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\nThis is by far the worst version of William Shakespeare's tragic masterpiece I have ever seen. It seems the filmmakers didn't actually read Shakespeare's text. No, they just took what they wanted from the Lawerence Olivier movie. The plot is out of order and slimmed down to its bare necessity, yet there is time for the non-canon Olivier created incest hint between Hamlet and Queen Gertrude. Could we have had the \"Something rotten in the state of Denmark\" bit instead? Casting is another issue. I understand that the far superior Branagh movie had its weak bits (Robin Williams and Charlton Heston come to mind), but this one has very few good moments. I do like Laertes and Polonius, but the rest of the cast is stale. Mel Gibson's creepy stubble is irritating, and one often wonders if he has any idea what he is saying. Many of the actors seem to have just memorized the part--they know less about what is being said than sophomores in high school.
If you want a version of Hamlet, check out Kenneth Branagh's or even Lawerence Olivier. To be frank, even Disney's Hamlet is better.
\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, to each his own, but I thought Gibson's Hamlet was the most god-awful rendition I had ever witnessed... as subtly nuanced as a paper bag, and as inspired as a telemarketing call. The only reason I watched the movie through to the end was that I held out hope that either it would get better or become unintentionally funny. No luck.
No disrespect for the supporting cast or for Zefferelli's staging, but nothing can make up for the bungling of the main character. I have seen Hamlet well-portrayed as an African prince, as an animated lion, as a rough-and-tumble warrior, as a romantic poet, etc. etc. etc. . But IMHO this portrayal was just a plentiful lack of wit together with most weak hams.
\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 is one of the joys of Shakespeare that there can be no definitive performances - no single performance can be right', but some can be wrong, and this one is. There are at least two things about Hamlet which cannot be dispensed with: 1. His indecisiveness and inability to take any kind of action. For God's sake that is what makes the play last as long as it does. If you had Othello there instead of Hamlet, Claudius would be dead by the end of Act One. Any production has to try to explain why Hamlet delays, why he is incapable of action. 2. His sexual disgust. His total revulsion at the thought of what his mother and uncle get up to in bed fill him with an utter disgust for all things sexual and this means that any kind of relationship with Ophelia is impossible. At the slightest hint of sex, Hamlet throws up. So, what does Mel Gibson give us? Lusty action-man. You could not get further from the character of Hamlet if you tried. There are lots of ways Hamlet can be played, but this isn't one of them! What I don't understand is since they managed to get such good actors for the other parts - Claudius, Polonius and so on, why couldn't they find one to play Hamlet as well. Mark Rylance in the part would have made this a great film. This Mel Gibson', whoever he is, completely let down the rest of the cast. And lets face it, Hamlet without the prince really doesn't work.
\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\nAdmittedly, the only reason I watched this film -- since it's been about a decade since it was released -- was because of Ian Holm; I was intrigued to see his portrayal of my second-favorite character in this play. At any rate, this film is as gritty as anything the Old Zeff has produced since \"Jesus of Nazareth.\" But some of the best parts of the play have been left out. I understand the directing/editing choices, but I don't think that it really does justice to the play. Perhaps I'm too much a purist. I would have to direct people (who have read this far) toward Branagh's version, if it weren't that I despise his tendency toward over-dramatization. All the same, he plays a better Hamlet than Gibson. But then, weren't we all waiting for Gibson to prove himself as an actor? Now, all he's done is to prove that he wants to make films in extinct languages.
...Perhaps the only Shakespearean-worthy acting here is Scofield as The Ghost.
\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
The play has been heavily edited and the order of the scenes has been completely mixed up. The acting is appalling (especially by Helena Bonham Carter) and the cinematography poor.
The result is a slow, confused, boring film which will put those new to Shakespeare off Shakespeare instantly!
If you can't see a stage play then at least see the Olivier version (1948) instead of this drivel!
\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(This is a review of the later English release by Disney, featuring Alison Lohman, Patrick Stewart, and co.)
I really wanted this film to be good. Really, really. I'm a huge fan of Princess Mononoke and Spirited Away, and after seeing all the glowing reviews on this earlier Miyazaki film, I was eager to see it. But I was shocked, shocked I say, at the quality of this film. Those later films boast well-crafted plots, 3-dimensional characters, and the best film music since...well...ever. This film just doesn't come close.
Might as well start w/ the positive aspects, though. Like all Miyazaki films, this one is still very imaginative, with a bizarre fantasy/sci-fi setting, in a post-apocalyptic world where insects are the dominant species. Nausicaa can also boast some far superior animation to other films from its time. (though not as beautiful and fluid as Miyazaki's later films) And the English voice acting is quite well done.
