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\n1st movie comment ever! I'll start with saying \"Come on! Wasn't THAT bad... was it?\"... No it was't that bad actually. I laughed and giggled enough times through the movie so I cannot say with hand on my heart that it was rubbish.
It's completely different, this and Epic Movie (Epic Movie sucked bad.. doh!). \"How so?\" people would ask. I'll tell you how. This movie is not as nearly as pointless, not to mention that the stupid (and I say stupid because it is, but being stupid makes it funny) stuff that happens around and with the characters is actually enjoyable in this movie. Not the best around but hey... what would you expect - look at the poster! Some people said it was stupid, I find that when writing a comment one should be more objective (my own opinion) but yeah, of course it was stupid, it's a movie about \"stupid\"! Look, I'm not telling you to go and watch the movie now or else you missed the event of the century. What I am telling is that, if you happen to see the movie somewhere, please don't carve your eyes on the opening credits. See what it's all about - who knows, you might like it a bit.
I give it 4/10 for not being so bad and making me laugh and some unexpectedly good sex-related jokes.
\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 would think that since this film has a bad rep that I would be exaggerating when I say I hated this film.But I'm am serious this movie was just so stupid and so unfunny, and such a waste of time.I mean after the first 30, I had a major headache and the smile I had on my face(that was mostly getting ready to laugh) was wearing off.When this film was over I was so glad and because I had good expectations that it would be funny I was extremely disappointed.The acting is not great, the comedy moments are lame and unfunny.Hardly anything is good about this, because I laughed at like maybe 2 parts.Overall this is so boring and I can't tell you how awful this is, I think this could be used as a suicide technique.I mean I don't think for some its even watchable.So my final words on this are, AVOID 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\nWhen I first saw the trailer for The Comebacks, it looked absolutely horrible and I had no interest in seeing it, but when it came out on DVD today, I figured since there was nothing else that caught my interest, I would rent it and give it a shot. I watched it tonite and it really wasn't that bad. I think it was immature and stupid at times, but there were a few funny moments that made me laugh. I don't really watch many sports movies, so I wonder maybe if I saw more, maybe this movie would make more sense to me, but it's all good, I still didn't mind so much watching The Comebacks. I admit, these \"stupid spoof\" movies are lame, but what's the harm in a stupid joke every once in a while? The Comebacks isn't really that bad if you give it a fair chance.
Coach Fields is failing in life, family and career both, but when he is offered a chance to bring his career back to life if he can bring a looser football team into the championship. But the team is really really terrible, like beyond terrible. But with a little work and team effort they try to give it their all, even though that might turn into something more sad.
The Comebacks over all isn't the worst film I've seen, I think it's good for a couple laughs and giggles. I know that this was stupid, but I couldn't help but laugh when the coach comes in the middle of a fight in the locker room and he's beating the nerd's head against the locker, just him and the nerd in general were so funny together. If you have an open mind and don't take this movie too seriously, I think you'll have a fun time watching it, if you watch it expecting it to be Oscar worthy material, this is not the movie for you.
4/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFor the record, I hate spoof movies. Except for Mel Brooks and AIRPLANE! because those are classics and make fun of the clichés, not the actual movies itself. I think that spoof movies are the bottom of the barrel for both comedy and film. I especially hate things created by Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer, the \"geniuses\" behind DATE MOVIE, EPIC MOVIE, and MEET THE SPARTANS.
I decided to give THE COMEBACKS a look. Since Friedberg and Seltzer had nothing to do with the production, I was as objective as possible. It was just like one of their movies. It was basically every sports movie rolled into one with lame kindergarten jokes, and disturbing images of bodily injury that's supposed to make me laugh and failed.
Only someone high would laugh at these jokes. Toilet bowl? Who wrote this? an 11 year old? I was surprised to see that this was the creation of the producers of WEDDING CRASHERS, which was actually pretty decent. But there attempt at the spoof genre was about as funny as a burning orphanage. The only reason that I gave this two stars (when it clearly deserved one) was because Friedberg & Seltzer had nothing to do with 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\nDo all spoof films require pure stupidity and a lack of ANY sort of intelligence whatsoever to the humour? Is there even just a single genuinely FUNNY parody film anymore? All I see are zero-quality films that look like a couple stoned high school students got bored one day with a video camera. These movies are not funny, they're not clever, they're not entertaining, they're just useless in every conceivable way.
