downside includes poor acting, horrible script, no budget, terrible sound and let us not forget the impossible storyline.
It is Christmas in New York City and our story immediatly \"focuses\" on two male individuals, apparently lovers for some time. One of them has not let his parents (the right wing, religious zealot types) know that he is gay (adding to the impluasability of the story 'cause this guy is as efeminant as gay guys come these days) and his parents are coming to viusit him. They will stay in his New York apartment where he and his lover have just decorated for Christmas.
The story continues to develop around the arrival of the parents, who noone will like anyway and - how through only obvious and predictable ways - they come to learn there son is gay. Tears are shed as was my interest in this movie.
The cast of charecters, seemed like an intro acting course at the local community theatre. The lovers in this film are mismatched, and there does not appear to be any cohesion to their union.
The landlord is flat and her attempt to be humanistic in the situation are undercooked and certainly didnt help move the plot any further.
The dragqueen friend who steps to the aid of one of the lovers in his \"time of need\" is stereotypic and gives a bad name to the unique art of drag.
Although some guys night find one of the lovers to have a nice body (again, stereotypic imagery) it does not help this story.
Stay away from this film, especially if you are considering a purchase. You'll shoot yourself if you do!
\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 horrific production doesn't qualify as a \"film.\" It was obviously shot on video tape, and very poorly at that! There is a constant screaching sound for the audio(sounds like a bad microphone), which is so annoying that you sometimes cannot understand what the characters are saying. Badly dubbed-in music will suddenly appear in a scene, and the entire editing of this thing rates about a ZERO!
The plot is contrived and ridiculous. A late 20's gay man trying to hide his live-in lover from parents visiting? PLEASE! And the reaction the mother has when she finds a picture of her son kissing his boyfrioend is beyond melodramatic and rolls right into stupid. Talk about a stereotypical view of gay life! The acting is worse than a porno movie, and the direction is very poor!
As far as \"production\" goes, there isn't any!
This title is simply a lame videotaped attempt to call itself a \"Film.\" There is no heart and soul to give it even the smallest bit of praise.
It's just a stupid waste of time, so avoid it at all costs! BAD ACTING! BAD WRITING! BAD DIRECTING , and the title of \"producer\" is vanity as this trash probably costed them the price of the videotape they shot it on.
This ametuer garbage has no business getting released onto a dvd as it's deceptive to the cunsomer. I cannot stress how horrible this \"SUGARPLUM\" crap is!

\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nhis has to surely be one of the worst gay-themed films of all time. Who told any of the so-called actors that they can act. Bad sound - bad script - gestures so overboard that they defy reality. A nightclub scene with only one actor and dubbed crowd scenes.
After seeing other low budget films similarly made I was prepared for something innovative - but not plain pathetic.
Parents and friends really should not encourage anyone to make such tripe.
And the DVD - No menu access; its worse than a VHS tape. Once you start you have to watch the whole thing through - luckily the fast forward button works - with this film and DVD nothing else does.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is a joke, right? This can't be a real film? It's not even a real video? Give any Harvey Milk High School kid a video cam and they could make a better movie than this. The film maker's can't be serious... right? Is this satire? Comedy? Drama gone horribly wrong? The script is about as single-minded and dull as is conceivable. Ten monkeys locked in a room with a laptop could come up with a better screenplay. The dialogue isn't clichéd. Clichéd dialogue might elevate this holiday mess to something akin to camp fun - but it doesn't and it isn't. Worst of the worst - a landlady wanders into a dramatic scene in a private apartment dressed a bathrobe carrying a frying pan like something out of a \"Honeymooners\" episode. Whaaa??? I have seen better acting from middle school drama clubs. One of the leads is an attractive lunk, the other is not. Both can't even manage a convincing kiss. So much for romance. The supporting players are jaw-droppingly over-the-top.
Everything is underscored by a nauseating soundtrack and the sound seems to have been recorded in a back room toilet. Most of the dialogue is (mercifully) unintelligible.
