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\nFirst of all, just let me say this... Ghost Story....hello!?!
If any of the other people who trashed this movie from beginning to end realized this fact, their reviews would have been very different. The fact that characters kept disappearing whenever the protagonist turned back to look, should have been a dead giveaway. This movie was not billed as a ghost story when you went to rent it in the video store, not even a hint, and that is the BIGGEST mistake that was made by the studio who marketed it. It was deliberate on their part not to market it as a ghost story in order to confuse you like the main character is confused as you try to make sense of it. The problem in this is that they lost too many viewers; the ghosts appeared \"too human and real\" without any of the usual telltale signs, imagery or special effects that Hollywood usually uses to let you know you are now seeing a ghost...and that, is what they were trying to do. The main character does not know she is seeing ghosts and neither does the viewer. Now do you get it? As long as you understand that the main character is seeing ghosts, then you'll understand the movie and not be so irritated by what is perceived as major oversights in continuity or plot flaws.
I admit, this being said, it still was not a good movie, just not as bad a just about everyone else made it out to be. Just understand, if you plan on watching this movie, everything you see, \"ain't\" always what what you think it is. 4 out of 10 for acting, 3 for originality, 5 for plot and 5 for scare factor, though there was some gore and spooky moments. Still not a good movie, just way misunderstood.
\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\nDefinitely the worst movie I have ever seen in my entire life. I can't find anything positive to say about this movie (if this production is even worthy of that word).
This production is not even the standard of a low budget porn-movie!
My question is simply: why did someone look at the script and think \"Hey I'm gonna make a movie out of this\"?
At the end of the movie I wasn't even hoping that \"Nicole\" was going to make it. She was really that annoying!
So for your own sake, do not watch this movie... unless you want to waste 85 minutes of your 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\nOr that's what the filmmakers would like you to believe, anyway.
This movie tries sooo hard to be cool it's ridiculous. Everything, from the look of the film, the cinematography, the editing, the dialogue and the acting, is geared in super cool mode from the get go. Just to make sure that no one misses how cool this film is, there's a soundtrack of really cool rock n roll tunes and a twangy western-surf-tex mex guitar playing constantly throughout the film. As a final reminder of how frickin cool this movie is, all the actors have been instructed to speak in a hoarse voice, because, as we all know, that's badass.
The plot (if there indeed is one) seems pretty straightforward. But as someone else already pointed out, the director and star of the film, seems fiercely determined not to tell that story, instead focusing on a plethora of naked babes and dialogue that's supposed to be badass, but grows tired surprisingly quick (did they have an contest to see how many times they could cram the words \"pussy\" and \"f*ck\" and its derivatives in an 80 minute film?).
This movie was absolutely horrible.
\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\nTarentino should be ashamed to be involved with this awful film. The acting, directing and script are all third-rate - with the entire film playing out like an excuse for writer/director/star Larry Bishop to get laid. The only reason it was made at all is most likely due to his association with QT. The plot of the film is pretty flimsy, and basically tries to survive on not-so-obscure references to older B-movies and some cameos from guys like David Carradine, Dennis Hopper, and Vinnie Jones. Each one is listless in their performance, particularly Hopper who is in full-on paycheck mode at this point in his career. The saving grace, if there is one, is that the script is so laughably bad that it can be entertaining. Bishop tries so hard to get that trademark Tarentino banter and just fails miserably, which can be pretty humorous at times and grating at others. I'd only check this one out if you love bad movies...or if you're really into biker films.
\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\nBecause that's what Hell Ride pretty much is. Larry Bishop and Tarantino partying on the Weinstein's money with the promise to deliver a movie sometime down the line. I'm all for fake boobage and booze as much as the next guy but did we really need the movie? Really there's nothing worse than the reheated second-hand leftovers of an old trend. And I'm not even talking about 70's grindhouse cinema because Hell Ride has none of the raw and unpolished feel of the era it purports to pay homage to. No, this is slick and glossy MTV Hollywood through and through. The old trend I'm talking about is the self-consciously pseudo-hip quirky cinematic world where Tarantino meets Guy Ritchie and Robert Rodriguez. All three guys were at least talented and found success for a reason. Hell Ride is just a second-hand copy, fickle and uninspired, polished to the max when it should be raw, the \"supercool\" aspect coming off forced and silly.