The Comebacks was a movie that tried to hide its hideous level of trash by not calling itself \"Sports Movie\". It's the same thing, though. There are a few different writers for these films, the Wayans did some, Freidberg and Seltzer did some others, and I'm sure there's another pair. I can't even tell the difference in direction or humour to be honest, it all seems like the same people wrote and directed them. I can't tell if the Comebacks was done by the people who did Scary Movie or the guys who did Epic Movie, or someone else, it's just the same jokes from all the others.
If you have ANY shred of taste or value for humour, don't see this movie. If you have self-worth, don't bother seeing it. If you have ANY respect for film making, don't even consider watching it. Don't see it in any broke down, derelict theatre that may still carry it, don't rent it, don't order it on Netflix or Pay-Per-View, don't Redbox it, and don't even watch it for free on OD. Avoid it like the plague.
The only conceivable reasons I can see to watch this film are as follows.
A. Masochism. If you like torturing yourself, there's very few better ways. B. Seeing a prime example of why to avoid ANYTHING that says \"Fox Atomic\". C. You're being paid considerably high amounts of cash.
I really would not watch the entire thing if someone offered me $100 to do it. It's just mindless, mental collapsing torment.
You might as well watch Zohan.
\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 comedy that spoofs the inspirational sports movies, The Comebacks tells the story of an out-of-luck coach, Lambeau Fields, who takes a rag-tag bunch of college misfits and drives them towards the football championships. In the process, this life-long loser discovers that he is a winner after all by redeeming himself, saving his relationship with his family and friends, and finding that there is indeed, no \"I\" in \"team\"!
I decided to watch the unrated version for this film. It was thirty minutes longer and I though it may be better than the theatrical release, hearing that people hated this movie. After all, thirty minutes of extra footage can add a whole lot to a movie. Well, I certainly was wrong. It was as bad as the recent \"Meet the Spartans\" but it was thirty minutes more of torture!
Seriously, who makes a close to two hour spoof movie?! A spoof movie is short because if it goes any longer, it would be overkill! Honestly, I love stupid comedies. Heck, I liked \"Date Movie,\" \"White Chicks,\" \"Epic Movie,\" and \"Little Man\"! I guess when it comes to spoof movies, it is either a hit or miss and this one definitely missed.
On the lighter side, from the many jokes in this film, I will say about six or seven made me laugh, even some that made me laugh out loud. But that's not saying much. Following those jokes were more scenes of torture and unfunniness.
I can't see how people would say this is not a terrible spoof film. In fact, there is as much product placement in here like Meet the Spartans, there are as many dance sequences, and unfunny jokes. I will say another thing I like about this movie is the songs. They are some very good songs in here. Overall, watch it if you like spoof films. Skip it if you like funny films.
\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 only a matter of time that a spoof would be made of sports movies! And there are plenty of movies to be spotted which are made fun off. But the biggest problem I had was the fact that it stays with recognizing movies. The director and writers of \"The Comebacks\" somehow forget to get creative. While I must admit that I laughed at certain scenes,\"The Comebacks\" could have been so much funnier. The actors forget to deliver their lines seriously and have a straight face throughout the movie. A spoof demands this and that is the main reason why silly jokes work in movies like this. Because of the failure of the cast to do so the jokes never hit their mark. Some scenes take forever and normally in spoofs that doesn't have to be a problem. Take \"Naked Gun\" for instance. Their is always something happening on screen. In \"The Comebacks\" they didn't even bother to let stuff happening in the background. Only a couple of factors make this movie worth watching! It still is fun to spot the movies that are made fun off. And Jermaine Williams as Ipod. His parody on Cuba Gooding Jr. as Radio was hilarious! He seemed to be the only one in the cast to get the idea of what a spoof is about. Not entirely bad!
\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\nWe arrived at the theater too late to see Rendition, which was our intention, and 'The Comebacks' was the only film that hadn't already started. I had an inkling of how bad a film it was after reading the short blurb at the ticket counter. The theater was empty when we arrived and only two other people entered before the film started.
The screenwriters and director threw every imaginable sports cliché at the audience without creating a single laugh, not one during the entire movie. Think of all the football movies that have been made and the millions of dollars schools and fans spend each year on football and you realize how ripe it is to be parodied or lampooned. If you add Texas to the mix,you ought to come up with the sports version of 'Little Miss Sunshine', not a big yawn.
