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\nOkay,I had watched this movie when I was very little and the day that we were cleaning out the closet I see this!I thought,\"I have no idea of what this movie was like,\"so I went ahead and put it in.OH MY GOD!!!!!This film is so darn bad!I never thought that this film could ever get as close to my least favorite film as it did,but I did laugh,because all the jokes were so corny and ridiculous,not funny!!!!So much stuff in this movie was funny,because it was SO STUPID!!!!This film is not anywhere near good.I would have to say if you want to watch this movie you definitely better not expect anything big and if you've already seen it,trust me,I feel your pain as well!!!!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie was sooo bad. It wasn't even funny at all. Not even the sarcastic scenes were funny. Oh man, bad, so bad. Thumbs down. Spoofed, Karate Kid, Teen Wolf, Footloose, Dirty Dancing, Some Kind of Wonderful, Soul Man, and probably another or two. Chris Kattan at his very worst as the high school janitor who is a talented dancer, who runs a dance studio in a warehouse. He has a jealous girlfriend, who breaks her ankle and her dance spot goes to the cute blonde newcomer who Chris has eyes for. I thought the acting was really bad. I like laugh out loud comedies, this was not one. \"Not Another Teen Movie\" wasn't funny, but had a lot more funny scenes than Totally Awesome. \"Scary Movie\" is suuuper funny. I always laugh when I watch those, super enjoyable. This movie, not funny.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOh, dear! This has to be one of the worst films I have ever seen. It's unbelievably repetitive; every scene seems to consist of people being gunned down, running round screaming, or being kicked in the face, which quickly becomes very dull. I wouldn't mind if the combat was even any good, but it isn't; the main character Phillips pushes the various goons over with ridiculous ease, and no matter how often he stands in full view of the Tracker, he never gets hit, even though extras and minor characters are being shot and blown up all around him. I've rarely seen a worse cast of actors (especially Don Wilson, if you can even call him an \"actor\") but that's not really surprising, given the dialogue they have to work with (sample line: \"Computers killed my brother!\"). The plot is a sub-par ripoff of the excellent Terminator; the special effects are laughable. Overall, this film is just utterly dreadful. And why does everything explode?
\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\nPlot Synopsis: Los Angeles in the future. Crime is kept under control by Core Trackers, android assassins dispatched by the United States Computerized Judicial System to execute the guilty. Secret Service agent Eric Phillips prevents an attack on his boss, Senator Robert Dilly (the man who set up the USCJS), by the Union for Human Rights, a group of anti-machine activists. Dilly attempts to initiate Phillips into his private circle but the SS agent goes on the run after witnessing Dilly murder a UHR agent in cold blood. Dilly sends Core Trackers after him. Phillips joins the UHR group & helps them uncover a conspiracy involving Dilly.
\"Cyber Tracker\" is the first of a number of sci-fi / action hybrids directed by Richard Pepin, co-founder of PM Entertainment, a powerhouse of action films during the 1990s. Other Pepin films include \"Hologram Man\", \"T-Force\", \"The Silencers\" & \"Dark Breed\". Pepin films typically start with a major action sequence which lasts about 10 minutes before allowing the plot to kick in. The script for this film has a few plot holes  it is never clear what the conspiracy the heroes are trying to stop actually is. As for the acting, Don \"The Dragon\" Wilson may be tough but cannot act for beans, with little charisma. His co-stars are a lot better. The film's best bet are the action scenes, which throw up some impressive artillery fire, a huge bodycount & not one but three moments where a vehicle flies through the air, flips & hits the ground, exploding. The visual effects border on the cheap side & the musical score is low-key & shrill.
\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\nEric Phillips (Don Wilson) is a secret service agent who prevents the assassination of a senator however along the way he finds a conspiracy and has a tracker on his tail. The tracker by the way is bent on terminating Phillips. The most obvious inspiration for this low budget cheeseball action flick, is of course Robocop and while that film had some imagination and real energy, this just has a real life kickboxing champ running away from a robot. The movie isn't so awful as it is just empty and repetitive. The story is written in clichés and the characters are set up to be cut down by the various gunfire. Don Wilson, as usual, is terrible in the lead role.
