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\nOne hundred and seventy five million dollars is a hell of a lot of money to spend on even the biggest summer blockbuster. Not even Michael Bay had a budget that big for Transformers, so exactly how Universal Pictures spent that much cash making Evan Almighty is a mystery. They certainly didn't spend it on the script for one thing as the film is not so much a classic comedy as it is Christian flag waving and bar one or two quiet chuckles, you're most likely to spend the duration wondering where the budget went or why Steve Carrell felt the need to slum it in a decidedly average movie at the exact moment when his star profile has begun to rise.
A sequel to the Jim Carrey comedy Bruce Almighty, this film sees former supporting character Evan Baxter (Carrell) moving up the ladder into the main player slot. The story opens with him leaving the news desk to become a public official and moving to Washington with his wife and three generic sons (slightly weird primary school moppet, spirited middle schooler and sulky teenager). Evan's bid to change the world through politics however gets a spanner in the works when God (Morgan Freeman) appears and asks him to build an Ark.
In other words, it's an updating of the old Genesis story, with Evan fighting off cynicism and naysayers to build the immense boat. Unfortunately, while the premise is reasonably promising, it sadly does not provide many laughs. There's a bit of fun to be had in the early going where Evan's straight-laced MP tries to juggle the demands of public service with the unwelcome packs of animals that follow him around and a beard that resists all attempts to shave it, but as soon as he accepts his divine mission, the film takes a nosedive.
From this point on, it turns into a message movie. Evan begins preaching with alarming regularity and Morgan Freeman keeps turning up to offer kind wisdom, while gently prodding his chosen in the right direction. Without Evan's resistance though, the only trace of comedy left comes in the form of a few rubbish animal-feces jokes and John Michael Higgin's role as Evan's exasperated right-hand man. Higgins may show the same rich comic potential that he did previously in Arrested Development, but his enthusiasm cannot save the sinking vessel, especially seeing as Carrell has all but placed his formidable improv skills on the back-burner.
In some respects, it's slightly similar to the Passion of the Christ, but unlike Mel Gibson's movie which encouraged everyone to believe in God through blood letting and guilt tripping, Evan Almighty tries a more gentle approach. The movie simply tells us that we should have faith in God, because He has faith in us. Unfortunately, this movie is just as likely to make you laugh as the Passion is. Carrell is on autopilot, the jokes don't exist and Wanda Sykes makes a bid to become the most annoying person on the planet. It might be sweet, but somebody just tossed $175 000 000 overboard.
\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, for this abomination of a film, I wasn't expecting anything good. I find Steve Carell annoying, and Bruce Almighty was pretty good but there is absolutely no reason for it to have a sequel. Somehow, this film was even lower than my expectations, even when I didn't have any.
Does anyone remember the Disney movie Noah with Tony Danza? Well, let's just say that Evan Almighty completely ripped it off in way too many ways for the movie to remain justifiable. Actually Evan Almighty was had the EXACT same plot outline as Noah, with the exception of a few technicalities, it was nothing but a carbon copy of a far-superior movie that was actually FUNNY.
Another thing, did anyone get sick of Wanda Sykes' stupid, unfunny, redundant, one-liners that were literally in every single scene? It was completely ridiculous and just dragged the movie down more and more.
Despite the fact that I basically had already seen the film ten years earlier(Noah), Evan Almighty has to be the most predictable movie I've ever seen. I figured out the entire movie from beginning to end within the first five minutes and eventually realized that it was ripping off Noah left and right.
In conclusion, if you're a little bit unsure of whether or not you want to see Evan Almighty, and are already sick of Jonah Hill playing the same role in every single movie he's in, liked Bruce Almighty, and don't want to see a predictable, dry, unfunny movie with Steve Carell trying to act like Jim Carrey, then please, don't see this piece of garbage.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA sadly inferior precursor to \"Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf\" this film drags on and on, occasionally reviving your interest only to put you through more selfindulgent maundering and obvious but patently overdone plot points.
It may list as 111 minutes but feels like three hours of painfully wasted 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\nDecent action scenes, but the movie is saddled with a slow, convoluted storyline, nearly non-existent dialogue that leads to minimal character development, and a seriously horrible storyline...
Did I mention that the storyline made no sense? But, in its defense, the action scenes were impressive enough, even if they leave you scratching your head as to why they just happened.
There's not much else to say about the movie. It's a slick, mindless action adventure that makes no sense whatsoever. It's like watching a worse version of the Matrix and skipping all the storyline and dialogue.
