empathielabs/imdb_v0 huggingface dataset:
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI've read just about every major book about the Manhattan Project. Most people know what it was, but few people understand the depth and breadth of the project. Its scope was immeasurably massive -- rivaled in US history perhaps only by the space program of the 1960's.
There were -- literally -- MILLIONS of people involved from all walks of life at numerous sites (most clandestine) around the country, each involved in a specific and different aspect of the project that they couldn't talk about to the person sitting in the cubicle next to them, much less their family. The logistics are overwhelming, particularly given the considerations of wartime communication, security and transportation in the 1940's.
As an example -- my colleague's father was a carpenter who worked for one of the companies that had a contract with the federal government for the Manhattan Project. His job was to supervise a crew of about 30 other carpenters, who were responsible for manufacturing forms for the pouring of concrete for the massive research installations at Hanford, Washington. That's \"all\" he did, six days a week for nearly two years. These carpenters needed food, housing, sanitary facilities, hospitals and materials just as much as did Oppenheimer and his crowd at the top of the pyramid. Just think about it! That being said, it's simply impossible to do the subject justice in a 2-hour movie. In defense of Joffe, however, I would say that they had an impossible task, particularly since he chose to have a diverse screenplay with multiple plots, multiple angles, and multiple characters. What, exactly, was he thinking, and how could he be so arrogant to think that this would work? That's Hollywood, I guess.
FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY has so many flaws that it would take a book to list them all. Horrible casting. Dreadful (and politically-motivated) writing. Bad science. The portrayals of Groves and Oppie are particularly inaccurate and downright galling. Notwithstanding the screenplay's all-too-obvious agenda, it is STILL incredibly bland and sloppy.
These flaws have been listed elsewhere on IMDb, but I was particularly struck by the fact that the scientists had so much time on their hands -- softball, horseback riding, parties, semi-formal dinners, ballet, etc., not to mention romance, and of course circulating political petitions. According to FM&LB, if these great brains had gotten off their duffs and actually spent some time in the lab instead of seducing Laura Dern, we might have won the war before D-Day.
One final gripe -- FM&LB mentions that \"Fat Man\" and \"Little Boy\" were the code names of the two atomic bombs, but it doesn't mention that these names were a semi-good-natured jab at Groves (\"Fat Man\", for heavy stature) and Oppenheimer (\"Little Boy,\" for his slight stature). Another reason Paul Newman should not have been in this movie...
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt' s easier to watch this film if one views it as a scenario created by Star Fleet Lieutenant Reginald Barclay during his holodeck addiction. (Barclay is a recurring Star Trek character played by Dwight Schultz.)
Dwight Schultz is miscast as Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer's character is poorly written, so we never see the depth and breadth of his knowledge. Instead, we see a shallow, two dimensional figure from a soap opera. Paul Newman is also miscast as General Leslie Groves, but this movie's problems go beyond having the wrong actors in the wrong roles.
The factual errors and great liberties taken (with the chronology of events) in order to advance screenwriter Bruce Robinson's political agenda make this movie embarrassing to watch. That's probably why this movie has found a home on the so-called History Channel.
\"Fat Man and Little Boy\" combine bad science, bad history, bad screenwriting and mediocre acting to produce a movie that should not be viewed by impressionable high school or college students who know nothing about the Manhattan Project.
\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 years ago on television when I was sick (I don't know, I tend to be more complacent with my TV viewing when I'm sick; too much effort to use the remote control, I guess).
From what I can recall, every aspect of the movie--casting, acting, writing, directing, etc.--was ill-advised at best. I could have forgiven the historical inaccuracies if this film had created a sense of what it was like to work on Trinity; but it didn't. There were attempts to humanize the scientists, but they were insufficient and never transcended caricature.
I didn't know very much about the people involved in the Manhattan Project at the time, but the portrayals in the movie were so cartoonish that I became interested in learning about the real personalities. And I did. So I guess this horrible film has done a very small amount of good, after all.
This is not an in-depth review, but FMLB neither deserves nor requires one. You might enjoy it if you're a fan of bad 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\nThere are lots of other comments here about how poor this film is. What I wanted to point out is how this film took the largest science project in history and made it look small. The Manhattan project was an incredible achievement and it was huge. Virtually all silver in the country went into making wire for electromagnetic separators. If there was every a choice between two alternative ways of doing things they just did both. The first sustained nuclear reactor was fired up under the stands of the University of Chicago football stadium with graduate students wielding axes as a scram mechanism. It's a fascinating story involving hundreds of locations and thousands of people that this film seems to reduce to a small group of eccentrics in New Mexico.
