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\nWhat could have been an excellent hostage movie was totally ruined by what apparently looks like a bored director ... there were so many directions that the movie could have taken ... a vampire slash-fest was not one of these!!! The last 45 mins. or so results in the movie being an absolutely ridiculous waste of time. ...and sex machine?? ... you gotta be kidding me! The acting talents of the likes of Juliette Lewis and Harvey Keitel (not to mention George Clooney) are completely wasted in this nonsensical movie.
The director... Robert Rodriguez, known for his other gory flicks including el mariachi, desperado, once upon a time in Mexico, and the very recent sin city ... really holds your attention with the well executed first half ... which leads you to believe that you are in for an entertaining time ... but then apparently for no reason, and without any provocation, the madness starts ... there's even feeble attempts at parody and comedy ... truly exasperating!!
\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 love dissing this movie. My peers always try their best to defend it, probably out of love for Quentin Tarantino or Harvey Keitel, but they'll never convince me that this one should be treasured. Here's some huge reasons why: A: The plot goes from kidnapping road trip movie to vampire-inhabited strip bar slasher flick with no set-up whatsoever. Suddenly something very real turns into something very fake, which is like sitting the audience down to a Thanksgiving feast then exploding it with dynamite. B: That untalented Juliette Lewis is in it. C: Preposterous ideas abound such as actual torso-and-leg guitars, brothers with the last name \"Gecko,\" bad vampire make-up jobs, Cheech Marin playing three characters (?), and a crotch-based gun that only fires when \"erect\" and belongs to a guy who goes by \"Sex Machine.\" If Robert Rodriguez didn't pathetically try to be so innovative with his violence, I might've had fun with this obvious popcorn flick. The whole project's like he got the ideas by playing with action figures. The only thing even close to being considered my favorite scene is George Clooney's laugh-out-loud cheesy monologue after he kills his blood-sucking, horny-for-children, terrible-acting brother. I swear I think they thought it up right then and there. This movie's out to offend, and ends up offending those who want the offensive. Horrible 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\nWARNING:I advise anyone who has not seen the film yet to not read this comment.
When I first started to watch this movie my expectations were it was a vampire movie, that is going to be awesome considering how Rodriguez and Tarantino both helped make the film. I began about 15 minutes into it and already my hopes for this movie were down the drain, which shocked me. First, the story it was going with was not at all appealing in anyway possible, and just flat out boring and uncompelling to the point where I just wanted to turn it off. I was getting more frustrated with this movie as it dragged on, but I guess I had hopes that it would get better.... then when it finally showed vampires it BLEW MY MIND, in a VERY bad way. I thought,\"Okay this movie started with some backwash horrible story about these two criminals, then VERY slowly turned into some vampire movie which I thought it was going to be from the beginning, in like, the last 30 minutes?\" To add on to that, they try to make the main characters all cool and awesome and mean around the end when they're just not; A bunny would've been more intimidating than these characters! This movie is a horrible piece of crap!!! From Dusk Till dawn disgraced me and left a terrible taste in my mouth, disheartening thoughts in my head, and left my body unable to move from the horrible shock that I just wasted 108 minutes of my life away on a horrendous film. I do not understand how George Clooney, Quentin Tarintino, Cheech Marin and Danny Trejo, all being the good and honorable actors that they are, could take part in this useless filth. In my opinion, From Dusk Till Dawn is one of the worst movies ever made that I have suffered my eyes on. Do not see it, you'll be doing yourelf a GREAT favor...