\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 and my brother are very big Asian movie fans, so when finding this movie hidden in a shop, I bought this one on DVD, because it sounded very promising and I couldn't wait to watch it. So I watched this movie with my brother and I must say, in the beginning it was very promising. Both of us really loved this brutal ball scene in the first scene. But i guess that was all. There are some interesting fights, but it is not a action movie, as it claims to be. Instead it's a love movie... with the cliché of love so extremely played over the top, even Shakespeare would vomit on this title. Sorry for my language. By the way: The characters act like being picked up from the street and given 100 for playing in this movie.
Well, I and my brother watched it to the end, because we thought, it can only become better. But, heck, it never did. This movie challenged place #1 on my and my brothers \"worst movies ever seen\"-list, only followed by \"Fantasy mission force\" - do not watch this either.
\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\nIt's a pity to throw away such a good idea. The main idea of the movie is travel into past lives which - fortunately - is not a time travel but a journey inside man which has nothing to do with the past or the future. (Maybe they shouldn't be called past lives at all in the film now that I think of it... Another minus, I guess). It's all in the present, in a different space... Very interesting without causing much religious distress.
However, the music is totally repetitive, melodramatic, sentimental and out of place (not to mention \"western\"!). There should have been more variety and more thought on where there should be music and where there shouldn't. The flashback romantic scenes take a lot of space and running time and are totally unnecessary. The acting is not bad although the language has kept me from understanding better.
I believe the idea needed a little more thought, developing and unfoldment. The inside scenes could have had better background settings because in many cases they seem unreal. As a whole, I would say that this movie leaves a lot to be desired...
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\ni had no idea what this movies was about, it jumps from plot line to plot line erratically linking incoherent ideas with one another. it simply doesn't make sense.
the chopped up time line doesn't help either. we start in present day get a flash back to the past and then return to the future only to go back into the past.
this movie is also filled with horrible sappy lines and cliché themes such as princess and the pauper, \"you cant have me even in my death\" lines, \"you don't even love me enough\" line. cliché to the max!
fighting scene were horribly corny, lighting was constantly misplaced which offset the CG with the actors (meanning you could tell some of the backgrounds were clearly CG).
Although the society in di moon was quite interesting.
i wouldn't really recommend his to anyone, avoid if possible.
if you found this comment hard to follow, the movie would be equally as 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\nNot \"confusing\" in the sense that, \"Gee, this movie is really complex, and thus hard to follow!\" But confusing in the sense that, \"Gee, this movie really has no idea what it's doing!\"
DREAM OF A WARRIOR is a Hong Kong/South Korean collaboration, but it's all utter nonsense. A movie about parallel universes mixed in with time travel mixed in with love story mixed in with silliness.
The film has the type of concept that boggles the mind. Again, not boggles the mind because it's so great and complex, but boggles in the sense that it's so ridiculous and one can't conceive of anyone ever coming up with such an awful premise to begin with.
Nothing in DREAM OF A WARRIOR makes sense, and that's because the whole movie should never have been made. It is quite awful. The only saving grace is the actress who plays the female warrior (not the female lead).
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\nThe producers of this film should be sued for the misrepresentation of copyrighted materials, namely the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Players' Handbook. Fear and ignorance breed the sort of mindless propaganda that inspire garbage like this film. If any of you have any doubts about the innocence of Dungeons & Dragons, why don't you go to your local hobby store and see about sitting in with a gaming group, so you can see for yourself that D&D is nothing to be afraid 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\nNormally, I wouldn't even stoop to viewing trash like this, but since role-playing is a dear hobby to me, and such was the subject of the film, I did. It was garbage in so many ways that I do not know where to begin. I would rather sit through the \"Plan 9 from Outer Space\" marathon than watch another minute of this vomit. At least Plan 9 didn't have an agenda. How the media could capitulate and irresponsibly represent extremist agenda as fact is beyond me. It is a scary time when a whole group of people can be unceremoniously trounced with no defense and no real facts presented. I know this commentary went more social, but it couldn't be helped, as this movie begged it. Imagine a pro-nazi film being reviewed strictly on film merit. Won't happen. As it sits, the people who made this film are facists themselves, and should perhaps move into a communist enclave where propagandizing is accepted.