The other thing I really disliked was the huge moral debate over if we should continue the project after Germany surrenders. Okay, we have thousands of (mostly) men who worked for years to make a really big boom. Does anyone think they didn't want to see it work? There was some controversy at the time about if we should use the device, but it was not that serious, clearly not the huge debate this film makes it out to be.
\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 a definitive 5. I finally caught it on HBO the other night. I remember when it came out in theatres telling a friend that it would never be a hit because Americans didn't want movies about history, especially movies that were more about ideas than action. I don't know if that was the reason FMLB didn't do well, but now, having finally seen it, I can add a few observations of my own.
First, while Dwight Schultz has been fine in Star Trek and The A-Team, as the lead in this movie he is off-putting. I kept expecting him to shout out Jon Lovitz-like, \"I am ACT-ING!\" He phrasing and tone of voice sounded like he was trying very had to be an ACT-OR, on a stage where he had to emphasize strangely various words and phrases.
Second, I enjoyed the sly positioning of Paul Newman's character as a manipulator who, at every turn, strives to herd these cats (the scientists) along to get to his goal.
Third, there was some discussion of the moral implications of creating the A bomb, and whether the US should use it. Probably not enough of this, or as in depth as warranted.
Finally, there seemed to be an awful lot of twists thrown in for dramatic effect. I don't know how much of the events in this movie are true to life, but things like having the test bomb slip in its chains or having a lab accident caused by a spilled coffee cup (and a scientist killed as a result) were stretching the bounds of believability. Maybe that stuff, or events that were similar, really happened, but it sure felt like various scenes were added solely for dramatic effect, which undermined the whole tone and purpose of the movie.
FMLB was OK. I need to read more about the actual events to know if it was over the top or just mostly accurate.
\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 did a screen test and read the script for this turkey in 1988. It was awful then and even worse now - I spotted it on VHS at the local HollowWood Video and said, \"oh, what the hey, for auld ang sine\". Yech.
They had to shoot most of it in Mexico after they ran out of money, a couple of the \"stars\" pitched bitches because they ran out of some kind of exotic fruit drink crap. The movie's plot is OK, I suppose, but I happen to know that the writer intended for it to have a spy catcher thread running throughout.
Dr O ended up being a cartoon character. He must still be whirling in his grave over in the Kremlin Wall.
Technical errors were all over the movie, not only with the infant atomic technology but with the uniforms, insignia, and military jargon. They were too cheap to hire a professional military adviser, of course. Even Mr. Newman's august and expert presence couldn't have saved this bird from being stuffed for Thanksgiving.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThere is no real story the film seems more like a fly on the wall drama-documentary than a proper film so this piece may in itself be a spoiler. Teen drama about 3 young Singaporean kids (very similar to UK chavs) who play truant from school, run with gangs, get into fights, insult people on the street, get tattoos, hang about doing nothing, etc. etc, They generally imagine themselves to be hard and every so often shout challenging rap chants into the camera. Filmed in MTV style, fast cuts, crazy camera angles, tight close ups and animation interludes. The dialogue might have been crisper in the original languages of Mandarin and Hokkien than in the subtitles and I have no doubt that some of the contemporary Singapore references will slip over Western heads as well as the cultural and political context unless of course you are familiar with Singapore. This kind of teen film may be a first for Singapore but it has been done before and done better in other Western countries, La Haine (1995) for example.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI was expecting a documentary covering the 1950 to 1965 era of Sci-Fi and received a big ol' commercial laced with leftist political innuendo by James Cameron and movie mogul baby boomer's pushing the own works. 'Watch the Skies' has in the past referred to the 'Giant Bug' and 'Space Exploration' movies from the 1950's including such favorites as \"Earth vs. the Flying Saucers, \"Thing from Another World\" and \"Forbidden Planet\" as well as \"Them\", \"Deadly Mantis\" and \"Tarantula\". There are lower budget examples that rarely get mentioned like \"Space Monster\", \"12 to the Moon\" and \"Cosmic Man\".
This would have been a much better documentary had the few remaining actors, directors, stunt men and collectors plus the non-Hollywood 'boomer's from the era been interviewed. I only wish there was a \"0\" rating available since a \"1\" is much to generous.
\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\nPurported documentary that tries to examine sci-fi films of the 1950s and how they affected (and REflected) America. Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, Ridley Scott and James Cameron are interviewed and Mark Hamill narrates.
