empathielabs/imdb_v0 huggingface dataset:
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI had to write a review for this film after I saw it last night and read some of the comments of people trying to classify the displeasure of this film go down to wfmitchell's post)). I don't fit any any of those classification. The other classification that needs to be on the list is 5) people didn't like this movie because it was not good. I found the film to be booring and forced. My wife picked it for us to see because she is a huge Kidman fan and she also likes Jude Law.
Speaking of Law, it took a long time and a huge amount of suspension of belief for me to believe his southern accent. I can't help but wonder if they didn't make his character less talkative on purpose so we would't have to hear that tortured accent so much.
As far as the movie, it took a long time for it to get interesting (about 1 or 1.5 hours), and then fell flat in it's ending. What was interesting, is that I did not know that this film was directed by Minghella. About 40 minutes into the movie, I asked my wife \"this isn't going to be another English Patient is it?\" It absolutely was.
As far as the battle scenes. I'm trying to think of a word to describe the opening battle scene, but I think the most descriptive word that accurately describes it is simply \"dumb\". It was forced, it was unbelievable, it was silly and it was dumb. (After the battle I looked at my wife and asked \"was that just dumb?\" to which she vigorously nodded her head).
The only bright point in the film was the performance of Zellweger. The role was a bit over acted like any decent comedy relief role, but it worked. From her speech pattern, her walk, her mannerisms and esp. her little quips (my favorite: \"If you want to get 3 feet up a bull's ass all you have to do is listen to sweethearts talk to each other\"), she was able to create an almost cartoon-like character who did her job extremely well.
I simply did not like this movie and I have to wonder about the kind of people who do say they like it (or the English Patient for that matter). I suspect you could categorize them in one category: 1) Soap opera fans
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI found the first 90 minutes of this film to be very interesting, even though a few parts of it were ridiculous (i.e.. Philip Seymour Hoffman's character). The last 60 minutes were distasteful and I began to lose interest in the film. The last hour lasted forever, it seemed.
The movie is nicely acted and I can see why Rene Zellweger won an Academy Award since her character was so interesting. The movie also is beautifully filmed and the story is an emotional one. However, I found the message to be a bad one: not surprising these days in Hollywood. In this story, \"Inman\" (Jude Law) deserts the Confederate Army during the Civil War. His reason: his girlfriend misses him and wants him home. He's also getting disillusioned with war. (Can you imagine if every soldier who was in a similar boat deserted the army in the two world wars??!)
Yet, in this film of course, all of that is perfectly acceptable. Then again, what Liberal filmmaker has ever had a nice thing to say about the U.S. military?? To add to their left-wing slant, they portray a vigilante-like posse going after deserters as cold-blooded sick killers. Well, in the world of films, as we know: good is portrayed as bad and bad is good.....and only Liberals would portray deserters as heroes.
\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\nHer embalmed look was totally inappropriate for the role. Her face remained too white, hair too coifed, clothes etc. too clean (and well-fitting, especially her father's old hat and coat in the scene where Inman comes home) for any sense of accuracy. It would be one thing if the production had allowed all the other actors to remain clean and perfect, too, but she was the only one who didn't get messy. There was never even a smudge on her powdered cheek. Are we to believe she was the only person in the Civil War with a bathtub and a mirror? She certainly looked like the only one who used them. Tweezers, too; I mean, what's with those eyebrows? She looked absolutely mean!
The love story was implausible. She only went over to the guy because someone told her that he had said he thought she was cute. So, she goes over to tease him, then flirts with him a couple more times, and suddenly this is a love on a par with Odysseus and Penelope? Please.
I should have known better than to expect anything better from the man who brought us \"The English Patient.\" My reaction to that one was the same as Elaine's on Seinfeld: \"It sucked.\"
\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\nJude Law, Nicole Kidman, and Renne Zelwigger. They are all horrible. Especially the star, Jude Law.
It's directed by the same guy who did the english patient and its based on a best selling novel of a man risking all to get back to his lover but unlike the wonderful English pateint, this movie sucks. It is really bad.
Worst dialogue ever. \"But we've only know each other for a moment\" \"But they were a thousand moments, like diamonds in a bag\"
or
\"In some cultures you just have to say I marry you 3 times and you're married\" lovey-dovey-\"I marry you, I marry you, I marry you, I marry you...\"
I'm ashamed I sat through it all.
the whole movie was awful, horrible....Ughh no words, I'm sick.
