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\nI found my tape of this long forgotten 'show'. Besides the Theme song 'DISCO BEAVER FROM OUTER SPACE'. This show is barely watchable. You will be flipping through channels,just like the couple flipping through the TV channels. This is a parody of TV.
The beaver is cool. The homosexual Dracula, the chick discussing her Peria experiences and the lady with the overly big lips discussing homosexuality show us everything that is wrong with TV. It is all BAD. Just like the beaver from outer space who seems to be lost in this new world, you will be too. *** out of *****
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is truly abysmal. I just got a copy of \"Disco Beaver From Outer Space\" after hearing good things about it, and I have to say, this was just so incredibly unfunny and bad, it will leave you numb and mystified how this ever got made.
I mean, what was it? Is it that this is typical late 70's humor? I don't think so. This is just so bad, and believe me, I don't mean \"so bad it's good\" either. This is a collection of extremely unfunny skits as if you are watching cable TV. Sure enough, this was an HBO program, and to think this may have been considered groundbreaking is scary.
There is one somewhat pretty girl in it, and there is some old NHL footage of the NY Islanders hockey team, which is fun to see even though I am a lifelong NY Rangers fan. But they even mess that up, as they try to get some humor out of two hockey players scuffling on the ice as if they are \"dancing\" and, even worse, reverse the videotape of two hockey players fighting to make it look like they are having sex. Oh, how funny! In one slight bit of cleverness, there is an interview a hockey player named \"Chico\" who resembles NY Islander goalie Chico Resch, but they even blow this by having him wear a Rangers jersey! Well, maybe that was intentional, who knows.
The bottom line is, \"Disco Beaver\" is just so blatantly horrible, so unbelievably bad, you will definitely feel cheated after watching this and wasting almost an hour of your life. You'll wonder what possibly made the makers of this garbage think they had something funny here, and you'll also wonder why these skits can't even come close to the worst Saturday Night Night slop. Incredible. Just incredible.
\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 good part of this movie was the ending. You know the part of the movie where the lights come on and you leave to go home. No no that may be a little harsh - the dancing in the film was sensational but unfortunately that is where the plot ended. As long as the cast was dancing and not talking the movie went along well. As for Chayanne's debut - not too bad but hopefully his next film will have a little more depth. As for going to see the movie wait for the rental or TV. Do not make the same mistake I did and pay 8.50
\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\nChayanne is beautiful enough, Vanessa is beautiful enough, I liked the storyline. But I went in with the expectation to see lots of energetic hot salsa dancing, I was disappointed. There needed to be more dancing, especially salsa.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAs a devotee of Ms. Frank, I remember being so excited that the play was being re-made for TV. That is, until I saw it... This film is a prime example of how IMPORTANT casting is, and how directing plays such an important part in creating the sense of purpose. The casting of any CENTRAL role is CRUCIAL to a production of this sort...shows like AUNTIE MAME and MAN OF LA MANCHA are totally dependent on the charisma of the lead actor. And in the cast of this movie, the whole thing is destroyed by the atrocious casting of Melissa Gilbert in the lead role. There is not ONE SINGLE MOMENT that Ms. Gilbert even comes close to inhabiting the sensitive, mature spirit of Anne- Ms. Gilbert is \"white-bread\" throughout the movie... the only time I was close to tears was during the reading of Anne's most haunting line: \"I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart\"- this is spoken by Ms. Gilbert so rushed, so lacking in conviction, that she might has well burped and achieved the same effect. Film and dance legend Marge Champion was the dialogue coach for this production- she should have refunded her salary! Despite Ms. Gilbert ruining DIARY, other performances are satisfactory for the most part- special kudos to Joan Plowright as Edith, Scott Jacoby as Peter and Clive Reville as Mr. Dussell. Maxmillian Schell does not have the deep-rooted soul and spirit as Otto as does the creator of the role on stage and film(Joseph Schildkraut), but he's okay. Doris Roberts and James Coco as The Van Danns are relatively superficial in their parts- they're shrill and bombastic, but again, only on the surface. This COULD be due to the fact that the pacing of the project is way too rushed(as noted in previous postings)- this film clocks in 45 minutes shorter than the film version- the difference owing to the pauses for dramatic effect, which apparently is necessary to propagate the appropriate MOOD for the story. This is NOT mandatory viewing, especially for youngsters learning about Anne Frank for the first time- stick to the original film version, and or even better, the TV production of ANNE FRANK: THE TRUE STORY starring Ben Kingsley, which is the CLOSEST thing to capturing the heartbreak and reality of Anne's situation ever filmed! Note: Especially appalling is the fact that Melora Marshall, who plays Anne's sister Margot, is NOT included in the opening credits along with all the other members of The Secret Annex... she's listed in the post-credits along with the actors playing Miep and Mr. Kraler. If I was Ms. Marshall, I would have SUED!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI saw and have the original 1959 black and white that stars Shelley Winters and Millie Perkins and no matter how many times I watch it, I can't help but not to cry.