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n'This Life' is truly as bad as it gets. Its cast of mercenary, lascivious, ruthless, duplicitous, shallow characters are intended as a reflection on its post-eighties setting and I have to admit in this regard it is an accurate creation. Unfortunately, it leaves me nothing to sympathise with or care about and I regard it as just another step toward the television premium-rate phone in scams; astonishingly bad, cheap, reality and 'celebrity' saturated television; and other cut and run attitudes that have destroyed this medium and, indeed, much of British society. Sounds exaggerated? I don't think it is. In this regard programs such as 'This Life' have indeed been as influential as they are often called.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA cheesy \"B\" crime thriller of the early '50, the story is droll, the characters wooden, Allison Hayes and Abbe Lane are the only two sexpots that make it an eye-catcher, but one short shot, only a few frames long, shows an \"el\" train crossing the river on the State Street bridge, of the 6000 series Pullman-built cars painted in their original 1950 paint scheme, as they were delivered when new in 1950. For traction fans like me, that one short take makes the picture worthwhile. I think films like this one, Ulmer's DETOUR, D.O.A. with Edmund O'Brien,THE FUGITIVE with Harrison Ford, and others of the film noir genre, (big city crime dramas) make it interesting if for nothing other than the fact that I know Chicago and San Francisco intimately and recognize most of the street locations. Other wise it's a really droll boring film!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is a pale imitation of the Die Hard franchise that just sucks. The low ambitions of the movie are clearly on display when the terrorists hold the Vice-President hostage and he has to call the White House to beg them to transfer some money. In most movies of this genre the President is kidnapped or held hostage because after all he (or she) is the most powerful person in the country with finger on the nuclear button etc etc. Would most Americans have really been worried if Dick Cheney had been kidnapped? The honest answer is- probably not. Why the terrorists would choose a Stanley Cup final to carry out their operation and why, despite many explosions around them, the audience inside the hockey stadium is oblivious to the situation, are unanswerable questions. Let's just say this film is really hokey, not hockey. Those who liked the film and found it to be exciting should get a life.
\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 only thing in \"Sudden Death\" that outdoes the amount of non-stop action is the incredible number of plot holes. What with that, and the sheer amount of contrivances, one could hardly call what's left a storyline. To say the screenplay has borrowed from the \"Die Hard\" premise would be to make the world's most blatant understatement!
Here we have a troubled hero working in the huge Pittsburgh Indoor Ice Rink as a fire Marshall. On the night of the seventh game of the finals series he gets tickets so he can treat his estranged children to the deciding game, and of course spend a little time with them. Also catching the match, but for political reasons, is the Vice President of the United States (Raymond J. Barry). When a bunch of incredibly well organised mercenaries capture the V.P.'s box and demand hundreds of millions in government money, our hero Darren McCord has his plans more than slightly put out.
Each time a new one of these formula flicks is made it seems that all we get in the way of innovation is nastier bad guys, and more and more spectacular and gruesome ways in which the good guys dispose of them. Director Hyams and his screenwriter have gone over the top (not that this is an original sin) in trying to make us loathe the wicked terrorists. The horrible baddies go about shooting the secret service, the security and the civilians (both old and young) with gay abandon, and with scant regard for the relative threat of each victim.
Van Damme engages in plenty of fisty-cuffs and gunplay, heroics and death defying stunts. The script asks little of the musclebound European. Almost everyone else has walk-ons apart from Powers Boothe, who seriously overdoes his under written, shallow role as the cruelest, meanest old ring leader there ever was.
There's a lot of clever cinematography, and enough explosive special f/x to keep anyone awake. But really, that's all this action flick has, action. Though there are some nifty sequences, nothing could be called outrageously brilliant.
Saturday, February 10, 1996 - Greater Union Melbourne
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA clever overall story/location for a story. Action is respectable. The children are annoying and their motivation is unclear. The leading villain was a nice change but could have been better. \"I Love You\" was more overplayed than \"you complete me\" but at least Van Damme got a chance to show a little tenderness. One of Van Damme's better movies.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nDon't pay any attention to the rave reviews of this film here. It is the worst Van Damme film and one of the worst of any sort I have ever seen. It would appeal to somebody with no depth whatever who requires nothing more than gunfire and explosions to be entertained.
Seeing that this is directed by Peter Hyams it has made me realise that Peter has no talent as a director, but is very good at filming explosions and the like. However, movies need other elements as well; for example, a story. This one didn't have one. This might explain the awfulness of some of Mr. Hyams' more recent films, hardly any better than this one, really.