The first film that came to mind as we exited the theater was 'Can't Stop the Music' By comparison, this was 'Can't stop the Music' without Bruce Jenner, Valerie Perrine, or the Village People.
If the film had a single grace note, it was seeing Matthew Lawrence grown up.
\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 2002 when Matthew Lawrence did The Hot Chick, I also saw Drumline that day. Drumline wins by default! If The Comebcaks had been released in March (as planned) the same time TMNT was released, TMNT would've won by default!
Granted, Matthew Lawrence did a fine job portraying a quarterback. He didn't have to resort to uttering dirty words which is a plus. But when he started playing with his private parts as well as another football players and touching a girl's boob, those were the minuses.
But the biggest minus that ticked me off is that every football player got to participate in the mock music video, except Matthew Lawrence (insert The Price Is Right's losing horns)! Another blown musical opportunity for him, just because he's shy about doing music.
In the past, Matt has disappointed me many times (Super Human Samurai Syber Squad) where he came so close to having a musical moment, but ended up failing.
Sure, Joey had a singing career with two albums to his belt and Andrew's starting a music career of his own. But it's very rare to find a Matt musical moment. The two that stand out would be on Brotherly Love where he played the guitar and sang \"Pigeon On Your Car\" (Art Atrack), which he wrote by the way, and that romantic Boy Meets World moment when he sang \"This Dame\" (As Time Goes By).
Matt, you've played jocks too long. Why not make a musical comeback. You have a good voice and I miss your musical side.
\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 the worst movie I have ever seen. If I wasn't watching it for free, I would have never finished it. The creators of this film should be ashamed of themselves. It seems like this is supposed to be a film in the vein of Scary Movie and Date Movie (a terrible movie, but 10x better than this one), but failed miserably. The only jokes in this movie seem to be based on slapstick. A guy falls down, someone gets hit by a bus, etc. None of the ideas are clever, basically the worst premise for a movie ever. The plot (or lack thereof) is completely retarded. The plot seems to center around the coach and his family, however there are so many other things going on in the movie it is completely ridiculous. Terrible, terrible 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\nRKO was trying to boost its starlet JOAN FONTAINE when they cast her as a flying nurse who is strong-willed enough to make a doctor (JOHN BEAL) come to terms with running away from responsibilities in this little programmer. TCM aired it as a stepping-stone in the career of Joan Fontaine.
Fontaine is earnest and does an acceptable job, nothing more, and John Beal is okay as her love interest. But it's obvious that PHILIP HUSTON (who has the appearance and cocky manners of a young James Garner) is the actor who should have shared top billing with Fontaine. Whatever happened to this handsome actor? Why didn't RKO promote him, along with Fontaine? He showed skill as a light comedian.
These are the kind of thoughts that went through my head as I watched this rather tepid drama which never quite lives up to the stark promise of its title. The story itself is rather tiresome, only occasionally coming to life because of Fontaine's spirited heroine.
She photographs prettily as the nurse and wears her serious expressions skillfully, suggesting that there was more to be tapped at a future date. Beal never did go on to a distinguished career and his performance here shows why. Strictly lackluster.
But whatever happened to Philip Huston? Evidence here is that he should have had a worthwhile film career.
Trivia note: Watch for Dwight Frye (of \"Dracula\") as the out of control patient aboard the airplane.
\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 Ten Steps has basically a reasonably good premise for a scary short but the execution is simply appalling. The dialogue is terrible and the acting is of the kind so regularly witnessed in Irish short films. Really really embarrassingly bad. The girl has to go down the 10 steps of the cellar to change the blown fuse. She telephones her father who is entertaining his boss at dinner. The mother, an \"actress\" with very questionable acting skills, answers the phone and in a loud scolding voice tells her not to be ringing as Dad is 'trying to impress his boss'. The actress playing the boss's wife very successfully emulates the mother's poor acting when she tells them that their house is haunted. The rest of the film consists of the father coaxing his daughter down the stairs on the telephone. The Ten Steps employs the stock techniques in camera movement, lighting and music that one would expect in a below average horror film. 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\nThis is quite possibly the worst documentary I have ever seen. It looked so amateurish. Chris Hegedus was one of the Directors of The War Room which was a great movie (albeit a little one sided), but it looked beautiful. Startup.com looked like it was shot in some guy's basement. The quality was so pitiful that I couldn't stand watching it. I saw about 30 minutes or so and I had to take it back to Blockbuster and get something else. I can't understand how something so amateurish some from someone like Chris Hegedus. How the hell did this win any awards to begin with??? The War Room definitely deserved an award, as did another great documentary called Ameragosa (both won awards). This documentary looked like it was done by Uncle Joe who also does weddings on the weekends. Shaky, dimly lit, unflattering lighting, bad sound, a 10 year old could make a better film than that guy did.