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film is simply appalling, how the talent involved made this is beyond human belief.Iguess they must have been boozing when they thought of this idea,I feel as if 2 hours of my life have been taken from me.Harvey Kietel will try and distance himself from this rubbish, it should have been a great crime movie but it develops into a gory mess of vampires.I would recommend this film to people who like to sleep through movies ,you wont miss a thing.The humour is set to appeal to the lowest common dominate, movies can uplift us and remind us that life is worth living, this film just depresses you.As DeNiro said in one movie the saddest thing in life is wasted talent this film is a perfect example of this statement.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt's a long time ago I saw this movie and still it's one of the worst I've ever seen. I like lots of kind of movies; sci-fi, action, drama, thrillers and sometimes even horror. Not a combination of two. This could have been a wonderful movie, but they all blew it up. I didn't want to see this movie, but friends of mine insisted to watch it. I didn't know it was such a crap. I loved the first part, in which Clooney and Tarantino drove through Texas, killing everybody on their way (especially the scene with the liquor shooting was excellent), but at its turning point, in the titty twister bar everything changed. Stupid Vampires took over the place and what could have been a perfect gangster movie became a stupid horror movie like 'Nightmare on Elmsteet'. If you like horror, watch a real horror movie. And when you love bloodstolling thrillers don't watch it at all, you will be very disappointed at the end.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nHas anyone else noticed that this version is basically a scene-by-scene remake of the 1933 version, with some of the scenes taken out? It makes me think less of a film that does that, showing a definite want of creativity. In all fairness, I tend to be biased in favor of Katharine Hepburn, but this version of the film seems like cinematic plagiarism. The 1933 version was nice and sweet, though a little awkward in presentation and transition at times, and then this version took the script, the music, and even a fair amount of the scene blocking from the earlier version. I don't understand the point of making the film again when the method of remaking it was to basically redo George Cukor's film with everything the same except the people working on 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\nAfter all the hype I had heard about the Jane Austin novel and different film versions of the book I found myself very disappointed with the movie. I had expected a classic drama but that was not the case. First of all let me preface my review with the fact that I love old movies, particularly mysteries and dramas, but not female oriented movies. This probably makes a huge difference, so take my review with a large grain of salt. I thought the acting was a bit over the top, but that is very common in movies of this era. June Allyson was good as Jo but I found every sister to be stereotypical and form driven. There were no surprises or overly dramatic moments. I hate writing negative reviews, but the movie left me very cold. It has always been my intention to read the book, but after this that seem unlikely. The only warming story line was between the old gentlemen and the youngest sister, that was a very welcome bright spot in an otherwise disappointing viewing experience. Again there are others who love this movie, I'm just not one of them.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI watched this movie last night, i'm a huge fan of the book, and i was pretty happy with the version in which Winona Ryder and Susan Sarandon starred. But this one, it's just awful. Oh my God, i don't understand how they dared to ripped apart this classic story and made the characters totally different, starting with the switching of Beth being the younger sister, and making Amy the 3rd one. And Jo interpretation, terrible, Jo was a feminist, intelligent and kinda angry young lady, and the actress portraying Jo in this movie acts like a foolish and very annoying little girl. And what's with the Laurie going to war?. i'm OK with the fact that when a book is made into a movie there has to be some changes made, but not re-write the whole story. very very bad done.
\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\nIn the twilight years of his career, Charles Bronson forged long-running partnerships with several directors, most notably J. Lee Thompson and Michael Winner. He did two films for one-time Bond director Peter Hunt too - the first being the decent 1981 actioner Death Hunt, the second being this indifferent political chase thriller. Assassination is pretty dull if truth be known, and come the end you'll find yourself longing for something with a bit more passion and pace, like The Wilby Conspiracy for instance (which, plotwise, this film resembles).
Bronson sleepwalks through his role as bodyguard Jay Killian, whose assignment is to protect the American President's wife, Lara Royce Craig (Jill Ireland, real-life wife of Bronson). Killian believes that Mrs Craig has been targetted by assassins; she thinks he's an over-protective, paranoid pessimist. Turns out - surprise, surprise - that Killian was right all along and someone is indeed out to eradicate her. The pair of them go on the run, pursued by the assassins.
Everyone knows that the wife of an American President is known as The First Lady. For some reason, in this film they have renamed her \"One Mama\"! Quite what the point of this is is anybody's guess, but it's indicative of the film's pointlessness as a whole. Most of the film's performances are lazy, and the script takes a heck of a long time to get to where it's going. If I had to label Assassination within a specific genre, I'd say it is supposed to be a \"thriller\". I'd say that with some reservations, however, as to say that it's a thriller it has precious few thrills.
\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\nBronson and Ireland, in their last film together, make a likable pair. He is more restrained than usual and she has become a winning actress. But as a thriller the film is totally worthless. Its premise is downright silly and its pace is much too rushed.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI can't believe I sat through this garbage. Palm trees in D.C. (already mentioned), a dummy-as-dead-body bit so obviously artificial that I thought it was SUPPOSED to be a dummy ... until it left a bloodstain ... stilted dialogue, ridiculous plot. I think it's a shame that Jill Ireland's final film before her death was this stinker. Don't waste your time - I wish I hadn't. The only saving grace is that it was on cable, so I didn't waste my money on top of everything.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFirst off, I'm a huge Bronson fan, have been since the late '70s. I watched every film he made on the big screen since \"Love and Bullets\", which ironically was the beginning of his end as a big name, Hollywood-blockbuster star.