One can't help wondering how some people ever were put behind a camera.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOkay, here is a really short review: this movie blowed. I wish I could just have a review that stated this simple principle, but I must bore you with more bad review type words like 'horrible' 'clichéd' and 'unwatchable.' It's the type of film you watch when you are drunk or are stuck on a desert island with nothing else to do. Here's the premise: the vice president is captured by a terrorist group at a play-off hockey game and only Van Damm can stop the madness. Truly, truly terrible, but then again, I didn't pay to see it the first time around and only my dad felt the absence of girth in his wallet after this movie. I hate the fact he is a Republican and all, but then again, he did spare me the horror of paying for this piece of garbage. Okay, that is now enough space to be recognized as a review, so I bid adieu.
\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\nTalk about a bore-snore. This 3rd rate biker film was putting me to sleep as soon as the opening credits came on the screen. The shame is that the cast included many fine actors, among them-George Kennedy, Karen Black, Leo Gordon, Richard Lynch, Lance Henriksen and William Forsythe.
A take off of the Western classic, High Noon, this is basically the story of a former U.S. army green beret (Henriksen) trying to get someone to help him rid a one-horse town of a gang of creepy bikers.
Everyone tries, but the script is on grade-school level. Sad to see academy award winner Kennedy in such a comedown from his out-standing performance in Cool Hand Luke.
If you have trouble sleeping at night, this would be a perfect movie video to rent..........you'll be sleeping in no 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 evil bikie gang in this movie were called the Savages, hence the title, but Minor Nuisances would have been a better name for this sorry mob of weak actors trying to look dangerous. Whenever they wanted to kill someone, they generously rode their bikes very slowly so that their intended victim could easily avoid them or push them off their bikes. Their leader had a bad limp, but still thought he could take on the hero and win. As for Karen Black, she didn't seem to know where she was for most of the film.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe auteur of \"Prince\" manages to take an excellent cast, a decent story, a mediocre script and carefully assemble them into one boring, monotonous, amateurish mess. In spite of a strong central performance by Frank Nasso, the Prince, this disjointed film wanders aimlessly from scene to scene, painfully disintegrating into hash. The result brings a sigh of relief at the end where the tears of joy should be. A sad waste of time and talent and a good example of how NOT to direct a film.

\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nPrince of Central Park (2000) is so utterly bad. It was a pure waste of my time and I can't believe I actually watched the whole thing. Please do not watch this movie, if it's the last thing 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\nShameless waste of my time as a viewer. This is one of the worst films I've seen in ages. Please do not rent it as you will regret doing so! Guaranteed! I wonder how Kathleen Turner ended up in this! She is a legitimate actress and people would perhaps be attracted to this film because of her. But it really is better to act as if this title was never made! It should not have come into existence!
\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 has an amazing cast. MGM took some of its finest character actors and starred them in a film with the usually adorable Margaret O'Brien. Lionel Barrymore, Edward Arnold and Lewis Stone star as three greedy old bachelors who live in the same home. While they have amassed a fortune over the years, they also have been selfish jerks. One of them has an idea to donate some property in order to buy themselves a good name (sort of like Carnegie) but it turns out the property they want to give away actually belongs to O'Brien. And, since she's an orphan, they volunteer to be her guardians so they can give HER property away and look like great philanthropists.
There also is a goofy subplot involving fairies--led by the wonderful character actor Henry Davenport. And, since O'Brien is Irish (as evidenced by her outrageous accent), she and the little people make up much of the plot. Frankly, I absolutely hated this portion of the film and wished they'd just dropped it entirely. Instead, the story could STILL have been about sweet Margaret melting the mean old men's hearts--this would have worked. But...the \"little people\"?!? Sheesh! Overall, the actors try very, very hard but the silliness of the plot and the deadly earnest way they tried made me cringe. I noticed a lot of people liked this film--I guess I'm just an old grouch! I found the film horrible difficult 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\nImagine watching a slide show where the projector lingers on every slide long enough for you to completely memorize it three times over. Now imagine that the images in the slide show consist entirely of mundane scenes  a small park; and empty tennis court; a piano. Now imagine that the people running the slide show are having a frustratingly slow, semi-lucid conversation about events that only occasionally relate to the slides they're showing you. Great  you've just imagined the entirety of the film `India Song.'