This version was (obviously) a set, like the 1959 was, but there were so many mistakes in layout. Spiral staircase? Items that did not exist in that time period existed in the film. Doris Roberts, sad to say CANNOT play drama, she a comedic actress and that will not change. James Coco was a horrible Mr. Van Daan and Mr. Dussel resembled a college professor of mine rather then the dentist he was supposed to play. In the original film, Anne walked the \"gauntlet\" to go to Peter's room, that seemed to take her more then a minute. In this crappy remake, it took her under 10 seconds. The first reviewer was correct... This remake is just that, a remake. What was the director thinking casting comedic actors in a drama role like that. I'm sorry but James Coco cannot play drama. Max.. Schell was better in Deep Impact then this movie. The cranky Mrs. Frank was just that cranky, I couldn't stand her. Referencing and comparing to the 1959 version, I like her better, she did a better job of being the overwhelming mother. Out of 10 stars, I give this remake 3. Don't waste your time, get the 1959 version and a box of Kleenex.
\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 truly a re-make that should never have gotten out of the stable. It has two casts that are acting in entirely different strata. At the top of their game are Joan Plowright and Maximillian Schell. Every nuance of the Franks is in plain sight. at the rock bottom are Melissa Gilbert and Doris Roberts. I cannot imagine how Schell and Plowright manage to play so well when Gilbert and Roberts are working their anti-magic. Gilbert ruins every scene she's in. It's like Father Knows Best in the Ghetto. She's Ann Frank light. Her run at Helen Keller was thin but not awful. This is sacrilege. Doris Roberts makes Mrs. Van Damm merely annoying. She is a completely inappropriate choice to play the sexually hungry woman whose flirtatious, dissatisfied presence caused so much trouble in het Acherhuis. This needed to be played by a woman who could convince us that she at least remembered what it was like to voluptuous. Her weight is not the problem. Joan Plowright could have played this part beautifully. Roberts was on a career high when this was made, getting lots of press and many opportunities. Her performance here displays her weaknesses as an actress shamefully.
James Coco and Clive Reville, have most of their scenes with Gilbert and Roberts , and , strong though they are, they are completely incapable of undoing the damage done by their partners. Reville is a wily actor capable of the kind of iconic performance given by Ed Wynne in the original film. He gets no support from Gilbert . She drain the color out of every scene.
I've read with dismay the comments by those of you who grew up watching this version, filled with attachment to these performances. It's a lesson in how the version you see first attachs to you. It makes me reconsider my attachment to some inferior products I loved in my childhood. I encourage you to watch the original. It has very few weak spots and it's head and shoulders above this mess.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nRarely have I seen a work of literature translated so badly to the screen. The hysterical cast of b-movie and sitcom extras simply make the characters seem like bad Jewish stereotypes. The worst of all is Melissa Gilbert, who you hate from scene one and never develop any sympathy for. Performances like this should be noted and used against actors who wish to work again. All in all, a seedy, low-budget made-for-TV film of the sort that gives made-for-TV films a bad name.
\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\nIk know it is impossible to keep all details of a book in a movie. But this movie has changed nearly everything without any reason. Furthermore many changes have made the story illogical. A few examples: 1) in the movie \"Paul Renauld\" really meets Poriot before he dies (in the book Poirot only gets a letter), telling him he is afraid to be killed. This is completely stupid because if Renaulds plan would have succeeded, Poirot would have known that the dead man would not have been Renauld.(Poirot was in the morgue when Mrs Renauld identified the victim). 2) The movie has \"combined\" two persons into one! \"Cinderella\" has been removed by the movie. The girl Hastings falls in love with and the ex-girlfriend of Jack Renauld are one person in the movie! Why for god's sake? 3)Hastings finds the victims cause he is such a bad golf player. Totally unfunny and stupid. 4) The movie tells secrets much too early (for example at the very beginning). So you know things you shouldn't know. 5) The murderer gets shot at the end by a person who doesn't exists in the book. Perhaps because the person (\"cinderella\") who stops the murderer does not exists in the movie. 6)The book is very complex. The movie takes only about 90 minutes. Sure it is difficult to include all the necessary details but it is impossible if you include stupid things which were not in the book and have no meaning (e.g. bicycle race).
