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\nAlthough this movie is inaccurate overall, there are some items that may be true. Certainly, he was a wild character in his youth, having played practical jokes on his fellow cadets at West Point, almost expelled several times, graduating last in his class (of 34), and often reckless in his leadership during the Civil War.
But history may have made him a scape goat of the Indian Wars. Certainly, he did his share of cruel things, but how much was he under orders? Also, there is evidence that he testified before Congress (at great risk to his commission and command) that he argued about the fairness of breaking treaties with the Indians and that if he was an Indian he would also fight rather than live on a reservation!
As a character said in the play 1776 when asked what will be said about the British about losing the Revolutionary War, the character states \"history will do what it always does...it will lie.\" Who knows how bad a man Custer was. Certainly he wasn't the sympathetic character as portrayed by Errol Flynn and later by Ronald Reagan. But I also doubt he was completely evil as he is later portrayed.
\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 cartoon, the Spytroops Movie was pretty bad. It is only 44 minutes long, yet several battles occur culminating with the destruction of the COBRA headquarters. One downer was the very beginning of the movie. An animated battle that was better than the rest of the movie turns out to have been some kind of battle simulation. That right there was a major turn-off and made the rest of the movie lack credibility. Then there was the issue of Shipwreck tied up along with his parrot, and tossed into some room where nobody had checked for several days. Whatever happened to surveillance cameras?
The COBRA base only had a handful of characters, and the rest were BAT robots. Aside from a lot of corridors the COBRA base did not seem to have any weapons, tanks, trucks, or any other equipment. Then there was the silly notion that 100 complex androids could be created overnight. The plot was silly even if this was intended for small children. Spongebob, Powerpuff Girls, and even Barney The Dinosaur give more attention to their plots.
The characters were not bad, except that I could never understand anything Destro was saying, and the Cobra Commander was silly and not much of a villain. In fact, except for Storm Shadow and Xartan, the rest of the COBRA characters were comical and hardly impressive. The GI Joe characters were pretty good. Scarlett, Agent Faces, Road Block and Snake Eyes were my favorites here. Shipwreck and Beach Head were the worst. Shipwreck is written as a goof-ball and Beach Head sounded like some 1990s surfer dude. I guess the writer, Larry Hama was trying to make a character that appealed to teenagers, but he was a decade off the mark. Just listening to Beach Head's Spicoli surfer-talk (Fast Times at Ridgemont High) I was wondering if the new GI Joes were going to smoke a dube before the big mission.
The CGI was pretty good, except that Cobra Commander had a jerking spastic walk, and the vehicles did not look very realistic at all. The flying tank and the explosions were not very impressive. Old style animation would have been much better than this. Since Hasbro reportedly likes to do things cheap, they got what they paid for. I had trouble watching the whole thing, it was just boring and lacked any soul or GI Joe spirit. Even the old GI Joe commercials would have been better. In fact, the DVD included extras such as four or five current commercials for GI Joe Spy Troops, and those commercials were much more entertaining than the movie. The commercials had more kid-oriented fun and spirit. The commercials were lively, while the movie was dull.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAs a fan of the old series I must say that this is at best a parody of a much beloved series. First the old series would at least attempt to follow some military structure. I know in this P.C. world it is not the thing to do but hey don't turn it into the care bears. In the old series Beachead was a hardspoken soldier, now he is a teenage mutant turtle. Another thing is the flying tank, ok it flies out of the cobra base and bounces off the copter and they are both ok???? Lets face it if the next one is not better this could spell the end of G.I.joe.