I kept hoping that things would turn around for him, that he would make a really good film in the '80s, but that never happened. And I don't know what he was thinking when he signed with cheapjack studio Cannon and hack director J. Lee Thompson for most of his latter films.
\"Assasination\" gave me some hopes when I saw that Peter Hunt was directing instead of Thompson but those hopes were quickly dashed. First off, the film looks incredibly cheap, like it was made for about 3 mil, minus Bronson's inflated salary (I heard he insisted on 5 mil per picture which is probably more than the rest of the budget for all his Cannon films). The White House scenes were filmed on the VA grounds in West LA - I was taking the bus when they were shooting. Nice job on recreating the white house but did no one think about getting the Palm trees out of the shots? Guess not.
Secondly, the supporting cast is really bad. Ireland was dying of cancer and despite this she's not bad but the horrible Asian woman playing Bronson's sidekick was typical of Cannon's talent at the time --non-existent. I would be real curious to learn how she got this role. I can't imagine a worse actress for the part, plus she's a good 40 years younger than Bronson! The story is not that bad and it's something that bigger and better-budgeted studios did later (Eastwood's \"In the Line of Fire\" and Costner's \"Bodyguard\" film) but the way it's staged here is really sad. I'm wondering if they could not afford to do more than one or two takes per shot. None of it is believable in the slightest. If Secret Service men really behaved like the keystone cops in this movie we'd have presidents rotating out of office (and out of life) every few months...
\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\nCharles Bronson has given the viewers lots of great moments on the screen. But this movie lacks everything that a thriller/action-movie should have. There are a few action scenes in the movie, but they're really crappy. And when the action scenes fail, does the story save the film? Not at all, is my answer to that. The story is even worse than the action scenes. It's very straightforward and boring, and even though I'm a big movie fan, I almost fell asleep several times. I don't know how they came up with a failure like this. A low budget, maybe? Regardless of that, it looked like all the actors had no interest in being in the movie at all. When that happens, the result is really bad.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSecret Service agent Jay Killion (Charles Bronson) has been assigned to protect the President-elect's wife, the new First Lady (Jill Ireland). She is a very difficult woman and Killion has his hands full. She is the victim of numerous assassination attempts, all directed by the President's Chief of Staff, who wants the First Lady dead. This movie insults your intelligence with not only the story line, but also with the lack of realistic locations. For example, in the scene depicting the Inaugural Parade, the First Lady is in a Rolls Royce convertible with agent Killion and without the President. Also, we know what Washington, DC, is like weather wise in January, and not only is everybody \"top coat less\", you can even see some palm trees in the 70 degree and sunny weather! (Obviously filmed in Hollywood, not Washington, DC). This movie is a joke. It is not worth your 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\nLame. Lame. Lame. Ultralame. Shall I go on? There is one, I repeat *one* funny scene in this entire, drawn-out, anti-amusing Amateur Hour Special of a film: Fares Fares' fat father knocking someone over with his beer gut. That's it. The rest of this shockingly mediocre pile of nothingness consists of the usual trademark bored-looking Swedish \"actors\" delivering dialogue which goes into one ear and out of the other, a banal story, sloppy direction and, well, little else worth mentioning. Nepotistically cast Fares Fares is as charismatic as a chartered accountant and his nose rivals even that of Adrien Brody in terms of sheer ridiculous hugeness. Torkel Petersson should only work with Lasse Spang Olsen. The rest of the cast is, luckily, easily forgettable, whereas Fares' humongous, titanic nose will forever haunt me in my dreams.
Josef Fares helps ruin Swedish cinema. Don't support him and his nonsense. Jalla Jalla is to comedies what Arnold Schwarzenegger is to character acting, Kopps would have been much more respectable if it had been a no-budget Youtube video, and Zozo was simply the most pretentious, pseudo-touching garbage ever unleashed by a Swedish director. Wake up and smell the roses: Swedish movies can be so much better than this, so stop pretending Fares' flicks are worth watching simply because they're \"good to be Swedish\". Please.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf this movie would have been in English, all critics would have trashed it. The language is extremely bad, the scenes are awfully directed and it's not at all funny. After the movie I thought that this movie could have been written by an 8th grader, at least if you consider the lack of believable characters and the fixation on certain male body parts. (oh, on dogs as well...) The story is just plain nonsense compared to the more mature Vingar av glas that premiered almost at the same time. Of course the public chose Jalla! Jalla! while Vingar av glas got little attention.