\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\nVictor Buono as the Devil? Surely somebody must have been drunk when that casting decision was made. That's not the worst part of this silly mish-mash of sundry haunted house devices but it gets my vote for being the funniest part of it. While the film is by no means terrible it doesn't even approach other 1970's \"haunted house\" flicks like Amityville Horror, The Changeling and The Legend of Hell House. The Evil can be entertaining in spots, but don't expect to be scared. It's better approached as what it is: a silly horror film made all the sillier by it's over-serious approach.
\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 by-the-numbers horror film starring Richard Crenna and Joanna Pettet as a psychologist duo who purchase and old mansion and invite a small crew of friends and patients to help clean the place up. Unbeknownst to them, the mansion harbors a cellar door - the gateway to hell. If you are in the mood for a clichéd horror film, then look no further, but if you want something inventive, then this little film won't appeal to you.
VIOLENCE: $$$ (Rather subdued, albeit the scene where a guy cuts his hand with a saw - rather gruesome mind you. Fans of inventive deaths scenes will not like this as every character seems to be electrocuted in some fashion).
NUDITY: $ (Nothing to speak of. Mary Louise Weller adds the good looks but her character was underdeveloped).
STORY: $$ (Cliched, but view-worthy nonetheless. This offers nothing new to the genre but the casting of Victor Buono - who is about as menacing as a department store Santa - seems to have attracted a few viewers).
ACTING: $$ (The best performances are by Crenna and Pettet with the other actors simply \"phoning-in\" their roles. The screenwriter fails to develop any characters outside Pettet's character and seemed to have forgotten about Mary Louise Weller (Animal House) who disappears for about twenty minutes and only resurfaces to be electrocuted like everyone else in boring fashion).
\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 actually saw THE EVIL on the big screen. I saw it as part of a double feature during the early 1980s (don't remember the other film) when I was in my mid-teens. The film is bad, cringe-worthy bad. Embarrassingly bad. The effects are atrocious (you can clearly see the cable pulling the black girl across the floor). There's absolutely nothing scary about it. In fact I laughed throughout the film.
The story tried to create this big built up for the climax, when we're suppose to finally see who's responsible for all the evil goings on and we see greasy Victor Buono, who's as scary as an overstuffed Twinkie. Seriously, what where they thinking? Buono, who was a villain on the Batman TV series, is one of the hammiest actors ever to grace the big screen and I just cannot imagine anyone being remotely terrified of him.
THE EVIL is all but forgotten now (for good reasons)but it's actually a very funny film and I wish I could see this turkey again, just to see that black girl being pulled across the room by an unseen force with that very visible cable.
\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 is about a big house where a bad spirit is foolishly unleashed to torture all inside. What a washout of a movie! There's not a single scary scene. Not one! Richard Crenna overplays a nothing role. There's some animated ghosts, a disfigurement by power saw, and a ghost-rape. After nothing special happens for almost the whole movie The Evil gets personified into...Victor Buono. Great! Where did the filmmakers get the idea that Buono is scary. He looks like he was on the bum for a guest starring paycheck to pay his liquor bill. By then its too late to turn it off, because the damn thing is over. I felt like throwing the videocassette out the window. Please avoid this junk! Hopefully it will never see the light of DVD and will fade into obscurity.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSorry, folks! This is without a doubt the worst film I have ever seen. Sometimes when a movie is really bad you can joke about it and have a good laugh (like Plan 9 from outer space), this movie is so bad you can´t even enjoy it on an ironic level.
\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\nyeesh,talk about craptastic.this thing is brutal.horrible voice dubbing,even more horrible acting and no discernible plot.apparently there are some great chase scenes,but the problem is,you have to get to that point first,and i just couldn't.the 20 or so minutes i endured felt more like a root canal than a movie.i suppose i could have fast forwarded it,and i recommend you do the same,unless you have very extreme pain tolerance or your a masochist.i don't fall into either category.i still have a migraine from this thing so i'm about to perform some dental surgery without anesthetic just relive the migraine.bottom line,horrendous. 0/10
\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\nHaving been a Godzilla fan for many years, Gamera was to me a cheap knockoff to capitalize on the success of Toho's #1 kaiju star. ATTACK OF THE MONSTERS was for me at the time (1975) an almost painful viewing experience.