But this film...just...isn't...good... The characters are all cardboard - from saccharine sweet little Nausicaa, to the ruthlessly evil Tolmekians, to everyone in between. Once you've seen each of them for 30 seconds, you've seen all there is. And the fact that the plot just ambles along doesn't help.
Then there's the music... Now, Hisaichi is hands down my favorite film composer, but Nausicaa doesn't do him justice. Half the music is 80's keyboards on overdrive, and it usually enters and leaves so abruptly that it distracts the visuals rather than helping them. I highly suspect that Hisaichi was told to compose a lot of the music before he even saw the picture.
But wait! There's a great message with this film, right?! Let's all save the environment! Too bad that this film hits you over the head with it like a sledgehammer. There is a scene in which Nausicaa hugs a tree. No, really. I ain't kidding.
It makes me a little sad to talk about how lame this film is. But for some reason all the other reviews on IMDb seem to adore it. And when the characters have to talk to themselves in extended sentences to tell you what's going on, that's lame.
If you're the kind of person who worships anime, enjoys 80's music, and plants a tree every Arbor day, you will probably like this film. Otherwise, save your money for his later films, because they rock big 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 am partly a fan of Miyazaki's work. I say \"partly\" because most of his films fall into two categories: brilliant, and boring. Sadly this film falls into the later category.
This film suffers from the same fundamental problems as Miyazaki's recent film \"Howl's Moving Castle\". An intriguing premise is set up, but then immediately reduced to little more than a backdrop for some unfathomable events that only serve to confuse the plot rather than explain it.
The first third of the film reveals the post-apocalyptic world the story is set in, and actually looks like an very interesting story is about to unfold. From then on things go down hill. The middle part of the film is mostly made up of thinly-veiled eco-propaganda, and the ending is heavily marred by the reliance on the kind of impenetrable spiritualism which ruins a large number of Japanese animated films.
Overall the film feels as though someone ripped out every other page from the script before passing it on the the animators. What is left is something which is visually stunning (although sadly the version I saw was an Nth-generation copy, with poor colour - which gives rise to the common myth that Nausicaa shows her bare bottom when flying), but which makes little sense and ultimately left me confused.
\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 very difficult to understand, why do the couple want to divorce ? No reason is given, we don't know anything about their life in Lisbon, and even nothing about Marie's job. We may only understand that a certain bore appeared in this life. We don't even know who took the initiative of asking the divorce.
The way of filming is kind of special : I didn't know the director's name before the end of the movie, when I read it on the screen, I understood why it was so slow, only 42 shots in a hundred minutes (I counted them) ! It reminded me of some Japanese movies I saw in the 90's, in fact we must accept that this is the expression of another culture even if the set is occidental. I don't know if this story would have suited a Japanese couple.
One can see the logic of the scenes but the result is a bore, anyway I decided to watch it to the end because I wanted to get the spirit and the meaning of it all. In fact, I only understood that the story of these two beings may not be over yet since the train leaves the station without Marie. This is few for such a long time ! I can't recommend this work.
\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 usually much prefer French movies over American ones, with explosions and car chases, but this movie was very disappointing. There is no way to write a spoiler because nothing really happens. This French couple has been living in Lisbon for years, and they return to Paris for a friend's wedding. They announce to another friend they are having dinner with that they are going to split. Then nothing much happens, they don't seem to know whether they want to separate or not. I don't necessarily think that their hesitations make for a bad movie, it is very human to hesitate before making such a decision for good, but this could be treated in an interesting manner, giving some flesh to their desires and their relationship, but that does not happen. One gets out of the theater unsure of why these two got together or want to split. The only piece I enjoyed was the conversation with the drunk. That was true to life.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI thought this is an unbelievable boring movie! i heard the director can't speak french and so he left his actors tell what they wanted... Well, Valeria Bruni-Tedeschi is great, as usual but I can't say the same of other actors. They have nothing to say, especially Bruno Todeschini.
They all seem very tired, this being one of the movie plot : tired of being together, of living abroad, of their live in general; so they spend half the movie sleeping in a hotel room. After a while i felt sleepy myself...
I gave 4, because of some very beautiful scenes, including the last 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\n(Only light spoilers in here)
Stealing Sinatra is a half-slapstick comedy about dimwit kidnappers, dimwit victims, and a few other side-stories thrown in to eat up some time.