\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 didn't care much for this, it seemed too contrived for a documentary. Also, the filmmakers seemed to steer me towards certain characters, and yet I was completely unsympathetic towards the protagonist because of what they chose to show me of him.
This movie disappointed me because the story and the people were interesting, yet the movie fell flat because of snappy editing that didn't allow the viewer enough time to understand each scene. The developments in the story were glossed over in lieu of showing the men in boxers or other stuff that was incidental to the tale that they were telling.
I'd recommned that you skip this one and just read up on this story.
\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 sure there is a documentary amongst the ruins of this Yawn-fest somewhere, given enough time maybe the producers could find it. I do not connect with any of the characters. This is a problem for a documentary. That disconnection soon festers into a complete animosity bordering on hostility. Although because of the poor story flow, I'm not really sure what is happening to them and what are the consequences of whatever it is they are trying to do. The story and faces jump around so quickly it is very hard to completely understand what is going on. The 3rd founder that takes them for $700K is introduced so late into the film, Khaleil and Tom have to backpaddle (fruitlessly) to explain \"oh yeah, this guy created the idea too\". And just when I thought I had a slight grasp on who all the tertiary characters were, some crazy woman in ranting about getting a puppy? What's up with that? Also, did Tom really have to give all those awkward speeches to the staff? I can only imagine the boredom they felt when it was really happening. Actually I think I feel for them.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nPerhaps it's just the format of this film, a documentary, but I believe that the movie would have been much better served by good actors and more solid dialogue. The fact that the actors are also the business owners is a double-edged sword. They know better than anyone else the emotions and complexities of the business they were in, but, since they are not professional actors, they do a very poor job of conveying those emotions and the documentary suffers. There were some truly memorable scenes in this movie and lots of good lines but they were delivered so poorly that they will fade away with time and the only memory I will have of this documentary is that it had some good scenes which I can't remember.
Watch this if you want a first-hand account of the .com bust and see what happened to the 99% of people in the industry who didn't become instant millionares. However, be prepared for some nauseating camera work, poor acting, poor dialogue, and an overall bad movie that epitomizes the era of the Internet boom.
\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 real problem with this story is that there's not much story to the story. There's hardly any plot to speak of. Widower buys an electric grandma for his kids. One kid resists electric grandma. Then finally accepts her. Then the kids grow up and grandma leaves. Really, very little happens. It's much more of a premise than a story.
Moreover, strip it of it's schmaltz, and you have a story that had already done before, and better: The Lonely. Same basic idea: person initially can't accept the love of a robot, because it's just-a-machine, then eventually yields and comes to love the robot. The biggest difference is that The Lonely is much more powerful, as both the protagonist and we, the audience, are shocked abruptly back to reality and forced to remember that in the end the robot really is just a mechanism.
I also find the story highly flawed in that the electric grandmother is just *too* perfect. She's not only \"human\", she's *super-human*. She's *wiser* than a real person, she has no traces of mechanicalness to her at all, and she makes marbles appear out of thin air. It frankly really chafes at credulity to think that she's a machine.
\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\nAsmali Konak has arguably become one of the best TV series to come out of Turkey. With its unique cinematography and visual approach to filming, the series has gained a wide following base with rating records continuously broken. Personally I do not agree with singers becoming actors (hence, Ozcan Deniz - the lead actor) but I guess the figures speak for themselves.
In relation to the movie, it was disgusting to see how much someone can destroy such a plotline. Years in the making, this movie was able to oversee every descent story that existed within the series. Not only that, the cultural mistakes were unacceptable, with an idiotic scene involving the family members dancing (Greek style) and breaking plates, which does not exists anywhere within the Turkish culture.
Some argue the movie should be taken as a stand alone movie not as a continuation of the TV series but this theory has one major fall, the way the movie was marketed was that it will be picking up where the series left off and will conclude the series once and for all. So with that note in mind, me and everyone I know, would have asked for a refund and accepted to stand outside the theatre to warn other victims.
