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\nIt has a bit of that indie queer edge that was hip in the 90s and which places an explicit sell-by date on the visual style. Characters are uniformly apathetic and farcically deadpan. Street hoodlums in Greece wear new clothing out of the box without creases or stains. They all appear to visit the same marine hair dresser. All uniformly exhibit the same low IQ when making their dispassionate underground business deals. When things go wrong its all because they aren't real Greeks - they're pastoral sunshine boys caught in a strange night city world. Makes a big whine about disaffected immigrants but never bothers to actually investigate the problems with Russian/Kazakh/Albanian cultures. If Giannaris had the proper perspective on this project it might have made a wonderful Bel Ami production. The fleeting glimpses of toned boy-beef is the only spark in this generic small-time mobster programmer.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nLet me tell you a story.
One day on the streets of Athens a film director bumped into a male prostitute and decided that the world just HAD to know his story because...you know... he's deprived...and he takes his shirt off a lot and...so on.
This film is the result of his revelation. Repulsive, depraved, homophobic, misogynist...but of course filled with pretty guys with their chests showing. If this is your idea of a good film then enjoy, if not avoid it like the plague.
It's put me off ever going to Greece that's for sure.
\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 last. Here's a movie that does as much for the reputations of the men of Greece and Russia as \"Gigli\" did for the those of Mr. Affleck and Ms. Lo. FROM THE EDGE OF THE CITY details the sad and sordid lives of some young Russian émigrés who live in and around Athens and spend their time burglarizing cars, getting laid, pimping woman émigrés and prostituting themselves (\"But we're not gay because we don't do, you know.... And if we do, it's only once or twice. With the same guy.\") There is hardly anything here you have not seen before and better; only the Athens locale adds a little novelty--even then there's but a scene or two that's scenic. Writer/director Constantine Giannaris (\"3 Steps to Heaven\") offer a relatively generic 95 minutes, in which the standout moments involve how stupid, sexist and (from the looks of things) pretty much irredeemable most of these guys are. (Interestingly, the gayer the guy, the more redeemable he appears.) What really rankles is the treatment of the women. Greek and Russian males would seem to give the Italians a run for their money regarding that famous madonna/whore complex. Has life in Greece improved much for women since the time of Plato and Socrates? One has to wonder.
If I seem to be equating Russians and Greeks in this review, I apologize, but even the non-émigrés pictured here (the cab driver, for instance) are creeps. According to another review on this site, the film (a hit on its home turf) was actually submitted by Greece for an Academy Award for Best Foreign Film. What this says about the state of Greek movie-making, I hesitate to ponder.
\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\nMe being one was probably having a brain fart at the time for renting it. Anyone who actually buys it, will enjoy using this as a coaster. Perhaps a frisbee? This is a dvd I actually found up front where the kids could get to it. Since dvd's don't seem to be in the position to be put in that tell tale back room with all the big box vhs tapes are, I find it rather annoying they stuck this up next to a disney film. Yep, going from Dinosaur to Erotic Ghost has shown what we all think of Disney right? I havent' stooped that low just yet. There's no acting in here. The only thing interesting is the old 1973 movie trailers for ollllld ancient erotic films that I'm amazed have escape from being burned to hell.
1/10 (if imdb allowed zero's it'd be 0/10)
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI think this movie had really bad production value. The lack of acting makes me think they should mark it as an early docudrama. It may have had no money available for its making. I feel bad that it was a ruff ride into the Major League for Jackie Robinson.
I believe he was much better than many of the white players of his day. He had to be really great to break the color barrier of the time. No getting around that this was a really bad movie.
Wish there was more info about its makers. They may have been limited by the quality of actors that were willing to take on the project. Maybe no money to get good people.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nPredictable Unmotivated Pointless Caricatures Contrived Actors did what they could Actors clearly indicated they were embarrassed to do this Not one emotional connection REAL SEQUENCE FROM FILM \"Who you callin?\" (sic) \"The police\"(sic) \"You can't do that, Stevie. Hang up the phone\"(sic) \"Jesse got a sh-t load o' drug money, you can't go involving the cops\"(sic) \"I'm not so sure stealing money from criminals is a crime. Even if they arrest him at least he'll be alive\"(sic) \"Listen to me, Stevie, this ain't handled right, Jesse's gonna end up dead. Now hang up that f-in phone.\" (sic) Best Friend starts to load up guns Brother, \"Hey, what're you doin'?\" No answer. \"Hey, I got a family to worry about.\" (Keep in mind his child is sitting right there watching-ish all of this) Then more and more and more exposition
Notice how in the above sequence, at no time do the police on the other line say, \"Hello? Hello? Uh, we can hear everything you're saying. We're sending someone over there right now.\"
Embarrassment for all. Oops.