Pretty terrible. The \"insights\" that are given are nothing new--for instance--the Cold War and the threat of nuclear war affected a whole generation of children. Well-duh! They try to cover all of the different sub genres of sci-fi films of the 1950s--the big bug movies, invaders from space movies etc etc. That's good but they choose the most obvious films and they've been over analyzed to death already. It was cool seeing clips from \"Rocketship X-M\", \"Destination Moon\", \"Forbidden Planet\", \"The Thing\" and \"The Day the Earth Stood Still\" but everything the directors said was so incredibly obvious to any viewer that it's insulting. Even though it's under an hour I was thoroughly bored 30 minutes in. This gets a 2 for some of the clips but nothing 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 saw this movie on videotape with my younger brother a long time ago, despite the fact I was a young boy who's hearing impaired. I didn't have the closed captioning decoder at the time (it was 1986, the year of The Transformers: The Movie), but I could follow the plot and understand what's going on. It wasn't my fault I saw the animated movie intended for girls. My father rented the video to show to my other younger sister.
A decade later and I rented the video (for 50 cents) to watch again with the closed captioning turned on. My memories of this movie was utterly destroyed by none other than a WRETCHED SCRIPT. I have seen plenty of poorly written movies (like COOL AS ICE and JASON GOES TO HELL: THE FINAL FRIDAY), but I have never seen (or heard) the dialogues this bad, only inundating with enough inanity to make your head spin from laughing in hysterics and screaming from the pain of enduring the torture of sitting through this movie. Despite good plot and intriguing story concepts, the script has to be ONE OF THE WORST EVER WRITTEN FOR THE SCREEN, BAR NONE! The incompetent Howard R. Cohen should never be working as a screenwriter, professional or otherwise. I can not believe they would even allow the terrible script to produce a movie like this in the first place. Did the Japanese producers read the script, in broken English or translated before they know what they were into? Even crap like G.I. Joe The Movie and My Little Pony The Movie have redeeming values compared to this abomination.
If you're a big fan of 80s animation, or just taking a nostalgia trip, BEWARE OF RAINBOW BRITE AND THE STAR STEALER! It does not matter whether you were elated or traumatized by the sloppily animated movie with an atrociously written script, or you have not seen the movie, STAY AWAY FROM THIS MOVIE. The movie should be viewed with the precaution to learn how NOT to write a bad script!
\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\nHere we go another pop star breaking in to the grand TV land and from my observations from her pop careers directors saying yeah your great gwen you could be a real star maybe some day you'll be in the A list movies, they would do anything to expand the show, there just not a pretty face but have an acting ability as well almost overnight. gwen has some how found the Ability to act by watching actors like James dean or Clint eastward, please give the real people in the world that have to sit behind that box and have to suffer pop stars effort's in trying to act. Please gwen stick to your pretty pop videos with your jap posse and don't insult the British with your efforts as an actress. anyway i'm going back to my working class job and think to myself god, i could do that. but yeah remember i'll be working till i'm 65 if i live that long and yeah you put your feet up girl with your royalties every three months, pah marry into money right xxx
\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 show had a promising start as sort of the opposite of 'Oceans 11' but has developed into a shallow display of T & A. Actually, according to my little brother thats the only good part of the show.
The first season was by far the best, it was new and interesting things just went downhill after that. The only redeeming point of this show is JamesCaan, The other actors are lack-luster. The characters lack depth and they seem to be incredibly selfish nd generally un-likable people.
To quote a friend \"Las Vegas is like Baywaych in a Casino\" In my opinion thats way to generous, Baywatch was way better, and much more realistic.
\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\nWow...not in a good way.
I can't believe people dig this trash. Most of the shows on television are pretty bad, and this has been a running trend for a while now - they just keep getting worse, but Las Vegas definitely takes it home. What a terrible show...
The actors are a bunch of has-been C+ losers that never went anywhere (except James Caan...who knows what he was thinking when he signed on to this pos) so its not their fault that this show sucks. They just can't help it. Blame the producers and the writers. I can't believe they shot this and were actually proud enough of their work to air 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\nWhen Las Vegas came out one review described this show as, quote \"A harmless bit of fluff\". Needless to say that after seeing a dozen or so episodes I think this description is right on the money. An assortment of pretty boys and strutting model types play out an assortment of paper thin stories while all the time trying to pretend they are serious business people. One dimensional characters, in a one dimensional setting, pursuing one dimensional stories. That pretty much sums up Vegas. I still watch from time to time to see if the show is trying to evolve and take itself a little serious but alas to no avail. So far.