The film is an agonizingly slow montage of images that do little except to simply scream out `Look at me! I am PROFOUND!!' with such blatant self-importance that the images themselves and the movie as a whole are rendered not merely bereft of profundity, but COMICALLY bereft of profundity. The visuals could easily have been replaced by a series of static images as described above, since it is so rare that there are actually people on screen, and even when they are, the people actually move only slightly more often than the furniture. They never speak or interact in any meaningful way  they just stand there looking at each other, and occasionally crying. The most energetic moment in the entire first hour of the film is when three people walk across a parking lot in slow motion. In fact, the visuals could easily have been left out entirely, as the story is told completely through narration. The story is about a woman who hates India because it's hot, and hates people don't hate India because it's hot (this point is covered several times). It is also about a man who feels that he is entitled to sleep with the aforementioned woman, since she will sleep with anyone who asks her to, but he doesn't get to sleep with her simply because he never asks, and he's very upset about this. So he stares at her as a single tear runs profoundly down his cheek. Later on, he stares at his bicycle, as a single tear runs profoundly down his cheek. Actually, you don't get to see the single tear running profoundly down his cheek when he's staring at his bicycle, but you know it's there anyway, just because that's the sort of film this is.
At best, the narration becomes background hum, serving as a perfect compliment to the coma-inducing visuals. Simply staying conscious through the entirety of this film would require a supreme act of determination. To watch it and actually come away with a serious and meaningful idea of what it was supposed to be about would induce the same sort of migraine as trying to read lengthy technical documents in the dark. This film is perhaps the greatest monument of pseudo-artistic pretension that man will ever know.
\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\nExtremely boring..I don't care how many avant-garde bones you have in your body, this baby sucks...and don't go and see it because I mentioned that, save it for Warhol's \"Empire\", it's far more entertaining!! I have seen other Duras films that were far better, so I am dumbfounded why this is considered a \"Masterpiece\". As an Art Historian, I have had to consider radical works by Marcel Duchamp, Chris Burden, and Damien Hurst, and in these artist I can still see artistic intent , even quality, and an entertaining aspect in the rendering of their art. As for \"India Song\" -it's not even soft-porn- Anias Nin was almost here - G-rated slide show of sex- and a voice-over that does not relate to the slide show / movie......pure crap and not even campy...sadly just a bore and a waste of 2 hours. To add insult to injury, the print I saw was faded and scratched to hell!!! (Harvard Film Archive), If I want to see \"entertaining boring\" I watch Bunuel!! Yes \"India Song\"- hold your head high to late modernism and be truly bored!! Watch a 70's porn film with all the good parts cut out and turn the sound down, you'll get \"India Song\" but with better cinematography and none of the annoying music or the screams of the Vice Consul!!!.
\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 felt as though the two hours I spent watching this film may have been better served by perhaps going to the local used bookstore and looking for old fashion magazines and Halston ads. Or perhaps by watching paint dry. Those two employments would have at least engaged my mind a bit more than \"India Song.\" The most frustrating part of sitting through this was that I could see what moods/atmospheres were trying to be created and the notion of these could have been interesting if they had been fleshed out more. Instead, what happened was a presentation of an incoherent, silly chain of nonevents - with the same scenes rehashed over and over to beat some sort of point into our senses.
I was loathe to devote more time to this film by writing any sort of review, except to perhaps warn other folks against this 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\nLook, some film has got to the be worst ever. I suggest it may be India Song. When I saw the film in 1976 it was playing at the Carnegie Hall Cinema, a place frequented by people who care a lot about film. From about the halfway point, people were simply flooding out of the theater. My girlfriend wouldn't let us leave, but by the end, the theater was virtually empty. I kept telling people as they left that \"the good part is still to come.\" And it was. The good part was the screen at the end that said \"fin.\" It was the only good part. I am still annoyed by this film 24 years later. It was pointless, stupid and derivative (Marienbad, part 2). See it only if you want to spend an endless two hours learning to distinguish between merely bad and simply 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\nIf at all possible, try to view all five of the Universal \"Mummy\" films in order, not so much for the continuity between films, but for the very evident lack thereof. Of course it goes without saying that the original Boris Karloff classic \"The Mummy\" really shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as the so called \"sequels\", all of which come off as campy or cultish.
This time around, it's revealed that the mummified remains of Princess Ananka have made their way to the United States. And once again, as your eyes deceive you, Kharis the Mummy didn't really die for the second time in \"The Mummy's Tomb\", but is alive and searching for his lost love Princess Ananka, with the help of the rhetorical nine tana leaves brewed during the cycle of the full moon. To complete the mythology, Kharis needs a caretaker, ably filled by a gaunt John Carradine as Yousef Bey, entrusted with the task by George Zucco's Andoheb, high priest of Arkan.