\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 ordered this movie on the Internet as it is very difficult to get Turkish movies where we live. I've heard so much about the TV series from my friends and practically everyone in Turkey, I was expecting to see a breakthrough in Turkish cinema. What a disappointment.
Me and my husband (who is an admirer of any movie with a bit of Turkish landscape and Turkish dialogues in it) only watched it all the way through because we had paid $20 for the DVD. Well, that was a boring way of wasting it.
It was confusing, at times overacted, whereas other times underacted. The storyline was not only confusing, but adding a gay man walking with his dog on the beach and using some toilet humor in the script to make it 'Hollywood' didn't also work for me.
The American characters were almost too stereotypical that it was neither funny nor realistic and like another user mentioned, the Turkish customs and lifestyle was irrelevant.
The camera movements had no significance. Adding a few Dervishes (never seen in them in Kapadokya by the way) and broken plates -Greek style- only made the movie even more confusing.
I am ashamed of this movie and all the noise the press has made about it. There are surely worthy movies made by Turkish directors which deserve more attention and respect.
I give this movie 1 out of 10.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nNegative numbers are not available to convey how bad this movie is! Wooden acting coupled with a story line that has been rehashed dozens of times. Everyone in this movie should attend Overactors Anonymous. You would think an original story could evolve from the general concept. Young men at a prep school are tying to come to grips with the Pearl Harbor bombing. It does raise interesting questions, but the manner in which they are conveyed make it more of a joke. The typical characters were present including the zealous jock and nerd (glasses included). I could not have been more uninterested in the wooden dialog and cliché characters. Upon the completion of the movie, I had to throw the DVD in the trash. Stay far away from this dud! You won't get the 90 minutes of your life back!
\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 you are an insomniac and you cant get anything to get you to sleep i definitely recommend this movie. If you are renting it for whatever other reason....DONT!....this movie is by far one of the most slow moving turtle motivated movies i have ever seen. The only reason i rented it was because my brother wanted to for some odd and strange reason. I cant even write about this movie anymore...GET IT AWAY FROM ME!!!!!!!!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI am an atheist with little love for certain aspects of Christian fundamentalism.
That said, this movie is reprehensible, vile and transparent. It only works on the level of the currently fashionable (and tired) hatred motif of white American Christian fundamentalism. Had this movie been made about a fundamentalist Jewish or Muslim family, or even a black Christian family, the outrage would have been palpable, and the movie would have been roundly panned in ALL circles. As it stands, though, it's \"OK\" and \"artful\" because white Christian fundamentalists remain one of the last \"acceptable\" targets for garbage such as this.
And garbage it truly is. If you want to see a quality film of a similar bent, find and watch or review \"Badlands.\" Nothing good was done in \"The King\" that wasn't done better decades ago in that masterful film.
As other reviewers note, the characters are almost completely undeveloped in \"The King,\" the lines are a snooze, the cinematography is lackluster. We've seen the tale of the sociopath done better 100 times. This movie doesn't cut it for thoughtful viewers.
\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\nJames Marsh's The King is a film that mystifies me. I can't think what its meant to be for. It's a story about a young man called Elvis played by Gael Garcia Bernal who gets an honourable discharge after 3 years Navy service and then goes off to find his biological Father and behaves dishonourably with him and his family. It's all rather sick really. Elvis worms his way into the family by seducing his 16 year old sister Malerie (Pell James). It's rather impossible to identify with anyone in this film from here in Middle England. Preacher Father and bouncy joyful Christian Congregation; I couldn't work out whether the film is meant to be deriding them for their mindless beliefs. Or is the target the happy family and we are meant to think that's unviable. OR is it just saying that some people are lost and just hell bent on destruction. It's shallow. We all know that bad things happen; the interesting bit is to learn why but this film just gratuitously depicts a violence without ever unravelling the thinking that has led to it. \"The King\" is such a lost opportunity. There are some really interesting questions about honour; the Warrior Code; the changing concepts of valour; honour killings in Indian families and so on. Honour is a very varied concept. But this film just adds nothing to the notion. However, Paul the Projectionist did more than his meagre role suggests. The DVD Projector showed all films in a green-only hue and the only way to repair this was to get it sent to Belgium. He did this through Christmas. I think those postal workers and repairers and Paul went far beyond the call of duty and our reward was this dismal film. But you might see it differently?