\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 seen every episode, and the characters have all remained the same self absorbed whinny little brats thought out, there's no character development in 5 years (getting pregnant is not development if your still the same daddies girl, only now Delinda whines to Danny because dad isn't around) Sam never changes or grows, which makes her boring, repetitive and just so annoying its sickening after season 3, Danny is a typical soft character that gets ordered about by everyone in his life, (he has no principals morals of his own) especially Mary and Delinda. The old boring cliché will they wont they on and off relationship does get boring very fast indeed.
James Cann can act and his character is OK to watch, only he is just another hack writers wet dream, an ex CIA man that has huge contacts and training etc so he can stop any thief or cheater known to man, even though the cameras cant do half the stuff they make out its fun for a while, however in 5 years the writers act very dumb, why? Because they have all this expensive and advanced technology, but no simple walkie talkie (communicating is fast and easy) you never see security walking the floor, only when there's a situation, and suddenly everyone is just there.
The plots very quickly move from the cheating and robbing the casino in one way or another, to awful typical American boy girl relation ships, the same done to death material seen all over the world, they have sex, but I hate you, I've always loved you, I think I do but I love her/him instead, but what if, maybe one day blah blah blah.
I'd recommend ''Hotel Babylon'' to people who like Las Vegas, it has so much more going for it simply because the characters are interesting engaging and not forced down our throat for 6 months of the year.
I'm glad to be British  I'd rather see the same actors in 5 different shows rather than 5 years consistently getting worst in the same one.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nReally, REALLY... What pleases audience (american one!) in this so called show is totally beyond me. What can we learn from these series:
1. Each casino there is spending about 2-3 billion bucks every year to rent a satellite and enormous quantity of hi tech high resolution cameras for their security team. Let FBI bites the dust of them.
2. Every security employee must have voluptuous breasts, of course natural ones. The tits must be shown all the time otherwise they will lose their job.
3. If the employee happens to be a male, he needs to get breasts implanted, then go to step 2.
4. Only in Hollywood one can blatantly rip off other show's ideas then implement them as their own and call all this crap \"original\" and \"art\".
5. Every security with tits bigger than 39D is considered immortal and cannot die.
I really would like to have the opportunity to vote with minus values. -10/10 for this one!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n1) If you want to make a movie that deals with social realism it's quite important that the audience identify with the characters that are being portrayed. 2) The audience can't identify with characters that are highly stereotyped or with situations that are to obvious. 3) If you got a bad actor then you can't build any character. Anyway, even if you got nice actors their job will result ridiculous if you force them to speak with a fictitious Andalusian accent.
Jesús Ponce ignores those 3 points and also makes some cheap jokes that are completely out of place. His script is so predictable: a woman comes out of prison, she meets his old junkie boyfriend, life's tough, etc. Whatever, the fact that the story is everything but original wouldn't be that bad if only Ponce weren't a complete incompetent writing and filming.
I wonder how long will they keep giving money from our taxes to make movies such as this one.
*My rate: 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\nThis is a comedy/romance movie directed by Andy Tennant, starring Will Smith, Eva Mendes and Kevin James.
It is about a professional dating doctor -Will Smith - known as 'Hitch' who helps men to land dates with the women they are interested in. He is currently helping a shapely, clumsy Albert who is obsessed with a very powerful, famous and rich woman called Allegra. At the same time, Hitch has become interested in a gossip columnist, Sara, - Eva Mendes - who has been assigned to write about Allegra. When the best girlfriend of Sara has a love disillusion with a man that Sara thinks that is a client of Hitch, she plots a revenge against Hitch and the misunderstanding leads the two couples to a conflictive situation This film is not one that men should see as it has a lot of male-bashing and both subtle and blatant male-hating. There are also double standards that you would have to be blind not to spot. Hitch and Sara are both very guarded around the opposite sex, Hitch still likes women despite his burns from them in the past and is teaching men to make them happy. But of course Sara, is a sexist bigot who makes frequent sexist comments along the lines of \"men want to have sex with anything that walks.\" Shes self-obsessed and knows she looks like a goddess and knows there are no 'real men' out there. What annoyed me most of all was the 'bad' guy who wanted a quick fumble with Sara's best friend who is the classic example of a defenceless 'victim' and even after being turned down physically by Hitch, receives as blow to the pills from Sara, after which she says \"Now I'm satisfied.\" Add to that the \"women are still oppressed\" vibes you get from Allegra not being allowed to spend her own money after asking permission from a table of men. In spite of all the rubbish assumptions and generalisations - Women can always tell when you ain't being straight with them? - this movie does have the correct point that in America, love simply doesn't exist. There are some funny parts in this film, such as Albert and his dancing habits but this film overall, only beats the dreadful film Honey by a marginal amount.