1/10 (the one is for the really loud bullet sounds, the sound crew did a good job)
\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 two leads, an Englishman and an Aussie filming an American Civil War story in Romania, have not the slightest spark between them, are utterly unbelievable as lovers, and wholly unsympathetic. There is no story, no characterization, virtually nothing to keep the eyelids separated during this interminable bore fest. Renee Zelwegger, also hopelessly miscast, practically chews the fence posts, but at least watching her embarrass herself provides some comic relief. Nicole Kidman is a decade too old for the role and has not the slightest idea what's going on. Jude Law's moron role could have been played equally as well by any of the Romanian extras. The only requirement is to wander about the forest looking stupid while watching a parade of guest stars steal the show. Not that it mattered, because all of the guest star roles were completely unnecessary as they did not advance the so-called plot by one iota. And as if all that wasn't enough, the auteur felt it necessary to throw in some spinning, whirling, kung fu jumping off horses. What was that about?
\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 gives Anthony Minghella the right to ruin two extraordinary works of fiction?? First, he destroyed The English Patient, which was bad enough, but now I discover he's butchered Cold Mountain - butchered!!!
I had such a strange reaction to The English Patient. My son and I went to see it the first weekend it was released, and I was so disappointed, but told my son I felt like I needed to read the book. I drove straight to Barnes and Noble, bought it, read it, and tried to figure out what in the world the critics were talking about when they said Minghella had trusted enough in the intelligence of the movie-going public to give them a great film. That is what he most surely did not do.
I do not ordinarily read a great deal of fiction, but Cold Mountain was so highly recommended by friends that I felt compelled to read it. I did not see Cold Mountain, the movie, when it played in theaters, and it was because of what Minghella had done to The English Patient. But like a fool, I rented it today, and I'm so upset, I had to vent my frustration and, most of all, my sadness, that someone could have taken this beautiful story and crafted it into something almost as beautiful on the screen, and now they never will.
READ THE BOOK AND LET THE MOVIE ROT ON THE SHELF. I will never be taken in by a Minghella project again. I think he may be one of the worst directors working today, and I'm tired of the praise Hollywood heaps upon his head. It must be that no one in Hollywood reads anymore. This movie bears no resemblance to the book, except for the names of the characters. Minghella's ego must know no bounds, and if he didn't like the book, then why didn't he write an original screenplay and leave the book alone. Even if I hadn't read the book, I would still consider this movie one of the worst I've seen from 2003; and I've seen almost everything that's been released for viewing in the USA.
Elaine, you aren't going to like this one either.
\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\nAnother tiresome bore from Anthony Minghella, who seems to thrive on these big bloated super-productions that take over two and a half hours to do what any reasonable filmmaker would do in about ninety minutes.
The story centers on Inman (a somnambulent Jude Law), who goes off to the Civil War having just barely started a sort-of romance with Nicole Kidman, a Preacher's Daughter who has recently arrived in the prettily photographed backwater town. The story cuts back and forth between Inman's trials and tribulations at war (which is, guess what boys and girls? HELL!!) and Kidman's trials and tribulations back at home (which are, very predictably, incredibly boring). Renee Zellwegger appears on Kidman's farm to help Kidman get it back into shape after Kidman's saintly Daddy dies of Inconvenient Character Disease. Zellwegger acts all squinty and bossy in that Granny Clampett kind of way, dispensing enough Tough Love and Homespun Wisdom to turn the stomach of even the hardiest watcher of Touched By An Angel.
This film is, quite simply, excruciating. Avoid it like the big bloated Oscar-bait Bogus Pretentious Literary Adaptation nonsense that it is.
\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\nKidman and Law lack the chemistry to make this sloppily directed, poorly written romance/melodrama work on any level other than grandiosity. Kidman pouts and
pines wistfully for her absent lover Law. She's just met him when he's whisked off to do battle for the South in the Civil War, and they've only exchanged about 5 sentences and one kiss, yet they're totally smitten. Law's main direction throughout seems to be `Look vacant and shell-shocked, but sensitive.' Rene Zellweger is about the only spark in this dreary script, but she plays it way too broad and over the top, like she was starring in `Annie Get Your Gun.' Yee-hah boy howdy! Something about her character felt more like it belonged in a Monty Python sketch - the one from `Holy Grail' where the peasants spend all their time wallowing in muck making mud pies for no reason. Kidman is a smart enough actress to stay out of her way whenever she can. Their scenes together are like a comic book hidden inside a Victorian Era novel.