What was really disturbing for me was the fact that the movie looked really bad. That was probably due to the fact that first time director Josef Fares used really cheap camera equipment and then decided to just play around with it, for fun I suppose. The result, however, is a movie that can easily be split into 12 short films with a new directorial style in each one of them. This was very frustrating. Maybe Josef Fares should have stayed with his short films since that seems to be the only art form he can master.
Another disturbing fact is that the story does not hold together. At several times in the middle of the movie, the story has to move on very quickly and the characters then run into one another in a way that is just too unbelievable.
And then I have not mentioned the 2-dimensional characters, especially those in the supporting roles.
Even though I consider this one of the worst Swedish films of the 90s as well as one of the most overrated, it is kind of understandable that the public liked it. I mean, bad taste has always been the trademark of the masses...
I'm more surprised that the critics enjoyed it. They should have known better...
Grade 2 of 10

\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe script is very weak & there is no depth in the characters. The story telling is not the importing thing here. The unnecessary action & Scenes does not really help this one. One of the worst movies in Sweden´s history of films.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe appeal of this film has to be the artsy Euro style, because there's absolutely no substance. A bunch of stuff happens that seems to be going somewhere... but it never gets there.
It's difficult to come up with a full 10 lines of commentary, because this film is such a totally empty experience. There's lots of nice photography of a cemetery, some really lame zombie effects, some flashes of what might pass for surrealist humor, and a feeble, existentialist ending. These elements undermine each other. Just when you might be enjoying the creepy mood, there's some silliness with bouncing heads or zombie sex. To keep from screaming with boredom, you clutch at the minimal story line - and it disintegrates into ridiculous illogic. It's like someone took several half-baked B movies and tossed them in a blender.
What comes out is mostly a film *about* meaninglessness - and *not* a good one. Clearly, it will impress that category of art-house fan who sees emptiness as indistinguishable from depth. Everyone else should stay well clear of this dreary 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\nI am utterly astonished at how over-rated \"Cemetery Man\" is among horror fans! Now, I usually welcome movies that blend two or more kinds of genre-styles into one and I love just about every zombie-comedy I have ever seen. To my dismay, this Italian cult-classic really didn't show me a lot to get too pumped up about... It follows the unusual duties of a full-time cemetery care-taker and his retarded, man-child, Curly Joe looking assistant as they seem to primarily dispose of the recently deceased who pop out of the ground seven days after their initial death. He meets a widow whom he \"wows\" with some grisly grave-yard atmosphere and develops a quick romance, soon having sex with her on her dead husband's grave. The husband's corpse springs alive and bites her, triggering a series of events that seem to consume the rest of the movie. \"Cemetery Man\" attempts to incorporate every element it can, like horror, romance, comedy, action, and fails entirely in the long-run. It plods along, never able to focus on any aspect long enough to make it interesting for the viewer, such as the paunchy sidekick's relationship with a living severed head, a motorcycle riding zombie launching out of the ground, the main character deciding to gun down random people on the sidewalk, etc. This thing is so convoluted and dull that it's nearly impossible to take it seriously. Sure, it's stylish and often \"elegant\", but even the most \"artsy\" kind of films need the right kind of lineage to allow it to make sense. \"Cemetery Man\" plods along, appearing unable to focus on anything for more than a few minutes which becomes very tiring after a while. People argue that \"it's a more sophisticated zombie movie\". Frankly, when it comes to zombies, I don't want anything more \"sophisticated\" than Romero... There's a little bit of gore and nudity - mainly in the scenes where it wants to play \"horror movie\", but not nearly enough to make up for it's uncompromising lack of structure. Terrible film.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIn Michele Soavi's confusing art-house zombie film, Dellamorte Dellamore, Rupert Everett plays Francesco, a caretaker in a cemetery where the dead don't stay buried for long. Aided by his simple assistant, Gnaghi, Francesco deals with the cemetery's zombie problem by either shooting the undead in the head or splitting their skulls with a spade.
However, soon after falling for the mysterious beautiful widow of one of his recently interred, Francesco finds himself busier than ever before
Having garnered some particularly favourable comments from some of IMDb's more respected horror officianados, I decided to see what the fuss was all about. I've just finished watching the film, and I can honestly say that I haven't been this disappointed by a horror film for quite some time.