You will see some poor performances all around in this movie. The drama is forced, and the humor makes no sense. Whether you're watching the kidnappers threaten the victim who won't shut up, or a victim's father responding to the criminal's death threat with \"Care for some tea?\", none of it is believable. This quite comfortably fits into the \"wannabe movie\" category.
You will also be listening to a repetitive goofy music track throughout pretty much the entire movie. It's quite unprofessional, and adds nothing. It's really just a sad attempt at making an achingly unfunny movie seem somewhat witty.
However, if you're able to look past all of this and suspend a lot of disbelief, you might be entertained by the adequate storyline.
I voted 4/10.
\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\nUnderwoods goofy story about a young man(Arquette) who convinces his friends that they should kidnap Frank Sinatra Jr. (Nicholas). The film is written ridiculously, direction is odd, dialogues are out of place and scrambled, the actors didn't do it much justice either, Arquette is annoying throughout, Ian Nicholas was nonexistent, Macy was decent, but only because hes a pretty good actor and probably just tried his best not to come out of this project with a totally embarrassing performance, he was at least tolerable. This is a stupid film in my eyes, boring at times, not entertaining, just a film that i wouldn't recommend to anybody. IMDb Rating: 5.5, my rating: 4/10
\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\nYah. I know. It has the name \"Sinatra\" in the title, so how bad can it be? Well, it's bad, trust me! I rented this thinking it was some movie I missed in the theaters. It's not. It's some garbage \"movie\" made by the folks at Showtime (cable station). Geez, these cable stations make a few bucks they think they can make whatever garbage movies they want! It's not good. I am as big a Sinatra fan as any sane man, but this movie was just dumb. Boring. Dull. Unfunny. Uninteresting. The only redeeming quality is that (assuming they did stick to the facts) you do learn about what happened to the captors of Frank Jr. Otherwise it's just a stupid 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\nI don't know where to begin. Perhaps the whole idea of this movie was just a disaster waiting to happen. There is nothing slightly humorous about a kidnapping. I don't know what was more offensive--the subject matter or David Arquette's \"performance\". It was like watching a bull get it's penis cut off, although I think the bull felt better afterwards. The filmmakers should find something about Sinatra other than his son's kidnapping to show (like, I don't know, his TALENT AS A SINGER!!!!). His family shouldn't have to relive that horror. Thank GOD it was just shown on HBO and not released in theaters. Please don't watch this if you have any self respect.
\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\nExcept for the glossy look, this show had little to recommend it. The writing was patronizing and convoluted. Without exception the characters were shallow and unsympathetic. The female characters came off the worst... reduced to spoiled, selfish airheads whose soul ambition was to run around in slip dresses and stilettos, and try to bag a man. This aspect of the show is all the more curious as the series was produced by two women! The acting for the most part was dull and humourless with the cast playing one dimensional characters attacking every scene on the same note. This is not entirely the actors fault. Had they spent more time developing the characters and the storyline, adding a little injection of style and humour, MVP might have been a hit. What we're left with is something flat and vaguely unpleasant.
\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 Ustinov's distinctive, literate narration. And the photography is quiet nice. We put the film on for our 3.5 year old who sort of wandered in and out of the room. So for our first viewing, we only saw about 1/3 of the movie and were quite charmed. When we re-watched, sitting down for family time,we were all mortified at the violence and life-threatening situations the poor otter got into. About halfway through the movie, there's a rack of dead, bloody furry animals. Lots of blood, not just a little. Then at the end, there's a wild struggle with a dog, then blood clouds the water. You'd think, given the G rating, that's all you'll see...that they will IMPLY one of the animals died. Nope. They drag the carcass out of the water and show it plainly for several traumatizing seconds. Personally, as an adult I love horror movies and am fine with violent movies ala Scorsese, Cronenberg, Tarantino. Heck, I love the ultra violent Battle Royale. But those aren't kid movies and don't advertise themselves as such. If you are deliberately raising your young ones to see the harsh realities of life for cute animals, then this is the movie for you. If you are like me and my wife though, you might want to spare your child nightmares and avoid 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\nI have never felt the need to add a review to this website until now, but having just sat through the film I felt it necessary to warn parents who may be thinking of showing it to their children. Please don't! This is no Disney film. This film tells us 'life is cruel' and if you show it to your children, in my opinion, you are too.