Kharis and Ananka are to be returned to their final resting place in the hills of Arkan in Egypt. But as we've seen before, being entrusted with the duty of a high priest is a sure bet to end in failure, with Carradine's character falling for the reincarnation of Ananka, Amina Monsouri (Ramsay Ames). It's shocking to see Yousef Bey and the PO'ed bandaged one come to blows over the gorgeous Amina.
Riddle me this - in both \"Tomb\" and \"Curse\", Lon Chaney portrays the Mummy with a limp right arm folded helplessly across his chest. When he encounters the fainted Amina, he lifts her up in both arms with no problem; as soon as he puts her down his right arm returns to it's crippled position once again.
The ending of the film is most notable - the monster gets the girl! But it's a short lived victory, as the Mummy and his kidnapped bride succumb to a swampy grave, an ancient Egyptian curse is fulfilled - \"The fate of those who defy the will of the ancient gods shall be a cruel and violent death\".
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nPerhaps the weakest film in the \"Kharis\" series, despite the presence of John Carradine (miscast as an Egyptian high priest) and George Zucco (as his predecessor, hilariously afflicted by a bad case of Parkinson's Disease) supporting Lon Chaney Jr. as the titular creature - if indeed it was him under the bandages, as his contribution is negligible at best! It's a watchable 60 minutes in itself, I guess, but the standards have considerably lowered when compared even to the two previous entries, and the end result is strictly routine and not at all memorable. Just about the only interesting feature here is the fact that the female lead happens to be the reincarnation of Princess Ananka, mentioned a great deal in earlier films but never actually seen.
\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\nLon Chaney Jr returns to lumber along as the mummy Kharis seeking his mate, Annanka whose soul now resides in the beautiful host of descendant Amina(Ramsay Ames). Andoheb, High Priest of Arkan(George Zucco)leaves Yousef Bey(John Carradine)in charge of Kharis to continue their evil-doing ways. Tom(Robert Lowery)must find a way to save his beloved Amina from certain future mummy terror.
Routine, predictable entry in the Kharis series proves that nearly every film follows a specific format/formula. The city is threatened by a skulking, one-armed corpse masked in wrapping who seems to have been gifted with superhuman power to choke the life out of able-bodied men who are restrained with relative ease by a mere chokehold from Kharis. Frank Reicher, who saw Kharis in action..and knows a great deal about Egyptian history..in the previous film(The Mummy's Tomb), proves that anyone who happened to survive a previous encounter with the mummy is sure to die if he returns in the next flick. Well produced, but lacks originality that would set it apart from the other films in the series. Sadly, Carradine sleepwalks through his role as the evil Yousef Bey. Embarrassing script mistake has Kharis, who is known for donning a crippled, lame right arm, carrying an unconscious Amina with both arms for long distances with no ill effects. One aspect, the shocking climax where Tom's attempt at heroism doesn't go according to plan as Kharis holds his damsel-in-distress hostage, lifts the film from the doldrums slightly.
\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\nSPOILER AHEAD! The mummy (Lon Chaney Jr.) is on the loose in a New England college town searching for a college student (Ramsey Ames) who is the reincarnation of his beloved Princess Ananka. Dull, slow (even at 65 minutes--it moves slower than the mummy!), indifferently acted, but the ending is worth waiting for. The mummy gets the girl (!!!!!) and she ages rapidly as the both slowly sink in a swamp. This is (I believe) the only time in a Universal monster movie that the monster got the girl! That aside, this is stricly amateur night. Probably the worst of the mummy sequels--and that's saying something!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI can't believe that I actually sat thru this entire film. A friend rented it because the jacket made it sound good. In it's defense, the jacket was correct; there was a supposed haunted room that someone slept in overnight. From the jacket, it sounded like this was on par with Freddy, Jason, or maybe \"The Shining.\" It couldn't be farther from the truth.
If you are a fan of minimalist and/or surrealist films, you may enjoy it. If you're looking for a good fright movie, or a couple of thrills, go rent Jason vs Freddy IV -- you'll have a much better night.
\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 watchable, but nothing special. Four girls on a road trip to Vegas foolishly decide to pick up a hitchhiker (because he is cute). They all end up staying the night at a motel in the middle of nowhere, and the hitchhiker's psychotic issues with women become apparent.
The characters are clichés--there is a married, responsible woman; a slutty party girl; an unsure bride-to-be; and a man-hater who just got dumped. The hitchhiker is genuinely nice until he goes crazy.
There's not nearly enough gore, and way too much rape. I enjoy slasher horror/thrillers a lot, and this one did nothing for me. The ending was just as lame as the rest of the movie.
