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\nFrom the second the music swelled (second one of the movie) and it was movie-hack tripe, I knew I was in for a very long ride. Horrendously clichéd - (I laughed a lot and knew how the plot ended WELL before the ending) - they didn't use Louisbourg particularly well and the costuming and hair were kinda awful. (My particular favourite makeup moment is that the only way they age Depardieu as far as I could see was by putting a straight hair wig on him, instead of wavy). I could go on about the ridiculous unsuitability of the music for a long time -- the movie could be improved massively by an 18th century score.
(ETA: AH, it's that horrible moviemusic guy Patrick Doyle who's responsible for the score - say no More! He should NOT be allowed near historical movies -- he should stick to 20th century settings.)
The \"visit to the notable people portion\" was also hilarious particularly his little visit to Madame Pompadour who was not particularly convincingly played.
I thought the only actor who appeared grounded in the century at hand was Michael Maloney as James Murray. He absolutely stole the show for all 30 seconds he was on screen. Tragically, he made you see what the movie could have been.
The love scenes did have some heat - the two leads were stunning together.
The most awful scene for historians is where they're at the big leavetaking dinner in Britain before Wolfe sails and he lifts his glass and says the first two lines of \"How stands the glass around\" aka \"Why soldiers why\" as if it's a toast. Absolutely excruciating failure at historicity, much better to leave it out. Thousands of people know the damn song and thousands more believe the rumour that Wolfe and company sang it (probably drunk, not all stuffy like this bunch). Daft.
\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 truly the most painful experience I have had in quite some time in a movie theater. I will forego such facile criticisms as 'maudlin' or 'historically inaccurate' or 'horse's crap's crap' because quite simply our sympathies would then immediately go out to these words. If a director's to make a sweeping grandiose love epic, well for god's sake MAKE A REAL DAMN SWEEPING GRANDIOSE LOVE EPIC! Why bother with such laughably unconvincing second rate harlequin romances and such boring interchanges between characters we could care less about when the most decisive battle on Canadian soil is taking place? And for the pompous people thinking 'oh well, this story must center characters!\" well you're wrong, dead wrong.
\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\nMuch can usually be forgiven in period pieces that ask us to recall important historical events and spice them with enough love interest to keep the story going. BATTLE OF THE BRAVE tackles the 18th Century struggle for the control of Quebec (an all of Canada) between the British and the French with sidebars form the new America. It has the makings of a sweeping epic of fascination, but sadly in the hands of writer Pierre Billon (whose script deserves a Razzie award for worst of the season) and the scattered, unfocused, and confusing direction by Jean Beaudin this film is a dud - a two and a quarter hour tedious mess of a film.
Even a cast a fine actors - pairing Noémie Godin-Vigneau as Marie-Loup Carignan with David La Haye as François le Gardeur, adding the lovely Bianca Gervais as Acoona , the venerable Gérard Depardieu as Le curé Thomas Blondeau, and the likes of Irène Jacob, Vincent Perez (ridiculous in period wigs), Tim Roth as William Pitt, Colm Meaney as Benjamin Franklin, and Jason Isaacs as Général James Wolfe - doesn't help. Veteran actors such as these must have cringed at the crude lines written for their characters! Cover the whole mess in a sappy musical score by Patrick Doyle and the result is a long film to be avoided. Sad to say such bad things about a costly project, but be warned....Grady Harp
\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 actors were not believable, The story was really weak, total sap, and completely predictable. Really disappointed in Depardieu. It was a shame that they did not focus more on the struggle of the Canadian fight for independence. We have seen this love story many times before, only with better actors! We had to wait for the last 15 minutes for a small sense of drama! The soundtrack was totally disturbing. The underscore hit you over the head with sentimentality. But really over the top. The only thing we found OK was the fact that they let the Indians speak their language. And we found the cinematography, of the Indian village relatively realistic.
\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 a Canadian History major, my first thing to say : HISTORICAL FACTS ARE NOT ACCURATE! How can a producer do that? The deportation of the Acadian wasn't in 1759 when we see Franklin in London, but in 1755! How can he pass that in the movie? The scenes in Londo were useless too. Then for the story for anyone that read \"Les Anciens Canadians\", you have the story line right there. It's the story of La Coriveau, that \"witch\". Add a love story too and a tragic relationship between mother and daughter ending. Sure, it brought tears to my eyes. But that's it. Then there's the fact it's apparently set up in Québec City, but it's mostly shot at the Forteresse de Louisbourg. Sure it's a historical site and it's accurate to the time, but it was obvious that the scenes were not all set in Québec City. Overall, if you're looking for a documentary of New France, go get Candad : A People's History, a real documentary on the history of Canda and NEw France. If you want a love story that will bring you tears, a story set up in a wonderful forest, watch New France.