Last weekend, I attended the annual Godzilla fest, known as G-FEST, where Carl Craig, one of the stars of GAMERA vs. VIRAS, made an appearance. Of course, they featured this movie. It was one of the most hilarious bad movies ever made. Of course, you have to be in the right frame of mind to watch it. In one scene, for example, the boy scouts held prisoner on board the alien space craft manage to escape by distracting the not-too-bright aliens. When they realize they\"ve been duped, one of them says, \"That's funny...I think those kids lied to us.\" Not even PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE can boast that kind of dialog.
This may not be GODZILLA or even GAMERA 3, but this one is a decent enough time waster, if you watch it in the right frame of mind.
However, if you want top quality kaiju entertainment, check out the recently released GAMERA 3.
Rating: **1/2 out of *****
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n\"Destroy All Planets\" winds up settling for 'destroy all Tokyo' by film's end, as a space monster resembling a giant squid falls to the reptilian furnace known as Gamera. Actually, Gamera is saving Earth right from the get go, knocking out Varian Space Ship #1 even before the first set of film credits roll. The scene switches to a Japanese scout camp where we meet a pair of meddlesome young heroes, Jim and Masao, who take part in Gamera's exploits after being kidnapped by the aliens and beamed aboard their ship in an electrified bubble shield.
It's pretty startling to see the boys convince a scientist to let them operate a newly invented submarine that might be defective. Previously boy genius Masao had wired the unit to run in reverse direction of it's controls, but Dr. Dobie didn't think about checking that out as a possibility. At least that prepared the boys for interfering with the alien space ship's controls by playing switcheroo with a bunch of triangular blocks.
When boss alien Viras says 'Activate the Videotron', hang on to your seats for rehashed footage from earlier Gamera movies where he battles Barugon and Gyaos. These take up quite a bit of screen time, but are no match for the fast forward button if you want to get on with it. For the longest time Viras addressed an invisible crew, and when they finally appeared, they were Orientals who could fly - imagine that!
Seeing as how these movies were made for a juvenile audience, it's surprising to see how gruesome some of the scenes are. Gamera drawing blood comes to mind, and how about the pair of space crew members being decapitated. When squid tentacles started emerging from the headless bodies I made a connection to the 'Alien' films; having the individual units merge to form the giant Viras was a neat device.
I guess the appeal for young kids might reside in identifying with the two young heroes who make friends with a giant monster, move around pretty freely on an alien space ship, and get to have whatever they want with the help of alien telepathy technology. Seeing as how the movie was presumably made by adults, it could have been a simple case of wish fulfillment.
\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\nGamera vs Viras was made lazily and much of it suffers as a result.
Space Aliens try to take over Earth and are stopped by Gamera. So they send another ship that manages to kidnap two young boys. The aliens then take control of Gamera and get him to attack mankind.
First of all I must say that I really enjoyed the monster fight at the end between Gamera and Viras. Viras looks like a big squid with a beak. He has no energy weopons and does not shoot any rays out but he can close the apendages on top of his head to make a sharp pointy weopon. SO overall this is not a bad monster for Gamera to fight and is decent. Viras really injures Gamera badly by stabbing his underside of his shell with his pointy head and I am surprised Gamera was able to survive this.
Unfortunately Gamera vs Viras decided to use footage from previous Gamera films to fill time for this film. They re show the battles between Gamera and Barugon and Gamera and Gaos when the aliens look at Gameras past battles. However when they show Gamera's battles with Gaos they show the battle between Gamera and Gaos in the city first, then they show the final battle between the two. After they show re used footage of the final battle between Gamera and Gaos they show the FIRST battle between Gamera and Gaos!!! Talk about showing the battles in non chronological order. THey did not even need to show the first battle they should have just stopped after they showed the final battle between the two.
Another issue is that they decide to re show footage of Gamera attacking cities when the aliens order him to attack Tokyo. So they show the scene from \"Gamera vs Barugon\" where he destroys the Dam. After the show scenes from \"Gamera The Invincible\" which is a huge issue for me. Mainly due to the fact that \"Gamera The Invincible\" was in BLACK AND WHITE!!!! Using stock footage from a black and white film in a COLOR film is really lazy and that is not a good thing.
Also the dubbing is bad once again. The two little kids are not that annoying but it would be nice to see a Gamera film that did not involve little kids.
So the over use of footage from other Gamera Films is a deterrant to this film. The final fight is awesome so basically I recommend skipping to the final ten minutes and watching this film. The rest is something that has already been seen before.