\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\nPiece of junk, would've given it a 0 if I could have. Animation is good, but not quite good enough. Storyline is absolutely THE most ridiculous I've ever come across, and that's saying a lot! This 'movie' tried so hard to be interesting, but failed miserably. It's almost as if the writer started one story, then got another idea, and attempted to mesh the two together. Don't waste your time on this; believe me, you'll be as ticked off with yourself as I was. The only actor of any note in this was James Woods, and his part was peripheral at best. I'm all for doing stuff that is edgy, that pushes the envelopes, but this simply didn't cut it.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOrdinarily, I love these \"Stranger Within\" thrillers. Some good examples are \"Fatal Attraction,\" \"Single White Female,\" and \"Audition.\" Done well, they can be a lot of fun, and worth an hour or two of solid shocks and scares. Of course, the opposite can be true: done poorly, they can be tedious and stupid. \"The Hand that Rocks the Cradle\" is one of the latter.
The Bartels, Claire (Annabella Sciorra) and Michael (Matt McCoy) are welcoming another member to their family. But busy Claire is persuaded by Michael to hire a nanny. One day, a woman named Peyton Flanders (Rebecca DeMornay) shows up, and because she seems perfect, the Bartels hire her. Of course, once she shows up, their idyllic life is slowly unraveling...
This film suffers from a plethora of problems, but the biggest one is the handling of the villain. Peyton is never believable. Part of this has to do with how she's written, and how she's acted. The things that she does that are supposed to put us on edge are so contrived that they're laughable. De Mornay doesn't help much. She portrays Peyton as two different people. While it's true she's supposed to be the perfect nanny while hiding her psychotic tendencies, De Mornay's performance creates a divide between the two facets of her character.
The other actors are good, however. Annabella Sciorrra is terrific as the asthmatic Claire. Sciorra is very natural in the role, but unfortunately, the script lets her down. Matt McCoy is almost invisible. However, Julianne Moore is delightful as Claire's friend Marlene. Moore is a firecracker, but unfortunately she's only on screen for a total of five minutes.
Curtis Hanson is a good director, but you wouldn't know it from watching this dud. The film has a few decent shocks, but it's poorly paced, and the climax, while generating some tension, is actually kind of laughable. That being said, he's working with a script that at best, could charitably be called pathetic.
Trust me, when it comes to nannies, stick with Fran Drescher. This one should have gone to the direct-to-video bin.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI know that many people will/have automatically given this film a rating of 1, just because it doesn't have the huge budget and top-of-the-line special effects that they are used to. I, however, knew what I was getting myself into when I popped this into the VCR.
I don't think we get much more low-budget that this, unless we are filming a family reunion. The lighting is awful, sound quality is at times incomprehensible, and the acting is ultra-bad by almost all involved. BUT, this is still a fun movie and the plot is interesting enough. It centers around a fellow named Tom Russo (Asbestos Felt), who has been down on his luck with his job. He is very protective of his wife and does not allow her to work, putting even more pressure on himself. As he begins working more hours, we see him slowly transcend into madness and obsession and he becomes suspicious that his wife cheating on him and begins to brutally murder the various men (most repair guys) that he feels are responsible.
I must say that the gore effects are extremely cheap, but fit with the overall tone of the film.. The brutal ways that Tom Russo comes up with to murder these men gives us an idea of just has mad he has become. The pacing of the film is also very good and there is rarely a boring moment. The ending really doesn't follow the rest of the plot of the film, as it seems to want to go from a psycho-slasher film, to a \"Dawn of the Dead\" wannabe, but it is entertaining nonetheless and I must give Tim Ritter credit for wanting to use an unconventional ending.
I can honestly say that I enjoyed this film, but it is by no means a good film, if that makes sense. It's budget is its main stumbling block and the consequences are almost too much to overlook. I DO NOT recommend this to people who are totally spoiled by the big-budget movies and who can't have an open-mind to ultra-low budget films. You simply won't enjoy it. For others, and fans of gore--I say give it a shot. You will find at least SOMETHING redeeming in it!