\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\nSee.. I really wanted to enjoy this movie. There were moments when my heart beat faster, when the hair on my neck began to stand up, when my muscles began to tighten.. but just like a strip tease, I was left with no real action, no resolution, and money missing from my wallet.
Jaume Balagueró and Miguel Tejada-Flores apparently don't know the correct recipe for making a Horror Movie, and as such, utilized the old amateur cook's method of throwing everything into the pot.
This movie is really The Shining, Poltergeist, Amityville, and Hellraiser all rolled into one. Amazing, I know, but true. All the flavors are there, you can taste each of them, they just don't mix well. I'm not gonna go down the list of every thing wrong with this movie; in short, good cinematography, mediocre acting, worse dialogue.
The -real- problem with stealing from so many movie plots and combining them into one movie, aside from the resulting confusion, is while you CAN have several plots running at one time, you can't have several endings. And what does Jaume do when he runs into this problem? Just like a Freshman in English 101, you end your story with ellipses, \"The little car vanished into the darkness and ..... THE END\" Oooh, spooky. Not really. And very anticlimactic. The ending left me confused and disappointed; almost empty.
Take your $10, go rent The Shining, Poltergeist, and Hellraiser.. scare the pants off yourself, have a great time, and forget that The Darkness ever existed.
-BJamin
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhat starts out as a passable movie degenerates into one of the most incoherent, UNscary, incompetently made, stupid attempted horror films of recent years.
Absolutely terrible. It's such a derivative mess ripping off every decent fright flick you can think of without successfully producing a single scare. Whether it's copying the recent trend with creepy kids or ghosts walking past the camera or the old school horror of Fulci's Gates of Hell.
The worst thing is there's not even a cat jumping out of a cupboard to make you jump. To be avoided.
\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\nHorrendously acted and completely laughable haunted-house horror flick that has an out of place Anna Paquin playing a neurotic teenager fighting off the \"things-that-go-bump-in-the-dark\" that are plaguing her and her family shortly after moving to their new home in Spain(?!). Little more than a geographically re-planted rip-off of \"The Shining\" and most notably \"The Others\", the weak-plotted \"Darkness\" is basically your typical run-of-the mill B-horror feature with a few predictable lame scares that can be seen by audiences a mile off (so to speak)! In retrospect I suppose I shouldn't have set my personal expectations quite as high for this movie to actually be good considering the well-known fact that it was shelved for nearly three years before finally being released around Christmas of last year in American cinemas across the country to what was ultimately lukewarm ticket-sales and very harsh reviews from critics. When will filmmakers ever learn that there's more to making movies (be it horror or otherwise) than just the fey possibility of a little financial gain? (Turkey-Zero Stars)
\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 saw the grudge, a another mediocre ghost movie then you should know what to expect, just worse, a lot worse. This Time instead of being in Japan with all English speaking people we are in Spain with all English speaking people. It is interesting that not one shot of this movie actually looks like Spain and could have been entirely filmed in a studio back lot. Oh and a place with swings, cause there's a good 5 mins of footage of swings with no one on them, oooohhh how spooky.
This one is terrible in every way imaginable. The acting by the lameinator mom and dad don't help matters at all. Anna Paquin is the only person that delivers a decent performance in the film but I hate Anna Paquin so you can imagine my own private hell viewing this film.
There is one good moment in the movie, however, when a villain is trying to explain the convoluted plot to Anna Paquin's character and she doesn't understand any of it and asks a bunch of stupid questions and he blurts out \"You IDIOT, you have not understood anything!\" lol. Well I happen to understand this film is a piece of garbage. 0 stars.