\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\nNothing about this movie stands out as either being great or terrible.
In the end, that is what kills it. The blandness is just not good. I can't say I expected better from Will Smith, but I definitely did from Kevin James of \"The King of Queens\"-- but, hey, I'm getting used to saying that a lot lately. This film attempts to make its mark as a witty romantic comedy, but it never hits the bull's-eye. In fact, it never hits *anywhere* within the target. The allergy scene is disturbing; the fact that Kevin James can't dance is something that wouldn't exactly catch anybody off-guard, and is therefore (in a movie like this) not funny. This movie constantly tries to win your heart, but always with the wrong ploy at the wrong time. Some parts are okay (but I'm searching my brain for examples), but I really think this movie should be avoided.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhat is wrong with American movies these days? Hollyweird keeps making movies that have men acting like women and women acting like men. The idiotic male director and writer of this movie need to have their heads examined. The main problems with this film are its overt extreme feminist portrayals of the sexes.
In the scenes of the bar, Eva Mendez and her friend are swigging from the beer bottles like you may find sailors on an oil tanker doing so at a bar in Iceland. Mendez continually kisses every girl she sees after that. She also dresses provocatively in every scene, yet curses like a guy. She gets very emotional when she fights with Will Smith for a while, while trying to 'defend' all women from bad guys everywhere.
The men are no better in this movie. What we see is a bunch of idiots trying to do anything they can to win a date. The males in this movie are concerned with getting either sexual favours or unable to speak clearly when face to face with a woman. Men in real life do not behave this way.
What we see in this movie is a product of culture gone awry. Everything is flip-flopped. Guys act like girls, girls act like guys. All this is done while keeping the extreme predilections of the sexes very much a part of the story. Men are shown as soft and stupid but only interested in sex most of the time, while women are shown as macho and overbearing but only as a veneer for their emotional insecurities.
This movie would be good if it wasn't presented obnoxiously to the audience. The content is not the culprit. It is the manner in which the content is presented.
\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, *Hitch* is decidedly NOT a romantic-comedy about bilious (and bibulous) former-Leftist-pundit-turned-reactionary-pundit Christopher Hitchens, though it sure would've made for a funnier movie. A dumpy little Englishman, teeth stained black from cigarettes and Guinness, barking out advice -- and acerbic political commentary -- to lovelorn men: \"Look into her EYES when you speak to her, you nutter! And remember: calling someone a 'neo-conservative' makes you a de facto anti-Semite! Can't you get anything straight, you liberal pantywaist?\"
Oh well. Instead, we get Will Smith, whose continuing success remains a mystery to me, at least. I am apparently alone in this regard. Smith is the most powerful man in Hollywood as of this writing: Americans just can't help throwing their money at him. I, on the other hand, find his smugness insufferable, unmitigated by a scene here (spoiled by the trailer) where he suffers a drastic allergic reaction to seafood. We know Smith will bounce back to his bland, over-muscled good looks, because there's a fat sit-com actor (Kevin James) on hand making a fool of himself. We're supposed to laugh hysterically whenever the slob starts dancing like a jackass (cue \"Everybody Dance Now!\" by CC Music Factory), but why would a straight-arrow accountant behave in such a way? I've worked with several straight-arrow accountants for years, and I can tell you that if, in Norman Mailer's memorable phrase, \"tough guys don't dance\", neither do straight-arrow accountants. Am I taking all this too seriously? Or -- and here's a daring thought -- perhaps the writers couldn't conceive a logically-drawn character to save their lives?
Speaking of the writers, they come up with a lousy idea for Smith's love interest: a writer for a tabloid (Eva Mendes). Since when do tabloid creeps deserve love? What universe am I in, anyway? -- everyone here at IMDb is actually gushing over this tripe. Either you all need to raise the bar, in terms of entertainment value for your buck, or I'm just a skunk at the garden party. (Me, and about 150 million other long-suffering boyfriends and husbands.) In any case, if I may imitate Smith's Hitch and offer my male readers some smooth advice: when you're dragged to see *Hitch*, say to your Better Half, \"Hey, that was pretty good\" after the movie is over. Don't be overenthusiastic; don't rave about it -- she'll know you're lying to her. Praise it in a lightly surprised way, as if the movie was better than you expected and wasn't the agonizing time-waster that it actually was. But what am I saying, eh, fellas? -- we dudes know all the moves.