The video box describes the film as a 'delight for all ages' and the IMDb plot outline describes it as a 'family film'. I just had to find a definition of 'family film' and came across the following: \"Usually consisting of comedies or adventures, these films are often based on children's literature and can involve any number of helpful animals, friendly supernatural beings and fantasy worlds, all geared to stimulate and appeal to the imagination. Whatever the situation, there is little or no offensive material and generally a lesson is learned on the way.\" Not an apt description of Tarka The Otter, which contains some thoroughly unpleasant scenes, totally unsuitable for young children, and an ending that qualifies the film as a 'feel bad' movie. The lesson learned? As I said: life is cruel. Family entertainment? I don't think so. Unless you hate your family, that is.
Another review, more revealing than this but worth reading, can be found by following the 'external reviews' link.
\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 don't know much about the Marquis de Sade, not having read any of his book, but I never imagined him as a flaming queen. Carson Kressley of Queer Eye For the Straight Guy, or Jack from Will and Grace would have fit easily into the role that Nick Mancuso gave us.
The movie itself was rather thin and seemed more of a parody - or an excuse to show the Paris whorehouse several times with men and women having a good time on the couches in the parlor. What? They can't afford a room? I did find it cute that the Madame (Irina Malysheva) felt she was doing her patriotic duty taking care of the soldier's needs.
The movie was just an excuse to show a lot of breasts - and I mean a lot! Fans of Gimli (John Rhys-Davies) might be interested in seeing him in a different role as Inspector Marais.
\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 revisionist history -- making the evil Marquis de Sade a semi-heroic romantic -- is mind-boggling enough. But the atrocious acting, amateurish cinematography and terrible dubbing make this film achingly bad. The only reason to keep watching is that almost all the women in the film are gorgeous. And, amazingly, being tortured for days, with hands bound overhead, apparently doesn't detract from a woman's beauty, hairstyle and makeup. My guess is that the producers filmed mostly in Russia, choosing women for their looks -- and willingness to work cheap -- rather than acting ability. If you decide to watch this because you have nothing better to do, or are a film student looking for bad examples, fast-forward through every scene not involving nudity.
\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 not very bad tjough. But one cannot find anything new about the personality of Marquis de Sade from this movie. The movie tries to stay on the borderline between erotic and insightful and it cannot succeed at either. The cinematography is really bad (straigh-to video quality)

\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI would like to know the real name of the Lodge where scenes from the movie were filmed. It is truly beautiful and hearkens back to 20's and 30's architecture like the Hotel Del Coronado. I know it was on either Big Bear Lake or Lake Arrowhead and would like to hear if it is still in existence. As for the movie itself, it is truly amazing that Jane Wyman was even nominated for an Academy Award. This must have been a period when she was well liked by her Academy peers. It really would have been interesting to get a true impression from Wyman and the other actors in this movie regarding the script. The script of this movie, like the recent Kevin Costner movie with a message in a bottle, is so unbelievable that it it limits the credibility that the actors can bring to their parts. Rock Hudson can be forgiven. He was never a great actor, was able to get by mostly on his looks and didn't get credible roles until later in his career (Pretty Maids is the exception). But Wyman must have been forced to take this movie through contractual requirements or the studio system.
\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\nDaft potboilers don't come much dafter than this, but it's a Douglas Sirk movie which makes everything alright. Except in this case it doesn't. Based on a sanctimonious novel by the sanctimonious Lloyd C Douglas, (he wrote \"The Robe\"), and already filmed in 1935 with Irene Dunne and Robert Taylor, it's got more uplift than a cantilever bra.
Rock Hudson is the arrogant playboy who not only feels responsible for making Jane Wyman a widow but later is directly responsible for the accident in which she loses her sight. To make amends he takes up medicine, becomes a great eye surgeon and restores it. (No, it sin't quite that daft; he had planned to become a doctor before becoming an arrogant playboy). In between times, they fall in love.
Try as I might I can't quite find the redeeming social commentary and critique of American mores that are supposed to lie just below the surface of Sirk's films, (this one isn't too deep). On the plus side Rock Hudson isn't half bad, (I think I am rediscovering him), and, of course, it looks great, (in Sirk's films people live in rooms the size of cathedrals). Nothing in this film matches the best of his later work and even in soap-opera terms this is definitely daytime TV.
\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 at my in-laws' house one night when it popped up on TV and my mother-in-law said it was one of her favorite movies. Well, she can have it.
Look, I can enjoy a chick flick now and then, as long as it's good. But this one's extra-sappy, unrealistic, and just plain predictable, despite some decent performances from Rock Hudson and Jane Wyman. It's uncanny how quickly a woman can accept having her eyesight taken away from her. Oh well, they say love is blind...
