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\nA man kicks a dog 2' in the air.
A woman kicks a cow out of her bed.
A man kicks a violin down the sidewalk.
A woman sucks on a statue's toe for 15 seconds.
A man kicks a blind man in the stomach.
Jesus rapes a young girl.
There you have it. I just saved you an hour of your life. Surely there are those to whom this \"shocking vanguard of cinematic expression\" would appeal. But I found it no different from the puerile, disconnected videos I used to shoot with my friends in the 9th grade. Except we never had a real cow.
Having heard endless sermons from beard-stroking art connaisseurs of how this is such an important film, I thought it would be worth my time. Make no mistake, this is crap. If I hear one more person call Buñuel the \"father of cinematic Surrealism\", I think I'm going to punch someone. If anything, he issued a major step backward from the Surrealist beginnings pioneered by his seniors Fritz Lang (Metropolis), F.W. Murnau (Faust) and Robert Weine (Caligari) 10 years earlier. This made a joke out of the whole thing, as if Buñuel didn't have the confidence to truly embrace the art sans sarcasm, sans l'absurdité. It would take Buñuel another 40 years before he would refine his style into something admirable. Skip the early stuff and hop straight to 1970 if you want to be more impressed by his work.
I'm sure he would agree. In 1977, Buñuel himself stated that he would happily burn all the prints of his old movies. In this case I would be happy to pour the lighter fluid.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'm a big fan of surrealist art, but this film by Bunuel (with some ideas from Dali) left me cold. Bunuel had a life-long grudge against the Catholic church and delighted in trying to offend Catholics in fairly silly ways. This is one of the silliest; almost like what you'd expect from a smart-aleck 18-year-old in film class. The last few minutes of the movie, which have nothing to do with anything else, are a final nose-thumbing at religion.
If you read the \"scholars\" regarding this slow-paced, occasionally amusing film, it's all about how the church and society are guilty of sexual repression. If that is indeed the point, then Bunuel expresses it in the most roundabout fashion possible. The central male character is a nasty brute who loves kicking dogs and knocking blind men down in the street, and who mentally turns billboard ads into strange sexual fantasies. Is this behavior the church's fault (for interrupting his lovemaking), or is he just a jerk? I vote for the latter. I think Bunuel must have had a lot of personal hangups and chose the Catholics as the ones to blame.
There are a few moments where you might cry, \"Aha! surrealism!\": a cow in a bed, a giraffe falling out a window (a poor model), a man shredding a feather pillow, a woman flushing a toilet while we watch pictures of seething lava (or a mud pit...hard to tell in B/W). The rest is forgettable self-indulgence. Unfortunately, Bunuel was still chasing the same bogey-men through the rest of his career (Viridiana, Discreet Charm...). If you're interested in seeing surrealism on the screen, check out Jean Cocteau's early 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\nThe Man (Gaston Modot) and the Young Girl (Lya Lys) go through the film consumed by passion for each other. They long to be together but their moments together are constantly interrupted. The film is strewn together with imagery and comes to a halt after an hour.........do the lovers find happiness....?..
The film starts interestingly with footage of scorpions but you soon realize that its all a pretentious piece of nonsense. It's made as a silent film with occasional dialogue and it has a non-stop soundtrack playing that at one point is so irritating that you will turn the sound down and want to watch it as a silent film. The continuous drum rolls must have driven cinema audiences mad. There are some genuinely funny moments, eg, when the Man kicks a dog and when he knocks over a blind man. Unfortunately, this humour is carried out in the name of art so its just pseudo nonsense. The film is crap.
\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 something can be anything you want it to be or mean, it's bound to register with someone as being rather special. But just as the shape of a cloud in the sky may appear to one of us or remind us of a battleship, and to another of his aunt's rear, and yet to another absolutely nothing other than a cloud, this does not make this cloud meaningful except for the viewers' interpretation. Anyone who might find throwing a stuffed giraffe out of a window brilliant, or worthwhile for that matter, without relating it in some context, is possibly merely trying to impress us with his or her intellectuality.
Submitting to this movie as the dreams of a madman does quite nicely, especially since there is no standard or expectation for what said dreams would be like, and even if we were mad ourselves, this would hardly give us sane reference points for comparison. A love affair with this movie entails the same risk as seriously interpreting Nostradamus. Whatever real meaning was being conveyed at the time might be buried in the private jokes, musings, or provincial minutiae of its day, and to a select few radical intellectuals at that! I did spot a bit of an agenda even with my limited capacity though.