With its dreary, muddled pseudo-philosophical plot, and an extremely bland performance from leading man Everett, Dellamorte Dellamore is an irritating and plodding mess that not even some splattery gore (courtesy of Sergio Stivaletti) and welcome gratuitous nudity (from busty Anna Fialchi) can save. I am at a loss to understand the amount of in-depth analysis and discussion that this pretentious bilge has received from its misguided fans.
\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\nDreadful. I hope I can save two hours of your life by warning you away from this. I just finished watching the film, BTW.
I love good cross genre films. This isn't one of them. Show me a sci-fi musical, a dramatic farce, or a religious action flick, I'll watch them all. But you cannot just throw epigrammatic quips at a rambling, camp, schlock-horror fest and draw my applause.
I love philosophical films. This isn't one of them. Anyone who is amazed at the depths of intellect plumbed in this film hasn't read a good book lately. Or ever. The \"thought-provoking\" dialogue is trite, at best. Perhaps it lost something in the translation.
I love a good horror-comedy. This isn't one of them. Laugh! I thought I'd never start! Squirm? Only when trying to think of a polite way to phrase my feedback of the film to the friend who recommended it.
Rupert is incongruously good in the setting of this film, but even he cannot resurrect it. I only wish he had shot the director instead if the zombies.
For shame, that the land that gave rise to The Inferno should also give rise to this. Dante would be spinning in his grave.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhen this series aired I watched most of it. I think it was supposed to be a long running series in the vein of \"The Fugitive\" and \"The Incredible Hulk\" where the protagonist is being chased around the country looking for a solution to his problems. In this case the hero's problem is his progressive aging in reverse. I liked what I saw of these shows. The acting was good especially the sorrowful relationship between the lead character and his wife. Problem is: They cancelled it before it had a chance to end. (either that or I missed the last episodes).
They never got a chance to wrap up the story either, knowing it had been cancelled. Poof it was just gone. However, like I said before I might have missed the last episodes. But my proof to the contrary is this: I rented the tape. Where I left off in the series. The lead character's wife dies in a fire started by a chase involving King's famous organization the Shop. While getting away hero is kidnapped. It ends with his friends realizing they have to go save him from the Shop. The end. Last episode. On the video: His wife does not die but escapes the fire with him. Right when he should get nabbed by the Shop, he and his wife share a weird moment then phase out of existence. Abrupt, silly and cheap to the extreme. They just wanted to put this video out and decided to tag on an ending not caring how bad it was. They might as well of just shown some stock footage of the first atomic bomb detonations. Almost Pythonesque.
The show did have a cool opening title sequence set to the David Bowie song of the same 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\nFirstly, this is NOT an adaptation of a Stephen King book, short story, novella, or anything else. From EW's Web site, and their review on the show when it first aired, \"...he never writes down to his audience, and he never betrays contempt for his subjects. His first original work for television, Stephen King's ''Golden Years'' (CBS, July 16, 9-11 p.m.), is no exception.\"
The series was apparently going to be (as others have mentioned) an ongoing series, which is why we never saw the ending after the cliffhanger they left us on. But this was never quite made clear to the viewers who were left wondering how it all ends??
When the series came out on videotape, it touted itself as having the \"never-before-seen ending!\" It should have said, \"the should-never-be-seen ending!\"
*** Spoiler ***
The very ending was the only significant part changed for the video (though parts of the whole were left out), and that changed ending was what destroyed the story. For example, rather than our two intrepid FBI agents realizing that they were now labeled as bad guys and on the run from the evil Jude Anderson of The Shop (as originally broadcast), Jude simply walks up to them... And they shoot him. Bang, dead, and no real emotion to speak of in the scene. Ditto on the bit with Harlan and his wife going poof. Whereas the original ending left us with a spectacular cliff-hanger, on the video, they simply get out of the cock-a-doodie car.
*** End Spoiler ***
It was a sad ending to a rather well made mini-series, and makes the video completely not worth buying, or even renting. Sincerely, save your money and your 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\nI remember when this show came out. It was originally advertised as a mini-series. At the end of the last episode it said \"To Be Continued\" to the dismay of all the people who had watched the whole boring beyond words thing. It ended as it was supposed to, so yes, you can blame the series for having no ending. The plan was for there to be another obviously if ratings had been higher, but it was a boring show that way too long, and annoyed people by not ending when it said it would, so they never made any more. Quite a few of the comments blame its cancellation and lack of ending on the viewing public, when the truth is that for this show that is not the case, it ended the way it was actually planned to end, it is just a lousy ending.