1 star out of 10.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI cannot believe I actually sat through the whole of this movie! It was absolutely awful, and totally cringe-worthy, and yet I sat through it thinking it had to get better. It didn't, and I have wasted 2 hours of my life. Will Smith is much better in action movies - I loved him in I, Robot, Enemy of the State and Independence Day - and I don't think he can really be expected to carry off an entire movie as the romantic lead in the way that Cary Grant could. Then again, the script was unbearably awful, and the dialogue was so cheesy.
I disliked everyone except for Albert's character, and even that I found was done with a heavy hand. If you want to watch a modern feel-good romantic comedy, watch something like How To Lose A Guy In Ten Days, or When Harry Met Sally. The 40 Year Old Virgin left me with a smile on my face. I even preferred Music and Lyrics above this - and yes, I know it's cheesy, but at least it didn't take itself seriously, and was sweet. I also disliked the main female lead - and wasn't convinced of the chemistry between her and Will Smith's character.
In all, I think there were two scenes that I liked (and definitely not the ending, which was nauseating and unconvincing!) - Hitch calling Sarah when she hadn't given him her number was quite sweet, and - no, sorry, that's the only thing I liked about the entire film. Don't waste 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\nWell, it is standard Hollywood schmaltz that you can see coming a mile off. It's enjoyable in parts but just oh so predictable. I must confess I did not really enjoy it, but I am pretty tough to please and a lot of my friends loved it.
It is quite sweet, and the actors give good performances. It's a nice backdrop and the eye candy is pretty good. But the irritatingly predictable, unoriginal and really quite dull storyline holds the film back. Personally, I can think of better ways to spend a couple of hours of my life.
The chick flick genre gets some bad press but there are some genuinely good chick flicks out there; this isn't 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\nFor what it's worth, this is a fairly decent Road Runner cartoon, if a little short (just under 6 minutes). The gags are adequate at best, the animation is competent, and the new restored DVD master looks nice. However, that's where the qualities end. Allow me to provide a little backstory: in 1958, thanks to a labour dispute, WB got hold of a bunch of canned music that would be used in 6 of the year's cartoons.
There is only one phrase to describe this short's music, and that is \"it has the 4Kids sound\". I use that phrase to describe music which has absolutely no correspondence to the on screen action, and feels like it was recorded by an orchestra consisting of members of a Sonic Youth cover band. The music in this short feels hopelessly tacked on and incredibly obnoxious, especially considering there are scenes in this short (namely the piano trap) that would have worked best with little or no music.
I didn't think a WB cartoon would be ruined by awful music (even Lava's scores aren't this obnoxious), but considering the cartoon isn't that notable anyway, it becomes almost painful to watch with the music. It's kind of like how late 80's episodes of Doctor Who could be bad anyway, and yet be made unwatchable thanks to Keff McCulloch's unbelievably awful music (which sounded like he hit the demo button on all 5 of his Casio keyboards at the same time).
I am going to have people call me crazy for this, but I'd easily watch one of Larriva's RR cartoons over this. At least the canned music was usually in sync with the action on those.
\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\nAccording to the article at http://blog.ifeng.com/article/2737487.html, one of the actors in the film, Carina Lau, was forced to appear in this movie for free. She was the victim of an infamous kidnapping shortly before this movie was made, and later photos of her in distress were published in a magazine, which has since been forced to shut down and its publisher sent to jail. The actress denies she was assaulted but there was a movie leaked on net that allegedly showed her being gang-raped. (The Hong Kong press, out of respect for her, has mostly refused to report on the incident, but google will turn up a few articles about 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\n2 deathly unfunny girls stays a their deathly unfunny Uncle Benny's beach house. Uncle Beeny doesn't like party. But guess what? the deathly unfunny girls have a, yup you guessed it, a deathly unfunny beach party. If you didn't catch the not so subliminal message that I'm trying to convey. First off, you're a moron. I would rather watch a nude jello tag team watching match between Bea Aurther and Cameryn Manhiem VS. Rosie O'Donnell and Jessica Tandy. This movie, and I lose the term loosely is just THAT bad.