Whenever the action bogs down into total tedium, which is frequently, all the writers do is shout `Cue the Simon Legree-type Villain!' and Teague (Ray Winstone) comes galloping out of nowhere to do his unspeakably dastardly acts, like kill and torture innocent God-fearing townspeople in the name of loyalty to a fast-fading
Confederacy. All other times, he's missing in action, which is preposterous even in this cornball script. There is a plethora of other talented actors who give credible performances in small roles. These are the characters Law meets as he does his Johnny Appleseed trek from the front lines, where he has deserted, to the hopefully loving embrace of Kidman back in Cold Mountain. Ultimately though, none of these characters matter. Law has no time for them or their lives. Each of these little mini-movies has the same tired theme: war is gol-durn heck, and turns otherwise decent Christian folk into rabid animals.
And the script is far too predictable, too heavy-handed. Moreover, the pacing of the story is dreadfully slow. You spend the entire movie waiting for Romeo and Juliet's inevitable reunion, with Kidman wringing her hands and sighing, Law overcoming incredible odds and dodging bullets. And when it finally comes you just don't care anymore. You'll be looking at your watch wondering how much more of this clap you have to endure.
I give it one star out of five for the battle scenes. There is a potent anti-war message here. The incredible lack of concern for the loss of life by the Generals on both sides of the conflict is powerful stuff. But it's only about 15 minutes of this 150-minute dog.
\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\nSome movies are not for everyone. This accurately describes Igmar Bergaman's movie, Skammen (Shame). At only 18, I still have what I guess you could call a minor form of ADD and well, I watch movies to be entertained. Shame was a movie with a very interesting premise, of trying to convey the effect of war on the common people, it however fell short of accomplishing this for me. I don't know if it was the subtitles, black and white filming, length of the movie, or the fact that it took two hours out of my studying for a huge chemistry test, but I did not enjoy it. I understand it is considered a great movie and very important in the history of cinema, however, I think as my teacher pointed out, not everyone has liked or likes it. I guess I just wish it finished all of its many side plots. Maybe the translation lost something, but I felt there were infinite little off shoots that never met a conclusion. You would meet characters and never see them again, or really understand why they were included in the movie. My overall recommendation for this movie is that it's worth seeing, but only to form your own opinion on it. Whether or not you like or dislike it, it is necessary to respect the point that it is trying to convey.
\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 just recently viewed Shame which is directed by Ingmar Bergman. The film was interesting and very unique. I liked how it was in Swedish with English subtitles and that it was also in black and white. These features allowed me to better relate to the characters, the time period, and their stories. I didn't like how the movie was very slow in the beginning and how you didn't know what was really going on. At first, it was mainly a story of Eva and Jan's relationship. The movie also ended on a very depressing note because nothing good came out of all of the conflicts and changes throughout the movie. I probably would not go see Shame again, but it was a very cultured experience.
\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 felt that the movie Skammen, directed by Ingmar Bergman, was very dry. It shows the things people will do to survive during a war and the shame that comes out of these actions; however I feel that it was not complete or attention holding. He never fully got into the plot or deep into the character emotions or reasons behind their actions. The only thing that I found rather attention holding in the movie was the transformation of the two main characters, Jan and Eva. Many times during the movie was just the two main characters sitting around or doing their daily chores and not even having a conversation. I understand this was to show the reality of these people however I feel there are other ways to show reality and have it be entertaining. I think that Ingmar Bergman could have filmed this movie in a more riveting way.
\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 liked most of this film. As other reviews mentioned it has a good cast, the plot is interesting enough. All in all it is fun to watch.
But the ending, I feel, is completely botched, it left me bewildered. Yes, you expect people crossing and double-crossing each other in this sort of movie, but quadruple-crossing? Well, if it's justified by the plot then why not?
But that's the bad part, there's completely no need for it. After a certain point it's all scheming with completely no meaning. (here comes the SPOILER). After the airport scene Enrico and his accomplices already HAVE the money. I couldn't understand the need for the rest of the scam. Is it all necessary just to rub Federico's nose in the fact that he's been fooled? I don't buy it.
So 6 out of 10 for 3/4 of the film and 2 out of 10 for the ending.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI was so offended by this film that I had to write SOMETHING about it, so please humour me.
Its only redeeming virtue, outside of some good acting, is that it doesn't go on past 107 minutes. Even that length is about 30 minutes too long.
Comparisons have been made here to the brilliantly dark 'The Grifters,' but I can't see it. They are two different films altogether. The closest 'Swindled' comes to an existing film is 'The Sting,' made in 1973. It borrows (sorry, STEALS) liberally from this splendid George Roy Hill 'entertainment,' which is exactly what is was. I enjoyed it because it didn't pretend to be anything else.