The movie is definitely anti-Fascist and to some extent anti-Italian. I noted that although the years 1929-30 were years of great public works and urban renewal in Italy, any indication of this seemed avoided. Furthermore, (avant-guarde academic spinners take note of this for your next class) the very short cropped haired man with the mustache in the party segment near the end is a caricature of Victor Emmanuel III and his tall female companion none other than Queen Helen, formerly Princess of Montenegro. Without an understanding of potential historical relevance, even the apparent irrelevance is beyond the competence of academic or other intellectual poseurs who would bask in irrelevance to impress us.
I gladly add my own paint buckets to the defacement of this cinematic joke. But in an adaptation of the famous mot by the little boy; The movie really has no face (to deface). Paint would help it burn though.
\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, it's a piece of historical film making that caused an uproar, shocked people, and was banned. I'll give it that, which is why I gave it a 3 rather than a 1. It may have been ahead of the times, but it's certainly way behind the times now. I am a BIG fan of Salvador Dali and I loved Un Chien Andalou. That short was captivating with one creative scene after another. L'age d'Or was way too long and dull - just a self-indulgent piece of pompous film making created simply as a feeble attempt to try to out-do Un Chien Andalou by creating a full- length movie (and shamelessly leverage Dali's name and fame even though he had little to do with it). Total junk except for a (very) few shots of \"shocking scenes\" separated by long stretches of boring non-action. A waste of time and money. Both of my thumbs are down, way down. It'll go onto my shelf never to be watched again.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nHow do I describe the horrors?!!! First, some points: First, this review should be taken with a grain of salt -- I saw this over 20 years ago, when I was a boy, at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City.
Secondly, I am giving away some scenes and plot points. However, it does not have much of a plot.
Finally, I don't enjoy these type of art films anyway.
This film was directed by proto-auteur Luis Bunuel. He was a surrealist and dadaist. These were modernist themes or movements popular critically in the 1920's and early 1930's. Surealism was the school of art that made things hyper-real, yet often had Freudian symbolism. Dadaism is based on what is supposedly the first word made by an infant -- Dada, or father.
Made in black and white, it was also made by a band of communists (or as they preferred the term, socialists). Bunuel and his group of fellow film-makers and artistes had been working on a number of symbolic ideas and issues in Spain and France between the world wars.
Dadaism and surrealism influenced a lot of artists -- The Police (Doo doo doo da), poet Arthur Rambaud, Edvard Munch (The Scream), Rene Magritte (floating hats in space), Salvador Dali (melting clocks), and even Hitchcock (Psycho). No Norman Rockwell.
Here's what I recall most about this film: a girl meets up with a cow; her eye gets slashed by a razor; clownish men cavort in a meadow. There is not, as I said, much of a plot, but then again, that must be the point.
This was attacked as porn back then, and would be again today. One of the trade-marks of surrealism is a significant anti-feminism.
\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 price of a dream - and some dreams can be \"too\" expensive.
Only having viewed the English-translated version, it is perhaps the reason for a low rating from this viewer.
It made the overall film poorer than the story material hinted at...
...and other comments seem to suggest the subtitled version would be better.
But some plot elements remained unexplained, leaving an unfinished feel.
It also leaves the thought \"is there a series to follow?\".
A pity there was no more (at this stage at least, anyway).
\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\nFred Astaire is reteamed with Rita Hayworth one year after their big hit for Columbia, \"You'll Never Get Rich\". That was the movie which put Hayworth on the Hollywood map, yet her performance in this wan romantic musical hardly gives a suggestion why she was so suddenly popular. Down Buenos Aires way, a tyrannical hotel owner demands that his four daughters marry in order of age; one may think film takes place in the 18th century, but no, it's modern-day 1942. Astaire is an ex-hoofer-turned-gambler who goes back to dancing to earn some money, getting mixed up in impersonating a letter-writing admirer to Hayworth's stone-cold society beauty. Fred gazes at Rita with a brotherly smile, but she's so mannequin-like (lip-synching to her songs like a wide-eyed wind-up doll) that all romantic sparks quickly sputter. They do dance together quite comfortably, however, and the Jerome Kern score is unmemorable but not too bad. ** 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\nOn the pure theatrical side, Last Stand was great, as the reenactments and soundtrack are very entertaining, but there are better accounts of this battle found elsewhere that, while not as long or as flashy, are far more historically comprehensive.
Certain little details, such as the misuse of the word \"hoplon\" for the Greek hoplite shield and the mispronounciations of various names and words, really ate at me.
My guess would be, that because \"Last Stand of the 300\" was aired the eve of the theatrical release of \"300\", the History Channel was only trying to ride the coattails of the movie's hype.