\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\nSo far I disliked every single Jean Rollin movie I've seen, and that always bothered me because he's an acclaimed Euro-trash monument and extremely popular amongst many regular reviewers on this lovely website; people whose opinions I always value and usually concur with. Apparently everybody always appears to pinpoint some sort of gloomy and stylistic filming trademarks in his work that are completely lost on me. Rollin's movies are unimaginably boring, they all feature the same basic concept (lesbian vampires in various settings), the dialogs are incredibly absurd, the marvelous Gothic setting are always underused and the production values are cheaper than the price of a bus ticket. I had actually given up on Rollin's repertoire already (especially after enduring \"The Iron Rose\"), until I found out about \"Night of the Hunted\". Allegedly, this movie doesn't feature any lame lesbian vampires and stands as a bona fide horror movie with gruesome killings and macabre plot twists. And the verdict is  yes and no! On one hand, this is undeniably the most compelling and inventive Rollin film I had the pleasure of seeing thus far (and also the only one that I watching without dozing off). On the other hand, it still remains a moronic movie with a nonsensical plot and emotionless sex sequences to compensate for the dullness. Jean Rollin heavily attempts to generate an atmosphere of secrecy and suspense, mostly through a lack of information and vaguely introduced characters, but barely manages to hide the fact he actually hasn't got a story to tell at all. The unearthly beautiful lead actress Brigitte Lahaie and the beautifully ominous musical guidance are the only elements that keep you hooked on the screen. During a nightly drive back home to Paris, a young man abruptly has to stop for a confused and scarcely dressed girl who comes running from the woods. Her name is Elisabeth but furthermore she can't remember anything about herself and from what or whom she was running away. Her case of amnesia is so bad she even continuously forgets who picked her up. The next day, she's kidnapped again by an old guy and taken to a sinister apartment complex where multiple people in the same bizarre mental state are held captive. Elisabeth knows nothing, but she does sense she needs to escape from here. Obviously I won't reveal the denouement, but I can assure you it is quite dumb, illogical and far-fetched. Apparently Rollin realized this as well, because the explanation is kept very brief and quick. There's a large number of overly weird and senseless sequences, the sex footage is dire and filmed without passion, the nasty make-up effects look cheap and randomly thrown without actual purpose. As said, the score is mesmerizing and Brigitte Lahaie's perfect body is addictive to glaze at.
\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\nAmnesiac women who remove their clothes at the drop of a hat (or a blouse?) are about the only stand-out points in a film that is otherwise slow and aimless. Although the basic premise of the story offers a wealth of possibilities, they are never developed to any satisfying degree, and exposition is almost non-existent. A large proportion of the film is mere wanderings through the corridors of a multi-storied clinic/hospital. The overall effect is bleak and sterile, a la THX-1138.
\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 went to see \"Quitting\" with high hopes, because the director's \"Shower\" had impressed me so. Despite a few lapses into mawkishness, \"Shower\" ranks high on my list of all-time favorite movies for its penetrating insight into family relationships and its generally superb acting and direction. And I've seen it at least three times now.
But \"Quitting\" fell flat, in my estimation. It seemed a pointless exercise and I was quickly so tired of the main character's insufferable personality that I was longing for the movie to end. I admit to falling asleep six or seven times, but it was only for a few seconds at a time, so I think it's still OK to write this comment.
I did admire the parents and sister. The device of using all real characters in the film is a nice one I've never seen used before.
Disappointment aside, I will still make an effort to see any film bearing Yang Zhang's name, simply on the basis of the beautiful \"Shower.\"
\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 trawled through the entire set of reviews, searching for the ones which gave this film less than 5 stars. They were few and far between. Which is utterly baffling! Yes, I know it's a Disney film and it isn't directed by Christopher Nolan, but good Lord. This is straight-to-the-bargain-bucket nonsense. They should've had done with it and animated the bloody thing.
And what's even worse is the fact that IMDb won't let me simply finish my rant there, because my review needs to be longer!
The \"Awesome\" in-game camera shots are LITERALLY taken from Tiger Woods PGA Tour Golf on the Playstation, the story plods like a sulking school boy, the multi-stranded character and plot development cripples an already weak setup, and the grand finale is plain boring.
Aside from that, it really was the greatest film I've ever seen in my entire life.
Good, authentic-looking costumes, sets and sports equipment. There, I said 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\nA female ex-cop who was drummed out of the force for recklessness (and who could probably beat Chuck Norris in a fight) hires herself out as a private bodyguard; her first client is a worthless playboy type. It takes half the movie for her to get kicked off the force in the first place. Lots of great fight choreography but the plot is strictly by the numbers, and the acting is as wooden as the dialogue. 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\nWatching this movie and then listening to the commentary, it's clear that Michael Radford doesn't understand this play. The first clue that he fails to fully grasp the work is that he takes pains to set the film in seventeenth-century Venice. Which sounds truly odd, yes, that misunderstanding the film would mean trying to make it as accurate to its location as possible. But anyone who's studied Shakespeare knows that, while he set most of his plays in exotic locals, the culture and values are always contemporary England. This doesn't hurt the film, but it displays a lack of necessary knowledge.