*1/2 out of 4-(Poor)
\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\nCyberTracker is set in Los Angeles sometime in the near future where bodyguard Eric Phillips (co-producer Don 'The Dragon' Wilson) saves senator Robert Dilly (John Aprea) from an assassination attempt by a group known as the UHR, the Union of Human Rights, who are angry at Dilly for spearheading the Computerised Judicial System in which robots called CyberTrackers are sent out to determine & dispense justice on the guilty. Anyway, Eric saves Dilly who is very impressed & decides to see if he can trust Eric in his shady activities like the cold blooded murder of a traitor, being the fine upstanding guy that he is Eric isn't impressed when Dilly kills a woman & he is asked to keep it quiet. Eric escapes & sets out to bring Dilly down, however Dilly has lots of powerful friends & he uses his influence to frame Eric & have his CyberTrackers sent out in pursuit of him...
Co-produced & directed by Richard Pepin I think films like CyberTracker give films a bad name, I didn't like it that much at all. The script by Jacobsen Hart is pretty predictable, it doesn't excite, it steals most of it's ideas & theme from other better sci-fi films & the heady mix of martial arts action & sci-fi don't gel that well. There a few fights, some car chases & a couple of shoot outs but it's all rather bland & forgettable. The film lacks imagination considering the film is set in the future & it deals with robots, technology & the way society is run & it's judicial system in particular. Speaking of which the fantastic Robocop (1987) mixed it's violent action & clever social commentary brilliantly but CyberTracker doesn't even try to make any relevant social statement or try to portray any meaningful moral message about law enforcement, the script basically uses the concept to have robots & shoot outs which Robocop did as well but also managed to include a good story. There is very little in CyberTracker that I can say was entertaining & that's what films are about right?
Director Pepin does OK but nothing stands out, it's all rather forgettable & it's not particularly exciting. The sci-fi elements are nothing more than the robot side of things & as a whole the film doesn't look that futuristic. The action scenes are alright, there's some exploding cars & some shoot outs but nothing spectacular.
Technically CyberTracker is average, for a film supposedly set in the future it already looks dated & the special effects are poor. The acting was bad, I wonder if Don 'The Dragon' Wilson signs cheques with that name?
CyberTracker was a waste of my time, there is nothing here original or exciting & the action is instantly forgettable. Poor & that's all that needs to be said, 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\nThis movie was obviously made with a very low budget, but did they have to make it so obvious? It looked like they made no effort to make the \"future\" look in the least futuristic. For example, the first scene takes place in an 80's office building and all the cars that get blown up are from the late 70's (I assume they didn't want to blow up cars that cost more than $500). Additionally, its pretty obvious that Don \"the Dragon\" is driving his personal car during the movie (after all, he did partially fund the film). Finally, they point out at the beginning of the film that all kinds of drugs are now legal in this new \"cyberpunk\" society. Not only does this never become important in the film, but later when don needs surgery without anesthesia, why doesn't he just go out and get some legal heroin or morphine? The whole movie is sloppy like this and completely anticlimactic since Don easily blows up an \"unstoppable\" Cybertracker about 25 minutes into the movie. However, if you find this movie cheap or free I'd watch it, the last scene is almost worth putting up with this whole film.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI was expecting a lot from Mr.Amitabh Bachan's role of SARKAR, but am disappointed. Being a Ram Gopal Verma's direction i was not ready for this kind of a movie. Sarkar is supposed to be a strong character, but the movie shows that Amitabh is too dependent on others power rather than his. There is a movie in Tamil called Nayakan based on the theme of GOD FATHER and Kamala Hassan has played the lead. The movie is well directed and the power till the end remains in the hands of Kamala Hassan, not his son. Amitabh Bachan seems to be too helpless in the movie and he just accepts everything instead of changing things. The movie fails to show the strong impact of God Father.