If you're looking for a depiction that's historically accurate in all respects possible, you'd have better luck elsewhere.
\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 thesis of Father Brown is that a good dose of Roman Catholicism will solve all of life's problems. A little proselytizing I don't mind, but this gets a bit ridiculous at times.
Some fine actors have played Father Brown over the years, Kenneth More and Barnard Hughes are two good examples. Alec Guinness plays him in this film and does all right by him, but you didn't see any great demand for future Father Brown films.
I suppose if you are a committed Roman Catholic it all makes perfectly good sense. It's far more important to catch the thief and convert him to your religion than see he's brought to justice.
But that's what were asked to accept here. In fact there is a preliminary story before the main action of the film. Guinness in clerical garb is caught trying to put back stolen articles that one of his parishioners Sidney James had heisted during a robbery.
That's the story he gives the local cops and of course this is something that James has confided in him so he can't break the confessional.
Now on to bigger game. Master thief Flambeau, played by Peter Finch has stolen a cross that is entrusted to Father Brown and was said to belong to St. Augustine back in the day. But Father Brown is more interested in getting Flambeau to go back to his faith than seeing him brought to justice. So he misleads the cops so he can accomplish his mission.
I'm sorry but this whole thing was just too much for me to swallow. Father Brown I'd hate to say it was guilty of obstruction and ought to have been arrested. And he was under no obligation not to reveal anything he knew about Flambeau, the man had not come to him as a penitent seeking absolution and spiritual advice.
Author G.K. Chesterton, a very noted Catholic lay person in his day, finds all this very reasonable. Carried to his logical conclusion we should replace all police forces with an army of priests.
Guinness borrows from his own Reverend Ascoyne D'Ascoyne from Kind Hearts and Coronets and from Barry Fitzgerald in Going My Way to create Father Brown. Granted though Brown is a lot shrewder than the other two. There's also a bit of Colonel Nicholson in this portrayal. In The Bridge on the River Kwai, Guinness also was playing a character who's rather weird interpretation of the rules caused him to lose sight of what was important in the situation Nicholson was in.
Father Brown's an entertaining fellow when he's solving mysteries and making the authorities look foolish. We've enjoyed Brother Cadfael do it in a medieval setting and American audiences liked Father Dowling played by Tom Bosley a few years back.
This film should have stuck to being entertaining.
\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 so very few films where just the title tells you all you need to know about the film. Such a film is I Was A Communist For The FBI. Another example would be I Married A Monster From Outer Space.
The really interesting thing about this film is how in heaven's name did this get nominated for an Oscar in the documentary category? It is not a documentary in any sense of the word, it's not even in that hybrid category of docudrama. It's just a rather exploitive film about the work of an FBI undercover agent named Matt Cvetic who infiltrated the Communist Party in Pittsburgh and got active in trying to take over the Steelworker's Union for the Communists and reporting on said activities to his handlers in the FBI.
A documentary of that work might have been interesting, but what we got was a film to fit those paranoid times. I found it fascinating that when Cvetic finally broke his cover it was to the House Un-American Activities Committee rather than the trial in New York of the Communist Party leaders. There was a moment in the film where head Communist James Millican tells his followers to start spreading the word that the House Un American Activities Committee was composed of a bunch of right wing yahoos looking to get their names in front of the camera. Now what could have given him that idea? Anyway just connect the dots and no doubt the word their came from J. Edgar Hoover trying to give some credence to HUAC by having an effective undercover come out there rather than at an actual trial. Little thing there called cross examination.
Warner Brothers who produced I Was A Communist For The FBI later produced Big Jim McLain which starred John Wayne about a HUAC investigator in Hawaii. HUAC did grab on to credit for the work done by the Honolulu PD in breaking up a Communist spy ring there among the dockworkers. But at least in John Wayne's film nobody claimed it was a documentary.
Frank Lovejoy is in the title role as Cvetic and his FBI handlers are Richard Webb and Philip Carey. Dorothy Hart plays a Pittsburgh school teacher who says that there are 30 or so like here in that school system indoctrinating the young among whom is Ron Hagerthy, Lovejoy's son. She has a change of heart about the Communists and Lovejoy has to save her from a homicidal fate planned by his superiors. Ironically Hart left the movies and went to work for all places, the United Nations which as we know has been accused often of being a Communist nest in the USA.
Over half a century later and we really have very few objective works on film or in print about the Communist Party of the USA. They were in fact a very active bunch in the labor movement. The real heroes in stopping them were labor organizers like Walter Reuther in the UAW or David Dubinsky in the ILGWU. But since they were people of the left they just don't have the following on the right to be suitable propaganda material.