My Grade: D
\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\nEmotionally insecure Tom Russo (Asbestos Felt) reads the secret diary of his sexy wife Leeza (Courtney Lercara) and is dismayed to discover that the love of his life has apparently been sleeping with every bloke she meets; this shocking revelation sends poor Tom off his rocker, and he proceeds to wreak bloody revenge on the men who he believes have been rogering his old lady.
In my experience, really, really bad films can often be as much fun as really good ones, and no film featuring a decapitation by machete-enhanced ceiling fan should ever be considered completely worthless; but even though Killing Spree very occasionally manages to entertain with its inventiveness and cheap and cheerful gore, I found that the terrible direction, awful production values, ugly cinematography, muffled sound, dreadful lighting, mind numbingly tedious and daft narrative (which includes a really dumb plot twist that is telegraphed from the beginning, plus a pointless zombie finale), nasty synthesizer score, inane dialogue, and thoroughly amateurish acting all served to make this effort from writer/director Tom Ritter a virtually joyless experience.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIs this supposed to be serious? I hope not. This is one of the most pathetically hilarious movies I've ever seen. Given that I picked it up for a buck on the \"Bad movies\" shelf, it sure lives up to its spot in the shop. What can I say, the gore effects are spattered (pun-intended) all over the place, some looking quite real, some looking like a teddy bear that's had an accident with a bottle of tomato sauce. The music is some of the most horrible I've heard, the acting is one of the most amusing elements... must I continue? Don't bother unless you've seen every other pathetic horror movie in the shop and this is all that's left.
\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 understood before watching this film that it would be a low budget gore film. But even by those low standards this film doesn't cut it.
The problem isn't so much that the filmmakers had a low budget or had bad acting, writing, directing, sound, music and editing. I expected all of that to be bad, and it is.
The biggest problem with this film is that it didn't even do a good job on the guts and gore. Most of the 'action' takes place off screen and all we get to see are the after effects, which look very fake -- even by the standards of low budget gore films.
There really is no excuse for the gore being so poorly done. Peter Jackson made the equally low budget 'Bad Taste' at about the same time and he somehow was able to make much more convincing guts and gore than was shown in this film.
A failure on just about every level, I can't recommend this film to anybody. Steer clear of it.


\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI was initially interested in this film after reading a synopsis and seeing a few striking screenshots, and the promise was there for a gripping horror film of the Dario Argento style. Admittedly I must say that Argento's films have occasionally been rather incoherent, and some feel like a handful of visually impacting set pieces loosely strung together with a vague connecting plot.
Since Argento is credited as writer for this, I have to say, I'm not really surprised. Even his masterpiece Suspiria, when examined, exhibits the same tendency to string along sometimes unrelated scenes purely for the aesthetic impact. However, Suspiria also had the benefit of a singular main character and clear antagonists, as well as scenes that contributed ultimately to the eventual resolution.
The Church, on the other hand, has none of these things. It has no main character, no protagonist whatsoever; it furthermore has no real plot to speak of, and no crescendo, no climax, no denouement, and no resolution. It is a completely hollow, incoherent work that views as if Argento sat down and thought 'hey, that would make an interesting scene visually...let's do it!' The film is a series of these scenes.
Initially it might be interesting, and Soavi's direction is excellent, I must say. Soavi cannot be faulted for the material, as it is made as compelling as possible. However, such good direction calls attention to the horrible failings of the script, and there is absolutely no sense in it. The attempt at a central unifying plot is nothing more than plagiarism of Carpenter's film Prince of Darkness. Events happen solely because the script wishes them to, and reactions to those events are completely implausible. The narrative flow is irreparably damaged after a point, simply because there is no ability to suspend disbelief; it's too ludicrous. Added to this are numerous factual errors that are so glaringly showcased that it becomes embarrassing.
If it had been more overtly artistic and edited down into a different work, it might have been chilling or tense. If it had been fleshed-out into an actual cohesive narrative, it might have been gripping. But it was none of these. The best it managed was confusing and, at times, infuriating. Plots are introduced but never followed. Characters are forgotten about and altered arbitrarily. No logic is ever applied to any situation. It might have been scary or interesting, but to elicit that sort of feeling takes more effort on the part of a screenwriter...much more.
All in all, The Church is not worth viewing for anyone but total enthusiasts of Italian horror that is more style than substance. This is Argento's style at its worst, and it is a strong justification for the usual criticism.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nLet me get this straight... \"The Church\" has a safety \"lock-down\" mechanism to keep the spirits from leaving but the ultimate solution is bringing it to the ground?! LOFL! Maybe I'm missing the plot. Maybe this guy is from the Ed Wood school of film-making or something. This movie is about as useless as the church itself. Hey... maybe that's the point. That whole Rosemary's Baby-esq segment was hilarity. I can go to my corner Halloween costume shop and get better drag than that. The entire film needs to be remade. Properly. There were so many things that were played down... so many things that could have made me jump out of my seat and through the ceiling. I'm not sure if the fault lies with the writing or editing but what I saw should not have this high of a rating.