Where Radford kills the film is in making it so dead serious. He manages to suck every joke out of the script, leaving the whole production flat. Every ounce of passion is beaten out of the characters. Even Shylock's 'Do we not bleed' speech is a mild, awkward ranting from a choleric who seems to only be saying and doing what he does because he's supposed to. The lovers are solemn and far too restrained (Joseph Fiennes delivers some of the most romantic lines in the cinema this year in a barely audible whisper), Gratiano (who has to promise to behave at one point) is more sober and collected than Bassiano (who makes him promise to behave), Jessica is reluctant to leave her father and spends her life with Lorenzo pouting.
In the commentary for the bland and watered-down court scene, the director voices his shock that an audience laughed at Portia's 'A pound of flesh, no more, no less' sentence; ultimately concluding that it had to tension release laughter. 'The Merchant of Venice' is a comedy and Radford scoffs at the idea that the most absurd and hysterical portions of the story are anything but the most daringly provocative drama.
The film has no intelligible focus, yet cuts out some of the most entertaining scenes. The characters are forced into high drama veils, so they come out sounding like Ibsen characters reading Victorian poetry. And the comedic ending, where all of the good guys go to bed happy, is drowned in a dignified despair that feels like they're finding stiff- upper-lip peace with impending death, rather than reconciling with lovers. Even Lancelot and Antonio exit the film holding their hats like aristocratic mourners.
The film is poorly done because the creative powers that be don't understand the script. It is stern where it should hysterical. It is reserved where it should be passionate. It is Michael Radford where it should be William Shakespeare.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI saw this film as a sneak preview before the Venice opening at the Telluride Film Festival. Your reaction to it will largely depend on your attitude about respecting the text of Shakespeare. On the plus side: Pacino gives a very good performance indeed as Shylock; Lynn Collins is a fine Portia; and the film has a sumptuous look.
The negatives are predictable. \"The Merchant of Venice\" is arguably the most difficult of all of Shakespeare's plays to stage today, largely because we look at it through the distorting lens of 20th century history. The romantic plot with Bassanio and Portia presents no problem. The character of Shylock does, because we lack the original frame of reference of the Elizabethan audience. Shylock is simultaneously a human character with human qualities and motivations, and an abstraction of the pitiless quality of the Old Law. When he says \"Hath not a Jew eyes?\" he is a character; when he proclaims \"I will have my bond!\" he is an abstraction. The long passage on music and cosmic harmony in the final scene (here moved and cut to ribbons) is the key to the play, in that it re-establishes universal harmony after the disruptive and evil (the Shylock of the trial scene) forces are ejected. It is possible to make psychological sense of the character of Shylock by showing his gradually going mad and turning into a monomaniac by the time the trial scene rolls around--the key is that at a point he must cease being sympathetic.
Pacino's performance almost does it, but not quite. The film can't quite make up its mind--on the one hand, there is the right movement in the character of Shylock, and on the other there is a great deal of extraneous footage of Jews being abused and Venetian whores with rouged nipples (no doubt to show the decadence of Antonio et al). Shakespeare was not writing an Ibsen-like social drama; he was writing a comedy following the classic pattern of disruption of social order and the restoration of social order, symbolized by marriage, with a theme of love versus law at the center of the Shylock plot.
In this sense, the film is a travesty--Radford's surgery on the play and direction almost force us away from what the play really means. (Taking the beginning of the final scene, cutting most of it, and moving it before the trial scene is the most extreme example.) There are some other significant difficulties. Jeremy Irons, a fine actor, plays Antonio as if he were overdosed on sedatives. Joseph Fiennes is pretty but shallow as Bassanio. Most of the actors, with the exceptions of Collins, Pacino, and the actor playing the Duke in the trial scene, mumble their dialogue.
Final verdict? A pretty film with a few decent performances. It's not Shakespeare, it's poor interpretation. Not really worth your time or money--although Lynn Collins as Portia almost redeems 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 am a Shakespeare lover since childhood. I am also a Jew. Merchant of Venice is anti-semitic through and through no matter how hard scholars and literature lovers try to re-interpret it.
In the play, Shylock is portrayed as demonic and cold-hearted and has no forgiveness, no warmth, no love except for money and cruel revenge, whereas the Christians are kind, moral people. His motives in the play revolve around money (he plots revenge from the start based on damage caused to his business as well as blind racial hate), not noble ideals or hurt racial pride as this movie wants you to believe. And this characterization is given to him by Shakespeare himself, not by the other characters. As final proof, the happy ending is where the Jew loses his money and is forced to convert to Christianity.