\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 so frustrating. Everything seemed energetic and I was totally prepared to have a good time. I at least thought I'd be able to stand it. But, I was wrong. First, the weird looping? It was like watching \"America's Funniest Home Videos\". The damn parents. I hated them so much. The stereo-typical Latino family? I need to speak with the person responsible for this. We need to have a talk. That little girl who was always hanging on someone? I just hated her and had to mention it. Now, the final scene transcends, I must say. It's so gloriously bad and full of badness that it is a movie of its own. What crappy dancing. Horrible and beautiful at once.
\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\nWhile killing time on a Saturday morning, \"Looking For Lola\" came on HBO. I decided to give it a shot even though the description of the movie looked pretty bad. It was even worse than I could imagine. The movie was incredibly unbelievable and there was absolutely no on-screen chemistry between the lead actors that I found myself shaking my head almost every 10 minutes. Between Mike Greenbaum (lead actor) in scenes in which he skips the bill at a fancy restaurant and where Lola (lead actress) allows him to use her boss' house to fool his parents into thinking he's rich, it was almost as bad as him \"daydreaming\" about people around him doing the macarena (it was HORRIBLE!) and the two actors ultimately falling in love. I kept wanting to change the channel, but I was trying to give it every chance into becoming a cute love story with a few chuckles. It never did. In fact, it became so bad that I decided to finish it just so I can claim that I watched one of the worst films ever made in it's entirety, instead of being criticized for not \"giving it a fair chance\". The last scene where Lola tries out for a dance part was the culmination of the movie. She comes in late after getting married (even that scene where Mike tells the priest to hurry up and then just snatches the papers away claiming that it's done was in tune with the believability of this movie), and then somehow \"convinces\" the judges to give her a look. The two male judges are already put-off with how late she is. But after watching her waif around the stage (ok, she dances fine, but not overly impressive), everybody joins in including Lola and Mike's families, other dancers that were there, and *cough* even the judges. Bad, horrible, terrible. It was so bad I had to write a review. Watch at your own risk.
\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\nAs much as I love the story of David Copperfield, I cannot claim to have enjoyed this movie. It was probably the second worst movie I have ever seen. One problem I see is that the magnitude of the novel asks for a miniseries of several hours, rather than a regular movie. It is just impossible to capture a significant amount of the events that take place in the story in two hours. I dis not enjoy the brooding flashback format. It was disjointed and would be impossible for someone who did not already know the story to fully grasp. Also, I don't think the filmmakers interpreted Copperfield's personality correctly. The idea of him strolling around on a beach moaning about his life seems inconsistent with the proactive, forward-thinking nature Dickens gave him in the novel. Agnes also bothered me. She came across as a ditsy household decoration, rather than a strong woman. Dora was perfect, however. This movie was fraught with problems, and I wait eagerly for someone to make a decent screen version.
\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 only has to read the cast list and credits to salivate in anticipation of this DAVID COPPERFIELD, but, alas, alas! How so much major acting and directorial talent could have turned one of literature's richest tales into such a monumental BORE, is totally beyond me. It's pretty to look at with lovely photography, particularly the Yarmouth sequences, but, JUST PLAIN DULL!!! No need to go on! Skip it and check out the Selznick or the marvelous BBC mini-series from the 1980's.
\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 version of David Copperfield is dreadful from start to finish. I knew we were in for a wasted evening's viewing when a rather silly to the point of embarrassment Attenborough and Olivier camp it up as two baddies. It was all downhill after this. Aunt Betsy was adequate but had none of the eccentric flair she was noted for.The worst of the worst was the producer's choice for Uriah. This was the music hall version of this character, previously and admirably played by Roland Young. And what was all this self-absorbed Angst from David. Dickens must have rolled over in his grave to see his favorite child turned into a wimp weeping in his beer.
This was one time when Hollywood knew more than jolly old England.
\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\nDirector Delbert Mann was a much better director than this film indicates. He directed ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT, THAT TOUCH OF MINK, and THE LAST DAYS OF PATTON among others. This mediocre, made for television retelling of Dicken's masterpiece is so bad, even those unfamiliar with the often filmed tale, will be unsatisfied.
Besides the fact that the movie is available from only two known suppliers (Brentwood and BCI Eclipse LLC) the poor quality of the transfer, and the scratchy and muddied sound track make the task of finding this film on video not worth the effort.