\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 had always eyed Italian horror maestro Dario Argento's efforts as producer with a certain suspicion and these were only confirmed after my fairly recent viewing of Lamberto Bava's terrible DEMONS (1985); the fact that this was supposed to be its third installment did not sound promising at all but I decided to give the film a rental regardless now that we're in full Halloween swing. I checked out the theatrical trailer on the Anchor Bay DVD prior to viewing the main feature  the undeniably striking visuals had me intrigued to be sure but, then, the film proper (which makes no more sense than what's presented in that frenzied two-minute montage and, in retrospect, can be seen to have wisely compiled most of its highlights) proved a definite let-down!
Opening promisingly enough with a medieval prologue straight out of Alexander NEVSKY (1938), it goes downhill fast because it relies too much on surreal imagery at the expense of narrative. Consequently, several characters randomly take center-stage throughout  with the insufferable male lead succumbing to the dark forces early on, the sinister-looking Bishop (Feodor Chaliapin) resulting a mere red herring, the mysterious black priest gradually assuming heroic qualities, the leading lady is for whatever reason preyed upon by a goat-shaped demon (culminating in a sexual rite conducted in front of the other cultists lifted all-too-obviously from ROSEMARY'S BABY [1968]) and a reasonably impressive 13-year old Asia Argento as the rebellious but likable sacristan's daughter (who emerges as the only survivor by the end). Incidentally, the older Argento also co-wrote the film's story and screenplay along with director Soavi and (under a pseudonym after they apparently fell out with Dario in the early stages of production) original helmer Lamberto Bava and prolific genre scribe Dardano Sacchetti (whom I met at the 61st Venice Film Festival in 2004).
The extremely muddled second half of the film, then, sees a group of people  including the inevitable teenagers but also a doddering English couple (whose constant bickering is given an amusingly nasty punchline)  similarly shut inside a building in the grip of evil spirits (the church being the burial ground of a satanic cult)not that this horror outing is likely to dispel memories of Luis Bunuel's sublimely surreal THE EXTERMINATING ANGEL (1962) you see! In the end, the film is all the more disappointing (though Sergio Stivaletti's gruesome effects, at least, are notable) given that I had thoroughly enjoyed the only other Soavi title I'd watched  CEMETERY MAN (1994), which I own via the R2 SE DVD. That said, I'd still like to catch his debut feature  STAGE FRIGHT (1987)  and the director's follow-up effort to THE CHURCH, entitled THE SECT (1991)...
\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\nIn the same way Lamberto Bava was a substandard facsimilie of his father, Mario (who was an extremely overrated director anyway), Michele Soavi is a substandard director in the Dario Argento mold. \"The Church\" has at least one thing to recommend it--the incredibly detailed art direction--but absolutely nothing else. The film is long-winded, filled with one-dimensional characters, and almost put me to sleep several times. There's a fine line between 'art' and 'pretentious crap,' and while \"The Church\" isn't completely worthless, you'd be better off watching something else.
3/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI have a lot of respect for Mr. Argento's work, but this film lacks many of the qualities that make his films really unique. The opening to the film is great, and sets you up for the possibility of a really scary horror film. What occurs for the rest of the film lacks structure or purpose and does not build into much. There are some good performances, though, and a lot of great atmosphere. The end of the film is weak considering everything this builds up to. Where there should be some grand climax of huge proportions you instead get a very typical conclusion that too many other bad horror movies use, making it feel like they just needed to wrap it up. A couple of scenes are very memorable for their imagery, but in the end the film does not gel to make a really good movie. Unless you feel you must see everything this director made I suggest passing on 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\nOnce again, the posters lied to me.
The marketing of this flick was deeply at odds with the content; 'explosive'? When I read the synopsis for this movie, I was expecting to see a townful of grotesques, every man-jack of them bloodshot and bloated by alcohol, peppered by heroin needles and bent double with chronic masturbation; into such a \"den of vice\" would come the clean-shaven hero, shining Gabriel. Instead, the movie was the complete opposite of what I was led to expect.