I acknowledge this and move on. It is part of history and I enjoy Shakepeare despite this fact. Therefore I expect a movie based on this play to play it straight. I would much rather see the work adapted for its rich language and storytelling without any whitewashing.
But many of the the bard's artful subtleties and playful characters are lost in this movie. For example, in the last scene where the men discover Portia's undercover work as a man who also took away their rings, instead of the playful game of words and misunderstandings as the truth reveals itself, it becomes a mean-spirited game where two bitchy women play cruelly with their soon-to-be husbands.
So instead, we are only left with lovely detailed sets, fragments of the rich language with poor reinterpretation, poor casting, one intense courtroom scene, and a controversy.
The truth is, I think it would be much easier to identify the anti-semitism in the story and move on if it were left as is. Despite all the whitewashing the makers of this movie pulled out of their hats, there is plenty of hatred left, only now people can make excuses and pretend the portrayal of Jews isn't so bad anymore.
And finally, another problem is with most of the actors being miscast. Pacino is way out of his league and is very uncomfortable with the language, not to mention the horribly fake accent. Fiennes as Bassanio is charmless and awkward with the language. Irons is dependable as always but doesn't do much with his role. Portia is somewhat OK but unlikeable, and covered in bad makeup, just like the 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\nLast week I watched a Royal Shakespeare Company production of Macbeth. It was 25 years old, filmed w/no props except swords, no furniture except chairs. It was RIVETING. The acting was super - all the actors trained Brits. Contrast that performance to this...yawn yawn yawn. Al Pacino, as Shylock, was tragic, heavy, and couldn't quite lose the New Yorker accent, despite the long....pauses....between.....lines.... The whole thing was soporific, even the \"comic\" scenes were barely even worth a smile, let a lone a belly laugh. This is supposed to be funny. They tried to make it tragic. It was neither, just boring. I give it four points for costumes, scenery, and Jeremy Irons, who is good at playing a dull, depressed, deep-voiced guy (can he be anything else???)
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI have to admit that although I'm a fan of Shakespeare, I was never really familiar with this play. And what I really can't say is whether this is a poor adaptation, or whether the play is just a bad choice for film. There are some nice pieces of business in it, but the execution is very clunky and the plot is obvious. The theme of the play is on the nature of debt, using the financial idea of debt and justice as a metaphor for emotional questions. That becomes clear when the issue of the rings becomes more important than the business with Shylock, which unfortunately descends into garden variety anti-Semitisim despite the Bard's best attempts to salvage him with a couple nice monologues.
Outside of Jeremy Irons' dignified turn, I didn't think there was a decent performance in the bunch. Pacino's Yiddish consists of a slight whine added to the end of every pronouncement, and some of the better Shylock scenes are reduced to variations on the standard \"Pacino gets angry\" scene that his fans know and love. But Lynn Collins is outright embarrassing, to the point where I would have thought they would have screen-tested her right out of the picture early on. When she goes incognito as a man, it's hard not to laugh at all the things we're not supposed to laugh at. With Joseph Fiennes standing there trying to look sincere and complicated, it's hard not to make devastating comparisons to Gwyneth Paltrow's performance in \"Shakespeare in Love.\" The big problem however that over-rides everything in this film is just a lack of emotional focus. It's really hard to tell whether this film is trying to be a somewhat serious comedy or a strangely silly drama. Surely a good summer stock performance would wring more laughs from the material than this somber production. The actors seem embarrassed to be attempting humor, and unsure of where to place dramatic and comedic emphasis. All of this is basically the fault of the director, Michael Radford, who seems to think that the material is a great deal heavier than it appears to me.
\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 long tried to understand why people like Shakespeare so much and every few years I give him another go. I was hoping that this play/film (my 6th different Shakespeare play) would unlock the lucky casket and marry me to the riches of this literary Demigod. Bah, I clearly chose the wrong key.
Once the phrase \"pound of flesh\" had been uttered 10 minutes into the film, the main parts of the plot were transparent, which grinds along with a languid script and lifeless acting. At every step, the plot is laid bare two scenes in advance. The concept that a dying aristocrat would persuade his daughter to choose her future husband by means of a lottery is incredulous. It is no surprise who wins the matrimonial jackpot because Bassanio's a main protagonist in the play.... and he's the third man to try .... and there are three caskets to choose from ... and his friend risks his life to pay the dowry. The only genuine surprise that I had watching this film is that it did not end immediately after the resolution of the court case. However as soon as the ring treachery began it was immediately apparent what would transpire.