\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 you get ahead of a film, you know you are wasting your time watching the movie in question. That is exactly how I felt while I was watching \"Darkness.\" I could see anticipate every twist and turn easily. It is a combination of \"The Amityville Horror\" and a myriad of films that deal with the occult. It is so silly that I almost found endearing its naiveness. I cannot say I was wholly bored but I found the film way too derivative for my taste. Director Balagueró tries to redo his early Spanish hit \"The Nameless,\" but he cannot pull it off. I admit, a few sequences were creepy enough but I just abhor when I can figure out what is going to happen next. Also, I hated to see good actors like Lena Olin and Giancarlo Giannini sweat so much over this piece of dreck. Finally, Anna Paquin as the star of a horror film? This must be a joke. She is cute but she is one of those good child actors that have become a very monotonous adult actor. You can live without watching 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\nAn American family moves to the countryside of Spain to live in an isolated house. Regina (Anna Paquin), the teenager daughter of Mark (Iain Glen), who is sick and has some mental problems, and the nurse Maria (Lena Olin), notes that weird things is happening in the house and with her young brother Paul (Stephan Enquist), but her mother does not believe on her. Reggie decides to investigate with her boyfriend Carlos (Fele Martínez) the origins of the house, and they find that forty years ago, the place was the stage of the death of six children. Reggie decides to ask for support to her grandfather Albert (Giancarlo Giannini) to protect her brother against the house and her father.
I bought this DVD expecting to see a good horror movie of haunted house mainly because of the names of Anna Paquin, Lena Olin, Fele Martínez (from \"Thesis\" and \"Abre los Ojos\") and Giancarlo Giannini. Further, I like very much Spanish cinema. In spite of, I found a terrible screenplay, an awful direction and a deplorable acting of excellent actors and actresses. The intention of the story is good, slightly recalling \"The Shinning\" in some moments, but unfortunately it is badly developed, never being clear, for example, the reasons and motives why the American family moved to Spain or the horrible relationship between the members of the family, mainly the situation between Maria and Reggie. The direction is confused, poorly trying to use dark and shadows to give scary effects to the story. I love Anna Paquin, but her expressionless face never works in this flick. Lena Olin is a caricature of the great actress she is; and Stephan Enquist is too much weak for such important role. Only Fele Martínez has a good performance in his support character. I liked the open end of the story. My vote is four.
Title (Brazil): \"A Sétima Vítima\" (\"The Seventh Victim\")
\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 is so daring it doesn't attempt to hide its similarities to The Shining. It lacks the originality to do so. And when it does, near the end, try to cover up its story of \"father goes psycho under influence of sketchy haunted house in a foreign place,\" it does so by stooping to plenty of other already established conventions and ideas. In other words, it reduces itself to mere cliche. But hell, even I enjoy a good predictable horror or thriller as long as there is an interesting story, one filled with violence and gore, somewhere before the film makes the dreadful turn towards the predictable and trite. Well, this film doesn't have a good story and I was really disappointed with it. What 'Darkness' has going for it is remarkable direction and cinematography. It is a film well-shot and carefully constructed full of fun, creepy angles and shots. What 'Darkness' doesn't have going for it is pretty much everything else. To begin with a minor quibble - the editing in this movie is obnoxious. It jumps from one scene to the next, sometimes pointlessly. For example, the old man in the movie (who pretty much carries the background story, later filled in by another character) is underscored by a hamster running circles. I mean, it looks cool the first time, but why continue to use the same image? I guess you'd have to see it for yourself, to understand what I mean. Another problem with this movie is Anna Paquin's character who essentially whines throughout the film, crying and caring all too much about everything - she's the film's failed attempt at a character-driven horror film. The movie has scenes of overblown sentimentalism and the family drama it depicts is simply not believable. By the end, 'Darkness' is a muddled melodrama, with a non-involving mystery provided with too simple of an ending. And it's hardly scary.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhat could have been some majorly creepy stuff ends up being an incomprehensible, nutty motion picture that even the filmmakers themselves probably didn't understand. Had they shown more of the Satanic ritual or whatever, it might have been creepier, but as it stands now, this is a waste of time and brain cells. Is anybody else getting sick of the whole \"little kid drawing creepy pictures with crayon\" thing? Could there possibly be a bigger horror cliché? Probably not. I know, I know, it's from some different country, and it's far too refined and sophisticated for me to understand, so I shouldn't expect the \"plot\" to be spoon-fed to me, blah, blah, blah. Whatever. I still say the movie blows.
\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 could have been a good movie if more things were explained. Way too many plot holes to find this enjoyable. The ending in particular is off left field. SPOILER ALERT: How did the kidnapper get back to Dundee so fast and Dundee shows up at the house in a matter of two minutes? Way out of wack here. How did Anna get hold of the money? No explanation at all. If the Pete the cop knew Lancaster was in danger, why didn't he have a cop at the door in the Hospital. This and many more questions remain. Too bad because the premise was there, just bad writing and execution.