The first few minutes of the film showed us that Middletown is a simple little place full of poor people doing the best they can, whether fiddling a little to make ends meet, drinking to forget the pain, or watching cock-fighting (chickens, not penises) to while away the boredom. In other words, the townspeople were desperately ordinary.
The only (deliberate?) grotesque in the piece was Gabriel, the brainwashed Presbyterian preacher played by Macfadyen, whose face is built in such a way as to suggest a permanent air of bewildered fury. If I were kind, I would suggest that the Paisleyite rantings of the preacher were a witty comment designed to make us despise Gabriel and his faith. Unfortunately, Brian Kirk is so inept a film-maker that you quickly despise everyone in the movie, leaving the audience to fret their way through eighty-plus minutes of dark, hackneyed tedium. My only respite from this waste of celluloid was a game of \"guess the accent\" broken up with rounds of \"spot the location.\" Are we surprised that Gaybo ends up stealing his brother's child and suffocating his father? Of course not; he's a bible-bashing preacher and therefore psychotic. All the townspeople stand around looking shocked at the end of the movie, but I suspect that they've just realised what a turkey they've put their names to.
The Northern Ireland Film and Television Commission have a budget to spend, but there are better projects than this feeble enterprise. The only kind thing I can say in favour of this movie is that it has managed to replace \"Superman Returns\" as the worst film of 2006; one hell of an achievement.
v1:20061114 v2:20080107
\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 film is visually stunning: from the dusty interior of the church with the lighted stove, through the drizzly street and the run-down garage to the blaze that is the climax of the film. It also has a wonderful sense of time, both 1950's (the film's opening) and 1960's. All of the performances are top-class, especially Mathew MacFadyen as the psychotic preacher and Gerard McSorley as the father who finds his own intolerance terrifyingly magnified by his son. What a pity, then, that the story is so ridiculous. For a start, in concentrating on the relationship between Gabriel (McFadyen) and his family, it utterly fails to show how he has managed to hold so much influence on the community. In the church, we see five or six of the main characters at the front, and another two or three at the back, but the rest of the congregation might as well be mannequins: they show no sign of hearing him, heeding him or dissenting from him; at the cockfight, nobody says yea or nay when he disrupts the proceedings, but neither does anybody applaud or condemn when Caroline throws a pint over him; a situation that results in a stone thrown through the pub window is mysteriously resolved by the onset of labour pains. Secondly, Middletown (which isn't actually a town, but a tiny village) seems to lack some essential services, such as police and fire service: murder can only be dealt with by a family member with a crowbar; residents watch an inferno that threatens to engulf the whole town as though they were at the cinema. For that matter, everyday things such as telephones and newspapers are conspicuously absent, the rural community is strangely devoid of farm animals or wheat-fields, and most puzzling of all for a 'typical' North of Ireland setting, there is only one Christian community - not even a couple of Anglicans to season the mix. Even if you're willing to suspend disbelief, the story itself is pretty threadbare, a pale imitation of an A.J. Cronin melodrama. And the music? Well, it's beautiful for the first two minutes, but when the same four chords are repeated non-stop for 90 minutes it gets more than a little irritating. My advice: watch this with the sound off.
\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 a country that has produced some of the world's finest dramatists and has such a rich musical heritage it has always been a source of bewilderment to me why so much of Ireland's home-grown cinema has been so appalling. Perhaps because, by its very nature, those talented in the field of Irish cinema have been quick to abandon their native shore for careers in Britain or America, (Colin Farrell is a recent case in point), and that the really successful Irish directors that have continued to work in Ireland and with Irish subjects have made their films with international money and an eye on the international market. I am thinking particularly of Jim Sheridan and Neil Jordan who alternate between films with an Irish setting and projects filmed abroad.
\"Middletown\", however, is very much an Irish film even if two of its principal actors are English. It's certainly well-made of its kind and might have bucked the trend that Irish films aren't really very good; (Paddy Breathnach's \"I Went Down\", written by the brilliant young playwright Conor McPherson, is a crucial exception). Unfortunately this tale of fundamentalism set in a fictitious Irish town, presumably in the North of Ireland judging by the accents, (Mid-Ulster Bible-Belt, if you ask me), and presumably in the recent past, (the fifties? the sixties?), is so over-the-top that it really is quite ridiculous.