OK so I know that millions of you love Shakespeare not for the surprise in the well known stories but for the depth and passion of the characters. But I felt nothing for the characters. Rather than gripped with suspense and admiration during the court scene I sat there impassionately hoping that it would be over, soon, please.
One day, I might just find a Shakespeare play that does something other than bore me.
\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 truly amazing,over the years I have acquired a taste for Japanese Monster movies and am well aware that early examples of this genre can be poor. However this one reaches a new low, as it follows the adventures of Johnny Sokko(?), a young boy who controls a Giant Robot, and his fight against the evil Gargoyle Gang, who seem to have an endless supply of horrid giant monsters at their disposal.
\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\nat first i thought it was bad because i had great expectations for this movie, but after giving some thought it IS that bad. i was almost caught up in hk's promotion of bad stars in bad movies. hk's new generation of actors and actresses not to mention bad script writers are bringing the industry down. at the moment im still trying to figure out how it gross so high. normally you cant lose in a movie with donnie yen and ekin (forget jackie, he's past his peak). but then i shouldve figure it out when twins was on the cover. it is cheesy, campy, very corny, i try to laugh from some of the jokes, but not only is the effect very minimal but the jokes are very recycled and not funny. im sorry i bought the movie. the only reason why some people think it is so good is because they are brainwashed into the hype that the twins are cute, and everybody likes them, and that everything they make is good and funny. and that if you like twins, then you are up to date...
sigh... i miss the good hk movie days when jet li and stephen chow movies dominated the box office...
movies from mainland china are much better than this, and they are shot for lower budgets.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI saw this movie in Blockbuster and thought it might be a good Sunday evening movie when there is nothing else to do. So I bought it used, 3 DVDs for $25. Although it was cheap, my money would have been better spent on a nail to drive through my foot.
The film started out nicely. Kinda Dark and mysterious. I was always enthralled with vampire and samurai movies as a kid. I thought the combo would be really cool. The first fight scene was pretty cool. I was excited for the rest of the movie. Then the movie took a serious nose dive.
I understand that this was a big hit in the east. I guess because of the twins. I don't see it though. This movie, aside from the first 10 minutes, was absolutely horrible. So many movies in this genre have the potential to be great, and blow it terribly. This is just another casualty.
Jacki Chan's role in this film doesn't make any sense at all. Whyyyyyyyy? Complete silliness. He probably made a few bucks off it though.
The only cool thing in this movie are the swords they use. Nice idea.
I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone.
\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\nStay the hell away from this one... No, really I'm serious - I know you might think this is a fun, campy, cheesy Hong Kong action style B movie. I did, but trust me, it's not. In fact, the only thing accurate about that description would be the words Hong Kong, and then only used in a strictly geographical sense.
Yes, Donnie Yen has co-directed it. Jackie Chan has a cameo. The guy Ekin Cheng, from Storm Riders plays the lead. It got vampires. It should be good - or at least fun, charming and action packed. Once again - it's not.
I could digress on why this movie sucks - I could dissect it, hack it to tiny, shivering pieces. But where to start? There's so much to hate...
To make it easier, and to give this hate-fest some credability, let me say that I'm usually a big fan of Hog Kong cinema. The heavier drama stuff as well as the more lighthearted action and/or comedy.The really good movies as well as the really cheesy ones. I can sit through hours of bad subtitling, jokes lame enough to make first graders roll their eyes. I can handle lovers as chaste and celibate as a convention of nuns, that and pretty much anything else the average film goer would bang their metaphorical toes against on their way between action sequences. Also, Hong Kong or any other origin - I love it when a movie goes from just being bad to bad enough to be good.
But this - Arrgh! It's just horrible, STUPID, unwatchable garbage. So far from being funny or charming it's actually painful. So derived of action it makes a Bergman movie look like the Texas chainsaw massacre.
Why?! Why waste such an opportunity?! This could have been so much fun!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'm rather surprised that anybody found this film touching or moving.
The basic premise of the film sounded to me like an excellent, if provocative, idea for a movie about a rare sort of relationship, but one (if I can judge by the real-life examples I've known) is extremely deep and loving.
However, the film is cheaply scripted--poorly scripted--and although it has a number of very pretty-looking shots, I didn't find it to be anything special.