Good cast is wasted here. DeCarlo goes from bad to good to bad? Lancaster's character lacks development and Dureya is just blah as the \"bad guy\".
This could re-made with a cohesive story line and better writing. Of course it would be much more violent with lots of gratuitous sex and everything. The editing would be jerky as well I guess, so let's leave well enough alone.
\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 agree with the user \"SpecialAgentFoxMulder\" that this episode is awful- posisbly thr worst of the entire show. Now I'm not keen on many episodes of the later series but this one takes the biscuit! It was unfunny and unoffensive. As for the ending, I'm sorry but it disgusted me more than any other episodes combined.
I mean, the boys think they meant well but the ending was so upsetting- that they think the whale belongs on the moon and over the credits, we see it has died. Wht could have saved the episode was if the pranksters were able to confess for what they did.
There seem to be no outgoing message. Okay, South Park may be guilty of preaching too much and its always nice to see an unpreachign one (such as Make Love Not Warcraft\") but this episode was just wrong! Avoid at all costs! Helen xxxxx
\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\nFree Willzyx (Stupidest name/title ever) is the worst episode of ANY of the TV shows I watch, which includes X-Files, Alias, All 3 Law And Orders, All of the CSI's, Family Guy, Simpsons, Chappelle's Show, Colbert Report, and more. South Park was for very long my favorite of the comedy shows, because of it's shockingly obscene content and disturbing black comedy. Free Willzyk has NONE of the content I mentioned earlier. It was so tame, so unoffensive it might has well been an episode of Sesame Street. Kyle goes to Sea World where a few of the workers play a prank on him, making him think a whale is talking to him. He BEFRIENDS THE WHALE, actually BEFRIENDS IT. Hello? This is South Park! the same show that brought you \"Cancelled\", \"Chickenlover\", \"It Hits The Fan\", \"Death Camp Of Tolerance\", and so many more! Not SpongeBob SquarePants! Ugh. I actually watched the whole episode, which is 30 minutes of my life I will never get back. Anyhow, I was extremely disgusted with this episode and I can't believe the shocking decline in the quality of Matt & Trey's work.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI have watched this show for a while, only because of my cousins, and I HATE IT! First, the girls dress in the same style clothes, and they have the same first letter in their names. (Come on, I could to better than that!) Then the villains (spare me), first we have a monkey with part of his (little) brain showing, then we have a (gay) version of the devil, a pink hillbilly, a gang green gang (whit is ironic, that's their name) a spoiled princess (once again, ironic, that's 'her' name) among others. I have also found that there is no male hero in the show. (Not that I'm sexist or anything...) I'd rather watch Sailor Moon, it's much better than this. If someone else wants to watch the show in the room that you're in, find a way to break the television. Believe me, it'll save you a half hour of torture.
Rating: I'm giving this just what it deserves, a 1 out of 10. Whatever you do, DO NOT WATCH THIS!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI always hated this retarded show .I liked the shows of Cartoon Network like \"Dexter's laboratory \" or \"Megas XLR .But I never liked this piece of turd . Basically because it have stupid characters (the good or the villains all seems to be mentally retarded ) they have stupid voices (specially Bubbles .She is supposed to be the \"cute \" character of the show ,but she is incredibly annoying ) the story lines are very ,very stupid . Some episodes could have been interesting but almost always the show turns childish and corny . There wasn't any likable character ,the music was horrible ,and the animation is the worst that I've seen . Evena five year old boy could draw better ! I don't see why all the world seems to love this piece of garbage . \"The Powerpuff Girls \" seems to be one of the worst cartoons ever made . Fortunately \"Foster Home for the imaginary friends \" from the same creator was far away better .
\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 watched this show on Cartoon Network, I found it uninteresting. Then I read a lot of good messages about this show, and I decided to watch it. The show was so boring. Each episode was predictable. More, this show has no logic. Hypersmart girls, who are going to school and sometimes do such stupid things, 99% of episodes start with a Monster attacking Townswille, then Mayor (he is a real fool, he is NOT funny, he is so stupid, that I can't imagine how he became a Mayor). Professor, yes, supposed to be the smartest person in this show, but actually... He even found no difference between monster and his brother. Narrator's comments also make this show boring. Because they also have similar lines in the beginning of each episode and in the ending. Also the animation is very strange. Everything except main heroes is shown in an ugly way. Also in every epsode this show is giving you some life-lessons, and it means that it is oriented on little children, but if you look closer, you will see, that there is a lot of violence and even blood(!!!) during their battles.