Nothing in the film rings true and you can't help feeling it's writer, Daragh Carville, has been strongly influenced by Flannery O'Connor and that the whole thing might have made more sense had it been set in the American bible-belt and not in Ireland where even the most extreme Protestant fundamentalist was never quite as loony as this. It's all meant be to be grim in a grand guignol kind of way and it certainly is, though I was more prone to giggles than frisson's at the right Reverand Matthew Macfayden's antics. He has the Ulster accent off pat and there is nothing wrong with his acting or indeed that of Daniel Mays as his brother, Gerard McSorley as his father or Eva Birthistle as Mays' wife but the script is so appallingly derivative that good acting can do nothing to save the film. So rather than a step up the ladder for Irish cinema \"Middletown\" is, I'm afraid, just another nail in its coffin.
\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 supposed to be set in the \"Bible Belt\" of Northern Ireland. Well, as someone who grew up there,and was a child in the era depicted in the film it just didn't ring true! The accents were all over the place - anything but County Antrim/Derry. The church didn't resemble any I have ever seen. \"The Church of God\" is a pentecostal denomination but the one in the film was certainly not pentecostal! The elderly minister at the beginning was dressed in the robes of the Church of Ireland (Anglican)- and no C.of I. would call itself \"The Church of God\". The minister was often addressed as \"Reverend\" - they may do that in some parts of the world but I never heard it when I lived in that area. Ministers were addressed as \"Mr ......\"
This film was very badly researched and cast - fairly typical of Irish cinema - annoying! A film can have a great plot, but if it doesn't look authentic, it is rubbish.
\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\nPoor Shirley MacLaine tries hard to lend some gravitas to this mawkish, gag-inducing \"feel-good\" movie, but she's trampled by the run-away sentimentality of a film that's not the least bit grounded in reality.
This was directed by Curtis Hanson? Did he have a lobotomy since we last heard from him? Hanson can do effective drama sprinkled with comedy, as evidenced by \"Wonder Boys.\" So I don't know what happened to him here. This is the kind of movie that doesn't want to accept that life is messy and fussy, and that neat, tidy endings (however implausible they might be) might make for a nice closing shot, but come across as utterly phony if the people watching the film have been through anything remotely like what the characters in the film go through.
My wife and I made a game of calling out the plot points before they occurred -- e.g. \"the old man's going to teach her to read and then drop dead.\" Bingo! This is one of those movies where the characters give little speeches summarizing their emotional problems, making you wonder why they still have emotional problems if they're that aware of what's causing them. Toni Collette (a fine actress, by the way, and one of my favorites if not given a lot to work with here), gives a speech early on about why she buys so many shoes and never wears them, spelling out in flashing neon the film's awkward connecting motif. At that moment, I knew what I was in for, and the film was a downward spiral from there.
Grade: C-
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI saw this film shortly after watching Moonlight & Valentino with Elizabeth Perkins, Gwyneth Platrow, Whoopi Goldberg and Kathleen Turner. There are a lot of similarities between the two films. They both have great casts and good acting. They both have stock characters of sisters who are very different, an offensive stepmother, a woman friend/confidant, an emotionally unavailable father, a dead mother and a surprise lover. Both films have the characters experience life-changing realizations and both films suffer from a kind of 'love conquers all' sentimentality. They both add a little titillation with Cameron Diaz in black underwear and a partial back shot of Gwyneth Paltrow naked.
Both films seem contrived, as if the writers of the works the films are based on did market research and said, \"Ok, there's a market for stories about relationships between women, so I'm going to write about two sisters with an offensive stepmother\" In other words, instead of the drama emerging from the truth of the relationship, the relationship is invented to fit the dramatic situation. It seems forced, the characters don't seem real, the relationships are unbelievable.
The resolution of the tensions between the characters is simplistic with simple apologies completely whisking away years of acrimony leaving everyone feeling warm and fuzzy ever after. It's just not real. Romantic fantasy.
The characters in In Her Shoes are a little more overblown than Moonlight & Valentino, especially the stepmother part. Sydelle Feller is so evil that it is difficult to believe that the father would stay with her, or even marry her in the first place.
If you liked Moonlight & Valentino you will probably like In Her Shoes as well. Enjoyable performances in both, in fact, the actors bring depth to their parts that goes way beyond the contrived sentimentality of the scripts.
\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'You're in the Navy Now' is painfully bad: very likely the worst movie Gary Cooper ever made. It's supposedly based on a true story, but the incident which inspired this film doesn't seem to have enough plot to sustain a feature-length script.
I saw this movie on local television while I was house-sitting for my mother-in-law in Long Island, New York. There was a raging blizzard outside, and I was literally snowbound. If I'd been able to get out the door, I definitely would have stopped watching this movie.