This stale cinematic fruitcake isn't even worthy of being the next ROCKY HORROR or a gay holiday installment of MYSTERY SCIENCE THEATRE 3000. It's just plain bad. In every way. VISIONS OF SUGARPLUMS will not dance in your head - they will trample your every expectation. Have an eggnog and stare at mindlessly at the neighbor's holiday lights - it will be time better spent.
\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\nGOLD RAIDERS (1951)
A dull western/comedy feature with the Three Stooges (including Shemp Howard at this point, who I've always enjoyed as the \"third Stooge\") doing their usual schtick, and directed by the normally dependable Edward Bernds, who also did some of their funniest classic shorts -- so one has to wonder, just what went wrong this time? The most probable answer is that what worked pretty good as a 15-minute two-reeler comes up as too much for a 55-minute feature film. Unlike so many of their classic short subjects, GOLD RAIDERS is not worth revisiting.
*1/2 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\nThis is a serious film about black revolutionaries and not really an action film. Billy Dee plays a young man fed up with racism who decides to take things into his own hands. It's fairly gritty and realistic without exploiting the characters but still it's not that interesting either and Billy Dee's character, though maltreated by white authority figures, doesn't really come off as sympathetic. It's also hurt by it's extremely low budget. Still, it's interesting to look at as it's a good depicttion of 1970s social issues.
\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 must give credit to Billy Dee for trying to pull this off. Knowing this was a blaxploitation film, I started my DVD with a certain expectation. I knew it would be low budget... the acting sub-par... but hoped for a few gems to be sprinkled throughout. If there were any diamonds or gems sprinkled within this film, they were successfully buried under tons and tons of coal... or perhaps overacting. As an actor and filmmaker, I cringed often when potential poignant moments were ruined with atrocious performances. Yet, I must admit, I could not look away. I don't know if this was like a car wreck you can't turn your eyes from, or some mysterious power in the film that kept me there. This film is a good case for an excellent story that was told wrong. If Walter Kronkite were to tell \"the Aristocrats\" joke, it would be a total flop, although the joke itself is hilarious. Let Dave Chappelle tell it, and we are all rolling on the floor laughing. This film needed a \"Chapelle.\" Now, with that said, if you have the opportunity to purchase this film for the dollar that I did, do it. It is well worth the money. Perhaps I will take another dollar, purchase the rights to this film, and remake it. Who knows... it might not be any better, but it surely can't be any worse.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n\"The Final Comedown\" wants to \"say something\" about racism and inner-city violence; unfortunately, the message is invalidated by the nonsensical script, the amateurish production, and the heavy-handed polemics. How heavy-handed, you ask? To give you just one example, a black doctor comes out of his hiding place, unarmed, with his hands up in the air, ready to surrender to the police: one of the (all-white) cops says \"Don't shoot him, he's a doctor\", to which another cop replies: \"So what? He's still a n****r\", and proceeds to shoot him in cold blood. The cops are portrayed as ignorant, racist killers, even though at the end there are just as many dead people among them as there are among the black people who staged the riot. And this whole event was meant somehow to \"sensitize\" the white folks to the demeaning treatment of the black folks, when in fact something like this can only breed more hate and violence on both sides. Pamela Jones, as Williams' girlfriend, briefly lights up the screen with her smile and body, particularly in a tender sex scene, and elevates the rating of this movie from 1 to 2 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\nI grew up watching the \"Bowery Boys\" on the weekends and even at young an age I could tell this was low rent stuff as the name implies. Still it was fun to watch Satch (Hall) get the better of Muggs (Gorcey) after Muggs would beat the crap out him. The East Side Kids stuff were never shown even though it was public domain stuff and probably cheap to run, it was just to low a standard for kids to tune in even though we only had like 5 channels to watch. Enter the year 2005 and I am repossesin about my childhood. I can't find any Bowery Boys on DVD but I found The East Side Kids on disc and also on a public domain website. Thankfully I saved my dough and saw Bowery Blitz on the web for free, and it really really blows. Now I can see there are some Bowery Boys and maybe Monogram bad movie lovers here that gave this melodrama crap a 7 of 10 but c'mon folks, this ain't even trying to be funny. It's an East Side Kids drama, not a comedy so it's no good. The best part was seeing Muggs fight at the end, he reminded me of my grade school days flayling away like a girl when I would get in a fight, it was kinda abusin. Leonard Maltin said in his mini bio that this flick is one of the better ones, so you can just imagine the rest. If you wanna see some halfway decent East Side action see Ghosts on The Loose maybe but the bottom line is usually a comedy team starts out strong in their career and tapers off, these mugs blew chucks early on then slowly picked it up until Hall's antics dominated than they were at best. Still 2nd tier stuff way below the 3 stooges, who they imitate but amusing for those who grew up with them. This feature won't bring back pleasant \"Bowery Boys\" memories and is best left to Monogram fanatics.