The neat and tidy happy little ending nearly made me gag, too. And how often did we need Otto Kruger repeating the title? It happened not once, not twice, but THREE times!
\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\nOne of the more prominent/popular episodes, but clearly one of the worst. A red-shirt female falls for Khan (instead of dropping dead - for a change) and then proceeds to betray Kirk and the Enterprise as if loyalty were a non-existent character trait on the ship. Makes one wonder what kind of psychology tests this supposedly brilliant Starfleet uses to test people when hiring. We have the same kind of absurd lack of loyalty in \"Wink Of An Eye\", when a red-shirt male takes the enemy's side just because he falls in love! Same as in SS. (However, in that episode the betrayal plays a tiny role in the overall plot.) This is very silly because it once again makes Kirk's crew seem like a bunch of soft-headed, easy-to-impress morons, who - once they fall in love with the enemy - are capable of doing just about anything. The fact that McGivers switches back to Kirk's side doesn't ameliorate the illogic in any way. Lord McGiveth and the Lord McTaketh...
Why is Khan kept behind a regular door when they know he has superior strength? That's one of several ST plot-devices that undermine Kirk's intelligence. Why does Khan hold a knife against McCoy's throat? If Khan is of such superior intelligence then one would expect him to be more wily with the way he carries himself. And what's with a Sikh being played with a Latino accent? Montalban should have been provided with a vocal coach. I was half-expecting to hear \"the plaaain! the plaaaain!\" in the background at any moment. Why the hell would Kirk (or any ship captain) provide limitless use of the ship's library concerning the innermost technical details of the Enterprise to ANYONE? Is the Starfleet an institution solely consisting of idiots?
SS is a very cartoonish, silly episode, so no wonder Trekkies love it. It doesn't have too many sci-fi elements in it, which is what Trekkies hate the most. It also figures that the ST franchise chose to revive this dull character for the second movie, that way pleasing rabid Trekkies, who were so very disappointed with the first movie which - you guessed it - had far too much sci-fi for the average tiny Trekkie brain.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI have seen this movie and I did not care for this movie anyhow. I would not think about going to Paris because I do not like this country and its national capital. I do not like to learn french anyhow because I do not understand their language. Why would I go to France when I rather go to Germany or the United Kingdom? Germany and the United Kingdom are the nations I tolerate. Apparently the Olsen Twins do not understand the French language just like me. Therefore I will not bother the France trip no matter what. I might as well stick to the United Kingdom and meet single women and play video games if there is a video arcade. That is all.
\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 alright. Mary-Kate and Ashley play twin sisters (sorry for stating the obvious) who against their will are sent to Paris to spend the week with their rich uncle or something like that.
Right away two French boys (who looked slightly inbred) start talking to them and taking interest. Blah blah blah. It's an Olsen twin movie - we already know what's going to happen between them. Anyway, along with that, the twins meet a FABULOUS French model because they're in Paris, the fashion capital of the world. They make bffs with the model and spend a fun montage of shopping in the city of lights. Yep.
Plotwise, I frankly can't remember what happened. I guess that could say something, but hey, it's an Olsen movie. \"Olsen movie\" seems to be synonymous with \"light entertainment\".
Overall, this movie was annoying. I mean, can I really identify at all with two girls who are devastated upon hearing that they're going to Paris? Really? Also, the jokes really weren't that funny. However, I watched the whole movie. So it had to be somewhat entertaining. The fact that it was set in Paris was what probably kept me watching.
\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 once a big Olsen fan. I received this movie when I was six and watched it almost nonstop until I was nine. Then it lay on my shelf gathering dust until yesterday. I was left speechless.
Mary-Kate and Ashley play Allie and Mel, two twelve year olds who are sent to spend Spring Break in Paris with their ambassador grandfather. Along the way, they meet, as one might expect, two cute French boys who show them the more fun side to Paris. I guess the two boys were okay, fake French accents aside.
The plot is predictable and the humour is shallow and corny. Mary-Kate and Ashley play two shallow girls with too much make up on their face.
Don't watch this movie if you're not into the Olsen twins or family 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\nA stupid movie, with a stupid plot. Feels like they threw every imaginable cliché in a blender. I especially \"Liked\" the part, where two teenage girls gets the french president to clean the water. Because we all know how dedicated America is to conservation of the environment. Kyoto, anyone?? And the french chef, who has apparently never seen or tasted a hamburger... This is why people think Americans have no culture. That, and the fact that we meet your kids when they come to Europe to \"see the world\" (i.e. eat at McDonalds in foreign capitals) They are not as dumb as the two ditsy preteens in this movie, but they have just about the same amount of cultural enlightenment and good manners.