Anyway I Was A Communist For The FBI is an exploitive work based on a real life character and a testament to those paranoid 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\nMatt Cvetic is a loyal communist in a Pittsburgh steel mill who works to recruit workers into the party, even though this isolates himself from his son, family, and neighbors. What makes this even more difficult is that Cvetic is actually an FBI agent posing as a Communist in order to obtain information about party activities. The party is trying to create a strike at the mill, whereby the pro-strike movement will lead the workers into a wave of propaganda. Cvetic also has to contend with beautiful Eve Merrick, a party member and teacher at his son's school who finds the fact that Cvetic is a double agent. When Eve learns the ugly truth about the party's real motives, the reds decide she must be liquidated and Cvetic must aid her without endangering himself. The film should have plenty of suspense and double crossing but there is very little in this film but (by today's standards) very cheesy propaganda and little action or thrills. Lovejoy is very good in the main role, but even he and the rest of the cast seem listless. Few surprises here and how did this film receive a Oscar nod for best documentary? Rating, 4.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe most disturbing thing about this film is not that it's a load of hogwash (the CPUSA was never really as much an espionage threat as the movie makes out). The troubling aspect is the way that it whitewashes the wholly unsavory tactics of the FBI and the UnAmerican Activities Committee. Secret informants, gossip turned into accusations, warrantless searches - these are the kind of things secret police thugs like the KGB did, and presumably, what the good patriotic Americans were fighting. Yet the FBI did them and didn't bat an eye. That's the only realistic part of this movie, and they present it with no sense of shame at all. Add to this undermining the Constitution itself by having only Communists invoke the Bill of Rights. The film also makes thinly veiled accusations that the black civil rights movement was communist-inspired, another pack of lies. It's extremely difficult in this day to excuse such outrageous propaganda, even understanding the paranoia of the times, when one realizes how damaging it was to real people then.
\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 stunningly beautiful Charlotte Lewis stars as a woman who is terrorized by a ghosts who torment her on the phone.Driven to the edge in terror Charlotte is forced to confront this chilling mystery in order to save her sanity and her life.I can't believe that Ruggero Deodato,the director behind \"Ultimo Mondo Cannibale\",\"Cannibal Holocaust\" and \"House on the Edge of the Park\" directed this absurd piece of trash.Admittedly the music by Goblin front man Claudio Simonetti is pretty good,but the story is painfully stupid.The script by Franco Ferrini is ridiculous and it makes no sense,the acting is bad and there is absolutely no suspense.The scene in which a prospective rapist of Charlotte Lewis is killed by coins ejected from a subway telephone is more than laughable.Don't waste your time with this piece of crap.There are far better Italian horror movies out there!
\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 admit, I was taken in by the provocative stills of Charlotte Lewis from this film, as well as a comment on the IMDb message board devoted to her, calling this picture a \"great underrated film\". And so I got, with great difficulty, my own copy of \"Dial Help\".
What a waste.
Nothing but a cheaply-made blood and gore movie with a ridiculous premise which I'm not even going to repeat, with several telegraphed sequences (for instance, when we see Lewis lovingly feeding her fish, we know right away what's going to happen to them later). Not even Lewis, with her beautiful raven hair, large and luminous brown eyes, full and pouty lips, and stunning figure, can save this film. Lewis fans would be better off with \"Bare Essentials\", \"Sketch Artist\", or even \"Golden Child\".
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWell, I was hoping I'd heard wrong about this film as I'm a big fan of Ruggero Deodato and really didn't want to see him slip up; but unfortunately, this Giallo-styled supernatural load of nonsense is just as bad as I'd been lead to believe it would be - and that's pretty terrible! The plot doesn't work at all, as the film attempts to blend murders and a supernatural theme through a telephone and it all feels very forced and silly. Furthermore, the plot doesn't make much sense at all, and you have to ask yourself \"what's the point\" numerous times throughout the movie. The plot focuses on a young woman living in an apartment block and being terrorised by a telephone. The best thing about the movie is undoubtedly the presence of the beautiful English actress Charlotte Lewis, and unfortunately the good points pretty much stop there. There are a handful of deaths scenes, some of which are gory; but all of which are incredibly stupid, the one that sees someone get killed by coins sticks out especially in that respect. Overall, I really can't recommend this to anyone; non-Deodato fans are unlikely to impressed, and Deodato fans are likely to find the film depressing. Avoid!