Probably the biggest problem is that it is far too short and poorly-composed to give its audience time enough to invest, emotionally, in the characters: we don't really care about any of them, and so their stresses and obstacles don't really touch us.
I think a REMAKE--from the screenplay up--with some character development by some really good writers--could improve it greatly. It is instructive to compare this film with Brokeback Mountain, which the screen-writers took to far loftier levels than did the author of the screenplay--screen-writers who were clearly conscious of how to write a classical tragedy, and carried out their task with care, planning, and superb craftsmanship! However, people only seem to remake those films that don't need it! You're not really missing anything if you skip this one: I found it very disappointing indeed, and it is only saved from getting a 1-star from me by virtue of the daring and gumption it took to make a film on this sensitive subject.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI found this film to be extremely homophobic... the main character doesn't know he's gay until he realizes that he likes Barbra Streisand and has a limp wrist!!! I was so offended that after the screening at the Toronto Film Festival, I went up and spoke to the screen writer to complain about this film. This is the sort of film that GLAAD needs to work to have banned.
\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's basic premise is that everyone in the world can know that a person is gay except for that person. And that a man who likes show tunes, has good taste, and is neat in appearance MUST be a homosexual. Yes, the movie is funny in parts, but the basic premise is to homophobic and insulting that the entire movie crumbles into something that is quite painful to sit through. The performances, particularly Joan Cusak and Kevin Kline are very good.
\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, where to start describing this celluloid debacle? You already know the big fat NADA passing as a plot, so let's jut point out that this is so PC it's offensive. Hard to believe that Frank Oz, the same guy that gave us laugh riots like Little Shop of Horrors and Bowfinger, made this unfunny mess.
So, this guy doesn't know he's gay till this actor points it out. OK, sure. If anyone ever says I'm gay, I'll know the truth, even if I currently like girls more than George Luca$ likes a dollar.
And how to know the true nature of my sexuality? Well, if I like classic litterature, dancing and Barbra Streisand, I'm gay. If I dress like a blind man in a hurry (with half my shirt hanging out), I'm straight. Oh, sure.
And here's the big cliché of clichés: no matter how you look, there's always a very attractive Hollywood actor who'll adore every bit of grease under your skin, or a top model who'll love your zero IQ, your butt-ugly face and your pointing-out ears. If all those gay common places weren't enough to get me angry, this did. In real world looks matter, folks, and I know for sure.
I see it coming: now you'll say \"Relax! It's a comedy! Don't take it so seriously!\". If being a comedy gives anything \"carte blanche\" to suck out loud, I think the world has a serious problem. Wouldn't be much better (and funnier) to make a movie to denegate those old tiresome clichés, instead of magnifying them over and over again?
So, one of the absolutely worst movies I've ever seen. 1 out of 10. If giving this rating has something to do with my sexual tendence, please let me know. I'm interested.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nMaybe I expected too much of this film, but at the very least a comedy should be funny, and this one has very few amusing moments. It manages to be insulting to homosexuals, heterosexuals, women, the obese, and probably several other groups as well. The scene at graduation where _everyone_ claims to be gay is one of the most distasteful I have ever seen.
Tom Selleck and Matt Dillon are ridiculously miscast and Kevin Kline seems bemused most of the time.
Other reviewers compare the film to \"Will and Grace\", but at least \"Will and Grace\" _is_ funny.
\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 suppose that in 1997 Hollywood wasn't quite at the point of openly celebrating homosexuality, so one might want to give some credit to those who put this movie together for having shown a little bit of courage. One simply wishes that credit could be given them for having put together a really good movie, and in my opinion \"In & Out\" doesn't qualify on that count. It's the story of Howard Brackett (Kevin Kline) - a small town high school English teacher who on the eve of his wedding is outed by a former student who happens to win an Oscar and who then has to go through what can only be described as a period of self-discovery as he comes to terms with being homosexual. To me, that was the first problem with this movie. Howard didn't really have to turn out to be gay. The movie would have been funnier (and perhaps even more thought provoking) had Brackett remained defiantly straight in spite of the stereotypically gay aspects to his life and the town's belief after the Oscar speech that he was gay. (In fact, I thought that identifying him as gay given the presence of those stereotypes might actually have been rather insulting to the gay community, as well as to straight men who like poetry and believe in dressing neatly!)