There are some interesting names in the supporting cast, notably Charles Bronson (under his original name), Lee Marvin, Harvey Lembeck, Jack Webb and Jack Warden. Forget it. Everybody stinks in this movie. Even the usually reliable Millard Mitchell is awful. Lee Marvin and Jack Warden are onscreen so briefly, there's no point in your watching for them.
Gary Cooper plays an obscure naval officer who is assigned to command a ship which is powered by a new, experimental steam turbine: basically, the whole ship is a giant teakettle. Cooper realises that the assignment is not a prestigious one: if it were, it would have gone to a better officer.
Cooper was a good actor in dramatic roles, but he simply had no ability for comedy. He made several bad comedies, and this one is his worst. Jane Greer has always bored me, and she bored me more than usual here. This ship went down with all hands, and sank without a trace. Have I mentioned that this movie stinks? I'll rate 'You're in the Navy Now' one point out of 10. Toot! Toot!
\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 this movie had me doubting that it would be little more than a typical B sci-fi flick. But, as it progressed I began to get interested and I saw the whole thing through. The premise is interesting, original, and has the makings of making a classic. Alas, it instead ended up a mediocre movie, done in by the usual factors which turn a potentially good movie into a bad movie (bad acting, low budget etc.). I'm interested to see how this would turn out if it were remade with good actors and a big hollywood budget.
\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 had an interesting enough plot about clones and organ usage, but it fails as the lead actor is so annoying and whiny you want him dead. Not that anyone else is very good in it either, but when you hate the character that is supposed to be garnering your sympathy the movie just fails to work. Funny enough, it looks like a movie is coming out in the near future that has a plot that mirrors this one with more action and a better cast, still though I won't be able to think of anything else, but this film if I were to watch it. This movie has a super dumb clone that is somehow smart enough to figure something is wrong with his camp where people bicycle at one mile per hour and wrestle for no reason. The counselors tell them that when they are ready they go to America, but our \"hero\" has his doubts so he snoops around and learns the awful truth which sends him on the run from the bad guys who shoot and hit the guy repeatedly. He goes on the look out for the man he was cloned from. Peter Graves is in it and so is Dick Seargent, but they add nothing to this movie which looks like something that was made for television. On the plus side though when \"The Island\" comes out the makers of this film can proudly say \"we thought of it first\".
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is a great premise for a movie. The overall plot is very original,interesting, and something to think about. However poor production, an obviously small budget, crapy acting from the main character, and several side actors really detract from this would be classic. An up and coming producer should try to resurect this story and give this basicly half hearted atempt a proper release.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nLike most other people, I saw this movie on \"Mystery Science Theater 3000.\" Although it received some well-deserved barbs, it's one of the better films to be featured on that show.
The premise is better than even your average Hollywood blockbuster these days; it poses some interesting moral dilemmas. Although the score is sometimes obtrusive, it also provides a few lovely moments when Richard is walking by the river. Watching the movie, you can see where a lot of plot developments probably looked very good on paper. Richard's discomfort in modern society is an interesting problem to ponder, and the ending probably would have been a nice '70s-style mindfuck if the preceding affairs hadn't been so goofy.
Unfortunately, the movie is visibly cheap, making the flaws all the more obvious. The \"clone farm\" is very obviously a college campus, and a beer can serves as a major plot point. Lena and Richard have zero chemistry -- we are supposed to believe this is a meeting of kindred minds, but there doesn't seem to be a brain cell between them. The \"cranky old couple\" schtick also gets real old, real fast. There are also some mistakes that can be blamed on bad directorial choices, such as the decision to hold a climactic conversation out of reach of any audio equipment whatsoever.
In all, a noble effort, but is nonetheless best viewed on MST3K.
\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 premise of this film is the only thing worthwhile. It is very poorly made but the idea was clever, if not entirely original. It's a shame the other aspects of the film weren't better. The acting is especially 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\nI have now suffered through Parts, The Clonus Horror.
To have the word horror in the title of this movie is an insult to real horror.
The story was about a cloning-central owned by the \"The man\" They grow Clones for harvesting organs from the clones later on for the original humans in need of transplants. One clone escapes, The government gets angry and kills all involved, but the story somehow leaks out anyway.
It is Truly Shameful how a movie with potential is destroyed by amateurs such as Fiveson. The only thing he genuinely succeeded in doing was to weave in the concept of human rights and the very philosophical aspect, what makes a human a human, and would it be OK to grow clones for organic harvesting? Sadly, mediocre actors have been chosen and the plot has left town, until the very end in where a pathetic attempt is made to sum it up.