\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 disappointing to see as talented an actor as Amitabh Bachchan in such a weak role, especially when he was beyond sensational in BLACK (which I highly recommend). One line in the film states: \"Sakar is not a mere man, he is a thought and a philosophy.\" Director Ram Gopal Varma credits THE GODFATHER as an inspiration for this movie, and perhaps that is the problem. It seems like a badly mangled American movie set in India. The Left Elbow Index considers seven elements of film-making--acting, continuity, plot, character development, dialogue, artistry, and production sets--on a scale from a high of 10 to a low of 1, with 5 given as a average score. The film continuity seems high, an 8, by maintaining a violent tone infused with drama in places, and using justice outside the legal system as motivation. However, there seems to be a lack of emotion connected with the evil of organized crime. The acting rates a 4, it appears too weak, even when someone is being beaten or murdered, it seems hoohum. For example, when one character is shot in the forehead, I found myself wondering if, or when, he was going to fall. He does not, and ala Ronald Reagan he is placed in an automobile, with his bleeding face cradled ala John F. Kennedy. The plot rates a 5 as an example of American-style gangsterism, with a family oriented Robinhood at its head. Character development appears static, and the characters seem like chess pieces on an abandoned chess board, thereby earning a rank of 3. The dialogue seems stilted, and appears to be forced to fit some Bowery pattern of speech--a 4 for dialogue. Production sets look to be below average--a 4. And, artistry is puzzling, with far too many close-ups, too rapid panning, and too many group scenes where the actors seem over rehearsed--a 3. To me, too much camera movement is disruptive. The average of the Left Elbow Index is 4.4, and with a slight deduction based on poor derivatism it moves down to a 4. Two questions continually arise in the film: one, why are so many people eating so often: and, two, does not India have its own brand of organized crime? Do films like this have to be so dependent on Western cultural examples? As much as I like Amitabh Bachchan, I cannot recommend 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\nAt the beginning of the movie, Ramgopal Verma says that \"Sarkar\" is his tribute to The Godfather. This one feels more like an insult. It pales terribly in comparison to the Coppola classic. Although no one was expecting Ramgopal Verma to fill Coppola's shoes, the movie did create a lot of expectation and buzz.
Amitabh Bachchan plays \"Sarkar\", a character automatically drawing instant comparisons to Indian political party Shiv Sena's Supremo Bal Thackeray. Abhishek Bachchan plays his son Shankar who returns from abroad and gets caught up in Sarkar's politics at home. Just like Al Pacino in the original Godfather.
As most Bollywood fare, incidents and characters are overtly simplistic and devoid of any kind of solid foundation. Quick phone calls and sudden announcements turn the film from one direction to another. Abishek takes to Mumbai's murky underworld politics-crime nexus like a duck takes to water. Amithab Bachchan as Sarkar is supposed to look magnificent and powerful, he just ends up looking old and clueless. Most of his acting is centered around constantly staring at different things around the movie set - the actor in front of him, the floor or in some other random direction.
However, Kay Kay performs exceedingly well as the wronged elder son Vishnu. So does Zakir Hussain as Rashid, the Dubai based dope smuggler who wants to gets his footing in Mumbai. This actor has awesome screen presence and can send chills down your spine with just the way he looks. The moment he enters the screen, you want to run and hide under the bed.
All its obvious flaws not withstanding, the film did well at the box office. The buzz and the big star cast obviously helping. Also Verma manages to hold your interest albeit mildly towards the later half of the film. He is actually making a sequel to this one which I am sure will be more of the same fare.
\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 on earth happened to RGV? There are so many things wrong about this movie that one needs to stop and decide where to start- first and worst - the music. Every scene was accompanied with this pretentious background music that was telling you the mood, quite pathetically, I might add. Secondly, the lighting - do we really need such dark scenes where we are wondering if the projector is still working? And finally - if you are going to Indianise the Godfather and Godfather 2 - please realize that a lot of us have seen in. Nayakan was a ripoff of GF1 but better done, and more entertaining. I have seen a similarity in both Company and Sarkar and while RGV's Ab Tak 56 was brilliant, these two movies leave something to be desired. People will not be impressed any more by just corrupt politicians and the lot. Maybe RGV should see Maqbool, which is good enough to be RGV!!
\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 remake can be successful. An adaptation can be successful. It isn't relevant whether its a remake or an adaptation.
A good movie is a good movie and a poor movie is a poor movie, regardless.
Sarkar, I am afraid, was a very poor movie. First of all, just by making characters look dangerous, or macho, they don't bring in an aura about them.
What was so brilliant about Nagre(Amitabh Bacchan's character) that we should have been in aura of his 'power' and what showed the 'benevolence' of the character? Nothing.
This fact was said by a commentator and Amitabh kept giving facial expressions. Now Amitabh can give brilliant facial expressions but why should it mean any thing if there is no history or story to go with it.
There wasn't proper charecterisation of the characters who worked under 'sarkar' too. Just because a man had spectacles, why should we assume he is wise. ] The flow of the movie was generally dullbecause scenes from the Godfather were created (like the policeman slapping Abhishek Bacchan), the older brother being killed by Abhishek (like Fredo was killed on instructions of Pacino) but too much was sought to be packed into the movie with too little story and depth to go with it. That was indeed the problem.