\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
Well, great costumes and a wonderful `feel' for Pre WWII Italy. But what happened here?
Great actors...Kristin Scott Thomas, Sean Penn, Anne Bancroft, James Fox, Derek Jacobi ...if you can't get memorable performances out of this `A List' then the problem with this movie must be blamed on pitiful direction and an inadequate script. I rented this on DVD after having liked \"Angels & Insects\" (1995) also directed by Philip Haas.
Yipes! I can hardly believe how dull this thing was. It just dragged on and on and no one was able to save the poor thing. This is not even a good intriguing-foreign-dudes-and-young-things-in- pretty-clothes chick flick!
\"Tea With Mussolini\" Gone Amuck!

\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nLet me be clear. I hate these kinds of movies. I do not like anything where the protagonists are all bourgeoisie English. I find this kind of literature and film awfully pretentious. You will never get me to read a Jane Austen book willingly. That said, the only reason I read W. Somerset Maugham's book and watched the subsequent film was for a class.
Mary Panton (Kristin Scott Thomas) is a beautiful English woman living in a borrowed villa in Florence before World War II. One night after dinning with some of her rich royalty related friends, she willingly picks up an Austrian refugee, has sex with him and ditches, and then he kills himself. As the movie gets further and further, you really want to dislike Mary.
What a load of crap this movie was. First of all, there were many subplots and characters invented in the movie that weren't even in the book. I doubt very much the late Mr. Maugham would've appreciated them. The characters, though wealthy, were some of the most superficial and self-centered people I have ever seen.
The only reason I didn't give it anything less than three stars was because the acting was the only thing redeemable. The always talented Kristin Scott Thomas is perfect for the role of Mary. In fact, I couldn't picture anybody else filling her shoes. Sean Penn and Anne Bancroft also had supporting roles, that were just as good as the lead.
Save yourself the pain of watching this movie.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nBoring as hell and kind of a chick flick.
It's the story of a neurotic woman who struggles with the concept of marriage as a business arrangement, the romantic nature of a one night stand, and the uncertainty and pitfalls of true love.
Many of the story's motifs are reminiscent of other recent KST movies (e.g. the English Patient), but have far less appeal.
After the first half-hour I started checking my watch, wondering if I'd make it home in time to catch Leno on tv.
I passed up \"Gladiator\" to see 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\ncan someone please help me i missed the last view moments and i don't want to pay money to see the whole film again. i got to just where they are in the train carriage and she says 'what about that drink now?' and smiles. what happens after that? is there anymore dialogue or action? surely it doesn't just end there? i was a bit bored in the film and kept hoping it would get better. i love Kristen Scott Thomas does anyone remember the UK TV series she was in about some nuns? i am wanting to know the name. Sean Penn was brilliant Madonna eat your heart out! everybody else in fact the film a bit predictable, it was a 'spot a star cast'. the ending took me by surprise i really thought she had burnt her boats.....if you are a fan of any of the stars its worth watching.