There's no reason for example why such a simple and utterly inane story has to be told in convoluted, back-and-forth in time fashion. It's just a post-Tarantino quirk. There's also no reason why the dialogues have to be so mind-numbingly pointless, people flapping their gums while saying NOTHING: at least when Travolta was talking about cheeseburgers in Pulp Fiction it felt fresh. Dialogues here amount to little more than pseudo-macho posturing. There's also no reason why a grating rock'n'roll guitar has to twangle aimlessly over the entire movie. Perhaps the lowest Hell Ride hits is when it tries to be quasi-existential. There's a hilarious dream/illusion scene in the desert where Bishop eats peyote and sees colours. I was half-expecting an old Indian to come out and offer nuggets of wisdom.
The only saving grace of this abysmal turd is the boobage and Vinnie Jones' monologue about his wings tattooes (and maybe some of the desert exterior shots). Lots of boobage and hot scantily clad babes. Now that's something I can get behind but a movie they don't make. Everything else is just an empty shell, an imitation of other infinitely more talented imitators.
\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\nDirector/lead Larry Bishop tried way, way too hard with Hell Ride. The movie wants to be edgy, witty, provocative, outlandish, biting all of this, seemingly in a Quentin Tarantino/Rob Zombie style. But it's not edgy. The references seem forced. The dialog tries to be clever and fails. The humor is never funny. Nice try setting a gritty tone but we'd have to care about the characters or the story for it to remotely succeed.
What you're left with are cool Harleys and pretty girls surrounding a bunch of tired, old and out of shape \"bad boys\" in what looks like an attempt to do a modernized Sergio Leone western. If this movie can make newer generations interested in 60s and 70s films, kudos for it. But on its own, it is rather boring and irrelevant. I do believe there is a place for style over substance. But this movie is not it.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI have had more boring stretches of 80 minutes in my life, but none are coming to mind right now. Hell Ride is based on the retro cult 70s theme that Tarantino brought back, and did right, in movies like Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs. The problem with Hell Ride is, unlike PF and RD, the story is garbage and so is character development. How many movies does Bishop think he can blatantly steal from? The brief case in Pulp Fiction, the air gun in No Country, etc. etc. Speaking of Bishop what the hell is he doing acting in this movie? I couldn't help but laugh at those scenes where he's standing with his pelvis trusted out, desperately trying to seem like some hardened biker. Nothing in this movie is believable. And why Dennis Hopper? Did they really need the Easy Rider motif too? I blame Larry Bishop, for his horrible plot and dialogue, not to mention his failed attempt at the leading role. Don't bother watching this movie, it's 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\nLarry Bishop directs, writes, and leads this soft core porn, plot less biker movie about nothing to do with anything. To call this one of the worst movies of 2008 is being kind to the garbage that I spent money on while in theaters. Its one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I felt sorry for the girls mostly, who probably think they're in the making of a feature film, when in all reality they're making a porno. They walk on the set for four days, say some sexual lines to disgusting old men -- thirty years older than them -- then take off their cloths, and run around naked for the four days they're on set. I can only assume this was Larry Bishops only way to get laid. You see shot after shot directly on a girls asses. Shot after shot of Bishop walking up to some random chick and grabbing her most intimate parts, as if he were shaking her hand. How this crap was even funded is beyond me. Why Tarantino has his name on it is beyond me, but he's been slowly fading away since 1994, so I can't say I was surprised.