\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\nIsn't it depressing how the most violent cartoon on Cartoon Network is aimed at girls? While I'm not watching soldiers getting shot and blown up on Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers, it would be nice if there was a cartoon or at least something on TV I could watch to satisfy my violent urges. And something that I would not get made fun of for watching. I did see some episodes (I should really be shot for this) and had to sit through the movie (now, where do I find a gun?), and it is quite clear that this lost its spark after the first few episodes. If you like seeing 500-foot monsters that can destroy huge cities in seconds getting slaughtered by toddlers about one foot tall, this is a must-see. But it does get very boring after a while, and with a show like this, even original ideas become chiefly dull. The movie just felt like one overlong episode (I can't remember any of it), and the villain should have been far more intimidating than a green monkey. This show is a laughing stock. It churns out the same basic premise episode after episode after episode, and though it may try to have some mystery and intrigue once in a while, the ending will always be the same - \"The Powerpuff Girls save the day!\" All is good and nice, but all is very, very repetitive... I give it 3 out of 10 for being the only danged cartoon on CN to revolve around violence, although it is aimed at girls, so I won't be tuning in for it ever. I've established myself as a fan of war and violence films and I won't have that reputation destroyed... 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\nThe story is shortly about the faith-lacking business man priest, Daniel Clemens (Christian Slater), who is looking closer on a case where another priest is suspected for murder. The priest denies he's guilty but at the same time he is not able to discuss the matter due to confidentiality. Enter Daniel Clemens who starts playing cop...
While the plot isn't ridiculous, everything else is. Let's start with the visual side, the cinematography is dull, it looks more like a TV-series than a movie. The camera angles are boring, in fact, there's not a single memorable camera angle in the entire movie. There's no interesting closeups revealing details. And the scene transitions, well, there's not much to say about those, they aren't smooth at all, there seems to be no connection between the scenes than the actual plot. Okay, they did use a transition with music in between two scenes, but there are no interesting visual transitions in the entire movie, the times dissolve was used there was no visual connection between the scenes.
The boring visual part could be forgiven if the film would offer anything else. Unfortunately the film only offers forced wooden acting and clumsy dialogue with no punch. On top of that the film suffers from audio problems, the sound volume is lowered several times in the movie as if the microphones would be too far.
I didn't predict the solution of the film. It could be because the film never gave me the opportunity or it could be due to the presentation, which was so boring I never even tried to figure it out.
Put two plus two together and it equals a B-movie where 'B' stands for boring.
\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\nWas the cast and crew on drugs before they started filming this? There was a hole in the plot...so big...nothing could have filled it up. From the first scene when the co-star is late for dinner, was there any doubt where he was and what he had just done? The suspense was over from there. Now, it was going to take another 85 minutes before the mystery was solved. I must confess that the biggest hole in the plot kept me awake for hours, wondering how dumb the screenwriter, the director, Chrisian Slater, Molly Parker, and Stephen Rea could be not to at least explain how our murderer, who was not a lawyer, or a policeman, could go into a locked cell at a jail, kill his second victim, and tie him up from a noose to make it look like suicide??? I kept wondering if I had fallen asleep out of sheer boredom and missed how that happened. If someone can explain it to me, please do...and then, why, for God's sake, did he kill the third victim? Nothing made sense...and yet, someone thought this film was worthy to be an official selection at a film festival. Perhaps it was a comedy and I failed to laugh.
\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\nMan alive, is this game bad or what? The graphics are way below par, even if it were on a playstation 1, never mind a Gamecube. The gameplay is pathetic and the camera movements disorientating. What a worthless game!
I totally love Warner's Batman animation and it's cool that they do all the games in this way. Batman: Vengeance could well have turned out great as they got off to a good start by keeping all the Gothic visuals and voice actors but they seriously stumbled when it came to playability and graphics. The result is a boring game that looks incredibly cheap and is no fun to play whatsoever. I really must stress how bad the graphics are. Don't let the color schemes fool you. I've seen better stuff on a Commodore 64.
\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 shocked by all the good reviews on the cover of this movie and on IMDb. It belongs in the $2 bin at your local video store. To say that this is a B movie is extremely generous.
Besides lacking a single redeemable character, only slightly better than average acting, and an ugly 80's style picture quality, the script for this film is dull and lifeless. This film is not only boring--it is pathetic. (Admittedly, there is occasionally some mildly interesting chemistry between the two main characters.) Even the final plot twist--rather, the only plot twist--does not save this film.