Kline was decent enough in the role, and largely carried the film. Aside from him, most of the other cast members (although fine actors) were people not really noted for their success on the big screen. Folks like Tom Selleck and Wilford Brimley and Bob Newhart are good actors but not big movie stars. I actually thought that the funniest (if very small) role in the movie was that of the super model Sonya, played by an actress named Shalom Harlow (Speaking of stereotypes, I loved her oh-so stereotypical model line \"I promised to do that photo shoot this afternoon. I have to shower and vomit!\") In the end, what really turned me off about this movie was the ridiculous ending, starting with the graduation ceremony (and, to be honest, even if someone decided that the graduation was really necessary, the movie should have ended there, rather than proceeding on with the totally unnecessary nuptials at the end.)
Basically, I got a few chuckles out of this but nothing more. 3/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\ni believe that this movie was a terrible waste of my time, and i would know after watching it 5 times in class. this movie does not show what absolutely perfectly happened during these times. no one can truly say that these things happened to the letter. if anything the only good part would be the actors, even tho that they were really really crap.they were reading the script without expression. quite boring. i would rather watch play school. so i would definitely like to never ever see this movie again in my whole life. it is a complete waste of time unless you want your time to be wasted and if you would like to see an unrealistic view of what happened back in 1981.
\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 generally like Iranian movies, and after having seen \"10\" by Kiarostami the night before, I was expecting a great movie. I was very disappointed. This is by far, the worst Iranian film, and one of the most boring Asian movies I have ever seen. If you have never seen a Kiarostami movie before, watch \"Ten\" instead. If you want some good Iranian movies, you may also try \"Sib\", aka \"The Apple\". This movie is divided in 5 parts, and only the fourth, featuring some funny ducks, is worth watching. If this is the first Iranian movie you see, you probably won't want to see any more. I don't blame you, but you will miss some great 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\nComing from Kiarostami, this art-house visual and sound exposition is a surprise. For a director known for his narratives and keen observation of humans, especially children, this excursion into minimalist cinematography begs for questions: Why did he do it? Was it to keep him busy during a vacation at the shore?
\"Five, 5 Long Takes\" consists of, you guessed it, five long takes. They are (the title names are my own and the times approximate):
\"Driftwood and waves\". The camera stands nearly still looking at a small piece of driftwood as it gets moved around by small waves splashing on a beach. Ten minutes.
\"Watching people on the boardwalk\". The camera stands still looking at the ocean horizon and a boardwalk. People walk across the camera frame, their faces too far and blurry to make them interesting. Eleven minutes.
\"Six dogs at the water's edge\". The camera stands still looking at the ocean horizon with a sandy stretch of beach nearby. Far away at the water's edge, six dogs not doing much, just relaxing. Sixteen minutes.
\"Ducks in line, gaggle of ducks\". The camera stands still looking at the ocean horizon near the water's edge. Dozen and dozen of ducks stream in single file from left to right. I assume that Kiarostami released them gradually. The last two ducks stop dead on their track and suddenly a gaggle of ducks rolls quietly from right to left. I assume Kiarostami collected the ducks and re-released all at the same time. It is not the first time that he deals with the contrast between organized and disorganized behavior. Eight minutes.
\"Frog symphony, oops, I mean cacophony, for a stormy night\". The camera stands over a pond at night. It's pitch black except for what appears to be the reflection of the moon on the undulating water. It is a stormy night and clouds race to cover the moon. The screen goes dark. What remains for us is the cacophony of frogs, howling dogs and, eventually, morning roosters. Hit me on the head if this was done in a single take. I saw this segment as a sound composition put together in the editing room and accompanied by a simple visualization. Twenty seven minutes!
Except for the mildly amusing ducks, this exercise in minimalism left me cold. A nonessential film for Kiarostami admirers.
I thought I would rate \"Five\" a five, but four is what it deserves.
The film is dedicated to Yasujiru Ozu.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nCan this \"film\" be considered as a film? Imagine the situation: somebody puts a handy cam over a tripod and in front of a sea promenade and film people walking or jogging along it. Then, he places the camera in a beach, buys some ducks in a pet shop, open their cages and let them run in front of the camera. Later, he just films the water surface and the sound of birds and insects in an absolute darkness. Is it an experiment or just an insult to the audience intelligence? What would it happen if any unknown director did a film like that? Would we mark his job with 10? I always disappoint directors who believe that can do everything they want once they became famous.