After 15 minutes, you get that awful feeling that only horrible (and I mean horrible) movies give you. When you see it in theaters, the pain you feel is amplified. After 15 minutes, I wanted to cry for being so stupid, and wasting, not only my time, but my hard earned ten dollars. There isn't one redeeming quality, or one moment in the movie that creates any kind of reaction or shows any kind of inclination that these people had any idea of what they are doing. If you don't see naked women all that often, then I guess this movie would be for you. If you're eleven-years-old, you will probably like it. You can't even laugh at it, because every idiot making it was laughing about the crap they were making. The acting is awful, the writing is awful, the production is awful, and the directing is awful. It's not even worth your time renting it to see the car crash. Stay away, stay very far away. You shouldn't even be reading these reviews. I shouldn't even be writing one.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film is so bad it's hilarious. I watched Hell Ride half thinking it was a comedy, although I couldn't quite work out if they were actually taking the p*ss, or if this really was a serious attempt at making something decent. I notice it isn't listed here as a comedy so they must be serious! It's basically seems to be about a gang of pensioners who ride round on motorcycles shooting at each other and exchanging the most hilariously bad dialogue you can imagine. One scene inexplicably has two characters smashing bottles over each others heads, then showing each other 'get out of jail free' cards that they've made! Also check out Vinnie Jones' accent, where the hell is he meant to be from?!? Oh and there's a load of naked girls in it too, who for some unfathomable reason seem to want nothing more than to have none stop sex with these leathery skinned b*stards! The guy who wrote and directed it - a Pee Wee Herman lookalike with a Greeshan 2000'd beard and an orange sunbed tan - has for some reason cast himself in the lead role, maybe this is part of the joke, I don't know. Actually, the more I think about it the more I'm sure this film is a p*ss take. It's produced by Quentin Tarantino and it's possible he's released this in humour as a bit of a laugh. It is a total rip off of Tarantino's style, but just done really really badly. It is very amusing though, and I guess either way it could go down as a cult classic, either from being an amusing parody of the Tarantino/Rodriguez style, or something that is very very unintentionally funny. Has to be seen to be believed.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhen a movie called Hell Ride comes out you expect a certain amount of biker cliché. With character names like \"Pistolero\", \"Comanche\" and \"The Gent\" I braced myself for the worse and was punch in the face by just that. The dialogue, soundtrack and shooting style are standard for biker movies. Dusty desert blurred from the heat as bikes coming tearing down the road while \"CC Rider\" plays and they talk about sex and violence. Yawn! The three leads were just ridiculous and unbelievable. Seeing old men like Bishop and Madsen (in a freaking ruffled shirt) riding down a dusty strip of desert highway reminded me of two men trying desperately to relive their youth. Poor Eric Balfour tried his best but with such poor material it got lost. Even an appearance by Dennis Hopper in full Easy Rider swing, couldn't save it. And let's talk about the store bought tans shall we? Many have compared this to Tarantino's work. It is not even close. What makes Tarantino's work so brilliant is he knows it's over the top so he just goes balls out and takes it as far over the top as possible. Bishop took this film so seriously that it became nothing more than a poor copy of the exploitation 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\nThat's what I kept asking myself while watching this film. I mean the amount of nudity and sex was one thing but another part of the movie which gave its genre to the adult industry was its lack of storyline. Really I just wanted to get up and leave during the whole movie, but I persisted. I persisted in the hope that maybe the storyline would get better, that there might be a good twist at the end. However I couldn't have been more wrong. In the end I persisted because I figured I could write a bad review for it if anything after watching it.
I mean don't get me wrong there is nothing wrong with beautiful, sexy and vibrant women, but when the director only shows that along with a shitty story thinking it's what the viewer wants to see, it insults us all. To think we are all so shallow to only want to see burlesque from rep ratable, big movie industry players is preposterous. My advice: hire a different 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\nThe worse film i have every seen. Like the other honest reviewers, it is just an excuse for getting naked birds with their juggs out. Don't get wrong, naked women isn't a bad thing but there is another film genre for that.
Boyfriends beware. I sold this to my girlfriend as a classic bike gang fest (due to reviews) to be greeted with every other scene full of naked women gyrating about the place. Slap in the chops for me.
What makes me laugh the most is all the dogey bike dives they went to in the film were full of models with the works cosmetically - what biker bars have these? They are usually slightly haggard with tattoos and far saggier juggs! Completely unrealistic.The acting is terrible, loads of pointless swearing and a complete waste of time storyline.
Did anyone check out Vinnie Jones's attempt at an American accent? Its as embarrassing as his football skills.
Avoid like the plague. The only reason you would watch this film is if you are a young lad who cant access p@rn and have nicked it from their parents movie collection for a few pervy kicks!
\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\nLarry Bishop is 60-years old, dirty and not good-looking YET in this movie he's like a drug towards the women in their twenty's.
A lot of movies have been claimed to be sexist but if any movie deserves that title it's this one.
I can't even count how many boobs there were shown in this movie, probably more then hours Larry Bishop spend writing the script.
The script is ridiculous, Bishop and his gang argue, bike, party, have sex, kill people and the next day they argue, bike, party, have sex, kill people and the third day, well you get the idea.
I like ERIC BALFOUR and considering what he had to work with, he did pretty good as Comanche.
Unfortunately this movie is about Larry Bishop's character Pistolero who is so one-dimensional it's not even funny.
He's also a horrible actor, and apparently he never intended to do the lead himself but everybody he asked said no so what was he to do? Once he realized he was gonna do the lead himself, he probably did a re-write of the script so that he could touch up more ladies.
Although visually it's kind of good-looking, at least the biker-scenes and Eric Balfour isn't half-bad this movie is just a big mess.
I hope to never see Larry Bishop in front of the camera again.