\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\nUP AT THE VILLA fooled me into thinking I`d be watching something similar to GOSFORD PARK . The film opens at a ballroom in 1930s Italy which is populated by vulgar Americans and uptight upper class Brits , but in truth UP AT THE VILLA plays out far more like a Merchant -Ivory production which is very bad news because it`s a very slow , and I do mean very slow romantic drama with some of the romance being very unlikely . If you like slow romantic dramas you might like this movie . I didn`t
\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\nWe've all seen bad movies, well this one takes the cake. I've seen that Junior movie box staring back at many times from my many journeys to the horror section at the local video store, and I was a little interested, it looks like it pays some homage to Texas Chainsaw Massacre, so I thought I'd get it. Mistake! Junior sucks hard, long, and with commitment. In other words it's really bad. Although it does win my award for most creative use of a bikini top. AVOID!!
\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\nHeh...I'm surprised this movie still exists in any form, let alone it being available for rent!
This flick is one of the many bad slasher flicks that exist only for the T&A and the cheap laughs. The story line crosses a bit of \"Texas Chainsaw massacre\" with a screwy mamma-centred back story reminiscent of \"Psycho\", and a bit of the good old women-in-chains, tough-as-nail-ex-con broads tossed in for good measure - in other words, complete unoriginality wrapped up in half naked women spiced with a dash of utter idiocy! Looking on as the director attempts to make the marsh land of Quebec pass off as Southern U.S. bayou land is sad, I tell ya!
Funny thing for me is, I was actually at the premier of this flick as, at the time, I was pals with Ratchford, the film's \"star\". It was painful to watch on as Jeremy sank into his seat whilst the flick unfolded its mangled wings.
I'm happy to see that Ratchford, after this sham of a first flick, has grown into one hell of an actor. He can be seen regularly on the Canadian cop drama \"Blue Murder\", has appeared on \"CSI\", not to mention his role in the classic Clint Eastwood film \"Unforgiven\" - we forgive ya, Jeremy! It was a rocky start, but you done good, man!
~T.Paul
\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\n1st watched 4/30/2009 - 4 out of 10 (Dir-John Waters): Corny Waters-like comedy musical with some funny scenes and good parts but it didn't make a whole worthwhile experience. John Waters directed this music-filled spoof of the fifties scene with Johnny Depp playing the title role. This movie is very similar with what he did with the 60's spoof entitled \"Hairspray\" but this one is not as effective. Some of the tunes are catchy, some of the characters are interesting in their quirky Waters-like way, and the portrayals are fine although sometimes overdone. The storyline is similar to the movie \"Grease\", where there is a good group and a bad group. The guy from the bad group, Cry Baby, wow's a girl from the good group. The good girl then joins the bad group but once Cry Baby hurts her -- she falls back to the good group. This just sets up the ending where Cry Baby tries to win her back. Now, one difference that is expected in Water's movies is that the bad group doesn't appear all that bad all the time and the good group acts like they have a pole up their you-know-what. I definitely saw this in Hairspray, as well. The wacky and goofiness isn't really all that much fun in this movie, though and it just leaves us with a feeling like the movie could have been much better. The prime appeal of the Johnny Depp character is that he's able to make one tear roll down his cheek(thus his namesake) at various times and makes the women fall all over the place for him. This is overused and the basic bottom line is that the movie is OK, but not that great.
\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\nWaters's contribution to the world of cinema has to be searched with a telescope, and then when/if something is found (by sheer chance and lots of luck) it has to be analyzed with a microscope.
And after it has been analyzed it would get discarded into the lab's \"rubbish bin for totally useless things\". One single atom of that microscope is worth all of his movies combined.
CB is etremely campy, and intentionally so. The usual JW stuff: comic-strip dialogue, simplistic plot, moronically cheerful characters, chewing-gum pop, overacting etc. Waters knows that he is incabaple of making a movie of quality, so he hides behind the mask of the \"intentionally cheesy film-maker\" - which supposedly makes him a special kind of \"anti-artist\". But in the world of cinema, being an anti-talent often gets mistaken for talent, which is exactly what Waters had hoped for - and eventually got. It's a con act. Charlatans infest the world of cinema and modern pop art; it's a plague.