\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 only the fourth effort I’ve watched from this director (whom I met and found quite genial at the 2004 Venice Film Festival Italian B-movie retrospective) and also, possibly, the worst. As was the case with THE BRONX EXECUTIONER (1989), which preceded it, this is a prime example from the tail end of the Euro-Cult era – prime because it shows the depths to which the previously invigorating style had fallen by this time!
Here, in fact, we get a plot revolving around – I’m not kidding, folks – a killer phone! Pretty but bland Charlotte Lewis – in her third film after PIRATES (1986) and THE GOLDEN CHILD (1986) – is a model who, apparently, has just ended an affair; she keeps expecting her architect lover to call her back but, every time the phone rings, all she gets is static accompanied by voices from the beyond (or some such crap). She befriends a new tenant at her apartment block who, conveniently, knows of an authority on paranormal activity (William Berger) – who, hilariously, explains that the negative energy which is unleashed, say, during family arguments can manifest itself via home appliances into a deadly force (I swear I ain’t making this up)!
Among the highlights...er...lowpoints of the film are: the grumpy bartender from whose dingy place the heroine calls a couple of times (it seems that the chain-of-events can only be broken by having Lewis go through her paces again, EXTERMINATING ANGEL (1962)-style!), the sheer variety of preposterous-looking phones on display, the apparatus of the heroine’s photographer friend sneaking up on her before the kill, the sarcastic cop who greets Lewis on reporting the strange occurrences (“And what’s the toaster up to, I wonder?”), the would-be rapist killed by a barrage of coins shooting out from a telephone booth, and Berger’s own bloody demise (with the phone affecting the pacemaker he’s fitted with and causing the doctor’s heart to explode)!
The film’s climax is rather confusing and, apparently, finally sees all the ‘lost souls’ inhabiting a flock of doves and flying out the window of the ‘possessed’ office (a lonelyhearts service!). For what it’s worth, the score – by ex-Goblin Claudio Simonetti no less – is effective enough, despite the inclusion of dated heavy-metal numbers on the soundtrack.
\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\nDon't be fooled by the plot out-line as it is described on the cover (at least the Swedish version). The story on this seems rather interesting, with speculative hints. Nothing can be further from the truth. This is the absolute most sad movie experience I've ever had... It is plain and right AWFUL and should not be sold or rented to anyone. If you still think the plot seems intriguing, reflect on this: telephones can move, run and kill people as can also any other electric appliance. It can throw things at you, haunt you and run after you. PLEASE DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE it is a disgrace for the horror genre...
\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 truly saddening to see a once-great director such as Deodato delivering such a second-rate giallo such as this. This movie was so terrible it effectively put an end to his movie career. The box lies, this is no \"erotic thriller\", hell during the film's 97 minute running time, Charlotte Lewis barely shows us one nipple! I thought it would pick up once William Burger showed up (in one of his last roles), but his character is killed off rather abruptly and lamely. This movie fails in pretty much every way. Claudio Simonetti's music is little more than noise, and the plot made very little sense at all. For some reason, Lewis is terrorized by ghosts which attack using phones. (?) By the end, the characters all seem to have forgotten the previous 90 minutes of hell they went through, and casually laugh as they sick the evil spirits on someone else, Lewis's ex-boyfriend. What?!? This movie did little for me besides anger me.... and bore me half to death. For genuine 80's Deodato fun, watch THE BARBARIANS or THE ATLANTIS INTERCEPTORS, let this one rot on the video store shelf. Argento could make a better giallo than this!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nRobert Aldrich's brutal, quasi-black comedy \"The Grissom Gang\", a reworking of the 1948 British film \"No Orchids For Miss Blandish\", has 1920s heiress Kim Darby kidnapped by a pack of clumsy thieves; soon, that gang is dispatched and poor Kim is then transferred into the clutches of another crooked bunch--third-rate gangster brothers with sweaty, pasty faces and a mother who looks like Buddy Ebsen in drag. At first, Darby (not very plucky, and not very smart) attempts to escape this drooling brood, but they're onto her. Eventually she just gives up trying, and therein lies the trouble with the story. Are we in the audience supposed to sympathize with her? Is her growing concern for the family half-wit supposed to be heartwarming? These are disgusting, cretinous characters, and I wanted to see as little of them as possible. But since the side-stories (the progress of the cops on the case and another one involving floozy-singer Connie Stevens) are rather dull, the director has no choice but to keep foisting those sweaty faces on us. Pretty soon, nervous Darby starts sweating too, although her scene up in the hayloft is sensitively performed and Aldrich's climactic moments are thought-provoking, if disorganized. ** 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\nThese days, Asian horror films are among the best in the world, noted for