\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\nMore of a Frisbee like turtle with fangs that go up like a wart hog. More battles with people in bird suits that look like people in bird suits. A ping pong ball space ship. Two naughty boys who know how to do everything, including getting on board the space ship. More tiresome music. More \"Gamera is the friend of children\" stuff. I remember when Godzill and Rodan came out. The movies were a lot of fun because the monsters were actually a threat to people. Now they are just a parade of silly costumes with very little behind them. The adults are all ridiculous and moronic. Like in American sitcoms, the kids are the bosses (when in reality they couldn't think their way out of a paper bag). These monster movies must be the Japanese means of partonizing these little snots. Above all, however, is that after seeing three of these movies (with the same plot over and over; check the stock footage), the ultimate conclusion is that they are boring. If you haven't see this one, don't bother.
\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 must be remembered that the Gammera movies, like many of the first-series Gozilla films, WERE in fact aimed squarely at kids. Little Kenny and his cohorts are living out the daydreams of the kids in the audience: they get to run around and play with top-secret stuff while the adults stand by and allow it; they get to cavort with monsters, and even when the bad guys enter, they are never in any real danger.
Perhaps the first Gammera film is an aberration because the child DOES get punished and IS put into danger, but the rest of the series is pure wish fulfillment.
As one critic said, these aren't failed adult movies but successful kid's 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\nThe photography is accomplished, the acting is quite good, but in virtually every other department The Greek Tycoon is a dreary bore. Taking its inspiration from the real-life love affair of Jackie Kennedy and Aristotle Onassis, the film is a glossy but absolutely empty soap opera of the kind that can be found on TV all day long. Viewers who embrace the whole \"celebrity magazine culture\" (paparazzi photographs and gossipy stories about the rich and famous) will undoubtedly find much to whet their appetite here. But those who prefer films with a bit more substance and craft and quirkiness will find the 107 minute running time a butt-numbing slog.
American president James Cassidy (James Franciscus) and his beautiful wife Liz (Jacqueline Bisset) are in Greece on official business. A ridiculously wealthy Greek shipping tycoon, Theo Tomasis (Anthony Quinn), catches sight of Liz at a party at his elegant manor. Despite the fact that both of them are married to someone else, there is an immediate attraction between them. Later, at a private party aboard his yacht, Tomasis makes his desires known to Liz. Some while later, President Cassidy is assassinated whilst out strolling on a beach. Liz is shocked and saddened by his death, but it isn't long before she seeks comfort in the arms of her Greek lover Tomasis. Eventually the two of them are married and their love affair becomes a favourite talking point for the world's newspapers, magazines, photographers and wags.
It is somewhat amusing to note the vigour with which the producers of this film denied that it was a dramatisation of the Kennedy-Onassis story. They wanted the film to be seen as an original story, rooted in fiction. But anyone with a brain can see from where the movie is drawing its inspiration. Even Aristotle Onassis himself knew The Greek Tycoon amounted to his love-life getting the Hollywood treatment (if rumours are to be believed, he actually had a hand in approving Anthony Quinn for the Tomasis role!) J. Lee-Thompson isn't really the right sort of director for this type of movie  he's better suited to action fodder like The Guns Of Navarone and Ice Cold In Alex  but he marshals the proceedings with an uninspired, professional adequacy. Quinn is very watchable as Tomasis; Bisset looks lovely as the object of his desires; Franciscus uses his toothy smile and a façade of integrity to make for a believable politician. Their performances are good on the surface, but there's little for the actors to do on any deeper level. Similarly, Tony Richmond's photography gives the film an elegant surface sheen as it moves from one exotic locale to the next, but the merest of scratches proves that there's nothing behind the film's glossy exterior.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI saw The Greek Tycoon when it first came out in 1978. I found it extremely boring. I thought it was no better than a travelogue except for one thing: For the first time in my life I realized why it would be good to be rich. Seeing the scenery off Aristotle Onassis' yacht and getting my first real peek into the lifestyle of the rich and famous opened my eyes. To paraphrase Martha Stewart: It was a good thing. Funny, I don't remember the sex scene. I hadn't seen the movie since it was on the big screen and found the lovemaking session with the mistress memorable this time. Maybe because I was younger and single back then, it was no big deal.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI am ashamed of myself that I actually went to the theatre to watch this movie when it was first released. While I suppose its thinly veiled depiction of the Aristotle Onassis and Jackie Kennedy story is well enough done, it's a movie that should never have been made in the first place; hence, my low rating.
The film chronicles the tale of a wealthy Greek business shark called Theo Tomasis, who woos and wins the lovely young widow, Liz Cassidy, of a slain American President. Sound familiar? Yes, everything except the names.
The cast is not to be faulted. Anthony Quinn plays the Greek tycoon to perfection, and at least it's some consolation, having just read that Ari himself requested Quinn for the role. Jacqueline Bisset is of course beautiful and sophisticated in the part of (for all intents and purposes) Jackie, and James Franciscus has the all American good looks of the President.