I have always believed that if a company is going to put a film on video and charge the public money to buy it, then they should at least have a descent copy of the film and do a good job on the transfer. Unfortunately neither of the two suppliers have such a work ethic and the result is only fit for the bargain bin in the local discount store.
The story is told mainly through flashbacks, making the film episodic and talky. Much of the rich detail of the novel is lost in this translation. The characters of Martha, Traddles and others have been cut and the relationship of young David and Steerforth is not explored enough, so we are left wondering why David would hang out with the guy.
The relationship between David the boy, and young Agnes is never developed and it is hard to understand why she and David eventually marry. Since Martha is left out, it is a mystery how Dan Peggoty finds his niece. And the absence of Traddles makes David a very lonely fellow.
Some have credited this film with doing a good job of abridging the lengthy novel. I disagree, this is at best a hatchet job on the book. Anyone who has seen the 1935 George Cukor version will agree.
The performances in that version by Fields as Micawber and Rathbone as Murdstone, are definitely worth the trouble of watching it. And the more recent Masterpiece Theatre version (April 2000) and Hallmark (2000) versions are both outstanding achievements in made for television adaptations of classic novels. Directors Simon Curtis and Peter Medak who are responsible for those films are deserving of the highest praise.
My final comment on David COPPERFIELD 1969 is Don't buy it, there are several much better versions of the film available. If it is on television, turn the channel to something else. It is a waste of one hour and twenty minutes of your life. Sorry folks, but I can't praise such an appallingly bad 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\nThis film brought a whole new meaning to that well-worn phrase 'like watching paint dry' because this was 'like watching paint dry in the middle of a monsoon'.
I was attracted to the film by its location on the west coast of Portugal which I have visited. It is a ruggedly beautiful place and the black-and-white introduced a whole new dimension to the beauty. That was the only good thing. The story was appallingly banal and frankly you have to have some story.
A film crew runs out of film and the entire crew then have to wait. Well, a wait is a wait. I can wait for a number 15 bus on Princes Street in Edinburgh, I can spend hours on a remote railway station in the middle of nowhere on cold winter's Sunday afternoon. However a wait is boring and yes, this wait was boring too.
So the leader goes off to America to remonstrate with the film supplier who castigates him for not making the whole thing in colour. After a number of arguments two blessed bullets ring out from wherever and the eagerly-awaited end finally arrives, and not before time.
Yes, I would see this film again if someone arms me with a couple of cans of colour film so that I can hurl them at the screen.
\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\nDid someone find the plot somewhere in the film?. Perhaps it is the thing missing in this pretentious exercise of cinema about cinema. It is quite surprising that Gordon says that \"A movie without a plot is nothing\"... It is possible that characters have more to say that the own Wim Wenders. Was this phrase in the original plot or the actor decided to send a hint to the director?.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI sat (uncomfortably) through this film becoming more and more staggered at just how it got made at all. The script itself makes the acting look embarrassing, and it fundamentally becomes a waste of time for everybody concerned. If you avoid seeing one film this year, make it this one.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThat's what I felt like yelling as well as stomping out of the theater, but I restrained myself. Yes the acting was great, no this wasn't the typical hollywood film, but the dialogue just wouldn't end (or get interesting)! And despite all the gabbing, you never get to really know or care about any of the characters. Definitely the most boring film I've seen since Sphere, but I was expecting that one to be boring. I had to sit through it, but please, spare yourself
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI watched Hurlyburly as a second choice after Affliction was sold out. I have never seen so many people walk out of a movie. Sean Penn, Kevin Spacey, and Chazz Palminteri can do nothing to save this coke-snorting, endlessly pedantic, bad Mamet-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\nA complete and utter waster of my precious two hours. The entire movie could have been made in less than 60 seconds by simply showing people getting coked up, a car crashing, people getting more coked up, people having sex, people crying, and people getting more coked up. The tagline for this movie should have read \"Come see how f*cked up our characters are! They're stoned! They're coke addicts! They're a mess! Who are these people? Do you really care? Does it matter? Just give us your money please, because we sure don't care about anything else!\" An absolutely terrible movie. It never went anywhere, you never got to know the characters (they never even said what these people did to earn such a big house and so much money and cars and coke), and it was just downright boring. You might like the movie a little more if you're a stoner yourself, but for the vast majority of us that aren't, this movie is a waste of film and of 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\nActing 10, Script 1. \"Hurlyburly\" is from that unfortunate postmodern school of theatre that has declared anything resembling a story or plot is forbidden. While people may get away with this on stage, on film it becomes deadly -- or at least deadly dull. We're left with a bunch of great actors spouting dialogue that, while brilliantly written, adds up to nothing. Even worse, every character speaks with the same voice despite their backgrounds. The only attempt to differentiate is to have teen-waif Anna Paquin use the word \"ain't.\"
Never mind that the characters are unsympathetic losers to the extreme, the camera work is plain sloppy and (for LA residents) the attention to geography is laughable. (Hint: the view out Sean Penn's front window is about eight miles away from the view out his back window, and you can't drive south through Hollywood and wind up in Glendale pretending to be Burbank.) Okay, suspension of disbelief and all that -- and normally I wouldn't pay attention to little things like that, because they are just vagaries of production. But, the fact that they did stick out so much despite the thespian pyrotechnics on screen says a lot about the weakest element of this enterprise -- the script.