their atmosphere and reflection of contemporary society. This is not one of those films! Instead, \"The Record\" is a mediocre slasher movie highly derivative of American movies like \"I Know What You Did Last Summer\" and \"Scream\". The plot is familiar - 5 teenagers accidently commit a terrible crime, but cover it up swearing to secrecy. One year later, they're being stalked by a knife-wielding maniac (with the decidely unscary disguise of a hospital sterile mask and an orange jumpsuit). It doesn't help that the teenagers are a generally unlikable group (this is one of those movies where the killer's motives seem pretty reasonable) and there are numerous stupid plot setups to keep the story going. The direction of the movie is unsubtle, more influenced by MTV than by current Asian horror films (like \"The Ring\"). The last third of the movie isn't too bad though, delivering some decent suspense scenes, though there is probably one \"twist\" too many in the end. 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\nStay FAR AWAY from this film. The fact that you're reading reviews tells me you may have already been tainted by the awfulness it carrys. This is a truely horrid movie... so let's get down to the problems. Writing and Direction: It wouldnt surprise me if these were handled by a group of overactive gradeschoolers that watched 'scream' and 'I know what you did last summer' a few too many times. GIANT GAPING plot holes abound; while I can't congratulate them for this movie, its nice knowing they're finally potty trained. Actors(or lack thereof): Only the finest for this film... the finest extras ever to grace a screen, now starring in their speaking role debut! As a disclaimer, I have to note that I am capable of watching and enjoying just about anything. I recognize a good movie when I see it, but I can still giggle and smirk during Bubble Boy (yes folks, its true); so when I say to avoid something, you KNOW I'm not kidding.
\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 rip-off of already crappy hollywood movies like Scream and I Know What You Did Last Summer. The story is classic, some high-school students tries a prank on the class' asthmatic misfit but something goes wrong. Terribly wrong. When you watch the movie you know what'll happen before it happens all the time, not good if a movie tries to be scary. The actors are quite ok and the girls are cute (after all, they're asian) so i'll give it two out of five on the mojave'o'meter.
\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\nKorea's answer to \"I Know What You Did Last Summer\" follows a similar story route to its American counterpart: one year after a group of high school friends accidentally kill a classmate, a masked killer begins to pick them off one by one. Who could have possibly seen them that night - or was their 'victim' still alive when they dumped him into the sea?
Originality cannot be expected from the teen slasher genre anymore but an effort can still be made to ensure films of this ilke are entertaining and scary. RECORD is neither, churning out badly rehashed scenes from \"I Know...\", \"The House On Sorority Row\" and \"The Faculty\" (among many others) and failing to deliver one decent shock throughout the 95 minutes.
Acting is decent from the cast who, as seems to be the norm in Korean cinema, approach an uninspiring script with gusto and an undeserved enthusiasm. Direction is mediocre at best, however; a strange choice of camera angles and the worst killer's costume *EVER* contributing to RECORD's downfall. Most disappointing is the film's ending, where the two 'surprise twists' are that obvious you've earlier dismissed them as being too blatant!
RECORD's only saving grace is its bright start - the first act is actually excellent and shows the American counterparts how character development and setting the mood are supposed to be done - but, other than that, this is a very poor movie. Not recommended.
** / *****
\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 recently found this film on one of my husband's VHS tapes (the blank variety which he uses to record stuff from the telly). The film looks as if it was last shown in the eighties and I don't remember having seen it since. It has not (to my knowledge) been released on DVD or VHS although I shall browse around for a copy.
The film tells the story of three young people: two girls, one on the edge of puberty and the other much younger, and a young boy who go to live with their mother's brother and his young, mute Irish wife. His wife also has two brothers who live with them. The children's uncle is an unpleasant control freak who forces his young wife to wear a silver collar whilst she watches a marionette show put on by him and her brothers in his toyshop.
The eldest girl and one of the Irishmen (the younger) develop a love for each other whilst they live in the same house. The girl helps her aunt out in the shop whilst her brother helps his uncle to make things in the workshop.
There are a lot of very disturbing elements to the film. There is the uncle's treatment of his wife as some kind of dumb (literally) possession (illustrated by the collar) whilst the Irish indulge dancing, drinking and somewhat forbidden love. Interestingly, though, I have seen far more explicit themes played out in other movies made in Hollywood today.
Makes you wonder whether the British film industry and the BBC have some kind of hidden agenda going on.
Still, despite it not being a children's movie, there are a lot of playful, magic moments in it and the one Irishman does some beautiful paintings.