There are so many red herrings in 'Swindled' that I thought I was in a fish tank. It's very confusing, but that's only one of its many problems. The principal one is this: if you make a film where everyone lies to everyone else, where everyone is conning, we have no 'anchor' to ground us. The inevitable result is a mish-mash of very sloppy seconds from other caper flicks.
Just about everyone in this film is conniving and objectionable. Surely a basic Film 101 class would tell us that the audience has to 'care' for someone. We can't 'care' for anyone here: they're ALL swines. It might have worked as a rakish comedy, but it plays it straight from beginning to end.
IF YOU WANT TO SEE THIS FILM, READ NO FURTHER. BIG 'SPOILER' COMING. SORRY, BUT I HAVE TO DO IT.
There's so much fake blood and so many fake killings that it doesn't strain credulity -- it destroys it. The ending is absolutely ridiculous -- a 'murder' in a crowded airport that isn't really a 'murder' at all? And the 'murdered' guy, blood-soaked, simply stands up, brushes himself off, and walks away, fake blood dripping, with the booty? All while the police and hordes of people are looking on, and no one intercedes? The director must have a lot of cojones if he thinks we're supposed to buy into this. Noirish B-movies from the 1940s did better.
I'm a great fan of European flicks, but this confirms that schlock doesn't always come from Hollywood. As far as 'Swindled' is concerned, my judgment lies with a famous line from the oft-misspoken producer Samuel Goldwyn, who knew all about schlock: 'Include me out'.
\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\nAlthough the acting was excellent, I spent the whole movie waiting for the nasty boy who caused so much grief to so many of the characters, get his final nemesis, and instead everyone else suffered except him and he gets the job of the husband whose wife's death he causes by running away from his friends, wins the girl he gave an overdose to and tried to rape. Even his friend gives money to his father, but the butterfly effect completely fails to return to its cause.
This is a very dark film as each character that gets affected, suffers never ending depression. None of the normal avenues for relief seem to be effective and the only thing the authorities seem to do is give out quantities of stress pills.
If this is normal behaviour in Finland now, I'm never going to go back just in case I am affected by such an amoral butterfly and end up as destroyed as the characters in this film were.
\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 see. This movie is many things to different people. To Finns, as shown by the comments, it can be OK or dreadful or boring. To other folks, it can be something different. First off: if you do not speak Finnish (I do), you will understand half of what is going on, as subtitles are dreadful and even the title is translated incorrectly (\"Paha maa\" would probably be idiomatically translated as Badlands in UK English).
Why did I not like it? Because it is a Tarantino-style movie: it simply takes a very harsh reality and throws it back at you, as brutally as possible. I, however, am not American, and thus I am not particularly fond of this proceeding, because all it does is show that the director has really nothing new to say. Technical prowess (camera work is brilliant), script (not that unoriginal) do not rescue this movie from the bottom where it belongs. Should you wish to see a Finnish movie, then go for any of the Kaurismäki brothers' movie, who match talent and directorial skill, with very good actresses and actors.
This director ought to review his intention and priorities: none was intelligible, and thus this film failed. By not watching it you won't miss much.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf this is what's best in the Finnish cinema at the moment, I'd say those big tax euros spent at supporting \"culture\" have gone to waste here in a horrible way. Paha maa is the worst kind of example of trying to make a Finnish \"European film\" for big audiences. I'm sure they wanted it to be all state-of-the-art, smart and touching at the same time. The result is crap.
To make it short: - The story is pretentious, naïve and not credible. The same goes for the characters. I can imagine them brainstorming about making a film where \"everything would, like, turn to ***t and people would be hurt and feel, you know, really bad inside, because Finnish people are so notoriously depressed, too, and their self-esteem is so bad\", which brings us to the fact that...
- The film is loaded with clichés, mostly about \"the Finnish mentality\". The way the it deals with people's problems and their causes could be straight out of a regular women's magazine or a cheap bull-psychology-self-help book. (\"We feel so bad inside!\") I'm sure they watched some Kaurismäki, too, to find out what it is about his films that people like, misunderstood him completely, and came up with a boring, depressing story about people going through all kinds of s**t for no other artistic purpose than perhaps social pornography. It's a crying shame they threw in Tolstoy here. It's just a sign of trying to be smart. And of not being.
- I think the worst fault, however, is the complete lack of vision and depth. The film is highly unoriginal. It is also frustrating to watch endless sulking and suffering without any real revelation brought to it. I can go through this kind of mind**ck if the film is funny or ends up being an elaborate joke, or better yet, something sublime like in e.g. von Trier's Breaking the Waves. There was none these in Paha maa. Actually though, I did start laughing at some point because the turn of events was again just too predictable, over-the-top and incredible.