If you try to pack 3 hours of intricate detail like a Godfather in 2 hours and that too with few dialogues, what you get is a highlights show from a cricket match, never making the full impact watching a full match will make.
\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 huge Zack Allan fan and was disappointed that he only got one scene in the movie. This was also my favourite scene where he confiscates a character's weapons and directs her to Down Below. Unfortunately unlike Thirdspace & River of Souls, most of the action took place off station. I didn't care much for Garibaldi after the first three seasons and think Sheridan is okay but no Sinclair. I like Lochley but she only had limited screen time. If you like Crusade or space battles you should enjoy it. Personally I can only give it 1/10.
\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\nCountenance! Antoine Monot, in a copycat impersonation of Kevin Smith's Silent Bob, keeps asking for it, but writer/director Christian Zübert never listens. Zübert just can't say no to a joke, no matter how cheap. The best thing about this movie is its soundtrack. Of course, Joey Burns of Calexico and the divine Jonathan Richman, understated old-school bard of \"There's something about Mary\" fame, would grace any small-town dropout story. In visual allure, Stefan (Lukas Gregorowicz) looks cool enough riding his tan six-series BMW two-door, wearing aviator shades, going nowhere. True, he *accidentally* sleeps with his wild-eyed bohemian kid sister (Marie Zielcke), but then, who wouldn't? Thumbs up also to how he goes black-and-white on a liberal dose of that mysterious substance they call zero-zero, but if you're looking for a slightly more serious rendering of what intoxication can do to you, I suggest you check out \"Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas\".
\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 just dreadful. I regret every second of the 80 minutes I spent watching this dreck. I think it's supposed to be a comedy, but I don't remember laughing much, except at a few blatant inconsistencies and downright glaring errors.
An unattractive middle-aged man called Lester meets up with rich unattractive middle-aged women via lonely hearts ads, and then murders them for the money he needs to feed his gambling addiction. That's the whole plot, and that's really all that happens. Along the way there is an attempt at intrigue when Lester starts to get phone calls from a mysterious stranger who taunts him about knowing his secret, but its so badly implemented, you may not realise what is actually supposed to be happening. The sequences in which Lester murders the rich widows are all quite brutal but also seemingly dressed up as comedies. One sequence has a woman bludgeoned with a wooden pole and then shoved into an oven. It's very cruelly depicted, but it is played out against blaring big-band waltz music, with Lester pulling faces and adopting comedy poses throughout. Another scene has the victim murdered while she constantly sings shrill opera songs...you have to see this to believe it! Actually - you don't have to see it at all, in fact I strongly recommend you avoid this flop. Fulci does not seem to know which hat he is wearing and there's no evidence of any of the flair seen in his earlier career. One sequence stood out to me as particularly wretched: the revelation when Lester suddenly realises that he has no shadow. Fulci seems unable to think up any visual representation of this phenomena on screen, so from this point on he just films the actor as normal, shadow and all!! And thus totally blows the whole angle. Either he had zero budget for effects, or he just didn't care enough to think up any way of showing it. Whatever it was, that should give you a taste of how lame this whole project is. I couldn't even understand most of the film, and there certainly wasn't anything on screen worth looking at half the time. Even the ending was as flat as a pancake. A real dud.
\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 latter-day Fulci schlocker is a totally abysmal concoction dealing with an incurable gambler (Brett Halsey) who decides Bluebeard-style to pay off his ever-rising debts by seducing some of the ugliest bitches you will ever lay your eyes on and who just happen to be wealthy widows! The Fulci-penned script also contrives to incorporate a few blackly comedic elements - which only result in some unfunny business involving a corpse which won't stay put, an opera singer victim who won't stop singing, etc. - not to mention a doppelganger theme straight out of THE STUDENT OF PRAGUE - although, in this case, the two personas communicate via pre-recorded radio messages!! In the end, I can't say I'm surprised that this film shows no sign of the sophistication of Mario Bava's HATCHET FOR THE HONEYMOON (1970) which it resembles in several ways and that it is content to merely pile up the disgustingly gory (but none-too-convincing) effects of dismembered limbs and squashed or melting faces with which, alas, Fulci had by then become completely associated.