My Grade: F
Eye Candy: Kristin Novak and Charity Rahmer go topless, Iva Singer shows breasts and buns
\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 awful. If you're considering to see this movie... two words DO NOT. It's tasteless, the storyline is really lame, and the jokes are even worse. The acting is really pathetic. I can't believe that this movie was made. Rather watch American Pie, Going Greek or Road Trip if you're in the mood for a teen comedy. It's about two girls who head for Malibu on their Spring Break. As usual they didn't do much planning and called (i think her names Michelle)'s uncle to crash at his Malibu mansion. Uncle Bennie strictly forbids them of having any kind of party, and as you would of guessed, they go ahead and do it. Please, I urge you, do not see this movie.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is by far and away the stupidest thing I have ever seen on celluloid. I mean, we started watching it assuming it was a \"skinemax T&A flick\", but aside from a couple boobs, that was it. I mean, I get the point of making stupid movies in order to show some sex scenes, as they are the sole reason for a movie of that kind to be made. This movie, however, has no sex scenes, and really has no point at all. There is no linear time, the scenes travel around like a fart in the wind, people show up for no reason, then leave, and it is never explained, the plot is never advanced, and nothing happens. I have never been as flabbergasted at how bad a movie was until I saw this. Has the director even been to a film school? Has he ever seen a movie? I don't know, but from the looks of it, he seems to have made some moron proud with this piece of crap, as he is still working. I literally walked away from this movie dumber, but I still recommend watching it, as it should be shown in every film school of the country as an example in what not to do when making a film. Move over PLan 9 from Outer Space, you have a new contender for worst movie ever made.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie had lots of potential, beautiful women, cute guys, a beach, beer, a hot tub, a mansion on the beach, a swimming pool, a sexy maid who hates her job, and really nice cars. However, the movie had one thing that doomed it to failure... a full length script and a bunch of sexy women who want to give acting a try because they think it would be a cool idea.
Let's put it this way...
If you find yourself at a party and you have a choice between watching this movie or a childs potty training video from the 70s, choose the potty training video.
\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\ntoo predictable for spoilers, but i'll not be cagey below, so don't read it if you care.
a few dull scriptwriters together for half an afternoon, and even then they run out of ideas. so let's start with a criminal sought by all France...doesn't matter what he has done, we'll think of that later (they don't). some seconds of suspense, but not too much, and nothing unexpected, because that requires Art. half an hour needed to finish off the film; i get it: have them rob a jeweller's, and take a lot of time avoiding alarms etc.; everybody robs jewellers in films just ike this, it's bound to work (it doesn't). no humour, no character (ok, yves montand does get to ham it a weeny bit) and have everyone speak in a quiet deadpan voice that is supposed to make one think of noir, but merely makes the actors sound depressed. if they are silent, it'll make them seem grimmer - but also save us writing their lines. we'd better add something for the stay at home women who are going to watch this stuff, so let's have something to make them empathise with hubby (we forgot to put any women in the film). got it: a son on (gasp) marijuana - oh, and have him attempt suicide for no particular reason (shame? his dad's a mafia boss for crying out loud, but the audience will feel his fatherly care, and if not, sod them). oh, the crooked cop was a classmate of the guy who gets him in the end; wrenching, eh? let's have them all die at the end, or we'll never finish this stuff. is it in the can? right, that's over with then, thank god. who'll we get for director?