Who does this crap? And who likes it? I hope they're pretending.
\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 recently waisted 8  by going and see this movie in the cinema. It was a waste of time and the only feeling you get going out of the theater is a slightly nauseous of all the disgusting social pornography.
It could have been interesting if it had a quite absurd twist but it hadn't so it was just plain awful with maybe one or two scenes which could have been taken out and made to very nice short movies.
Another thing I thought about is the way the director uses all the Finish stereotypes as characters. It is quite extraordinary how you as a Finish director can make a movie with the worst stereotypes of your own nationality. It was sad to sit and and hear the audience sitting and laughing at things that they thought was typical Finish but in general just is making fun of people.
\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\nSome Janapese modern horror movies are very good. Strong plot, scary moments, good acting, while others are just.... unfortunately, Uzumaki belongs to the latter camp.
I will rate the movie based on 3 elements: Plot, Scary Factor, and Acting.
1) Plot - true to the name the movie, the plot moves in circle and never really explains itself. OK, the town is captivated by the spiral curse, but why? And why do people act so foolishly? There is a fleeting attempt to explain about what is happening by the reporter.. unforutunately...
2) Scary Factor - if this was meant to be a horror flick, it has failed miserably. I can't really remember one good scary scene with plenty of build-up to it.
3) Acting - very monotonous. People walking around, saying meaningless phases. I can't really feel much empathy for our tragic heroes.
All in all, there are much better modern Japanese horror movies out there with coherent plot and strong characterization. Don't bother wasting your time on this wannabe.
\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 it was weird and just gory, not scary. I have seen a couple of the Japanese horror films, Ringu and Juon, and loved them; but this movie was a disappointment. It never even explained anything about the curse. I just didn't see any horror... it wasn't scary to me at all. The whole time I was watching I was waiting for Kirie to discover the secret of the curse and why it was happening now. If this was some ancient curse, why didn't it happen before Shuichi's father? And it never told us what happened to her father. I kept waiting for someone to tell us the meaning or the reasoning behind this curse and then it just ended. I was very disappointed.
\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\nUzumaki, which translates into \"spirals\", arriving within this new wave of Asian Horror films following such hits like Ringu, Ju-On and The Eye (two of them with remakes.. and much more coming like Dark Water and Tale of Two Sisters), falls short of the spooky, supernatural thriller element so characteristic of the other movies, the only thing that remains is weirdness and not in a Tim Burton or David Lynch kind of way, but in a irrelevant and dull way.
Its start with a girl, some other kid with a crush on her, her best friend and his dad who's obsessed with Uzumakis! Everything that happens concerns Uzumakis, people die and you see Uzumakis. So okay, It'll go along with it, I'm kinda amuse by spirals myself, characters don't seem to go anywhere, but I'll play along. We find out the town is cursed by Uzumakis, people start screaming at Uzumakis and the point is Uzumakis are everywhere, the movie is a disaster, it doesn't know where to go, except to show you the power of Uzumakis!!!!!!!!! There are some cool concepts like when the mother cuts her fingers because she sees Uzumakis on her fingerprints but then there's another scene where she hears her husband (from beyond the grave!!) tell her that she also has Uzumakis in her ear, the way they handled that scene was just laughable, not even cheesy fun, there are also some (a little bit) of cool visuals, like the collection the father has of Uzumakis and the girl with the Uzumakis hair.. yep, Uzumakis hair, its out of context though, its seems like it was taken out of a Fruit Snack commercial where if you eat an Uzumakis fruits snack, its taste is so incredible your hair turns into Uzumakis, now if this wasn't bad enough, suddenly, out of nowhere there are Snail Men.. or ManSnails whatever and you know why? right? Because in their shells they have Uuuuzuuuumaaakiiiis. That only left time enough for a crappy anti-climatic ending and by that time I was sick of friggin' uzumakis.. uzumaki here uzumaki there, sure, look around you, how many Uzumakis can you find If you want to see a movie about spirals go see PI (3.1416) now there you'll find some pretty cool uzumaki concepts in between the meaning of life and Dark City has also a little bit of a spiraling thing in there.
This movie could have worked as a music video, it has already garnered a cult following and thats why I was compelled to see it, but after doing so, I'm not sure why people think it's great. I was truly disappointed.