Perhaps we have John Waters to blame for inspiring Baz Luhrman to make all those horrible, dumb turkeys. It's like a virus: one Waters creates five new bad directors, and then these five each create more, and so on. Where will it end? With \"Dancer In The Dark\"? Can that bomb actually be topped?
\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 pure genius. John Waters is brilliant. It is hilarious and I am not sick of it even after seeing it about 20 times since I bought it a few months ago. The acting is great, although Ricki Lake could have been better. And Johnny Depp is magnificent. He is such a beautiful man and a very talented actor. And seeing most of Johnny's movies, this is probably my favorite. I give it 9.5/10. Rent it today!
\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\nJohn Waters owes me 2 hours of my life back. I saw a sneak-preview screening of this way back in 1990, and I'm still in pain. Not before or since have I seen such a terrible piece of filmic waste spewed upon the screen. There is nothing positive I can say about this film. Acting--awful; plot--ridiculous; music--atrocious. Following the movie, my friends and I demanded our money back from the manager of the theater. He explained that, since it was a free screening, he couldn't give us anything in return, no matter how much agony we were suffering through. How Johnny Depp's career survived this trainwreck of a movie is anyone's guess.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nMaybe I was to young when I saw it. Perhaps I have not grown up with Grease and Elvis movies.
I failed to get it. I get \"black\" comedy (Black Adder etc.). I get irony and spoofs. I don't get this one though.
I made it a quest to find out the name of this movie (enlisting the help of people on usenet and the most excellent IMDb Message Boards) so it could be my first 1-pointer. 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\nThis movie was terrible. The acting was lame, but it's hard to tell if someone was acting well since the writing was so bad. This is one of Johnny Depp's worst movies- I highly discourage anyone from watching it.
If you must see Cry-Baby though, I recommend muting it and simply ogling at Mr. Depp for and hour and a half.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe plot of \"Open Graves\" is very simple:it's about a board game called Mamba,where the players die in real life the same way they die in the game.Laughable death scenes include killings via computer generated crabs and snakes.The characters are cardboard and deliberately annoying and there isn't even a tiny bit of suspense.I liked Eliza Dushku in \"Wrong Turn\",but she is completely wasted and unmemorable here.The climax with CGI-witch coming from the sea is utterly laughable and stupid.The only reason to see \"Open Graves\" are some interesting camera angles plus sexy Eliza Dushku.If such movies are the future of horror then I seriously give up.Give me any 70's or 80's low-budget horror flick over this modern piece of crap.A generous 3 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\nOK, so I know better than to watch movies on SciFi . . . er, sorry . . . SyFy. Or shifafa. Or whatever it is now. So sue me. I spent my whole Saturday doing advisory-board brainstorming for a nonprofit. I can be forgiven for flopping into my armchair and wanting to watch some movie I'd never seen, rather than read Proust in the original or learn how to play the oud.
Which is to say, I didn't deserve Open Graves. Of which I saw none, incidentally. Were there any? Did I fall asleep? Why is it called this?
Some icky visuals. Not many scares. As with too many films in modern horror films, no reasons are given--apart from shared humanity--to care about any of these people. Half a point, though, for the legless entrepreneur, who was clichéd but did have one good scene.
It all sort of plays like Final Destination delivered via a board game. The game does have an intriguing look to it, and it involves one of my favorite old conundrums. I'll give it that much. The drawback there is that the game possessed more personality than most of the characters.
As for the end, if you didn't see it coming, then I think YOU fell asleep. Somewhere back around the dawn of the genre.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI have to say this is better than most SyFy outings, but that isn't saying much.
The plot is that someone buys a game that is made from the bones and skin of a dead witch from the Spanish Inquisition (and nobody ever expects the Spanish Inquisition!) He and his friends play the game, only to be interrupted halfway through when the friend who went on the beer run is killed in a way that the game predicted.
What then follows are a series of kills that are typical for a movie like this, or any of the Final Destination movies. It has the puzzle at the end and the interesting subplot with the cop who wants the game to bring back his family... but otherwise, it's just a mess.