On the positive side, the actors did a great job with that they had to work with. The dialogue isn't awful, and overall I was impressed with the cast, having never seen or heard of any of them before. And the plot wasn't out of the realm of possibility (although I really doubt any woman in this day and age would pick up a hitchhiker--no matter how attractive he is), so I wasn't groaning that things didn't make sense.
Overall, \"The Hitchhiker\" was well-acted and made sense, but wasn't very interesting. There are a lot of better movies in the same genre that I would recommend over this one (\"Rest Stop,\" \"The Devil's Rejects,\" \"Texas Chainsaw Massacre,\" even \"The Hitcher\" remake). Do yourself a favor and skip it unless you don't have any other options.
\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, the current IMDb plot description seems to be misleading, the movie is about a group of girls who pick up a misogynistic hitchhiker, who plans to kill them all. They stop at a small motel, where he holds them hostage, but develops an intense attraction for one of the girls. Violence ensues.
I picked this up by mistake thinking it was the other 2007 movie \"The Hitcher\". Not that The Hitcher is any better, and I was looking for a crummy movie to watch anyway, but this was almost unbearable at times. I think I could have vomited on a piece of paper and come up with a better plot than this.
I can't even count how many movies I've seen with virtually the same storyline, so this was almost painfully predictable at times, but what really made it awful were a few scenes that ... well let me give an example. At one point a door is covered in (what is very obviously) blood, and two police officers, at the scene because of a 911 call, are looking at it from 30 feet away, see a man, also covered in blood, walk out of the door, agree that it looks suspicious, but decide to not investigate further.
But, however ridiculous it may be, the movie was never boring, was well produced, directed, and acted, complete with good special effects, gratuitous nudity, and violence. I probably would not recommend actually spending 90 minutes of your life sitting down to watch this movie, but it turned out to be perfect to have on while I cleaned my basement. Also highly recommended for fans of crummy movies, and would be a good movie to watch with friends when you plan on doing more talking than 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\nOK I went to this website before I watched this movie, read the comments, got pumped, - cause they where all pretty good for a B-flick - watched it and was completely disappointed. The main characters wannabe lone rebel straight out of the mid-west act was sickening to the stomach, and don't even get me started on the two cops, I mean there's a bloody door right there in plain view, check it out! The plot was completely predictable, the editing was rather limited, I swear the editor was even dozing off near the end when he was cutting this movie, and the direction was clouded by bad cinematography. Now please don't get me wrong, I love B-flicks, some are really good.
Want to watch a good B rated flick???
Dave recommends
\" High Tension \"
http://imdb.com/title/tt0338095/
\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 disappointing for at least one of two reasons. The suspense created disappeared because of horrible acting or lack of direction from the director.. I don't know.. it was like a tasty bubble gum that seemed to run out of flavor yet you continue to chew on it because it once tasted great. Like most thrillers The Hitchhiker had promise yet failed to deliver when it had me bright eyed and ready to turn the volume down(I was watching the movie alone.. in the dark) This so called thriller simply came apart like it was made of Lego transforming into something else. It simply ran out of gas and left me staring at a made-for-TV-like style movie with one exception.. it was probably rated-R.
\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\nAbout the spoiler warning? It's not \"may contain\", it -does- contain spoilers. Readers beware.
Okay, first I need it to be known that I'm not bashing the actors. They're just working with what they're given. The problem was the script. It was horrendous. There was NOTHING believable about it at all. Sure, when you have a movie based on a murderous hitchhiker, there's going to be the bad mistake here and there that puts you in the terribly horrific, movie-worthy situation. But these girls just made stupid decision after stupid decision. The only girl smart enough to ever try and call the police was the girl added towards the end because he'd already killed one and hit another with a car. Speaking of hitting her with a car...why the hell did she try and outrun a truck rather than run to the side like a normal person? Also, does the one who wrote the script honest to god believe cops are not going to investigate a door covered in blood? Frankly, it wasn't suspenseful either. The only suspense I was feeling was the frustration at just how retarded the girls were. Well, this rant has gone on way longer than I meant to for such a bad movie, so I won't bother to touch on the end besides the fact it's unrealistic and lame.
\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 total swill. If you take The Devil's Rejects and suck all the good out of it, and add a lot of twisted, kinky bondage parts, a few rape scenes, and like one or two sincerely horrifying scenes, and you'd get this movie. People are calling this a ripoff of '86's The Hitcher, but I don't see that at all. Even the worst Hitcher ripoffs are still better than this. The main problem on display here is that there's really nothing here besides a few of the director's fetishes being showcased like circus exhibits. Is all you need out of a movie shots of girls being abused and tied up, cowering in fear? Well, then rent this movie!