\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\nPlease -- if you haven't attempted to sit through this garbage and are considering viewing this flick/mini-series -- do yourself a favor and find anything else to do. Floss your teeth, start learning to play the cello, beat your dog -- anything you choose will be time better spent than watching this junk. This is not a bad movie that you can get a few chuckles out of -- it simply sucks in every way possible. Just boring from beginning to end.
And for those animal lovers out there that feel my comment above is insensitive -- if your dog could speak, he or she would beg for a beating rather than suffer through watching 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\nI really hated this movie and it's the first movie written by Stephen King that I didn't finish. I was truly disappointed, it was the worst crap I've ever seen. What were you thinking making three hours out of it? It may have a quite good story, but actors? No. Suspense? No. Romance? No. Horror? No. It didn't have anything.
It's got this strange, crazy science man with Einstein-hair, the classic thing. Not real at all. And a man keep getting younger all the time. It seems like they just used the name of Stephen King to make a crappy, too long movie with nothing exciting at all.
I give this movie \"1 (awful)\". If they had like -5, I would probably take that instead. It was a total waste of time.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nok, i am really into King's stuff, but this is just dreadful. the whole movie, i am waiting for the main character to do something profound with his new youth and power. i can tolerate the worst of movies, as anything is better than watching a cut movie with commercials in it. but this takes the cake. i gave it a 2, and i would never recommend it 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\nI love Stephen Kings work and the book was great but I was very disappointed when I bought this movie on DVD. This was one of the worst B-movies I have ever seen. It feels like they had a tight schedule and only took one shot at every scene even if it turned out to be a bad one. And where did they find the actors.
\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 without question the worst screen adaptation of a Stephen King work, if not the WORST MOVIE OF ALL TIME! This is an unbelievably horrible movie. I fell asleep on this stinker several times and I wasn't tired! I would rather shoot myself than sit through it again!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOkay, I guess I'm pretty much a fan of spindled, mutilated, and destroyed Stephen King stories (when they reach the 'Screen') as any of us sad Masochists out here. I KNOW full well that most of them are done poorly. I EXPECT it. I PLAN on it. I humbly allow for it...
But, THIS time... GEEEEEEEEEEEEEZ... Okay, so I THINK I saw this thing a number of years ago..., fine. I THOUGHT I remembered that it was pretty good... WRONG... Like I'm saying (granted in a wordy, annoying, roundabout way : ) I really wasn't trying to be snobby or expect much, but what was this thing, a Mini-Series? I have only ONE thing to say: D......R.....A.....W......N O.....U.....T How can you POSSIBLY justify dragging the thing out minute by minute, scene by scene of friggin' ENDLESS, completely MEANINGLESS, and mind numbingly SLOW dialog? I mean EVERY bl**dy scene is two people 'DISCUSSING' how they feel and back and forth and D...R...A...G I...T bl**dy well O...U...T After about an hour and a half, which I THINK is about 1/2 of the running time (I didn't check, sorry : ) I FINALLY got totally fed up! After an hour and a half what had happened OTHER than the original accident...? They were running away while the 'Shop' guy was killing eye doctors, news photographers, and LOTS & LOTS & LOTS of meandering dialog.
I'm sorry, I promise that it is not that I have to have non-stop mindless action; I love LOTS of films where not much happens, but in them at least when they DO talk and such MEANINGFUL things are being said and characters are being deepened, thoughts are being conveyed... SOMETHING!!!??? Okay, I admit that the actors in and of themselves were not too bad (except Stephen King, of course : ) I liked the Shop guy, I thought both of the 'older' people were fine. I liked the General and the main woman. It's just if they could have cut out all of the HOURS of filler, that's all I'm saying. I mean, it's SUPPOSED to be a Sci Fi Thriller, sort of..., right? you know what really took the prize when the Shop guy was needlessly making one of his MANY time filling telephone calls, this time he is talking to God knows WHO getting all emotional (for him anyway) and acting like he can't handle it... WTF!!!??? The guy has clearly been shown to be a cold blooded, efficient killer. What the HELL was THAT about??? So, just multiply that by about 500 and that is basically why I finally turned if off about half way through; it was either that or hang myself, I swear! I mean there are other King 'adaptations' out there that are lame, but at least they MOVE ALONG...! Oh well, I guess perhaps if you MAYBE are into the 'story' itself and don't mind crawling along and have the SUPREME & DIVINE patience to wait until the end, it might be worthwhile.