\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, so writer/director Larry Bishop obviously has some important connections and knows the right people in Hollywood in order to produce his own film and fill up the cast with eye-catching names. Good for him! Now what he really still needs is inspiration and talent in order to come up with an actually worthwhile scenario rather than the overly pretentious and wannabe convoluted crap he penned down here. \"Hell Ride\" isn't a movie; it's a hectic and hopelessly inept fan-boy endeavor to bring homage to the notorious biker-flicks of the 60's and to the recently revived Grindhouse cinema formula in general. With \"Hell Ride\", Larry Bishop embarrassingly fails in his set-up and there are many obvious reasons for this. He hasn't got a story to tell  or at least not a very interesting one  but gravely tries to cover this up through numerous redundant plot twists, loads of gratuitous and very women-unfriendly sleaze, overlong and piteous dialogs aspiring to be cool and giant amounts of senseless violence. The plot looks complex but can actually be summarized in one sentence. The ancient vendetta between two rivaling biker gangs flares up again with the arrival of a new member; a boy who may or not be the long lost son of a double-crossing wench that got executed back in 1976. That's it, seriously! All the rest, going from betraying gang members over to the recruitment of old timer members over to toying with his nymphomaniac informant girl, is all completely pointless and confusing padding material. Another major problem in \"Hell Ride\" is Larry Bishop's very own tremendous and seemingly insatiable ego. He definitely shouldn't have rewarded himself with the role of tough and relentless gang leader, as that only comes across as incredibly pretentious and narrow-minded; especially when there are so many other and more experienced stars in the movie. Granted, Bishop starred in a couple of genuine 60's biker exploitation movies (like \"The Savage Seven\" and \"Angel Unchained\"), but that was a long time ago and he honestly isn't any good as an actor. Maybe it simply was Bishop's life-long dream to play a character that always outsmarts his enemies and for which every hot babe sexually craves, and just wrote a whole screenplay around it. The veterans in the cast, like Dennis Hopper and Michael Madsen, don't really bother to leave a plausible impression and I can't say I blame them. This whole production is lame and pathetic and I can't bring myself to recommending it to anyone, regardless of many beautiful babes parade around with bare breasts and naked butts.
\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 easily one of the worst movies I've seen in a long long time (and I've recently seen Starship Troopers 2!!!). I could find nothing to redeem this film. The acting, which is probably the best aspect of the film, is fair at best. Michael Madsen hams it up in his standard character persona. Denis Hopper doesn't seem to know what he's supposed to be. Vinnie Jones accent is bizarre. One positive thing is that Leonor Valera looks fantastic. Her acting is pretty poor but I doubt that's why shes there.
The dialogue is truly appalling. It is quite simply rubbish. I don't know who signed off on this but they really need to get professional help next time round.
This film is the reason IMDBs rating system should be able to include zero stars out of ten. Avoid at all costs.
\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 makes \"Glitter\" look like \"Schindler's List.\" Tarantino and the Weinsteins really need to consider more carefully before putting their names on a product. Green-lighting a P.O.S. like this, regardless of the friendships involved, is just bad business. Larry Bishop needs to be kept away from a movie camera at all costs. Writer/director/producer/actor Bishop shows that his skills are inadequate for any of those jobs. A vanity project gone south, \"Hell Ride\" allows usually good actors to chew the scenery... at least when the camera isn't centered on Bishop's feeble attempts to steal every scene he's in. (Which is virtually EVERY SCENE!) My final three words on \"Hell Ride\" are STINK, STANK, STUNK.
\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 Oh my god this film is so poor , I'm amazed I managed to watch it all ..
First off Id like to say that Vinny Jones should only play a London thug period that's it end of story ..
Pisttolero is so unconvincing its almost comedy.. Banging in Dennis hopper and David Carradine did not save this film .. in fact I think its a total comedy and as a comedy it deserves its 1 star..
Avoid at all costs .. Vinny Oh my god I thought I saw it all when he played that Irish Tinker :P
I think the average viewer will realize that this film is maybe just a never will be type of film.. I cant see how anybody could actually fall this crap
\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 my first \"awful\" rating ever on IMDb and I couldn't think of a more deserving film to honor it with. I hoped for entertaining trash and found trash of the saddest, dullest kind. I found a film which no one can possibly have cared a bit about, including its creator.
\"Hell Ride\", directed, written by and starring Larry \"Friend of QT\" Bishop, has a simple plot about a hidden treasure and a trio of keys, two bands of bikers and a gruesome murder in 1976 which has yet to be avenged. Larry seems fiercely determined not to tell this story, focusing instead of putting his swaying, strangely grimacing main character into situations where he can fondle women who pretend to like it. He also has a dialog containing enough horrible fire puns/metaphors to put one off the word \"fire\" for life.