But!! What disturbed me the most was the introducing of new characters lacking actual relevance for the plot. Despite that, Fiveson feels the need to kill them off in a bad explosion which only Sir Coleman Francis Himself would be proud of.
The setting was interesting. How Fiveson thought that pulling out sheets of plastic and running water over them would make a believable river is beyond me, but I guess if you were to compare the setting to Coleman Francis' gray pasty oatmeal of a setting, this film would win.
Perhaps Coleman has changed what bad movies are for me. 3/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI have never seen this movie on its own, but like many others who have already commented, I saw it as an episode of MST3K. Really terrible 70s television schlock. But someone saw its potential because it's just been turned into a $125 million flop called The Island.
And to the person who asked whether there were ANY good movies made in the 70s, I want to remind her that it was a golden age for American film with directors like Robert Altman and Martin Scorcese first coming into their own. Not to mention little things like Star Wars (1977). Just a reminder that the 70s were far more creative than the 21st century has been so far.
\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 movie was actually not THAT bad, especially plot-wise, but the doughy (and hairy!) actor they chose for the leading role was a little chintzy in the acting department. I would have chosen someone else. The idea of \"going to America\" was very ingenious, and the main character questioning everything that he'd ever known made him somewhat likable, but not very much so when there's a pasty blob for a leading actor.
The storyline was interesting. It brings about the question of how the subject of cloning will be handled in the future. Certainly cloning wouldn't be allowed for the purposes in the movie, but it's still a valid argument even for today. Clones ARE still people... right?
The movie wasn't particularly special, but it still is a lot better than some of the cheese released during the 70s. Let us not forget the \"Giant Spider Invasion.\" I give it a 4, since it didn't TOTALLY stink, but the MST3K version makes this movie a 10. (I still like Dr. Super Mario!) You'll like this movie, but it won't be your favorite.
\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 is a mediocre, low-budget flick. I've seen much worse on MST3K, let me assure you, but this is still a pretty crappy film.
The film is about Clonus, a top-secret government facility in which clones are used to give organs to politicians. It's an almost Orwellian society, actually: almost (but not quite) effective.
The film starts to roll downhill when the head clone (Tim Connely of `Emergency' fame) falls in love with a female clone (Paulette Breen, who appeared in this and at most four other films {and this was not her first film}). They begin to suspect something. After finding a beer can in the nearby river, the plot starts to unravel. The clone receives no answers from either the head scientist (Dick Sargent from `Bewitched') or the `Confessional', a computer which supposedly knows everything, so he breaks into the main Clonus building and (in a scene hilariously destroyed by Mike and the Bots) finds out the truth (including a clone video which, eerily, shows the exact same method that was used to clone Dolly five years ago . .. and this film was made over twenty years ago . . .) about Clonus. He breaks free, pursued by two guards. He has one hell of a time breaking through the two-foot high fences, though he has a considerably harder time climbing up some boulders. From there it continues to slide. Also appearing are Peter Graves (`Beginning of the End', `It Conquered The World') as the Presidential candidate and Keenan Wynn (`Dr. Strangelove', `Piranha', `Once Upon A Time In The West') and Lurleen Tuttle (`Ma Barker's Killer Brood', `Psycho') as the elderly couple who help Clony after he escapes.
The MST3K version was priceless; one of the best episodes ever.
Four stars for the film;10 for the MST3K 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\n...in a TV-movie 70's kind of way. It's one of those movies that show up in the wee hours, but rarely because more modern late-hour schlock movies bump it off. It has likeable performances by Graves and Wynn. Generally, it's just a harmless little piece of nothing that doesn't offend too badly. Nothing good, a lot that's mediocre.
\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\nParts: The Clonus Horror is a horror all right. There are of course the bad fashions of the late 70's. There's the really bad acting from Dick Sargent to Peter Graves. And then there's the clones themselves. Their days mostly consist of running, jumping, cycling, and wrestling with each other. When they're not doing that, they learn about America. Not the band America, or the song by Neil Diamond, but an America where they go on to become part of a greater society. But they're given some strange drug then they have all their bodily fluids drained(General Ripper was right!) and they are placed in the freezer and await Thanksgiving or Christmas when they will be thawed out and roasted at about 450 degrees or so. Oops, that's not what happens, but it would've been a lot more interesting than what's shown. Mario, of Super Mario Brothers fame, makes a delightful cameo as a doctor who bickers with Dick Sargent.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"