However, I'd rather just watch a good movie, which this is clearly not. The sad thing is, there are some really good thrills waiting to be uncovered here, but only a few. For instance, the suspense at the beginning before the bondage nonsense started...pretty damn good if you ask me. And the scene where the hitchhiker kills the nympho girl (can't remember names) is chilling, very brutal in a way, challenging even The Devil's Rejects for unbridled fury. How come the rest of the movie can't be that good? Huh? I really need to stop renting stupid crap like this. Closing message: Just let this gutter trash die and forget it forever. Not recommended.
\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\nOpie, Tom Gilson,was my brother,so I went to see the movie and I never looked at it again in all these years. Sorry! it was bad. I'm told I have to write 10 lines so I'll put a little trivia in. Tom and Tuesday Weld were to be \" introduced \" in this picture and Tom was told to take Tuesday to the premiere but Tom said no he was going with Joan Collins, and he did and because he did only Tuesday Weld was Introduced. I found this very funny back then and still do. The movie, while the concept was a funny one, and the actors in it were impressive but some how it just did'nt come out funny.The continuity was abstract, at best,it was like I was watching 2 different movies at the same time,each running into the other. Sorry, Bob Gilson
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI have read the other user comments and I am happy someone has compared it to the original by Kamal called Perumarzhakalam released in 2004.
The original had a tight story and no loopholes as described above about the Indian Govt not having proper records, or even bad shoots and bloopers.
The story is great and a touchy one and well described by others. But sadly Nagesh taking credit for it as his own story is a sad thing and amounts to nothing other than plagiarism.
I guess he has been affected by Bollywood's so called \"inspired\" syndrome.
He must at least give credit where it is due.
I liked some of his older movies, but now I suspect if any of them were originals after all.
Here is a link in IMDb for the original masterpiece. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0425350/#comment I recommend everyone to see the original, even with subtitles if needed, to know what class direction and class acting is all about.
\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 one the worst movie I've seen and certainly worst movie Nagesh Kuknoor has made. I can't believe person who has created movie like Teen Deewarein can create utter crap like this.
Plot of the film itself is really faulty that Zeenat has to search Meera and get her clemency to help her husband avoid death penalty in Soudi Arabia. Common logic says if Zeenat cannot search Meera easily so won't the Soudi Government, so Zeenat can safely forge Meera's signature or thumb-print and produce it before the Soudis. Another silliest thing is Shankar has given incorrect address in his passport, so Indian government officials cannot get to the address but after sometime Meera gets Shankar's suitcase through Soudi government. Wow! Doesn't it make Soudis well networked in India more than Indians?
Nagya makes a slightly more than cameo in the movie with role of Chopra, who is eyeing Meera and seeks Meera's Father-in-law, Girish Karnaad(this guy is just wasted)'s help to get her as a keep.
Nagya cannot speak Hindi and he has been assisted by other guys to translates the English dialogs he writes, in Hindi. This time, it seems that his aide was in serious intoxication, when writing dialogs like \"Imaan ki Chalaang\" (leap of honesty). Within minutes, to our worst nightmares, Meera not only takes this honest leap, she taps her feet to do \"Imaan ka Naach\" (dance of honesty).
One of the only bright spot movie has is its cinematography and really nice hues. But since Bollywood has learned the thing called Post-production, almost all the movies have vibrant colors and nicely blended backdrops, so no big deal.
Conclusion is that making a cheesy movie is not limited to Chopras or Johars or Barjatyas, Nagyas and all are ready to get affected.
\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 clunker!
It MUST have been made for TV or Cable.
Look: forget the screenplay - forget the bunch of forgettable actors. Excuse me? Continuity? The NSA/NIA/whatever or whoever he is (an agent) takes-off in an F16 - is shown in an F18 chucking his guts up and, later, the aircraft shown taxiing is an F4 Phantom! Oooh, wish that I could be so cavalier.
Apart from the male actors(!?) The women are WASPS: blue-eyed and long-legged and, eventually, get to cry about the heroes who save them. Even when a solid weld could save most of the cosmo- astro-nauts, the blond drops the welding tool. Duh!
As an SF movie one out of ten. As a movie per se: 1/2 (that's a half point). They should have ditched the space station and headed for Mars.
Major raspberries.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"