\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 feeble attempt at veering your typically bland Japanese horror movie more towards a creepy cult hit did not have the ammunition needed to keep the viewer involved throughout. Translated to vortex, Uzumaki is about just that- an irrational and overabundant tribute to the strange downward spiral into nothingness that has seemingly captivated a whole small town into dementia obsessed lunatics. While this certainly makes for a pleasurable b-movie on the surface, the traditionally tiresome acting, direction, and script will have all but Asian horror buffs shaking their heads in dismay. What could have roughly translated into Japanese equivalent of an early David Lynch piece, instead wares out it's spiraled gimmickry before it even has a chance to explain itself- which of course it does not. Aside from a few clever techniques employed, the movie rarely connects the dizzying thematics with the dull script, ultimately coming across as a cheap exploitation into the cult genre, substituting hollow imagery for genuine substance. When the movie had ended there was hardly anything that was gained from any of the interactions, save a tiny few scenes or images that rose above the one note film. I do applaud the makers for at least trying to take the genre into more supernatural, metaphysical realms and understand the rough losses lost-in-translation, but with zero substance to back any of it's freakishness up this will likely be relegated to obscure fanboy's bong-ridden basements.
\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, let me start off by saying this isn't a horrible movie by any means. It's just not good. I recall one poster saying the acting isn't campy it's just nuanced. No. I've seen nuanced Japanese and Asian acting. I'm sorry, you're wrong. This is camp.
The characters are totally unsympathetic, the deaths are totally random and utterly meaningless. The writing is bad. I'm fine with suspending disbelief, I'm fine with not having everything handed to me in terms of plot. But this movie has no plot. One reviewer stated \"This movie is set in a small town where people are going nuts over vortexes and spirals.\" That's not a blurb, that's the entire freaking film. Congratulations, I've just saved you nearly an hour and a half. There is nothing more to it. No character development, no plot development, no explanations, no resolution. And not even the \"Acceptable within the realm of J-Horror\" lack of resolution. Just nothing.
In addition, the musical score is done by someone who obviously wasn't actually watching the movie at the time because it's random enough to cause whiplash. Cognitive dissonance is one thing and done well it can be brilliant (see Dark Water), but here it just seems as if the score was designed to go with another movie all together.
The best example I can give is it's as if the Japanese remade Evil Dead without any of the clever bits or good acting. It just falls flat. It's J-horror without the horror.
\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 started out as a quite decent-looking film but it never really kicked off, instead it became predictable and even a bit silly. Some scenes were quite well made, the photography and the cuts used in combination with sounds and such made it a bit more interesting to watch, but since the story was quite slow it didn't manage to keep the interest alive. And more importantly, its not scary at all! It's supposed to be a horror movie but there wasn't a single scene that was close to frightening or even exciting..
To be frank, the actors weren't all that great either, no colorful characters you ll remember for the rest of your days..
Overall a watchable movie but it doesn't add anything and once you've finished watching it, it wont last long until its already forgotten.
The reason I watched it was because I had read some review giving it top scores, but I disagree and instead I would grade it 4 out of 10. If you still want some Japanese horror, I would suggest you watch Ju-On instead!

\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWorst.film.ever Nothing more needs to be said. Aaron Carter is utterly repellent and the rest of the cast should fire their agents immediately. It really is a terrible terrible movie from beginning to end. I wish I could be more eloquent in describing the movies many (oh so many) flaws however I cant be bothered/get too angry to form proper sentences.
In short I absolutely hated everything about this movie and not in \"so bad its good\" kinda way...
It was unadulterated drek.
Gavin
\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 only people i would recommend this film to are both blind and deaf, although i'm sure a sadomasochist would get a kick out of it. This film had nothing; no acting, terrible music, awful script- only the power to suck any happiness from your soul. You may be wondering by now why or even how i managed to sit through the full hour and a half of sheer inanity, and it is honestly a difficult concept for even myself. Firstly, i had to pace up and down as the film progressed as i found it extremely hard to get comfortable. Secondly, i only made it without gnawing off my own arm in order to have something to beat myself to death with by phoning friends for moral support when the plot became particularly slow. The problem was it became a matter of pride for me to finish it after the opening thirty minutes, and that was a fatal error on my behalf. I normally like films to leave you with something by the end, but all this did was take..... For the sake of your sanity do not watch this 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\nWhat really stood out to me about this movie was how little the plot made sense. So many characters were randomly introduced, it was like how I imagine Tommy Wiseau's \"THE ROOM\" would be re-envisioned for the Disney Channel set. We had the wise elderly couple who kept on hanging out where \"Jane\" worked, telling the same story about how \"soda\" brought them together, or Jane's Mom/Stepmom/random crying woman who would all show up at random times.