Dennis Hopper escapes complete humiliation, others are not so lucky. Sometimes they hit the road on their bikes, making one feel even more sorry for Michael Madsen, since his high handles seems to add insult to the injury of having to appear in this film. There is plenty of silicon-enhanced nudity, but fairly little action and no humor whatsoever, making one wonder just what kind of an audience they had in mind.
My guess is that most people who watch this film, including fans of trashy 60s biker movies, will feel cheated. Do yourself a favor and revisit the real stuff instead.
\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\nOnce upon a time Quentin Tarantino was a relatively successful filmmaker.
Now, unfortunately, he not only makes terrible films, but puts his names to ones like this.
A supposedly cool retro flashback to biker movies of the 60s and 70s, this plumbs new depths.
Believe you me, I enjoy it when a blouse falls off in a film more than the next man but even I felt kind of sleazy watching this. To use a word I never thought I would, its msysoginistic (you see, I can't even spell it.) The plot (in the vaguest sense of the term) is as incomprehensible as Vinnie Jones' accent, the fact his terrible acting does not stand our particularly is as damning a testament as one can think of.
This is just terrible. Shocking. It almost made me cry. In horror.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI would not recommend it whatsoever. It was like getting stuck in the middle row of a theater, so I couldn't leave, and watching a part porn movie (except they didn't take their clothes off - it was the body language and definitely the language). I have to say I was embarrassed. Filming was very low budget, no good dialogue. Yuck. Actors stunk except The two best characters who got killed off (?) and they were David Carradine and Dennis Hopper. It did smack of Kill Bill and that old movie with the two guys who ride the dessert on their chopppers. You know what I mean. blablabla. The filming was grainy and just a very low quality. There was nobody in that theater that liked this movie, and the people around me were younger and tattooed.
\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\nLarry Bishop, the Writer/Actor/Director, focuses too heavily on the camera, music, and visuals. The film resorts to meaningless ramblings and vulgar monologues, which seem to have no purpose other than boring and irritating the audience. The actors experience a bumpy ride, from the film's start to finish, and are caught in one terrible smoke screen. The hell with the ride. The film is a bomb.
The Victors are presented as weathered vigilantes, who seek their own form of justice for what they see as lawlessness. They are bikers, anti-heroes, and protagonists. Pistolero, played by Larry Bishop, is the revengeful leader of the pack. The Gent (Michael Madsen) is trapped in his own crossfire of chaos and psychosis.
Comanche (Eric Balfour) is loyal, but mysterious. Deuce, performed by David Carradine, should have passed on the ride, and so should the ticket-buyers (if you decide to see the film, you'll be sorry, but you'll find out why). Billy Wings (Vinnie Jones) is a lewd and venomous character, completely filled with disdain.
What puzzles me is how this film, with all of its continual ramblings and vulgarity, ever got anybody to invest in a ride that absolutely goes nowhere. Ticket-buyers, take my advice: don't pay for the ride. Please don't make the same mistake as the investors.
The first fifteen minutes, or so, of the movie is confusing and unintelligible. The dialog, which rapidly turn into meaningless monologues, doesn't make any sense. The entire film is hell bent on going nowhere. Poor Dennis Hopper is caught in the middle of a real mess. He, too, should have passed on the ride. There are decapitated heads, slashed throats, and nude females wrestling. It is clear that Bishop doesn't know where he is going with the film. He gets entirely lost. But, by the end of the ride, you just won't give a damn. Mama Mia! Stay home. And, by all means, don't take the ride. I rate this film a 1 out of 10, but this movie is so awful it deserves a zero.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie is juxtaposition of various super bad tough guy biker characters, loosely connected but with no real storyline. Some of the scenes are nicely filmed. If they took the same cast and crew, and made a movie called the Gent who was the coolest character in the film and came up with an interesting and continuous story maybe it could be decent. As it is, prepare for a lame series of tough guy character intros, all of whom do nothing but ride bikes around the desert all day and cause trouble while all staying never getting sunburned and keeping their hair and clothes perfect and never needing to look for a home or money, etc. There was a sort of background story about the characters pasts various people that were killed and a treasure that was probably supposed to be the plot.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThere are a lot of 'bad' films out there. Tune in to Channel 5 every night of the week and you might just be treated to a daily, shocking effort from one filmmaker or another. There are possibly films that have caused me more pain - were harder to sit through - than this, but in terms of writing, acting, direction, cinematography and the bare basics of cinema Inbetweeners is a truly, truly appalling effort and should be avoided at all costs. The only laugh it gave me was in the behind the scenes documentary on the DVD, in which the film's geeky director Darren Fisher explains how it was his script that attracted the 'talent' to the project! Never underestimate the power of self-delusion.