I haven't seen this movie since it came out, nor do I wish to see it again. I seem to recall a fair bit of bad language and some general crudeness. Otherwise, I suppose it's a sensational and supposedly intimate glimpse into the jet setting lives of the rich and famous, frolicking aboard their yachts, beaches, pools etc. Yes, the scenery of the Greek islands is spectacular, the best part of the movie.
Of its type, it's okay, I suppose. There are no end of TV movies about the Kennedys, which I confess to occasionally tuning in to, and not to my credit. This is basically just another. Far better to allow Aristotle and Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis to rest in peace.
\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 serves up every imaginable Greek stereotype. In one particularly galling scene the tycoon says \"I'm just an ignorant peasant.\" As the grandson of Greek peasant immigrants who passed on a legacy of wisdom and love to their children and grandchildren, I found this movie contemptible and odious.
\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 action scenes was quite good. But the plot of the movie, I would have to give it a score of 1 out of 10. It seems that the producers and director of this movie didn't thought about it carefully?
It doesn't give much value and values to it's viewers except for it's violence. The entire story was about revenge. A boy witnessing a rape and murder. I would even recommend it to be banned. Those who watched it, you've just lose some money. If you're thinking of watching it, watch something else. I would ask for a refund if I was on a movie theater. So for you guys and girls out there reading this article. Please don't waste 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\nMay Contain Spoilers.
An innocent trailer park or maybe 'Compton' LA white kid witnesses a terrible childhood tragedy relating to drugs and violence. An unprofessional but dedicated police partners try to take down a 'sophisticated' high end club drug ring only to be fired and chewed out by the the drug lords high priced attorneys. The plot thickens as more people come back to seek vengeance and justice with a predictable ending. The only memorable part was a walk-on by Ron Jeremy.
If I was in a movie theater I would have asked for a refund. I feel sorry for the poor actors in this movie. It was just awful and painful to watch. The worst part was the cinematography were the director kept flashing back within the same scene so the sound would not quite match. And NO it was not a codec nor DVD problem but an intentional technique. Ughh. Two Stars.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI suspect this board will soon be full of comments from over-emotional people praising \"Dear John\" as a \"pearl\" and a \"rollercoaster ride\" and all the other vacuous words this film's target audience typically employs.
I am most definitely not this film's target audience, but I do not dislike romantic dramas either, as long as they are well made, so here is my objective take on the flick.
It is not good.
It's not a bad movie either. But the plot meanders, development stagnates where it should've been moving forward (right around the middle, to be precise), and as for the ending...it almost felt as if they had run out of ideas so they suddenly said, \"Hey, let's just film a last scene real quick, put some sentimental string soundtrack over it, and end it that way.\" Even Amanda Seyfried's beauty could not save this. Channing Tatum too gave a good performance, but you can only do so much with a flawed script.
Speaking of the music, it is unbearably predictably and kitchy. From the smokey voiced, irritatingly high-pitched female folk singer schtick (surely chosen to appeal to the majority of college-age girls that will go see this movie) to the overused \"shimmering strings and piano\" combo, it only annoys anyone paying more attention to the film as a whole rather than to his own \"feelings.\" The film has a good beginning and the major conflict that launches us into the second act were all promising. So was part of the second act itself, as the story unfolded. Then the film just dropped the ball. Beyond that, I'd have to give spoilers.
\"Dear John\" is not a bad movie, but it doesn't work as it should either. If you want to see a truly moving film about prolonged love waiting to be reunited, go watch \"Notebook,\" which was truly superb.
\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 movie starts in spring 2001. A soldier named John Tyree (Channing Tatum) falls in love with college student Savannah Cutis (Amanda Seyfried) while on break. Within the space of two weeks they fall madly in love with each other (!). But he has to go off to war and she has to go to college. They do but keep in touch by writing to each other. Then 9/11 happens. He wants to reenlist--she wants him to stay home. What will they do?