\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 which was worse, the viewer's made dopes of, or the stars in this movie who look like dopes. Am I to believe that this woman raised this child for seven years, and never noticed the child was a bit dark ? Am I to believe her mother, her father, and her husband never once said, hmmm this child looks a bit dark ? Am I to believe when the courts ordered the mother to view the adopted parents records, that Lisa Hartman had this wow look on her face, when she told her mother, Christopher is half black ! What ! Was that for real,gee do you think so. So not only did the grandmother, and grandfather look dopey and stupid never once mentioning this, but i guess we were supposed to look surprised and say...hmmmmm omg he is half black ! Totally stupid movie, almost an embarrassment even to watch this !
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt purports to be the life of Paul the apostle. It opens with him involved in a loin-cloth wrestling match with a priest. The Pharisees were called that because they \"separated\" themselves from the Hellenism being forced upon the Jews by their Gentile rulers. The point is that Saul would never have been involved in Greco-Roman wrestling. PERIOD.
Then we have the two men (Saul and the Priest, Reuben - a totally extra-biblical fictitious character) shown being washed down in the nude in a Roman style bath house. Again, the Torah, which Saul adhered to religiously, condemned in the strongest possible terms looking upon the nakedness of another man.
Reuben is shown being the one that pushes Saul into destroying the church. Again, the text of scripture doesn't matter, for their it is PAUL that says that he laid waste of the church and breathed out threatenings and slaughter against the church.
The movie shows Barnabas \"sprinkling\" Paul - not baptizing (immersing) him, when the Text of Scripture says it was Ananias that did it.
Their is no mention of Mark or his turning back so the writers of the script are forced to have Paul and Barnabas argue over Paul's desire to preach in Rome as the basis of their separation.
No Silas on Paul's Second and Third Missions; No Timothy... EVER. No Titus; No Apollos... No, NO, NOOOO!!! James is said to have \"known Jesus for a long time\" rather than it saying, as the Text of Scripture does, that he is Jesus' brother.
Why not just call the movie \"Frank, the fictitious Apostle?!?!\" At least that would be closer to the text of scripture.
\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\nLove the TPB's but this was a lame episode. Didn't have the same feel that the series or the movie has. Looked like it was put together in a hurry. I didn't enjoy it at all. The so-called acting was awful. The cast appeared like they knew this was a money-grab of an episode to get to market quickly. I hope we don't have an easter special next because that will be it for me. The writing of this episode was definitely Mike Clattenburg's worst in the history of this show. The direction left a lot to be desired and I almost felt bad for the cast and crew of this weak attempt at a Christmas special. Like I said, I love the TPB's but this one goes to the trash bin.
\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 whole set-up of this contrived Disney family film (ad-exec gets his teenage daughter a horse because she \"wants one more than anything else in the world\") is just an excuse to film the big climactic horse-show at the end. All the other ingredients (the ad campaign for the stomach pill, Kurt Russell as a potential boyfriend for the youngster, Lloyd Bochner as a potential rival for Dean Jones over the affections of Diane Baker) are shelved near the end simply to showcase the horse. Over half the picture is padding, and worse: it is whiny and obnoxious. The kid is the ninny-sort who cries on the couch with a dog in her arms, and as usual she gets her way. * 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\nLet's summarize how dumb this movie is with two details : Arnold to Antichrist : \"Let's see who is meanest\" said with a straight face. And you can tell they were not trying to be funny.
How do you think Arnold will battle the evil of all evils?
Blessed Water, A crucifix, a priest..nooo! with a bazooka, yes not even Satan expected it they're so clever.
After an engaging beginning (which reminds you of Devil's Advocate) it goes nowhere. Somebody get me those two hours of my life back. Don't ever watch it, rent it, lest buy 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\nThroughout watching \"End of Days\", I got the sense that the film makers were perhaps trying to make this unique to the average Hollywood action film. They failed, of course, but you have to give them credit for trying. Peter Hyams actually tried directing this time, instead of just churning out another flat action film. He attempted to inject atmosphere into the movie by darkening the lights and adding tons of blood. This method can work if used correctly (see \"Se7en\") but here it just feels like a cheap trick to try and scare us. Hyams is a decent action director, and offers nothing more here than basic shoot outs and fight scenes, except for the lackluster, sub par f/x end \"battle\". As a photographer, Hyams demonstrates actual ability, displaying some good frame work and movement, but it is nothing above solid work.