\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 boys were the most appealing things in the entire movie. the girls were lame and pathetic, i mean, how can they own their own clothing line, dolls, movies, producing studios, and not smell this bomb from far away? in order to gain some sort of responsibility, which i dont really see the sense in the punishment..., they are sent to paris, far far far away from home to live with the so-called strict grandfather who holds an important standing with paris. i cant really remember what he was, so who really cares? the detail doesnt help, the girls are sent to paris to learn something.. so what exactly do they learn when they meet two french boys and are able to manipulate the guy that supposed to watch them so they can meet these guys on scooters? the typical pre-teen movie, having all pre-teens wishing to misbehave and be able to afford the trip to paris or some far away country away from parents? i dont really like the olsens anyways, they never could really shake off the image of michelle, on full house... in case you didnt see that, then you were lucky from the start. (F F-)
\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 watched this movie. Someone needs to kick me. WHY must the Olsen twins insist on subjecting the world to this putrid torture? This was another movie of watching the Olsen twins travel to an exotic location, meet some cute guys,look pretty and have everyone drooling over them.the direction,the plot development,ugh the acting. i don't know about the U.S., but in my country it is considered extremely stupid to hop onto the bike of a guy u met like,10 minutes back. though i'm now convinced that these girls will never learn to act, i really hope that one day we'll get to watch a movie with an original,even slightly plausible 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\nThis movie is pretty predictable nuff said....from the delayed kissing scene to the inevitable coming around of grandpa...this is a great movie for the 10-12 age group but beyond that it has no market..i give it 4/10 only because it achieved exactly what it set out to do and nothing more.
\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\nOh yes, I admit I have made myself guilty of the crime of seeing this piece of trash. I can't say I was forced by aliens who pointed a gun at my head, tied me to a chair and made it impossible for me to close my eyes and then turned this awful excuse for a movie on. No I did it with free will. I deliberately tortured myself. Let's go through the fact here folks. - The acting is an insult to humanity. - The plot (if it exists) is ridiculous. - The character development is horrendous - The characters that appear in the movie are so clichéd you would
recognize them in your average comic book. - The editing is sloppy and unimaginative. - The camera-work is low key. - The dialogue is simply the worst in cinematic history. - The directing: well let's say, I bet it wasn't Hitchcock.
Then to add to these facts, there was absolutely no talent involved wath so ever. The director must be smoking crack now to forgive himself for inflicting this poison to the world.
Bottom line: Passport to Paris is one of the worst movies ever made. PERMANENT!
\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 sucks so bad. Its funny to see what a poor story this has, where two pea-brained American twins who know about nothing outside their school can come to another continent, and do unimaginable things there. Its just so stupid and so bizarre. How can they just find two French guys, hit on them and in the end kiss them, not knowing anything about them? More realistic would have been having the guys take them away and rape them, which could have easily happened in such a situation. As for the bit where they make the French President drink 'bad water', that was just lame. I don't think he would have been too pleased in real life. Everything worked out too easily for the girls, and they could have been in real trouble many times in the movie, if it at all depicted real life.
My Rating : 0 / 10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nJust what the world needed-another superficial cookie-cutter Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen movie. This movie gives out horrible messages to girls everywhere, complete with stereotypical \"junior high\" experience. They make learning anything at all seem completely taboo. I can't stand the fake French accents, or those guys on the mopeds racing around who eventually \"fall\" for the twins. Why am I putting everything in parenthesis? Because its all stereotyped. The twins even complain about not having a stereotypical grandfather. They should be happy they even have a grandfather at all. How does this fit the Mary-Kate/Ashley mold? This one has them fixing up a single guy who (gasp!!) ISN'T THEIR FATHER!!!!! Yes, folks, they actually have a mother who appears for all of five seconds. I haven't even sat through thirty minutes of this and I can already tell how it will end up. This movie is so pitiful, it makes Miss USA seem like an academic bowl. Really.