Darren Fisher - Britain's answer to Edward D. Wood Jr.!
\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 possibility the worst and most disappointing film I have ever seen. I've spent four years at two universities and know that there must be a good film to be made about the experience. This isn't it. The \"acting\" is god awful and the plot non-existent.
Here are a few incidents from my one year in halls of residence.
1) A posh lad that unknowingly got off with a transvestite. 2) The best friend pairing of two girls - one with huge breasts and the other with the nickname \"the brick\". 3) A couple that shag too loudly. 4) The lad who gets all the girls 5) The lad from Northern Ireland who is very difficult to understand. 6) McDonalds in bed 7) Curry every night for a week 8) Student bashing, couple of my mates ended up in hospital 9) The discarded joint that started a fire. 10) The flood 11) The lad who wakes up on his floor to find that every item of furniture has be taken from his room.
And if I can come up with that list in 5 minutes and from real life, I'm sure a couple of script writers can do better, a lot better.
And for a film named after a Sleeper song, where is the Britpop soundtrack?
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWell, I have been to a British University, in fact I went to the one in this very film, and it was nothing like that. This is a horrible, badly made and acted film. Worst thing is, it could have been really good, if they bothered to spend more that 12p on it, in fact if it really wanted to represent true British Students it should off acted like one and took out a 15 thousand pound loan. It says nothing about Uni life, where was the bush diving, the tea drinking till 4am, the endless chats about group dynamics??? Where was the diversity and fun? Maybe I'm just being romantic, but I don't remember Fresher's Week being that awful, and I'm teetotal. And in the end the question still remains...a bed or a wardrobe?
\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 very bad film, an amalgam of clichés and historical inaccuracies. A few examples: in an early scene Soviet infantry are attacked by the Germans; instead of staying in their trenches to shoot at them, they advance into open ground to fight them,contrary to all infantry tactics; Kate, one of the central characters, is supposedly the daughter of a White Russian and obsessed with her Russianness, yet she does not speak Russian; a guilt-stricken German airman attacks an anti-aircraft gun- the gun, however, does not fire shrapnel shells but scores a direct hit on his 'plane, which doesn't look much like a German 'plane of WWII. In fairness, when they could escape the preposterous plot and the consequent absurdities there are some genuinely powerful moments- the depiction of people slowly starving to death is convincingly done and moving, but these only show up the rest of it even more. A film to be avoided.
\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\nHi! I'm Sheena, an African (yet white!) jungle tribal princess who possesses the incredible ability to transform into the cheapest, unscariest monster in the world (think 60s Star Trek aliens) by rolling seductively in mud! When I first found myself in this horrible position, I took the only logical action: I made myself a torn-apart jungle bikini in which to perform my badly-acted antics. I enjoy romance novels and tearing apart the occasional unimpressive African warlord. And I would be remiss if I did not mention my (white, of course) sidekick Mr. Cutter, an American ex-military man who seems to have fled the U.S. after his divorce. Can you say \"ducking alimony\"? Anyway, he provides the occasional distraction from my difficult life. I mean, how many idiot blonds do you know who are also an endangered species of flesh-rending monster? Despite my many hardships (acting is so hard! *whine*), I haven't given up, and after much soul-searching, I have finally discovered my role in life: to terrorize insomniatic late-night television viewers who are so unfortunate as to not have cable or satellite.
\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\nPublicity for this film suggests that it is shocking and sensational. Well, we opera lovers see some strange sights in opera houses so we are not shocked by the Duke of Mantua urinating during his reprise of La Donna è Mobile, nor is it sensational to see Gilda sing Caro Nome in the bath. It is just crass and boring. What stands out about this film is its lack of imagination. Director Corina Van Eijk sets the Duke's palace in a seedy swimming pool. In fact, he is not the Duke, he is just a character named Duka, so it's difficult to see why he has lots of hangers-on and his own jester, Rigoletto. Rigoletto lives in a council flat that is furnished with the orange sofa and decorated in the spotted wallpaper that is de rigeur among avant-garde directors.The Duke's, sorry Duka's heavies ride around on motor scooters (Yawn).