\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\nLucio Fulci was famous for his Italian splatter movies, mostly his undead films like Zombie or The Beyond. Here he directed a black comedy of sorts, but there's just one problem: its nauseating. I say this knowing that I like City of the Walking Dead (which is also gross but not like this). A compulsive gambler gets money for his habit by romancing ugly and deformed rich women then murdering them and stealing their cash. The film makes this plan look that easy. I guess the women were too ugly to go to a bank, so they always had their cash on person. After the upteenth murder I began to suspect what I've always heard about Fulci: he hated women. He must have. At any rate this film stinks, its not funny, and Fulci should have stayed with giallo and supernatural zombie movies. Avoid this film at all costs.
\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 certain horror directors for whom I've built up so much respect & admiration over the years, that they can't possibly disappoint me know matter what garbage to decide to put on film. Lucio Fulci is surely one of them, but damned, he's trying to disappoint me with his later efforts! You can easily afford yourself to skip most of the films Fulci directed or produced during the late 80's and simply watch \"Cat in the Brain\" instead, because that one title gathers and repeats the best and absolute goriest footage of no less than SEVEN other Fulci-flicks, including the sickest murders sequences featuring in \"When Alice Broke the Mirror\". As a whole, this movie definitely ranks among our director's weakest and most pointless achievements. The script is incoherent as hell, the basic premise is totally implausible and somewhat stupid and there's absolutely no suspense to enjoy. I love the title, but it's actually quite meaningless. There is a character named Alice in the story, but it's only a supportive role and she certainly doesn't break any mirrors. I suppose she could break stuff simply using her voice, as she's an opera singer, but she doesn't. The plot revolves on a middle-aged and gambling-addicted playboy who spends his days seducing wealthy widows and killing them for their money. Lester Parson butchers the ladies (as well as unwelcome witnesses) in gruesome ways, makes steaks out of their juiciest body parts and feeds the remainders to his cat. There's also a silly psychological sub plot in which he thinks his own shadow is responsible for the murders instead of him. The difference between \"When Alice Broke the Mirror\" and some of Fulci's greatest horror films (\"The Beyond\", \"City of the Living Dead\", \") lies in the fact that he totally doesn't bother to create a horrific atmosphere. The characters, Lester included, are colorless and boring and the murders are ordinarily depicted; like it's the most common thing in the world to put a woman's head in a microwave or repeatedly run back and forth over a human body with a car. The lighting is poor, the cinematography super-ugly, the editing clumsy and amateurish and the acting performances are downright miserable. If I didn't know any better, I would think Lucio deliberately made a lousy film in order to protest against all the harsh critics that dislike his repertoire no matter how much spirit and effort he put into it. The obvious element to enjoy here is simply the outrageous gore & bloodshed, because even the attempt to blend in black comedy doesn't work properly. As long as Lester swings around his chainsaw and cuts off women's feet, \"When Alice Broke the Mirror\" is an undemanding piece of horror entertainment, but other than that, there's isn't a whole lot to recommend.
\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\nLucio Fulci, a director not exactly renowned for his subtlety, ill-advisedly tries his hand at black humour in Touch of Death, a made for TV movie about Lester Parsons (Brett Halsey), a psycho who seduces and murders rich widows in order to pay his gambling debts.
Starting off with a wonderfully gory scene in which the lethal lothario disposes of his latest victim via chainsaw, mincing machine and hungry hogs, Touch of Death starts promisingly enough, but Fulci soon loses control of proceedings, introducing a weird sub-plot involving a mysterious copycat killer and some heavy handed 'comedic' scenes. There are several more graphic murders which, in true Fulci fashion, are extremely violent and gruesome, but even the high level of bloodletting doesn't stop this from being one of Fulci's poorer efforts.
As I have found with many of his other movies, a comprehensible storyline is not exactly high on the agenda when Lucio is behind the camera. This film has many peculiarities which left me more than little perplexed: why didn't Lester dispose all of his victims using the dismemberment method seen at the beginning? Why are all of his victims either hairy or disfigured? What the hell is that ending all about?
Fulci is considered by many to be one of the 'greats' of horror cinema; I don't understand his popularity, finding the majority of the films of his that I have seen so far to be generally lacking both decent narratives and technical proficiency. Touch of Death certainly does nothing to change my opinion.