\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\nThink Jumanji but with a death curse. A bunch of surfer dudes get their hands on a game that takes the life of some one who is playing it. Supposedly it was made from the skin of a witch during the Spanish Inquisition and carries a nasty curse.
Okay, undemanding and just sort of watchable tale isn't anything you haven't seen before.Frankly its a been there and done that story that hits all the right buttons in such away as to have no real surprises. Far from the worst thing that SyFy has run but certainly its not the best. There are better choices out there but if this is your only choice you won't completely hate 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\nLow budget mystery. A shot rattles out of the dark and a woman is seen running from that direction. A young architect Jimmy McMillan(Chick Chandler)discovers a dead body that goes missing. The woman in a hurry, Mary(June Clyde), is linked to the death scene; but it is McMillan that has to try and solve the case to avoid serious suspicion. Suspects are six shop owners in the vicinity of the crime scene. All the atmosphere of Film-Noir; but not quite the real thing. This flick musters just enough to be a decent low budget mystery/drama and is a nice little escape. Other players include: George Meeker, Michael Raffetto, Milton Wallace and Rebel Randall.
\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 a boring flick, and obviously the only way to see it is the butchered bootleg Public Domain version, which is so blurry and dark that at times you have hard time making out where the screen is. The leading actors are a nuisance. The man spends most of his screen time trying to appear nonchalant, charming and sexy, forgetting totally what the film is about and that he is a murder suspect because of some dame who played him for a goose to start with. The dame herself merely walks through the flick, being dignified if she's not busy appearing cute. It's a rather badly written stuff, never interesting or witty. No good camera work, no memorable soundtrack, no glamorous actresses or atmospheric sets. It only scratches the surface of the genre, and nothing happens if you miss this totally missable flick.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nMost of the positive comments posted here are as verbose as the movie! It takes a long-winded bore to appreciate a wordy and boring film, one supposes. Some have merely called the film \"contemplative\", meaning slow and devoid of plot, however, one Dutch reviewer hit the nail on the head: this is an important event turned into a dull film whose tone is set in the very first scene. Here a young couple is being shown an apartment by a Realtor who, predictably, talks non-stop and regardless of what else is going on. So does just about every other character!
The only silences in this picture are dream sequences--1930's Soviet propaganda snippets--and they are also its most interesting parts. This tells you something about how watchable the rest of the movie is.
The device of filming most of the scenes in extreme closeup--as if one were looking through a crack in the blinds--gets old fast.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI loved so much last Bellocchio's movie, the masterpiece \"L'Ora di Religione\". It had a great screenplay, great actors (well, have to say Castellitto is so much greater than others), a brillant use of lights for a great cinematography.
Well, Buongiorno Notte is a different story. Ridiculous screenplay erupting tons of morals (and we could speak weeks about politics, you know we are italians...). Poor cinematography (it's too simple representing '70s dark years with dark colors and dark lights, do some efforts more peoples!!!!). Bad use of music: what's the point of using psychedelia to represent the tragic rationality of Brigate Rosse?
And to all the people who claimed the main prize in Venice, I answer:\"Are you nuts????\" Maybe the russian film was bad but not as bad as this.
I'm down with the P.E. Don't believe the hype!!!!
\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\nFriday Night With Jonathan Ross must have those in charge of Ross rubbing their sweaty little palms together. They know the BBC lacks imagination when it comes to talk shows so when they have Jonathan Ross at their disposal they are quite settled to just sit back and let a half wit command this primetime slot.
Ross Spends most of the show grooming his ego and smiling about how much the BBC is paying him. The show is a complete copy of many US Chat Shows - Leno, Letterman, Conan O Brian, the list goes on - but he and his team have clearly seen what works on the masses can also be done for the dumb masses in the UK also.