Aaron Carter's acting is definitely the highlight of this film: I actually looked forward to every scene he appeared in. The editing is painfully bad, with scene cuts that make no sense. The \"Jane\" character is really irritating, mooning about and moping about \"J.D. McQueen.\" The scenes with the \"Music Awards\" are more depressing than anything else. And the ending of this movie is surreal.
\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 rented this movie with my friend for a good laugh. We actually got laughed at by the clerk at the video store because of our questionable movie tastes. Unfortunately, I don't remember the first half of the movie because all I did was stare at the giant metal braces Jane wore. and I didn't hear anything either due to the incomprehensible lisp. The other thing that was able to grasp my attention besides her metal mouth was her questionable fashion sense. This movie was made in 2005 but it seems like the wardrobe people jumped all the way back to 2000 for the clothes. If you remember the days when Aaron Carter was considered a \"popstar\" and you like high waisted jeans, ankle socks and knee length skirts, then this little trip down memory lane is perfect 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\nHonestly, the only reason I picked up this movie from Blockbuster was because Aaron Carter was in it. Okay first thing's first. Do you notice how ugly Aaron Carter has become?? I mean, he used to be so cute but now..with that lanky body and blotchy skin - EW. I think he should stick with singing and the directors of the movie could've found a much better-looking guy who could lip-sync. No offense though. I thought this teen movie was majorly lame - and this is coming from me, being a teen myself. The 'mean girls' in there are oh-so predictable, the acting is so amateurish it makes you cringe at times (especially from Aaron) and overall I just didn't enjoy it. Although, I give out points for the storyline - that was alright, but not at all realistic. Anyway, stay away from this movie by all means you can unless you happen to have wads of cash on hand and have absolutely nothing better to do with 94 minutes of your time. It's not worth the $6.50!!
(P.S; this review of mine may not be applicable to younger kids under the age of 13!)
\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 was funny because the whole thing was so unrealistic, I mean, come on, like a pop star would just show up at a public high school and fall in love with the girl who happens to be obsessed with him? Come on, people!
Everyone but the lead girl were completely horrendous at acting. The dialog was cheesy, the premise was stupid, and the camera work was poorly done. I felt like I was watching a badly made home video.
I feel as if I've wasted almost 2 hours of my life that I will never get back.
I don't have anything else to say, except that I'd rather punch myself in the face multiple times, than watch this movie 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\nHorrendous! I'm a teenager and I don't mind teen movies but this is horrible! Aaron Carter plays this popstar named JD McQueen and to keep his grades up or something, he works together with the 'nerd', Jane whateverherlastnameis. But the 'mean girls' are too predictable and such The clothing most of the girls wear in the movie isn't realistic. How would any of those girls get away with wearing no bra, tube tops and shirts that expose the belly? IN HIGH SCHOOL? At my school, we'd be sent home for something like that.
And one part of the movie where JD texts Jane, she says 'Sleep tight? He must think i'm an idiot! I didn't know texting was so stressful!' How is texting stressful? And how obsessed Jane is with JD and how he 'falls' in love with her is very stupid. The dialogue is cheesy and stupid, the acting's terrible. the music is somewhat enjoyable and the plot is little to none.
For tweeny-boppers who still love Aaron Carter, you'll enjoy it. If you're a casual watcher like me, this is NOT the movie 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\nThis is a disaster-movie, in both meanings of the word. Every character, every role, every conversation, every twist, everything in this movie stinks big time. It's a shame to see Dennis Hopper's talent wasted in this dreadful movie. I can give you 100's of examples but see for yourself.
Or rather : don't.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI found myself getting increasingly angry as this movie progressed.
Basically, Dr. Crawford (Dennis Hopper) has predicted a meteor will hit the earth. The \"powers that be\" don't believe him so he sets about building a survival shelter inside a mountain for a small collection of people.
Jake Lowe (Peter Onorati) is a down on his luck reporter for a trashy tabloid who gets a tip from a friend he thought was dead that something is going on in the mountains. He sets out to investigate.
While trying to get into the secret survival shelter Jake spends a great deal of time shooting people to death or beating them to within an inch of their lives. He spends the rest of his time bitching at Dr. Crawford about who gave the doc the right to decide which people should get to survive the meteor.
I found myself wishing Jake would do the future a big favor and turn a gun on himself.
Don't waste your time on this turkey.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nNot only did the effects and acting in this movie bite, but the story was terrible.