\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\nBack in 1994 the Power Rangers had become a huge franchise and t.v. executives at the USA Network were hoping to get in on the action and came up with the Tattooed Teenage Alien Fighters from Beverly Hills, in which the evil Emporer Gorganus, who looks like he's wearing a home made Darth Vader costume, and his talking bird, that looks like a rubber dog chew toy, come to earth to invade it using giant monsters that look like rejects from a 1970's Godzilla film. Fortunately Nimbar an alien that looks like a giant piece of clear jello recruits four teenagers to defend the earth, Nimbar gives them each a tattoo of a different star constellation that allows them to transform into buffed up superheros who look like dancers from an eighties tech no music video, they could also combined into a giant knight. Forty episodes were made. The USA Network clearly did not have the money to try to adapt a show from Japan like Power Rangers did, and made up this show on their own using the budget of a 1950's scifi film. The fights scenes are generic, the special effects are poor, and some of the sets look like they could fall down. The actors pretty much realized how ridiculous the show was and pretty much ham it up and overact. I can only imagine their shock when the show was cancel led.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI've been surprised by the enthusiastic response to this film. It seemed dull to me, much as I enjoyed looking at Penelope Cruz, and the plot details often poorly worked out. It also seemed like an intensely sexist film: if the gender roles were reversed, almost everyone with any sense would be up in arms complaining the movie is intensely misogynist. It's not just that both the principal males are portrayed as complete jerks and sexual predators, but also that the women are portrayed as almost flawless, forming a utopian community which lacks conflict of any kind and which rests on relentless generosity and good humor. Utopias are notoriously dull and this one turns out to be no exception. But it's also interesting to notice what happens (and here comes the plot giveaway, though it refers to a very early scene) when the teenage daughter kills her father. (1) Her mother rushes to take responsibility for it and(2) the daughter seems to suffer almost no remorse (and in fact her emotional life then disappears from the film). It's not quite a glorified killing, though Aldomovar's camera lingers on the blood in a bloodthirsty way, as though it makes an attractive painting, and then it's soaked up and out of sight without bloodying either daughter or mom, neither materially nor emotionally. Later the film reveals another killing, again by a woman of a man, , and once again it is a killing which the film implicitly endorses.In short, Volver is an ideologically-driven film with an unpleasant and in fact a repugnant ideology, and so I write an ideological critique. But apart from that, it's just not very interesting. It has none of the depth of, say, Aldomovar's Talk to Her, which I loved.
\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 film by Almodovar- sends a tingle down my spine every time. The capitalized print which opens the Spanish auteur's latest feature instantly induces memories of salacious nuns, gentle necrophiliacs, wisecracking transsexualsand I haven't even got as far as the infant-terrible's critically reviled early work. And after a beautiful opening montage, with the camera roving across a wind-swept graveyard animated by a hoard of widows feverishly scrubbing tombstones, I thought Pedro had me again under his wicked spell.
Yet once my nostalgia had subsided, there was very little to fill its place. For a director who revels in bringing humanity to assassins and rapists, he does a very poor job at finding any emotional depth or endearing quality in his women. Penelope Cruz is Raimunda, a headstrong housewife whose life is complicated by her daughter's accidental killing of her abusive husband. Thankfully she lives in Almodovar's Spain where your friends will quite happily help to dispose of a corpse for the offer of a round of cocktails. Add to the melting-pot the ghost of Raimunda's mother and a host of other eccentrically warm-hearted matriarchs. \"Volver\" means literally to return, and Pedro does appear to be recycling old material. The sub-plot of incest feels as though it were tacked-on as the obligatory \"taboo\". Instead of commenting on or subverting the issue, as with his treatment of paedophilia in Bad Education, it feels forced and unconvincing amid the film's chick-flick sentimentality. I suggest Almodovar call his next film Salir (to move on).
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOne of the first things I noticed that allowed this culture to stand out among the rest was during the wake at Sole's place. An aerial shot is used to show Sole being flowered with kisses by a sea of women. I believed this was a commentary on the closeness that women had for each other of this cultureones who stuck together across the generations, separations and misunderstandings, and still being able to bond and rely on each other. Also, the film seemed to glorify women as almost flawless individuals. What I mean by flawless is that they did not suffer the consequences for their actions and were treated as if they had no imperfections. An example of this is shortly after Paula accidentally killed her father. Her mother immediately comes to her rescue and takes full responsibility for the act while Paula seems to suffer almost no remorse for what she has done. Again, another example of this is when each daughter (or granddaughter) has had an opportunity to reunite with their supposed \"dead\" mother (grandmother). Knowing the stresses that this has most likely caused in their family, each one of them still embraces the mother without care for what she has donethat is, killing her husband and his lover. In this light, women are portrayed as ones who not only love each other independent of character acts, but also ones who don't seem bothered in the least by the acts in which their friends/family members perform.