Rent \"Diamond Men\" if you must, but do not hesitate to turn it off once you become appraised of its worthlessness. 2 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\nThis film was shot in Randolph County in central North Carolina in 1968 when a film crew in the state was a rare thing. The locations were the municipalities of Liberty and Ramseur and the surrounding rural countryside. It is not a particularly good movie. It did have Merle Haggard and it brought life to the hinterlands for a few minutes.
The plot is standard shootemup. The cinematography is that fuzzy stuff that came out of the late sixties and early seventies. The local folks were thrilled to be a part of the enterprise.
If viewers have difficulty finding a copy of this film, a record copy is available in Asheboro, NC.
Actors not credited include Ben Jones, Mimi Pravda, Tommy Hull, Bill Nunnery.
\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 living in Barstow Ca. in 1968 when the movie The Killers Three arrived at the local theater. The trailer was enough to get me to pay my hard earned money to see this movie. I was really expecting a Bonnie And Clyde movie and I got Dick Clark playing a shy nerdy guy while Robert Walker and Diane Varsi played an poor attempt of reinacting Bonnie and Clyde. Needless to say it never went over well. Maybe this is why it never made it to video. Even as a kid I was left some what ripped off as I left the theater. After all the best parts where in the trailer of the movie. The movie was dull and pretty much pointless. By the way, Dick Clark gets killed so it wasn't a total let down.
\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 love the book. It's full of passion, romance, tension... and the movie drags along taking two spunky stars with it. Kylie Minogue was already a major star in Australia, having starred in Neighbours and releasing her first single. The decision to cast her in The Delinquents was surely a marketing ploy. For me, it didn't pay off.
Kylie may have been great in Neighbours, but she was far too sweet and innocent to play the feisty Lola... and, she wasn't of Asian descent as Lola was. Charlie Schlatter was an excellent Brownie, but there was no chemistry between him and Kylie.
By and large, the movie was boring. It dragged on, it lacked the passion of the book, it focused heavily on Kylie and in general, was completely disappointing.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhat a dire film. I cannot believe that I actually sat down and watched it. A very, very, very, very, very, VERY pathetic effort, with no redeeming features whatsoever. Hateeeeeeedddd ittttt! The so-called \"racing\" sequences are laughably awful, and the plot was so bad, I've forgotten it. Part of the film was made at the Spa-Francorchamps course in Belgium in, I think, 1988, during the actual Grand Prix there. I was there and am glad I didn't appear in any of the paddock scenes shown in the film. It could have been good...what a pity.
\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 it just me or the fact that the evil racing team is Japanese and that their arrogant star racer is German seem a little over the top? Maybe that is how it is on the international racing circuit but if all America had representing them are chumps like Cody and his mechanic Chris (Peter Berg, who must have been still learning how to act) then I would be rooting for another country. Formula movies can be good but the characters have to be likeable and no one meets that criteria in this movie. To put it succinctly - a very bad 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\nThe film starts out great, with a mock instruction film about the habits of Swedish housewives. After that we get a detailed reconstruction of post-war Scandinavia with lots of amazing cars, electronic equipment and interior design; a minimal jazz score, nice cinematography and stylish titling. Also there's some funny Scandinivian rivalry like in Von Triers 'Riget'.
Sadly, after the set up, \"Kitchen stories\" collapses like the Twin Towers on 9/11.Actors who try to portray the emotion 'jealousy\" by just staring in front of them. Corny dialog filled with stale gay symbolism in the vain of: \"I don't like white swans, I prefer bears and wolves... u ever tasted bear meat?\" The music becomes cheesier than Yann Tiersen at his worst.
It's a pity the director put all the effort in this great set-up, just to screw it up after-wards.
\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 fun that was present in the other 'movies' has all but disappeared with this third effort, which means the rubbishy production values show through more than ever. Another 2-parter ('The Chinese Web') cobbled together, this one suffers from too much padding, not to mention weak Spidey action taking place in such uninspired locations as a car park, apartment and printing press. Nicholas Hammond is as endearing as ever, struggling valiantly against the drab production and lame performances of the rest of the cast. The plot, in which Peter and Spidey help a Chinese official defeat charge of corruption during World War II by locating three marines who could testify as to his innocence, doesn't exactly scream 'comic book sprung to life', does 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\nA man wonders if his hunky co-worker is gay. At a yard sale he finds a ray gun called \"Gaydar\". You point it at a person, pull the trigger and it tells you how gay they are. He tries it out, it works and he sets out to find out if his coworker is gay like him...