In short, skip this one, even on video. Rabe picked the wrong quote from the Scottish Play for his title; Hurlyburly would have been better named \"A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.\" A bit long for the marquee, perhaps -- but at least it would be honest advertising.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI saw Hurlyburly on Broadway and liked it a great deal. I don't know what happened with the film version, because it was dreadful. Perhaps some dialogue that works on stage just sounds incoherent on screen. Anyway, I couldn't wait for this film to be over. The acting is universally over the top. Only Kevin Spacey has it together, and he seems like he knows he's in a bad movie and can't wait to get 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\nIt's not funny, it's not interesting, it's not well shot, you don't care about the characters, not one single one of them. There's nothing that engages you in the narrative flow, you really could care less what happens. Big, big waste of time and talent.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI watched this movie with no idea what it was about beforehand. I was intrigued for the first whole hour. It was shaping up to be a great thriller. A very talented cast and good dialogue.Then it all fell apart for me at the sight of the first vampire. I couldn't believe my eyes.A great thriller was flushed down the toilet. The rest of the movie from that point was totally awful.
I gave it 4 stars for the brilliant beginning alone. I think that's a little generous, but I was entertained for a while. I'm not a fan of vampire or zombie movies at all.If you are, then you may disagree with 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\nThis was not a good movie!! Why do you people keep saying that? There is a nice little story going on and then some sexy girls and then BAM vampires!!! Why? Why are there vampires? Where did they come from? Also, what the hell?! There are all of these \"super human\" vampires but George Clooney and three other random guys dominate ALL of them. Quickly too. It's not like there was a long fight scene with lots of struggle. There was just three dudes from the bar killing these vampires like a fat man kills twinkies! The next thing you know, Clooney and the stupid girl are rescued by Cheech and leaves the family-less homeless in the middle of Mexico. End of story. Literally. Oh and the strip club was an Aztec temple which is funny because that would have to be southern Mexico not the border. Why are you people lying and telling people this is a good movie? Do not rent, buy or even watch this movie at a friend's house. You will wish you had that time of your life back.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nJust what is the point of this film? It starts off as one film, then changes track, cheating us of a resolution to that film and ends as another movie which is nothing but a pale, pale imitation of so many other schlock-horror flicks you've ever seen. The overall impression is confusion in every respect and a great deal of hubris. Screenplay by Tarantino, direction by Rodriguez, two guys who have previously shown talent, but who now seem to believe their own hype and assume that whatever they do must be good merely because THEY did it. But it doesn't quite work that way. You're only good while you continue doing good things. There are so many questions to ask: Just what are George Clooney and Harvey Keitel doing getting involved in such pointless dreck? Clooney initially makes an intriguing bad guy  utterly ruthless and efficient  and it would have been interesting to see where that was going. But, of course, we never do. And the Clooney of the vampire film changes into a completely different character. That's not clever or witty, that's just bad, bad work. Keitel looks thoroughly ill at ease throughout, and no wonder. Did no one in the studio take a look at the script before this project was given the go-ahead? Tarantino is utterly unpleasant as a murderous sexual deviant (and why did he, as writer, assume we would find the rape, gruesome murder and butchering of an inoffensive hostage funny). On every level  except the technical  this film stinks. Avoid.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"