But, I sincerely and humbly doubt it...
I don't write these things very often, but THIS time I just HAD to or I wouldn't be able to sleep at night (like I did DURING the show! : )
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFirst of all, the nature in the movie is beautiful, and there is a bit of Mongolian music. Well, the horses looked Mongolian and the camels, but that's about all what was Mongolian in it. Oh, Borte is played by a Mongolian actress, albeit a lame performance. But she is pretty, which redeems a bit the lack of performance on her part.
But, I totally failed to understand what was the point of this painful-to- watch piece of 1.30 hour fantasy created by Mr.Bodrov. The plot totally lacked any sense of cohesion. There was no logic behind the development of the plot. In fact, there was hardly any story at all, just a number of loosely tied scenes with a bunch of guys in \"Mongolian\" clothes, speaking some kinda pidgin that is supposed to sound like Mongolian. Most actors were either Japanese, Russian or Chinese, most scenes were shot in China, Kazakhstan or Russia and there were a lot of disturbing pathos about what is it to be a \"Mongolian\". The dialog is primitive and the scenes with dialog are slow. The battle scenes are laughable. All the supernatural pathos is lame and is obviously there only to make up for the lack of the story.
The Japanese actor was like a wooden doll, and looking at him one wouldn't get any idea how this person could become a leader who could unite the nomadic tribes. He looked sleepy, soft, stiff and pitiful for the most part of the movie.
And I don't even want to start on the subject of the historical relevance of this piece of cinematic waste. To see Chinggis-khan half of the movie as a slave, to see his two first kids be born from other men, to see his wife selling herself to the Tangut merchant... my blood starts to boil. And where is the beautiful story about the friendship between Temujin and Jamukha? One could make a great movie out of it. Where is the story of the rise of Temujin? Of his childhood, of his relationship with his family, with his brothers, of how he struggled to survive among mighty enemies of his family? where is Van khan, who helped him a lot? where is the depiction of life in the steppe, of the life of the nomads, of their traditions, of their relations with the other nations around them?
Where is development of the characters? We totally fail to see what brought Temujin together with Jamukha and what brought them apart and most important, how Temujin became Chinggis-khan, how he, an outcast with no wealth and military power managed to unite the Mongolian tribes and create such an organized and effective war machine that crushed one nation after another and created the largest land empire in history. All this could make several interesting and dramatic stories with complicated plots and deep characters, but unfortunately we didn't see any of it in Bodrov's creation, not even a glimpse.
\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\nHave seen this movie today. Very disappointed and wondered how it could be in the Oscar shortlist. The most sad things are:
1. It's very slow.
2. How Ghengis-khan, cruel and mighty emperor of Asia can be played by a kind, good actor with warm and lovely eyes - during all the movie except one scene?
3. Lot of holes in the plot: there's nothing about how he became the emperor; nothing about where he spend 20 years between his childhood and mature age. We see an ex-slave without money, power, friends or home. Click! - the very next second he's leading the huge army, without any reasons to be a leader.
4. The magic of Ghengis-khan arise is kindly explained only by the help of one wolf/god/whoever it was.
5. Can a man make love to his wife THAT way after not seeing her for years?
6. Is it enough to win the sword fight if you just riding your horse through the enemy lines, sitting there with two swords and everybody around you dies? Does Ridley Scott know that way?
7. Why after 20-30 years Khan's mother doesn't look older?
8. What is the motivation for the main character? (None. Literally.)
Don't waste your time. Really. Cinematographers's work is good; the nature is outstanding - but the movie cannot be made without director and script. The real Ghengis-khan would execute director in a second.
Kind regards.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie was lacking in a lot of areas. It's about this Elvis type guy who races cars and is approached by these BIKERS from SATANS ANGELS. One of them is named Banjo and they beat up college kids for fun. THey want the Elvis guy to be their \"driver\". At times, I wanted the folks from MSTK3000 to be quiet because the movie was actually kind of good. Sure, there was violence and a lot of cheesy lines, such as \"What kind of beer do you want? A COLD ONE\". That was cheesy. The dude who plays Banjo is a great boxer and I was glad to see him do a few fight scenes. Also, the biker named FATS had a NAZI SWASTIKA on his jacket!!! That was pretty bold if I must say so myself.