Promising idea ruined by an unfunny script (after a promising beginning) and terrible acting. The entire cast overacts and basically SCREAM their lines at each other constantly. It gets annoying and really embarassing after a while. The saving grace is that's it is short, there's a scene stealing cat (love her fall out of the kitty bed) and Charles Nelson Reilly is hysterical in his brief bit. But none of this saves the movie. I can't recommend this at all.
\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\nVery simply, they are all the syndicated episodes and NOT the original uncut/unedited NBC episodes. It is NOT the complete first season, all eps are edited to conform to 21:00 for syndication meaning jokes are cut, an extra commercial fade is included, all of the Harvey Korman intros are not here...very poorly done! Shame on a series I've been waiting for....booooooooooooooooo! If you're a true die hard Mama fan, don't buy this and go to http://www2.warnerbros.com/web/main/help/whv/customer_service.jsp and send them comments on why we're unhappy on this butcher job to a classic sitcom!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nwell,there isnt much to say about this movie. its simply trash. very poor acting, poor script, and lame story.... well, the actress,(i odnt even know her name) who played mainrole,(not the blond one,but latina one) was acting fine,but the blond one who played the friend of main charactor,,,her acting level is just like highschool play,so as most of other actors in the movie. Also,zombies,,,,very bad acting as well. and,,the story itself has really no point at all. well, if you are really bored and really got nothing to do,but wanna kill time somehow, maybe you may wanna watch this movie,but eventho,there are still millions of better B movies than this crap. its total waste of money and 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\nThis movie is available as a special \"bonus\" feature on the double-disc of Horror 101 & Horror 102: Endgame. It has nothing to do with those movies, except it does show that producers/directors Dudelson and Clavell are in a rut. Like those other movies, this one features young people who go to a building where they get trapped inside, and run down the hallways a lot, while they get picked off one by one. In the end one or more characters are revealed to have another identity. This is by far the worst of the three.
Here, people are invited to a Halloween-night only opening of the Museum of the Dead. The museum doesn't have very many exhibits, and they're all sort of ancient central-American related. There are also flesh-eating, infection-spreading zombies in the museum as well as an ancient cannibal warrior and two female warriors.
The movie is very repetitious. It kills people off fairly quickly, to the point you wonder who they're going to have left to kill off - at which point some more people show up without explanation, so that they can be killed.
Amazingly, one of the characters does have a cellphone, and is actually able to call the police, who actually take it seriously and show up at the museum. When one tries to pick the lock to get in, the other tells him that would be \"forced entry.\" If you've got people trapped in a building who are injured, I think that's irrelevant. The cops are also stupid in that when they shoot a zombie in the head, it goes down, but then they shoot other zombies in the chest and they don't go down. They happen to shoot another zombie in the head, and it goes down. They continue to shoot the rest of the zombies in the chest. Stupid.
The opening credits and a nightmare sequence are done in a sort of animation-effect over video, a poor-man's Waking Life sort of thing, but not so cartoonish. It is sort of interesting, however, parts of some of the attacks are done the same way, so there's no logic to it.
Dreadful.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nPlot: None. Script: A string of cliches. Acting: Not in evidence. Special effects: Title sequence kind of cool, but otherwise exceptionally poor. Fright factor: Crossing the road is scarier. Cult factor: Only the most desperate cult would latch onto this dog. Can't you say anything positive: I did. The titles were kind of cool.
(Special bonus question ... your idea of hell: Being at a party with people who voted this flop a 7.)
\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 study in BAD. Bad direction, bad acting, bad writing and f/x that´ll teach you that you´d better upgrade your computer before filming. It´s the kind of flick you used to do totally drunk in your cellar with Dad´s camera when you were young at heart. But YOU certainly would not show it in public when you´re sober again, would you? YOU wouldn´t even view it. 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\nagain such kind of zero-budget digital-video cam trash. and again I fell into this trap cuz the title had \"zombie\" in it (german title: ZOMBIE ATTACK!) the story: on halloween some people visit the \"museum of the dead\", it's a trap, a crazy doctor wants to kill the people, everything connected to some aztec-cult. so they fight against some zombies in there.