Another idea that I thought was intriguing of this culture was in regards to their idea of the supernatural. With the death of Raimunda and Sole's mother and her inexplicable return, the director builds the audience's emotions to believe that this film is going to embody the supernatural. The people depicted in this culture seem very supernatural, that is to say, very eager to believe that life exists beyond the grave. Their aunt, long-time friend Augustina, the prostitute and other people living in the city of La Mancha all believe the rumors of the dead coming back to family members to finish the \"unfinished business.\" I believed this was a mixed reflection of the culture's religious faith (predominantly Catholic) as well as their need to make amends with those who had no chance to be forgiven during mortality. The belief they held in regards to the dead being \"alive\" was also to give hope to the destitute circumstances they suffered in mortality. When the viewer is exposed to the fact that this film isn't supernatural at all, it's interesting to observe the role the mother continues to play. She's treated as if she still is a ghost (i.e. hiding in small crevices (underneath the bed or inside a car trunk)). I believe the director portrayed the mother this way to heighten the already existent supernatural beliefs the city had adopted. The mother's character seemed to be a metaphor for the city's long-held belief in life after death.
\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\nAt least for me. I have been following the career of Mr. Almdovar since the beginning and I was not crazy about this film. I think Penelope Cruz was miscast, the type of woman she is portraying does not look that good, she makes the character unbelievable. Also, the singing scene was just weird. I do not get the point and the lip-sync was awful.
As Spaniard, another thing that drove me nuts are the accents. Why people coming from the same place have such a different accent? The difference between the two sisters is notable and makes no sense. And the village? are we in 2007 or 1950? I found myself trying to explain to my American husband that many of the things in the movie are \"old school\", things are not like that anymore.
I was expecting more but this time Mr.Almodovar did not deliver, at least for me. I am not saying that Miss Cruz does a bad job, I am saying that she does not belong there, not portraying that character.
\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\nThough I have watched Salò, I do not know if excrement tastes tart. If it does, this \"film\" is accurately titled. So much of roughage, so little substance, this is the celluloid equivalent of celery - only it does not cleanse the palate. It leaves the taste of wasted time in the mind's mouth, and if I could vomit this film and get back that expanse/expense I would. Detention was more exciting. The director should be forced to wear a dunce cap, and the Spirit of Ed Wood Jr. couldn't save this semi-professional projection from certain failure. A waste of time, a waste of mind. **Don't be fooled by the toothsome Dominique Swain: competent eye-candy she was in the Lolita remake, less tragic and savvier than Sue Lyon, though by no means better. However, a previously competent turn of the screw does not make her a skilled crafts-person. You need craft for that, not crap, which is what this film is. The reels belong in the girls' bathroom, flushed till the pipes burst, while director/direct-less Christina Wayne should do 5-10 in study hall. Watch anything else and pass this class, by (bye), forever!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n\"Tart\" is a good illustration of old the Yogi Berra saying: \"If you don't know where you are going, you will probably end up someplace else\". Writer/Director Christina Waye (in her first feature) has managed to make a $3 Million movie that ends up someplace else. \"Tart\" is either a coming of age story devoid of characters that a rational person can connect with, a black comedy without any humor, or a sexploitation movie without anything that is particularly sexy.
Unlike the standard Swain film, \"Tart\" actually employed a competent and experienced production designer. Good enough to provide two extremely nice shots: the scene of Swain and Barton taking a bubble bath together and the scene of Swain in the park-featuring a nice montage of the \"Alice in Wonderland\" sculpture. The symbolism incorporated into these elements supports the possibility that Waye (despite the absence of a linear logic or unity of tone) actually has some visionary talent and aspirations for making a quality film.
It is even possible that Waye was trying for a fusion of the somewhat expressionistic \"Metropolitan\" and the camp classic \"Cruel Intentions\" which also deal with the Manhattan upper class. There are many camera shots framed by windows and doors yet few tight shots of faces and eyes. The former technique hinting at symbolism and the latter at intentional distancing from the characters and their motivations. \"Tart\" seemed on the verge of veering into camp territory at least twice and would have been well advised to keep going in that direction. First there was the scene where they try to dump the seemingly deceased Swain into the garbage chute. Then there is the whole bit about her father being Jewish (played to the same extreme as Joel Grey dancing with the Jewish guerrilla in \"Cabaret\").