\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 horrible film. it is past dumb. first, the only thing the twins care about is how they look and what boys like them. they are in 7th grade. not to say i am a prude or anything but it sends the wrong message to girls of all ages. being pretty and popular is not everything. but that is what the twins make it out to be. The plot is even worse. the girl's grandpa just happens to be the ambasitor(sp?) to France. He has a co-worker take the girls around paris and they meet two \"cute french boys\" with motorcycles. they sneek out to meet the boys start to really like them ETC.....they meet a supermodel in process and go around paris with total strangers they think are cute. need i say more? this movie may be cute to 8&9 year olds. the twins play ditsy losers that want boyfriends. it makes sends the wrong idea to girls. the film itself is not great either. i don't recomend this to anyone. i give passport to paris 2/10
\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\nNow, I watched this when I was hungover one Sunday and my auntie and uncle were visiting one day with my 2 cousins (one was 11, the other 9). We stuck on the TV and Passport To Paris had just started. My cousins both had said that they watch Two Of A Kind sometimes and I said they could watch the film if they liked. Since I was in no fit state to get up, I just stayed in the living room with them and ended up watching the film! I have to say, as a person who has no interest in those kinds of TV shows or films, I actually enjoyed it... it must have been the alcohol lol but I do admit, it would probably only appeal more to girls aged between 6 and 13, but it was a movie to pass the time. There's always a movie or a show that you don't think you'll like, but for a laugh, you enjoyed 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\nWell, first off, the twins are exactly the same. there is no one is girly and one is tomboy (Ashley is taller than Mary-Kate though) and their boyfriends aren't even French, so that is bad because they are faking the accents. Lamo. It is also not that bad, not their best. I am A big Mary-Kate and Ashley fan, don't get me wrong. the storyline is OK and it is funny to watch. it is not the type of movie that you would watch over and over again. But hey, when they made this movie they were still new at the whole making their own movie thing. The girls also act like they are older then 13. but if you are a young viewer this is a good movie. Not so good if you are older than 13 unless you are a parent watching a movie with your kids. then it's OK. Good luck MK+A with your future 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\nFirstly let me get this of my chest I hate Octopussy with an absolute passion. What is so frustrating is that it had so much potential and had a very good opening sequence, unfortunately post the opening sequence it all goes downhill. Firstly there was absolutely no plot to begin with, just an excuse for Moore to tell his corny jokes. Next there are several sequences that would make a Bond fan cringe,for instance the sequence in which Bond turns up to diffuse a bomb dressed as a clown. The villains are pretty poor, Louis Jordon fails to make an impact as Kamal Khan and Bollywood veteran Kabir Bedi is equally poor as his henchman. It's funny that when people debate over what the worst Bond movie is and Octopussy gets overlooked when it can easily give them a run for their money.
\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 Roger Moore huffing it on the scenes that required running or exercise. He was a James Bond who would be most comfortable sitting at a bar telling stories with his fellow British Knights. Nothing against the elderly in age-appropriate roles, but how realistic is it for a frail-looking 58 year old man to be fighting on the wings of planes, hanging off the side of a train, swimming in a swamp with crocodiles, etc.? Aside from the fact that OCTOPUSSY was incredibly silly, vapid, and moronic, the fact that a frail oldster engaged in many death-defying stunts just made it so much easier to laugh at James Bond. By 1983 Roger Moore was clearly looking his age, and he was long past the time when he looked like he could fight with younger men. I saw this movie in the Theater, and the howls of laughter were many and very often. Any credibility that James Bond had built up was gone after OCTOPUSSY.
The only thing missing from OCTOPUSSY was Benny Hill and his supporting cast. Another low point was that the incredibly lame Louis Jordan was one half of the Axis of Evil. Jordan helped to make the whole concept even more laughable. And the Russian General was a total goof. OCTOPUSSY works better as a comedy spoof similar to SPIES LIKE US.
Even the fight scene on the train was just a bad copy of the same train scenes done in many other films by better actors. Take EMPEROR OF THE NORTH (1972) where Lee Marvin & Ernest Borgnine fought all over the top & bottom of the train and made it look exciting and real.
Roger Moore had a thin, frail body in 1983 and yet his stunt double was clearly a younger, taller, athletic & muscular man. Even the hair color did not match. This only made his fight scenes more comedic. The Moore stunts looked like those old low-budget Chop-Socky Kung-Fu movies, especially with the bad editing. The Director seemed to try to make the bad acting and bad stunts better by providing several views of the same stunt. This only accentuated the differences between Moore and his stunt double. The fact that the Train scenes with Moore were shot inside a studio could be noticed from the lighting when Moore was in the shot versus the exterior shots of the stunt double on a real train. Though many of the Bond Movies have to be the worst ever when it comes to editing their stunt-fights. You can usually clearly see that the Bond actor is not actually fighting. Overall OCTOPUSSY has to rank as one of the worst movies ever made, and easily the worst of the worst Bond 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\nAn aging Roger Moore is back yet again as Bond, this time trying to find out why Agent 009 was killed, and why he had a forgery of a Faberge egg with him, and where it came from. He ends up in New Delhi India, then in East Germany after finding out about a Russian general trying to detonate a nuclear bomb at a circus, hoping NATO will push for complete disarmament, so he can take control of Western Europe, then the rest of the world.