Screenwriter Andrew Marlowe is the film's greatest enemy. At parts, the script actually shows the makings of good religious thriller, and at times it even shows some quasi-intellectual thought (the Temptation scene between Arnold and Gabriel Byrne), but these small pluses are choked out by a river of negatives. Generic dialogue/characters, gapping plot holes, and convenient plot points that just happen to point all the characters in the right direction are just a few of the standard Hollywood black holes Marlowe's screenplay falls into. The shadow of the good movie it could have been faded very quickly.
The film surprisingly has a good cast. Arnold, still possessing that larger than life attitude, tries to play a depressed, on the edge cop with no more than average results. Stick to be the invincible hero Arnie, it's what your good at. Gabriel Byrne is the strong point of the ensemble, bringing a nice air of cynicism to the role of Satan. In a villainous role ripe for overacting, Byrne restrains himself and it adds a bit more menace to the character. Kevin Pollak, as normal, is able to bring at least a few chuckles to the movie, but he's done better. Also look for a stellar small role from Rod Steiger.
Hyams looked like he was trying to separate this from the faceless mass of Hollywood action films. He was heading in the right direction, but had neither the script or originality to take it there.
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\nEnd of Days, starts off pretty well, Arnie plays a down and out cop (a very similar character to Riggs in Lethal weapon) and the story looks like a kind of serial killer action thriller that will be good entertainment.
Sadly it fails to deliver, Arnie is as good as we we have come to expect, but as for Gabriel Byrne i expect him to chose his roles more carefully than this. cast as the devil; this is probably the weakest portrayal of the lord of darkness ever.
This movie gets a little too daft for me, and the end sequence, aside from being very weak, is visually one of the worst i've seen in recent years, CGI is have been better than this since the early nineties.
Quite simply not good enough. 4/10 (Watch it if you have too, but don't expect too much, cause it won't deliver)
\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 why I'm writting this. I think most people agree that this movie is bad. Well, let me say this:
When I first get done watching some movies, I like them. Then as time goes on, my opinion changes about the movie. this happened with End of Days. I liked it the first time I saw it. I thought it was entertaining. But, a few weeks later, my opinion has changed. So, to resolve this, I watched it again at a friends house. Well, it's bad.
I'm a logic person. If I see a logic hole in a movie, I try to ignore it. If I see two, then I start to get annoyed. More than two and I'm p***ed off. End of Days made me p***ed off after my second viewing.
First off, the movie is a bit depressing. Everything about it is sad. Everything from Arnold's acting to the movie's colors. But dark looking movies don't bother me, but some thing else did...
If Satan can regenerate his wounds, how can you possible kill him in his mortal form? If you shoot him, his skin grows back. If you cut off his head, a new one should pop back up. So question: what's the point of even trying to kill him? I'll tell you why: because this is a stupid movie that has a recycled villain. This isn't the devil my friends. This is a human being reminescent of those Bond villains who give away there entire scheme to the hero.
Like I said it's worth a look, but don't see it twice, because it's crap.
\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 does this movie have? Lots of gunfire and expensive effects. Nothing makes sense on any other level.
Watching Arnold cry is seeing acting so bad that it is laughable. The plot is ludicrous.
If you think the Devil will be impressed by a bad actor with a machine gun, well, this movie is for you!
\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 never thought I would absolutly hate an Arnold Schwartzeneggar film, BUT this is is dreadful from the get go. there isnt one redeemable scene in the entire 123 long minutes. an absolute waste of time
thank yu
Jay harris
\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 waiting to welcome Arnold Schwarzeneger's return to action after the dismal movies he'd made after \"Eraser.\" \"End of Days,\" however, can be added to the dismal films he's had the misfortune of appearing in.
\"End of Days\" starts well with a gripping action sequence, yet quickly becomes a bore, taking the focus off action and suspense and instead concentrating on the investigation of demonic happenings and the quickly approaching millenium (read \"Doomsday\").
Performances are stale, special effects so-so, and gore plentiful. Considering myself a die-hard Schwarzenegger fan, I couldn't believe I didn't like this film, but with such an awful, lame script, what could Arnie have done, besides passed on this turkey?
3 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 like Arnold, and I love the subject matter, but this was a very disappointing movie. When I first saw the previews, they were dark and ominous, and Arnold's name wasn't even mentioned. But I recognized him, which led me to believe that he was making a movie that had more of a serious, suspenseful mood. That it wasn't just another Schwarzenegger action vehicle (though I admit, most of his are pretty good!). He had, thus far, avoided movies with any real religious theme. And I was excited. I was wrong. This is just another action, explosion, gun fire movie. And it's a pretty bad one.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"