Hysterically bad romantic drama. The leads ARE attractive--Tatum is certainly a handsome man with beautiful green eyes and a hot body (he's introduced walking shirtless out of the water after surfing)...but he can't act. Seyfried is a beautiful woman and she tries...but the dialogue here is horrible. When I saw it me and a friend of mine were fighting hard NOT to laugh out loud at some of the \"romantic\" dialogue at the beginning. It was just HORRIBLE. For the first hour or so I was either bored by the ridiculously predictable drama or amused by the horrendous \"romance\". Then, after that first hour, tragedy kicks in and, I must admit, had me in tears. However the filmmakers go out of their way to make sure that you're crying with death, funerals and meetings with people breaking down in tears. How can you NOT cry? This would have worked if the acting were better. Tatum's face never changes expression--not ONCE! He always had a blank look on his face. Seyfried was a LITTLE better but not much. To make it worse Tatum and Seyfried had no sexual chemistry on screen at all! They barely looked like they liked each other let alone love each other. There was some beautiful photography of the Carolinas but this is a boring and stupid romantic \"drama\". A 1 all the way...and I usually love silly romantic dramas like this!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nHaving read this story a while ago I was very excited to see the movie. I read the book again. It is one of my favorite Nicholas Sparks books. What I think what makes the story is the relationships. That was the down point for me in the movie because I think the relationships were poorly expressed in the movie. I have no idea what the point of changing main characters roles (Tim's and Alan's characters). The movie didn't at all capture John and Savannah's relationship. Maybe if you haven't read the book you might like this movie, but I thought it was so dull compared to the book. I thought Channing was a great pick for John,but I had a feeling he was going to bring all young adults out to watch it, so I think it was more geared towards them. The ending cuts the whole point of the book out so I was also unhappy with that. I was hoping the movie was more like the notebook or a walk to remember and the way they captured the books. I do feel like I wasted a Friday night out and 10 bucks on a sappy love story, not at all the story I was expecting to see.
\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 had the potential to be a very good movie in my eyes, Nicholas Sparks is a great romance author and this movie had every chance to be just as great as The Notebook but whats sets the two apart is the notebook had a dream team of leads in McAdams and Gosling but here the balance is thrown miserably off by the inept acting of Channing Tatum
I felt a lot of the scenes were uneven purely because of his performance, a lot of the emotion in various scenes is lost because he cant act, leaving an awkward and uneven situation, Amanda Seyfried given a great performance only to have Tatum drop the ball and the mood is lost and the scene cant recover.
This story deserved to be cast right, but what it got was a pretty boy who cant act. Tatum should stick to what hes good at, movies that are more about his physical ability, albeit horrible, like GI JOE, step up, and Fighting. The less he talks the better.
Try not to think of me as a jaded hater of Channing Tatum I went in to this movie with an open mind, because I've been surprised many a time by the likes of Adam Sandler in Reign over Me. I gave the same chance to Tatum I didn't view him here as the sum of his past roles, purely just by his performance in this movie, which sadly was a letdown
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI was looking forward to seeing two bright young actors appearing in \"Dear John,\" but it was very slow moving; and I felt that both the screenplay and the direction hampered the flexibility of the principle performers. I usually do enjoy film adaptations of these novels. Ironically, I did think the movie did an excellent job of depicting realistic military action.
The cinematography was very good at segueing through love letters, focusing just enough on a key word or phrase in each letter. I felt that Channing Tatum became bogged down in what became a very \"hang-dog\" series of expressions in response to loss.
\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 reason I rated this film as 2 is because Channing Tatumis beautiful however the whole film lacks emotion and was boring to watch. Usually I adore a good romance but this was just a waste of time, I didn't shed a tear despite it containing sad content it just wasn't acted very well at all. I'm no film critic but I just advise girls to avoid this really unless the only reason you're watching it is to see Channing Tatum lol the rest of the film is rubbish and if he wasn't in it (not that his acting was any good) I would have stopped watching much quicker. It's a shame really because if the right actors were chosen for this film it could have had the potential to be a real tear jerker. .. If you're looking for a good cry or a film for a girly night in...give this one a miss!!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI was talked into seeing this by a girlfriend..John was a good guy, sweet, sensitive and looks great with no shirt on!! I thought it was a love story about both of them but it was mainly about his reactions to her letters. Savannah was a likable character at the start of the movie but once she dumped him I lost respect for her. She said it tore her apart being away from him and it was hard - he was the one a million miles away, he was killing people and the only contact he got was through her letters!!! She didn't have it hard, she had family & money and he had a tour of duty!! I was so frustrated at the ending when he forgave her - he was too much of a sweetheart. I would have waited the 3 years and welcomed him home with open arms.
\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\nAfter reading the reviews I am so relieved to know that I am not the only person who was very disappointed in this movie! I am a HUGE Nicholas Sparks fan, have read ALL of his books, most of them more than once. Of course I LOVED The Notebook and A Walk to Remember...I haven't yet seen Message in a Bottle or Nights in Rodanthe so I can't comment on those...