\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 begins with a man who appears to be some sort of sports driver. He meets up with a gang which contains an arrogant boss, an obvious idiot, a fat boy who never speaks, and a woman who rotates between the three of them. The group which is called Satan's Angels, wants Rod, the driver, as their personal driver. He says no but then says yes after the authorities make him a spy to check on them. They rob a weapon shop in a ridiculously plot-missing scene. The scene involves the woman walking into the store with her long hair in a bun and large circular glasses on. She says she wants protection and wants the shopkeeper to load the gun to show her how. She then takes it from the shopkeeper and shoots him. The other three in the gang (excluding Rod) run into the store. They take everything off the walls and then proceed to play with it like children receiving their toys on Christmas Day.
This movie surely wastes no precious screen time with a plot.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nNot really all that much to this movie...either a stunt racer or a stock car racer has a flaming car in the beginning of the movie, goes to bar, is approached by a biker gang who ruins his chances with a very lovely lady, offer him a job, he goes back to their place, refuses, the police ask him to accept their ya go!!! What plays out is a very annoying little film that sees the hero not really do all that much and a biker gang that can kill and for some reason the police can not pin a crime on them. I am not sure why the female biker did what she did at the end, but hey it is a bad movie, you always get scenes that make little sense. I am still trying to figure out if I misheard it when they said the hero of the piece was a stunt car driver. They may have said stock car driver because why would a stunt racer be racing and I wouldn't think it would be all that uncommon for a stunt car to crash. The actors are bad, and all the bikers are pretty annoying and the hero is kind of incompetent...really this movie is not full of kicks but it is the pits.
\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\nAh, another movie with motorcycles, hell's angels posse and Steve A-Lame-o as the not-so-cool car driver. This movie does not rely on story but lots of drinking, pot smoking, and lots of moronic acts. Steve's rendition of a dying cat during his \"I love what I know\" serenade had me vomiting for hours. Bike chick Linda (rrrr) makes out with everyone! Fats did the best acting since he just grunts and makes sounds. I also dare you to try to make out what Banjo is saying. \"You messin' wit private stock.\" This is scriptwriting folks.
I liked the ending. What better place to have the climax than a lighthouse! You have to see this to detest it.
DIE Jeter, DIE!!!
\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\nNo that its sick. It's not sick. It made me want to puke because I spent 2 dollars on it. Its boring, Retarded, and annoying. I didn't see the MST3K version, which sucks because I bet the MST3K version was funny. It's sad that people waste money on these kinds of movies. I'm surprised its not on the \"100 Worst Movies of All Time List\".
TromaDude's Rating- 0 outta ***** 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\nRecap: A lone swordsman, living in the desert and acting as an agent to other swordsmen, recollects how his life turned out to be as it is. It started with that the woman he loved chose to marry his brother instead, causing him to leave his home town. One of the swordsmen is Huang who is himself in the middle of a complicated love story, where a woman wants to have him killed for having ran away from a promise to marry her younger sister. But the sister wants to hire a swordsman to have Huang protected, and everything is put to an edge when the woman and her sister is really the same person.
Comments: I've seen the Redux version released in 2008 of the original that was released in 1994. How the two versions differ I can't say, but the Redux is very heavily stylized in the way of Chinese Wuxia action. That is unfortunate as that style to me seems to have forgotten one of the most important elements of a successful and entertaining movie. A comprehensible story. But true to its style scenery and visual elements seem much more important and much more in focus of writer and director Kar Wai Wong. Therefore there are lots of colorful, very beautiful scenes, that are completely unrelated to the story.
The editing and timeline of the story is also mishandled. Much is left out in the scenes, the time line is broken and rearranged in a confusing way. Very slow and calm scenes are suddenly relieved by surprisingly brutal and seemingly unmotivated fights, only to themselves being relieved by something else and unrelated. The result is a confusing and very uninteresting movie.
Thanks to these brutal but very few fights, the movie is put into the action genre. The poster and photographs also imply this but could almost be regarded as false marketing. Only a few minutes out of the 90 could be considered as anything like action, the other couldn't be farther away from it. The movie in its entirety is very slow, dull and hence very boring. Not even the rare action filled scenes help since they are so disconnected from the rest of the movie.
I might say that I'm not a fan of this Chinese style, since they often seem to be afflicted of these same problems, most importantly that the visual is more important than the story, but Ashes of Time Redux is perhaps the worst example I've seen.
3/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"