The unfortunate situation - he has no competition? Parkinson has gone by the reality is he was never really up to much except grooming a celebs ego. Can't we have someone funnier and slicker on British Screens instead of Jonathan Ross? Once Ross has built up his ego enough he will then proceed to the very boring concept of the stiff celebrities in the green room - so trying to get on with each other. If an A-Lister is present (which is so often the case these days - as there are no other chat shows they can turn to - to promote their latest movie) - he will spend the next hour either flirting with them or trying to be their best friend in the Universe. Sqeamish when he had Ringo Starr on - a man that cares nothing for licking arse - Ross genuinely was begging for his mobile phone number (as common policy on this show is for Jonathan Ross to get everyones number so he can be seen in the right company when not working). Of course Ringo said it how it is - and simply said no I don't like you - dead pan serious.
Ross needs to be axed from all Awards and TV shows - the masses will get over 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\n***Tip: Have It Read To You, Heres How***
1) Copy And Paste This To Notepad (NOT WORD) 2) Go To. START>ALL PROGRAMS>ACCESSORIES>ACCESSABILTY>NARRATOR
having your testicles ironed.
When Jonathan Ross started his career he was on a show call \"The Last Resort\" now a days he is the first resort to host anything and anything. TV Award Shows that half the time he is up for nominations in, Comic relief, chat shows, quiz shows, game shows, charity shows, Brighton. Just when you at you wits end and think you can find salvation in the wireless the lisping twang of good old J.R. Hits you like a freight train going none stop from Texas to downtown N.Y. That has lost a hour and is trying to make it up.
About this show (FNWJR).
Its a normal chat show format with J.R. As host and a house band that concisest of four gay men (ha ha ha, ow my aching sides.) and season one had Andy Davis, but he left or was fired to give way to Ross's Ego.
Ross will more less use his guests as props and you really don't hear them speak because of his \"Its my ball and I'll take it home\" attitude, you also see that the bigger the guest the more he is willing to lie and suck up to them, to get in with the big boys (Like the weak kid at school who hangs round with the bully).
However when a small reality T.V. Star comes on he'll happily humiliate them, asking personal questions about the past and telling them about their lack of talent to get the laughs. Sometimes he will under estimate the popularity of a guest, say something to belittle them and then when the audience act shocked, he will quickly turn and start making himself the fall guy, the best example of this was when \"Life On Mars\" star John Simm came on and he said how does someone like you get work, your OK looking but not Hollywood good-looking (Bare in mind the Hugh Jackman and Halle Berry was in the green room, he was really only trying to suck up to them before they were even on the couch). When the audience acted shock Ross quickly said \"What, I'm bit light headed from wearing that corset, I don't know what I'm saying\". If he don't have any low forms of TV life on he'll just dig at the four gay men on the piano with jokes more out of date than his fashion.
Its very much a different story when a Hollywood A-lister or big TV star comes on the show in that he'll tell them stories to humor them. When some actor explains that he was in a support band then Jonathon Ross will say something like \"Wow, well he ever I go to see a band i was try to look interested for the support band, to make them feel as though they are wanted\" with an underline message being \"please like me, I was probably one of the people that cheered you when you was in your band\". Top this off with an audience of Ross fans so hooked on every bad old joke and bulling, it really makes for a poor show.
Your better off watching US chat shows instead, they are more scripted but not anywhere near as hard to 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\nChildish storyline ripped off of a lame Hollywood movie, terrible acting, cheesy dialogue, and not quite \"up-to-par\" sex scenes. That's right another great softcore parody! I enjoyed this film greatly! Sure the acting is terrible, but that part of the fun! The storyline is ludicrous, but some things must be sacrificed when the story has to revolve around girl-on-girl sex scenes. And because it's only softcore (no penetration) the sex scenes were a little bland. But it's like the great god of softcore smut Russ Meyers said \"who really cares what goes down beneath the waist.\" I don't know if I'd agree with Mr. Meyers on this one but what the hell... the flick entertained me for an hour and a half. I give it a C+, it would've been a solid B if they coulda cast more of the girls to look like Russ Meyers actresses. VaVoom! VaVoom!~
\n
assistant\n0
\n"