Despite the way it sounds, this is really more of a romance, I think, between Bond and Octopussy than an action movie, and longish, but still somewhat fun. But there are way too many attempts at humour in this one; at times it seems like it was intended to be a comedy. Also, Timothy Dalton would have been better than Roger Moore in this, so there wouldn't have been so much of an age difference between Bond and Octopussy.
Useless trivia: the small plane used by Bond in the pre credits sequence is now hanging up in a Quaker Steak and Lube restaurant in Clearwater/ Largo area Florida, USA.
**1/2 out of ****
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf I were to pitch this movie idea to some Hollywood bigwigs, I'm sure it would sound like this:
ME: \"Four boys at a private high school are good friends, AND they are witches.\"
Hollywood: \"That sounds like \"The Craft.\"
ME: \"No, no, I said four boys, not four girls.\"
Hollywood: \"That still sounds like \"The Craft\", just with boys instead of girls.\"
ME: \"OK, but there is this fifth unknown boy that comes into the picture and he wants more power.\"
Hollywood: \"Still not much difference, because one of the girls in \"The Craft\" also wanted more power.
ME: \"OK, OK... I'll make these boys part of the \"in crowd\", they'll be rich, AND the school is on the east coast.
Hollywood: \"Now that sounds original. That is nothing like \"The Craft\", here's a billion dollars.\"
This movie was so cliché and uninspiring. Even the manufactured drama between Chase and the brothers of Ipswich was very blasé. A bunch of rich kids, with their biggest problem being what color Bentley they want for their 18th birthday (and 18th car), don't interest me at all, even if they have powers. Every single kid in this movie looked like they stepped out of a magazine, and of course there had to be the gratuitous male nudity and female 80% nudity just to drive home how out of shape you are. I wanted to rename this movie \"The Witches of O.C.\". Oooh, rich kids and their problems... let me pretend to care.
This film was completely unimaginative and predictable. The final fight was lame and dragged out and the ending was very anti-climatic. This was a movie best left on the cutting room floor.
\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\nFrom the beginning of this film,with it's \"The Lost boys\" rip off opening sequence, to the bad wire work and even worse dialog ending, this movie slimed along at a snail's pace. \"The Covenant\" came highly recommended from some of my co-workers, who I am thoroughly convinced were playing a practical joke on me. At least I hope that was the intention and their taste isn't that bad! This movie was not much longer than an hour and a half, yet felt much much longer then that. The story was so basic that it could have been summed up in about 15 minutes, maximum. They could have at least filled the rest of the movie with some entertaining magic or fight scenes, however someone decided,(maybe the director, but I don't know if anyone really \"directed\" this movie) that it was going to be filled with some poorly executed \"artsy\" camera shots, and nonsensical scenes of the \"boys\" swimming and getting into bar fights. About half way through this film I thought that maybe bashing my head against a wall would be more entertaining, and partially to rid myself of this horrible dirty feeling I had for continuing to watch it. . So I did bash my head against a wall, and I did enjoy it more then the movie! I watched it all the way to the bitter end, hoping it would eventually offer me more enjoyment. Nope,my efforts were rewarded with \"How about I make you my Whee-aytch!\" I vomited, and then just felt embarrassment for the screen writer and pity for the poor actor who had to deliver this drivel. The acting really wasn't as bad as other reviewers seemed to think, but even the most talented thespian could not saved this work, and work it did, on my nerves! I give movies a chance, even bad ones because they usually offer some form of enjoyment, and this actually wasn't the worst movie I have ever seen. After it was over I did feel like watching the movie \"Stealth\" again and WOW it was so much better this time around! Oh yeah Case in point, don't bother with this movie, really, don't. Watch a few episodes of \"Charmed\", and watch \"The Lost boys\" after having a fair amount of alcohol, and you will be a much better person. If you do fall into the same trap that I did and watch \"The Covenant\", make sure to keep all sharp objects far, far away from yourself, you'll thank me for it.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"