Concepts imposed on an opera like this can produce unexpected, and unintentional humour. What can we make of the fact that Gilda has a maid, even though she lives in a council flat.? When the call goes out that Monterone is being taken to prison we see him being marched out of the swimming pool by two attendants in pink shorts. One imagines that he is going to be charged with urinating in a public swimming pool.
It was common for opera films to be lip-synced 20 years ago but there is just no excuse for it today. A dubbed opera is like soft porn. You don't believe in what is happening because the performers are not making enough effort. The actress in Gilda's role does not seem to have learned her lines properly. She barely moves her lips when she is supposed to be singing. When she sings Caro Nome in the bath she lies back with her legs slightly parted. It is difficult to tell which orifice the sound is supposed to be emanating from. The Duke, later caps this by singing while engaging in cunnilingus with Maddalena, giving a new meaning to the phrase yodelling in the canyon.
The ambiance of the sound never seems right with the orchestra sometimes sounding as though it is being played through a transistor radio. Fairly slow, rumpity-tumpity tempi are preferred so that the overall effect is of a karaoke in your local pub.
This is a film of a production by Opera Spanga. Spanga is a village in Friesland in the Netherlands. They normally perform in a tent in a field. If I had been watching this performance in a tent in a field in Friesland I would have been fairly indulgent. By filming this production and giving it a worldwide audience, the villagers also hold themselves open to worldwide ridicule.
\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\nRigoletto is Verdi's masterpiece, full of drama, emotion and powerful, memorable music. The maestro must have rolled in his grave when this bawdy travesty of his work was released with its needless frontal nudity and cheap copulating and its portrayal of the naive but principalled Gilda as a horny ditz. Opera certainly can be adapted to cinema --- look at Zeferelli's magnificent La Traviata --- but when a work is as superb as Rigoletto, it doesn't need cheap gimmicks. It might even have been acceptable if the dubbed in music had been good but it is a mediocre rendering of the libretto with second rate sound quality at that.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAs I mentioned in other comments, I became a real big fan of David Bradley ever since I saw him in \"American Ninja 3\". The guy is great doing martial arts, has some kind of charisma and is a cool looking dude on screen. Sadfully, he went to the DTV department ever since his debut and has remained as one of the king of TV movies until 2001 where he apparently stopped making movies. Now, one thing is watching Cyborg Cop or Hard Justice which are crappy clichéd movies but real fun to watch (coz they're entertainingly bad if that has any sort of meaning) but another thing is watching a tasteless piece of boredom like Total Reality. I mean, this and Crisis are the two biggest pieces of horse-dung this guy ever did. I wouldn't recommend this not even to the biggest Bradly hardcore fans. If I had known this and Crisis were going to be so f*****g crap, I wouldn't have spent the 3 or 4 euros they cost me. Total Reality is just as boring as Crisis although funnily, it starts promising. A group of military prisoners in the future are given a chance to stop some kind of disaster in the past (I'm sorry, I didn't really pay much attention to this atrociousness) and they only have 24 hours to get back or something like that. If they don't, they're stranded there forever. The poor director who oversaw this, \"tries\" some humorous (?) clichés like the convicts arriving on Earth and not knowing what a truck is for example (wow, hilarious...). The movie follows up with David Bradley teaming up with some Earth girl for the rest of the flick. This bored me so much that I had to force myself to watch it in like 3 or 4 installments to at least make use of the 4 or 5 euros it cost me. That's coz every time I tried, I fell asleep. And if you get a movie with David Bradley with just one crappy 10-second fight scene in it, then that's the final touch which would contribute to you throwing it off a hundred foot cliff so as never to see it again. I wish I could meet the \"director\" of this pile of poo on the street and I swear to God I'd ask him back for mi 5 euros. I'd also love to meet David Bradley to ask him why in God's name did he choose to star in this poor excuse for a movie. Don't even bother with this film, I mean it from the bottom of my heart, not renting borrowing it and specially not buying 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\ndon't buy this film for comedy value like I did, I didnt find it one bit funny, but so f****** miserable and lame it's unbelievable. I gave it to a friend for christmas which was pretty funny (on my side) I recently heard that he watched it and told me what an a**ehole I am!
There is nothing more frustrating than watching an over-lit, over dramatic, poorly scored scene in which the camera is sat there on a tripod and doesn't move... the film work is truely pathetic, and I can only say DONT WATCH 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\nThere is no reason to watch this film.