A scientist discovers that a comet fragment will hit the moon ... world leaders ignore him ... he builds a shelter ... then, everyone is upset that he is \"playing God\".
How lame! He built the thing, why is everyone \"entitled\" to access? Totally lame story, don't waste your time!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nLike many others, I counted on the appearance of Dennis Hopper to make this not a complete waste of time. I was sadly mistaken. Everything negative said about this flic is more than true. What takes the cake however, is the horrible, horrible storyline for the main character.
Here's why: The planet might be destroyed, the ONLY way to recover from it, for the ENTIRE human race to be saved trough it, is to get as many smart, capable, nice, competent people into an underground hide-out. And Dennis Hopper is the lone seer/scientist with vision who was prepared for the worst, and who has realized this. But what's the main motivation of Stevens (Sonny D'Angelo)?? He's angry because Dennis has decided who is to be saved or to be doomed! While it clearly explained to Stevens that Dennis' character has done everything to warn people of the danger but that he was laughed at. The Hopper-character was the boy with the finger in the dike, and now Stevens is blaming him for 'picking and choosing'??? And if that isn't enough, he wants to stop everybody from entering this hideout, because \"it isn't fair!?\" AND.... he's responsible for the death of the one guy who is humanity's saviour! OH MY GOD, how stupid can you get?
What's also maddening that IMDb forces one to write minimal ten lines about this piece of crap. I mean, TWO MILLION in budget, what could have been done with that? Think Clerks, Blair Witch, and lotsa other movies who have been made for under 100.000 dollars and were still better. AAAAARGH! I count myself lucky that I didn't pay one penny to see this crap, and to sit through the end of this utter, úber-crap, is one the most heroic things I've done this year. It's no wonder that the writers of this pile of dung had jobs as camera operator and title designer before ...
\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\nPeter Crawford discovers a comet on a collision course with the moon. But when the government doesn't believe him (dumb fact #1). He builds a shelter in deep underground and is drawing lots to see who will go. Plus is willing to kill to save humanity (dumb fact #2). With millions of dollars of technology, how could a civilian see what NASA could not? Plus, the ends justifies the means moral of this story is just plain WRONG!!! This movie is improbable and totally unbelievable. What was running through these people minds, why the hell do crap piles like this get the green light? Some times I wonder who someone has to **** to get a movie made in this ****ing town.
\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 complete crap do not watch the main character is so f u c king concerned that the doc's bomb shelter is not big enough for everyone thus he claims the doc is playing god by saying who lives and who dies all during his 13itching, he kills people without thinking twice and beats people to near death also, the main character is an selfish little a$$ wipe as because of him, the doc who made the shelter died and his friend died. he also killed several no name cops the main character is just a f u c king dumb hillbilly s h i t head that's got no concept of the greater good also, this movie makes no f u c king sense. tell me why a comet would cause seismic activity? (if you say gravity, i will f u c king rape you cause the comet is smaller then the moon and you don't see the moon causing volcano eruptions and earthquakes and avalanches).
why does a comet cause atmospheric discharges (the red lightning, also why is it red?) in addition, if you don't know, the F U C KING MOONS BEEN HIT BY COMETS THOUSANDS OF TIMES!!! thats why there's f u c king craters everywhere on the moon. the size of an object needed to shatter the moon into the fragments as portrayed in the movie would require a comet around the size of the moon itself.
it takes huge amounts of KE to cause an satellite to explode like that.
a goof in this movie is that the nuclear explosion in space resulted in a disk shaped shock wave. this is incorrect as in space, the explosion should have produced an spherical shock wave. this inaccuracy is also apparent when the comet hits the moon.
also, someone tell me why the commander (the person who drives the big old broken plane) suddenly felt the need to die? i mean he's just like walking with them to the shelter, then he stops, he salutes the main character.
WTF?!?!!?!? the main character is also an ugly @$$hole, he's got a huge forehead and thinning hair. disgusting.
STAY AWAY FROM THIS MOVIE!!!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nNot only that the VHS and DVD cover(at least in Europe)show a scene that has nothing to do with the actual plot of the movie, the acting is so bad, that the movie is crying out for being made fun of. If you have nothing to do, you are with some good friends and you want to have some laughs about a movie, that is supposed to be serious, watch Tycus and Peter Onorati, a man who will teach you how to knock over bad guys with empty carton boxes! Shame on Dennis Hopper, following Travoltas example by starring in his very own \"battlefield earth\". For those who want to watch a good movie about the earth being destroyed by a terrible force, please do not choose Tycus, but do yourselves a favor and watch \"Armageddon\" for he 20th time!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"