ultra cheap scenery: some corridors with black tape on it. a few dilettantish drawings and a few skulls as you can find them in every fun-shop. no actors, just low-grade models waking around with absolutely no idea what to do. no effects. laughable make-up, your local hobby-make-up-zombie-fan will do it better, some time it looked as if they had not enough money for enough colour, otherwise they just could not do it like this, man, they have to realize the looks of their \"zombies\". some laughable martial-arts fights with the zombies, slow-motion. just, when the director wants to have it scary he uses some standard digital-video-cam effect where everything is flackering. unbelievable! 0 out of 10!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI tried to love this movie. I really did. Kevin Bacon plays a cerebral palsy victim who is befriended by a 10-year-old girl whose fantasies of digging to China, flying away in a balloon, and so on, are her way of coping with a dreary existence. I admit I did fast-forward through one of the scenes in which the two of them share friendship and simple pleasures while soulful piano music plays in the background. Okay, three or four of those type scenes. Maybe nine or ten. Okay, okay, it was fourteen. But I did sit and watch most of 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\nI like Kevin Bacon and Cathy Moriarty, and I love Mary Stuart Masterson, but the movie wasn't good at all. There wasn't a likable character in the picture, and the plot was nearly non-existent.
Ms. Masterson is a great actress, but she just didn't pull off the \"tough girl\" character. (She had similar problems with her character in THE SECOND DAY OF Christmas.) Perhaps she should avoid these characters, especially those with an obnoxious female child to play off of.
Evan Rachel Wood was unimpressive. Her character was a brat, plain and simple, and no young actress could have given Harriet any positive feelings.
In the interest of full disclosure, I couldn't even finish watching this picture. Forty-five minutes of my time is enough to waste.
\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\nDiane Keaton is a pathetic actress. She is so boring and phony. She is the same on and off screen. I saw her in an interview with Ellen Degeneres and she behaves exactly the same as she does in movies. Her foolish facial expressions make me want to change channels. She has been in a couple of good movies, but they would have been better had someone else been picked for the part. Steve Martin doesn't add much to the movie either. He over acts as well and also ruins an old favorite. The ridiculous part Martin Short plays only adds more idiocies to the movie. I've tried to watch the movie twice but both times had to turn it 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\nThis film makes about as much sense as an 'Ozzie & Harriet' or a 'Father Knows Best' episode. An old copy of Reader's Digest (circa 1962) would provide more insight into modern life, or the relationship between a father and a daughter, than this weird concoction.
I was surprised with Diane Keaton. She appears to sleepwalk through the film. (Given the film's title, I realize that hers was a supporting role but even Martin Short managed a distinct, supporting character.)
I can understand the attraction of an imaginary world created in a good romantic comedy. But this film is the prozac version of an imaginary world. I'm frightened to consider that anyone could enjoy it even as pure fantasy.
\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 movie on video with a couple of friends as part of a teen comedy triple header, alongside Dorm Daze and Going Greek. Obviously we weren't going for quality, but for air-headed entertainment and gross-out gags. Generally we got what we came for, but Wild Roomies really stood out: For being awful.
First impression first, the cover: The Norwegian release cover showed breasts covered up and a bunch of seemingly \"crazy\" roomies in the background; Brings up pictures of drunken semi-naked teenagers doing bunches of funny stuff stuff doesn't it?- The \"crazy\" roomies on the cover were not even featured in the picture. And the funny stuff you assume they'll be doing?- Absent as well.
This movie was labeled comedy, which is a bit strange since it not even remotely funny. Relationship drama would be more accurate.
Put shortly the movie is about a young couple inheriting a swanky house in LA, and are forced to get some roomies to make ends meet. These roommates eventually put both the young couple's patience and relationship to the test because they're so \"wild\". Problem is, they're not. And here lies the problem of this movie: The protagonist couple are so anal-retentive and neurotic that they manage to generate zero sympathy. You'll find yourself rooting for the antagonist roomies halfway through the movie. Add mediocre acting, lame dialogue and boring direction and you got yourself a movie that is best left unseen.
See something else.
\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 high hopes for this one after reading the back of the DVD, \"In the spirit of American Pie and Animal House...\" After suffering through this I realized I just blew $2.50 to rent it. This movie started out slow and just got slower... brief and fleeting moments of levity proved that it was in the spirit of American Pie if you mean \"spirit\" as a dead thing. not very entertaining or fun! Don't be fooled like i was and expect anything barely watchable because this movie will depress you more than entertain you. \"Need to fill up three more lines for this stupid movie that doesn't deserve the effort... what a stupid piece of ignorant crud. This movie wreaked, even the brief nudity sucked!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"