But I did go see Dear John this past weekend and I was terribly upset! The movie was not good at all! When looking at the movie alone, and not thinking about the book at all, it was still a terrible movie. I did not get the rush and range of emotions from this movie that I have got from other movies I enjoyed, especially The Notebook. I was not smiling and laughing and crying and worried and scared...ever! From the very beginning all I could notice was how they changed everything! The only thing about this movie that is similar to the book is that there is a guy named John who is in the military and a girl named Savannah who is not....the part about his Dad being obsessed with coins is about the only other part that went along with the book. Everything else was totally off!!!! First of all, in the book, Allen was Tim's little brother, NOT his son! WHY they had to change that, I don't understand. It made a lot more sense how it went in the book when Tim was just a little bit older than Savannah and they grew up together and Allen was Savannah's inspiration for wanting to work with horses and autistic children....that didn't happen in the movie....ugh...And in the book they spent a lot more time together than just those initial 2 weeks and then the 1 night...why did they leave those times out??? I could go on and on and on but then I would run out of space! So basically, if you are a great fan of Nicholas Sparks, don't waste your time or money on this movie...just read the book again...because it's terrible and nothing like the book!
\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, let's start with the good: nice scenery, Channing Tatum is easy to look at, Amanda Seyfried has nice hair, that's about it. How much of this movie went on the editing room floor? Probably the plot, action, good dialogue, and point. Terrible acting, horrible choppy dialogue. Let me tell you how bad it is: my friend who always cries at movies got to the part that was meant to evoke tears, and she laughed so hard we thought she was crying! The movie seems to want to take a stab at too many issues- war, loss, autism, cancer, but fails so miserably to cover any one topic satisfactorily. Make sure you have something to munch on and your cell phone to return text messages!
\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\nToday, being President's Day, my wife and I had \"The Notebook\" DVD, checked out at our local library. It's a movie released in 2004 that fell beneath our radar, as we are big movie goers. I'm a published author with hopes of screen playing my first book. I'd noticed references to \"The Notebook\" in reviews of other movies which is why I brought it up about us watching and this morning provided the perfect opportunity. We both really liked it. It made my wife cry; we could relate to many things in it with our own, continuing love affair and even I fought back choking up.
This afternoon, after lots of chores, yard work and eating, we decided to actually catch a matinée. When we got to the theater, having seen most of the current batch of films playing, we elected to see \"Victoria Day\" which for some reason was not at the theater, even though both IMDb and my phone movies showed it playing there. So, instead we looked at the poster for \"Dear John\" and that it was written by the same writer as \"The Notebook\", making it the obvious choice as we enjoyed 'TN' so much.
What a disappointment! First, the characters did not have the same believability or sense of empathy as 'TN'; and we kept commenting throughout all the similarities -- two dozen or so -- quickly causing us to realize this movie was nothing but, as another reviewer commented, \"a poor man's Notebook!\" It had a real 'cash cow' feeling, meaning the Sparks simply threw a story together, based on the exact template of 'TN' simply to make a quick buck. Not only that, after the 'bug-eyed' trollop improbably 'Dear John's-John' for the wimp cancer patient, we ridiculed the movie with each, passing soapy stupid line all the way through to the end. There were only about 6 of us in the theater during this 4:45pm Monday matinée and my wife even told me to keep it down so I wouldn't ruin it for the others...it was so bad.
Seeing this on the heels of 'TN' ensured that the rip off similarities were vividly recognizable and Sparks blatant, cheap attempt at template writing painfully obvious. We only wish we could've seen \"Victoria Day\" instead...no matter how bad it might've been after seeing this poor entry to cinema. And oh..., for the last 30-minutes, I kept saying \"...don't give that cow the coins ...don't give that cow the coins?\"
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\ni was extremely excited for this movie! my expectations were under control because i read the book first sooo i expected differences. what i didn't expect were how great the differences were. Starting off by the characters physical appearances...like Channing Tantums lack of tattoos n Amanda Seyfried not being a brunette lol but i let that go...the character developments were not there at all...you didn't have time to love amanda seyfried character and you couldn't feel for her or for john when they first separated...i thought the two weeks were rushed and i hated that she left first then him...it took the emotional separation away...and why did they change Tim from the book...why did they make him a dad instead of a brother and why did they make him sooo old looking and the movie lacked that intense moment when they find out what happens at the end (didnt want to spoil it lol but for those who watched it u know what i mean) and whhhyyyy ooooo wwhyyyy did they change the ending...in the book it was heartbreaking and emotional and it emphasized on Channing Tatums character's decision whhyyy did they twist it...it just made it look like a rushed ending...it was terrible...thats what disappointed me the most...the ending of the book should have been exactly the same :(
\n
assistant\n0
\n"