Why? Many reasons. First up, the acting is awful. There is hardly a line that isn't misread - but that is hardly surprising given the banality, stupidity, and repetitiveness of the dialogue the actors are asked to mouth. It is awfully written. One of the most annoying things about the script is that the writers only seem to know one way of keeping their characters talking after a certain point and that is to have them repeat the most important words of the previous character's line.
\"Repeat?\"
\"Yes, they repeat it. For the whole movie.\"
\"The whole movie?\"
\"Yes, the whole movie.\"
Etc.
In movies like this you generally know who the bad guys are and what they are after. (All the good guys usually have to do is stop the bad guys. Setting up a good \"Mwahahaha! with X in my grasp I will rule the Universe!\" villain is the first stop in any cheapo SF plot) but in this turkey? - you tell me.
As I understand it our \"heros\" are a bunch of mass murderers sent into the past on a Dirty Dozen type mission. They are sent by a fascistic totalitarian state to stop some other mass murderers from altering the course of history. The new history would not include the rise of totalitarianism, and a war that kills 30 billion people and leaves the Earth a dead planet (we know all this because this movie has one of those handy long on-screen situation reports just before the action starts, telling you who is who and what is what. It's an indication of who the producers think their target audience will be, that it is narrated as well as appearing on screen - just to save the audience from taxing their brains too much by doing a lot of reading.) So just who are we supposed to be rooting for here? I guess we are asked to believe our hero undertakes some sort of journey from totalitarianism to love, peace, and understanding while shooting loads of people - but that doesn't work as an arc because we are shown he is a decent(ish) human being right at the start when he tries to rescue all the civilians aboard the rebel station.
I guess the makers were aiming at some sort of deeper than normal complexity in this film but they just ended up with an unholy mess with more plot holes and logical inconsistencies than a dozen or so of your average crap SF movies.
The opening credits were nice.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film is striking only in its banality and use of cliches. Sadly it was obvious throughout up until the ending. But don't be mistaken into thinking that it ended strongly. Only a little unexpectedly, though nothing worth watching the thing through for.
From the taciturn and wronged hero, to the Germanic baddy, to the expendable team, the characters were entirely wooden and obvious. The two FBI agents Smith and Wesson (geddit?) gave some hope of humour, but that came to nothing.
I am a big science fiction fan but it is hard to find any redeeming quality in this film. A turkey!

\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 rented this movie for about $1.50 - the most complete waste of money (and time) I have ever spent. It's LAME! I couldn't believe how they could come up with something like this.
The plot... there is no plot. Everything you'd expect to happen, it does, only in a worse way. The acting was horrible. My dog could've done better. The special effects have no effect whatsoever - except inducing complete disbelief. And the cheesy lines.... I mean, why even bother?
The only credit I can give this piece of sh*t are the opening scenes. They were actually quite pretty. And one of the reasons why I decided to rent this. The graphics shown there are probably the best and most realistic CG of the entire film.
Total Reality gets 1 out of 10 for not being able to mark it lower.
\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 strong recommendation to anyone who reads this review who has never seen the film Total Reality, don't waste your time and money renting this poor excuse for a film. This is, without peer, the single worst movie that I have ever seen in my life. I had nightmares of this movie ever since I saw it. The acting was terrible, and any amateur film maker could make a more decent film. The film blatently rips off far superior sci-fi films, such as TimeCop or Total Recall (where the title seems to have been derived from). I'm sorry, but I just think that there is more entertainment value in watching the side of a cardboard box for two hours. If you already have seen this movie, I feel sorry for you for going through what I did.
\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\nBen Affleck, about to be married, is shaken up by a plane accident and gets involved with one of the other passengers (Sandra Bullock, forcing herself to act insane). Who is to blame for this inept, ugly morass? It is so badly edited, when I looked in the credits it wasn't to read the editor's name--it was to see if the person actually took the credit! Rife with clichés, contrivances, and Sandra Bullock in raccoon eye-makeup, the movie doesn't even concern itself with creating chemistry between the two main characters. Laughs are non-existent: the scene in the gay bar with Affleck might have gotten a big laugh if it weren't so stupid (the bar patrons--a big rowdy bunch of them!--shout for Affleck to strip and start digging out their cash). It's not supposed to have any significance other than getting Ben to loosen up a little, but the direction of the whole scene is wrong-headed, and the outcome is unseen because the idiot editor cuts away...or was that all the film he had? It's a small moment but it's typical of this film, an amateurish piece of pop-goods that wants to be an edgy modern comedy but doesn't have any guts. It is tailor-made for the bottom shelf at your video store. * from ****
\n
assistant\n0
\n"