\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\nBilled as a romantic comedy set against the early years of WWII it fails to deliver. The problem is that while beautifully photographed it has no consistent story line or narrative. Starting as a murder mystery it offers no hope to its actors as it meanders through recent history. Depardieu is wasted in a trivial role he obviously is not comfortable with playing. Adjani cannot carry the picture. The hero is not; obviously an imitation of a Hitchcock \"wrongly accused\" role it lacks balance. Neither heroic, comic nor suspenseful.
This could have been a good film. I am reminded of \"The Lady Vanishes\" which did combine suspense, romance and comedy in a serious film dealing with fascism.
\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've just been at the cinema in down town Prague watching this film.
Not due to the poster I found very Holywood old-fashioned heroic
style. Not due to the high level starring which remind me that most
of those high starring French films are usually pathetic. But just
because there are not so many films in my French mother tongue in a
city like Prague. And because I love Adjani, Depardieu and Rappenau's
Cyrano. Then I decided to write up this small comment because I think
I really don't agree with the comment main stream on this film on imdb.
I was not disappointed. The film just look like the poster. The
characters are just as stupid as they look like. For a while I
thought Adjani would be like a caricature -- just a funny character
you can laugh at. No she is not! For example when she decides to tell
Depardieu she is the one who murdered the fat one she killed at the
beginning of the film then come the violins in a big fat pathetic
music which should make you cry and realize Adajani's character is a
deeper person as she looks like. Maybe this was humor at the 10th
level but I am sorry my sense of humor is not that high! If I want to
see some funny French film on the WWII I watch once again La Grande
Vadrouille! It is definitively more fun! I have also read on imdb
that Lemoine is making a great performance in this film. I have to
say I have never seen a so bad acting! (Well I have never seen any Ed
Wood's film). Nevertheless the film is good filmed with a lot of good
(very costly) scenes like the one with the Pantheon in the morning
when the German army arrives at Paris or when the refugees settle down
on a bridge in Bordeaux. I think Rappeneau is a good filmmaker but
that he does better with a good script. It was easy with Cyrano. He
had not to write the dialogs!
I give 1/10.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe 33 percent of the nations nitwits that still support W. Bush would do well to see this movie, which shows the aftermath of the French revolution and the terror of 1794 as strikingly similar to the post 9/11 socio-political landscape. Maybe then they could stop worrying about saving face and take the a**-whupping they deserve. It's really a shame that when a politician ruins the country, those who voted for him can't be denied the right to ever vote again. They've clearly shown they have no sense of character.
What really stands out in this movie is the ambiguity of a character as hopelessly doctrinaire as Robespierre; a haunted empty man who simplistic reductive ideology can't help him elucidate the boundaries between safety and totalitarianism. Execution and murder. Self-defense and patriotism. His legalistic litmus tests aggravate the hopeless situation he's helped create. Sound like any belligerent, overprivileged, retarded Yale cheerleaders you know of?
Wojciech Pszoniak blows the slovenly Deparidieu off the screen. As sympathetic as Robespierres plight is, it's comforting to know that shortly after the film ends he'll have his jaw shot off and be sent to the guillotine.
\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 most remarkable thing about \"Talk Radio\" is how bad it is. The callers' voices all have a phony, reading-from-a-script ring to them. An evening with an annoying loudmouth at a Dallas radio station is told with the portentousness of a Sartrean glimpse into Hell. Stone tries for an existential revelation and gets unintended comedy instead. Whenever a caller makes a \"profound\" (empty) point about something, Stone shoves the camera at one of his character's face as they are stricken with some traumatic realization that is never revealed to the audience. Bogosian overacts throughout in one of the most irritating performances ever smeared onto celluloid. Underrated classic? Give me a break.
\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 disappointing film from Oliver Stone which, unlike his recent epic \"J.F.K.\", fails to stimulate any sort of real emotion. \"Talk Radio\" is about talk-back host 'Barry Champlain', a very loud, opinionated man who manages to upset a lot of people and yet still draw an audience, most of whom mind you just want to ring up and abuse him. His boss in the movie (Alec Baldwin) sums up his character very well by saying he's just a shoe salesman with a big mouth. And as Barry (Eric Bogosian) gets death threat upon death threat, the final outcome is almost inevitable.
This is the sort of movie that usually has something very powerful to say. However, \"Talk Radio\" fails to make a serious comment and remains a frustrating, pointless film.
Thursday, September 17, 1992 - Video
\n
assistant\n0
\n"