In her other films Swain's acting technique is to overwhelm each scene in which she appears (insert scenery chewing here) but in \"Tart\" she actually shows an ability to restrain herself. This is the best performance of her career. It also provides some clues about her physical deterioration from willowy super cute in \"Girl\" to hulking lumpy-faced in \"Pumpkin\". This transformation was about half-complete by the time she made \"Tart\"; so go the ravages of time.
Mischa Barton (\"Sixth Sense's\" I feel better girl) and Lacey Chabet are excellent in supporting roles. The rest of the cast is simply horrible, although some of the blame for this should go to Waye's script and direction.
\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 beginning of the movie was confusing and the rest of it was predictable. It was just one of those movies that I came across in my netflix instant queue and I thought it would be interesting to see Brad Renfro and Bijou Phillips team up together again since Bully. Unfortunately \"interesting\" never happened in this movie. Swain plays an invisible girl at a private school whose best friend is rich and does anything she wants at any time (Phillips). But Swain likes one of the boys (Renfro) from the \"in crowd\" and eventually starts hanging with them. And, of course, like all other movies things are good (or so you assume since the movie never hints on that things are good) and then things become not so good by hanging with the rich kids.
The problem with the movie is that there are absolutely no peaks and valleys. It is just a dead lifeless movie that after you've watched it, you feel you could have done anything better. Some scenes (the ones with Renfro's parents) don't even make sense as to being in the movie because the director and writer didn't follow up on it, at all.
All the interesting things that COULD have played out was just completely ignore and this is almost like watching a before they were stars episode (Mischa Barton and Rachel Bison from the OC).
The only shining light in this movie, and the reason it doesn't get a ONE rating from me is Phillips. They needed more scenes with her in it. Renfro just look like he brought over a bit of his character from Bully. And, for pete's sake, the Title is BS, change the name.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nBasic structure of a story: Beginning, Middle, End.
Sometimes this structure is played with, and we get Memento or Irreversible and the story plays backwards. Sometimes it's just not linear, a la Pulp Fiction. Regardless, they all have a beginning, middle and end.
This is the first film I have ever seen that doesn't have an end.
Beginning: Girl's best friend is expelled.
Middle: Girl needs to cope without best friend.
End: Non existent.
Not that having an end would've saved this film, but at least it would have been complete.
It's an exercise in apathy; we get a party-mix of characters, and they all turn out to be duds. Boring, vain, vapid and pallid imitations of people.
And here's the action within this film: NOTHING HAPPENS. Nothing at all happens. Mischa Barton tries to talk with a plummy English accent, Dominique Swain whines a lot and Brad Renfro receives a blow job from some old guy. End of movie.
By the time the credits rolled, I had a horrible feeling that many prisoners must feel: periods of time, those precious minutes of our life, have just been wasted.
The only passable point (and that is a very emphatic ONLY) is Brad Renfro. He acts well. Lacey Chabert I tend to like, but no luck here. Due to good work in other films, I will forgive Mischa Barton this travesty, but I hope all cast members were slapped in the face for their involvement.
Please, I implore you. Avoid. Don't fool yourself into thinking \"I'll make up my own mind\". My sister told me to never see this, and I ignored her, wanting to make up my own mind. That was a bad decision.
I have never hated a film. There are many I don't like, but I have never hated a film. Until I saw 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\nEghads, what a bad movie. Tart is perhaps the very worst movie I've seen all year, and I've run across some doozies. There is nothing redeeming about this trash, from the characterization to the direction to the plot. Even the usually brilliant Dominique Swain couldn't save this movie. None of the characters are in the least bit sympathetic, with the possible exception of Eloise (wonderfully portrayed by Lacey Chabert, the only bright spot in this dismal failure).
*******Possible Spoilers********
The main problem with Tart is that it rambles on without saying anything. It staggers about drunkenly instead of leading us along the path of the story. It also introduces numerous potentially tantalizing details (the hypochondriac brother, the mother's possessions constantly being repossessed, the anti-semitic classmate, the other classmate's murderous father) without successfully exploring a single one of them. And just when I finally thought that there might be some sort of resolution for the characters, the movie crashes to an unexpectedly violent end.
I left the movie feeling that it was trying to tell me something, but with the strong impression that the message was forgotten before it could be communicated. This is an obvious first film from a writer/director who really needs to spend much more time working under more established film makers before foisting any more of her work on an unsuspecting public.
I gave this film 1 out of 10, and I'm usually very generous, even with bad films.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"