\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\nJack Black and Kyle Gass play fantasy versions of themselves in this comic showcase for their side-band Tenacious D, an art-rock outfit with satirical, barbed lyrics. An ex-runaway obsessed with heavy metal and a beachfront-living, pot-smoking slacker who pretends he's a rock god meet and form a band (the birthmarks on both their butt-cheeks form the group's moniker). Opening with a funny prologue which apes a Twisted Sister video from the '80s, \"The Pick of Destiny\" is a fairly well-produced movie aimed at older kids; it occasionally resembles nothing more than a middle-aged variation of \"Wayne's World\", with jokey-stoner interludes and a climactic bout with Beelzebub himself, yet Black and Gass have an enormously comfortable rapport (they also acted as producers, co-wrote the script and all the music). The target audience will obviously go for it, though inspiration is a bit low, particularly in the second-half (just about the time our heroes impulsively outrun the cops in a student-driver car). The music sequences are far more successful than the attempts at movie satire and, for the first thirty minutes or so, Jack Black's manic enthusiasm is infectious. *1/2 from ****
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n\"Once again, we have a movie that packs about 20 minutes of entertainment -- much of it involving the band's occasionally funny lyrics -- into a 90-minute package.\" For anyone old enough to remember, this is along lines of the first \"Bill and Ted\" WITHOUT the story line. If that doesn't say enough as to how brainless this movie is, think about Jack Black singing for about 20 minutes of the movie and that being its selling point. If you actually like listening to Tenacious D because of their musical prowess, then knock yourself out and buy the soundtrack. Don't waste your time with this though. If your a stoner looking for a good bad movie filled with laughs, you're still barking up the wrong tree. No matter the potency of your buds, you'll still be left wishing you'd popped in Grandma's Boy again instead.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is about as pretentious a movie as a shallow director like Joel Schumacher could make, I suppose. A group of medical students take it turns to die for several minutes; upon revival they discover that their sins have manifested themselves somehow or other. As some of the characters are visited by dead people and some just seem to be haunted by their guilty consciences it's not quite clear exactly what the connection is, but the visions do all seem to look like sixth form art films. Why the students treat their experiment as some kind of grand journey that'll make them famous is a bit of a mystery, as the results are completely unproveable and, as the movie mentions several times, have been documented plenty of times before. Still, it's nice to see Schumacher practising for his Batman trainwrecks with a bit of the old neon paint and coloured lightbulbs. And William Baldwin is a plank.
\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 bunch of medical student yuppies get together in their spare time to hook each other to the electrical cables and die. Then they stand around counting the time before brain death, and then start CPR and heart-massage and bring each other back to life. The fact that Julia Roberts was in this movie should say it all. FLATLINERS is like group GHOST. Everyone wants to see their dead relatives and visit their old dead buddies, so what better way to do it than have a bunch of Medical Students kill you for five minutes and then bring you back to life. The rest of the movie has the predictable relationship issues, plus the predictable \"GEE MAYBE IF WE KEEP KILLING EACH OTHER, ONE OF THESE DAYS ONE OF US WILL STAY DEAD?\" D'OH!!! This movie should have been called BRAIN DEAD. The fact that the characters were depicted as being Medical Students made me wonder if they had gone to a foreign Correspondence School to get their degrees. The only thing that kept this film from being a total laugh was that they did not just stick their fingers into electrical outlets in order to \"die.\" This film would have been a great THREE STOOGES comedy 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\nI don't much mind the factors that others here have objected to - acting, lighting and so forth. For the most part, these things were executed well enough to carry the film and put its points across. It's just a horror film, after all.
What bugged me were the points themselves. Because this is a deeply moralistic film, and its morality is deeply tacky. In fact it's actually fundamentalist Christian morality, and this is a fundamentalist Christian film. Look at the 'sins':
* Sutherland's character picked on a kid at school when he was a pre-teen, leading to his accidental death.
* Baldwin's character used masculine wiles, persuasion and good looks to shag quite a few women, some of whom he videotaped. Ooh, the swine! How unlucky for him that women are such passive, gormless creatures that they had no complicity in the matter.
* Roberts' character's dad came back from Vietnam a junkie, so ashamed to be caught shooting up that he kills himself. Yes, what a terrible sin! Why couldn't he have just become an alcoholic like all the others?
* and Bacon's character picked on another schoolkid. How awful! The fact that he was a child himself apparently counts for nought. Children, it seems, are divinely judged by adult criteria.
Well, maybe lots of people support this level of moral absolutism. It certainly seems to have gone unremarked in this movie's comments. Does everyone just buy this stuff? At least human laws treat children differently from adults, recognising that their ethical sense is partially-formed. This film has no such qualms, and I find that pretty objectionable. Ditto the notion that women are helpless, fluffy creatures before young men's evil lusts. Or that a Vietnam vet driven to drug addiction is so shameful that suicide is a valid option. Pathetic.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhat I came away with after watching this movie was a guilty conscience. The film itself has a rather intriguing plot line and premise to it, but unfortunately it is a movie that you cannot watch with out being bombarded with pornography. If you plan on viewing this and have a moral problem with the degradation of the marital act for the viewing pleasure of an audience then you are making a big mistake. This is not the type of movie with the token sex scene that you can skip on your DVD player. Near the beginning of the film Baldwin's character is video taping his sexual exploits without the knowledge of his partner. This tape and others like it continue to pop up throughout the movie at unpredictable times. It appears that the film is attempting to make a statement about the dignity of women. Ironically in doing so they made multiple women into prostitutes. I only gave it a 2 instead of a 1 because had they handled Baldwin's promiscuity better it would have been an interesting film.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"