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\nMaybe James P. Lay knows what do to in the sound department if a director supervises him.
In 'Dreamland (2007)' however, he cannot accomplish anything as a writer or as a director.
There is absolutely nothing in this film, no story, no character building, no events, no atmosphere, no plot, no twists, no acting that deserves that name.
In any of those departments this movie is billions of light years behind any short film that has some actual thinking in it, even a one minute one.
It has nothing to do with any of David Lynch's works!
I actually think it could be used as mental torture or as negative propaganda material against the West.
Recommend it only to your worst enemies!
\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 cannot BELIEVE anyone is giving this film a good rating. In addition to the terrible acting, thin (nonexistent?) plot line and slooooooooow pace, this would be the movie to watch if you were really TRYING to fall asleep. The writer's and director's brains must have been fried eggs to ever have concocted something as abominable as this. Based on the plot summary on the DVD case, the premise really sounded promising. But within the first ten minutes I knew it was a lost cause. If you want to see a REALLY creep take on the Area 51 idea, check out the remake of \"The Hills Have Eyes\". Dreamland will soon fade away as all pathetic films of its ilk do. NEXT!!!
\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 has absolutely no redeeming features. It's not even worthy of being in the 'so bad it's good' category - it's simply bad. Badly acted, badly shot, badly written, badly directed, terrible sound recording and the whole thing is just incredibly amateur. Quite how this got a release is beyond me.
Oh, and could someone PLEASE tell the lead actress that if you're playing 'mad' that does not mean that you should constantly fiddle with your hair - in a film that was generally irritating, this was probably one of the most irritating things of all.
On the plus side, I think this is the only film ever to feature a Nazi carjacker ...
\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...I can't believe there are actually people here who recommend this movie... This is such a slow POS going absolutely nowhere. Oh yeah OK it goes somewhere, but you see that coming from miles away. Acting: Really really bad, maybe the bartender was kind of OK. Editing: BAD! I suppose the editor was told \"we need at least 90 minutes\", cause half of all the scenes could have gone in the bin. Music: don't get me started on that, the lousiest score I've ever heard. Who is that singing in the last scene for crying out loud?? Directing: oh my, IMNSHO David Lynch sucks, but someone trying to copy him sucks even harder. Skip 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\nThis film was utterly horrible. Stupid premise, and horrible acting by all. Whoever wrote this trash should be hanged. Reminds me of a hack student film, BUT WORSE. Who ever produced this should give up now. I know opinions are subjective and all, and some may think this \"fantastic\" as some think \"Dune (1984)\" was fantastic, well get off your horse and watch some real films. OK, the acting was tolerable, and with better direction could have been far better, but it didn't so it suffers. I don't know how much more I can say about this waste of film, other than to totally trash it. Anyways it was horrible and I recommend to avoid it like the plague, if you come anywhere near \"dreamland\", rent the movie beside it instead.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI know this film was shown on local TV when I was a kid, but I can't remember whether I watched it or not; seeing it now, considering how utterly forgettable it is, I still don't know  so I counted it as a first viewing! There have been several films featuring the title character, a creation of visionary French author Jules Verne; these include: 20,000 LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA (1954; with James Mason in the role), MASTER OF THE WORLD (1961; Vincent Price), MYSTERIOUS ISLAND (1961; Herbert Lom), CAPTAIN NEMO AND THE UNDERWATER CITY (1969; Robert Ryan) and THE MYSTERIOUS ISLAND OF CAPTAIN NEMO (1973; Omar Sharif).
This version stars Academy Award winner Jose' Ferrer. However, even if the premise itself isn't half-bad  awakened from suspended animation in his submarine, \"The Nautilus\", and finding himself in modern times, Nemo adopts all his ingenuity to aid the U.S. Navy in defeating megalomaniac scientist Burgess Meredith  it emerges as easily his most infantile adventure yet! For instance: five seconds into the film, Meredith's assistant  donning a steel mask  rants that \"The World Shall Be Ours!\"); equally hilarious are the zealous gesticulations of the similarly decked-out midget, whose task it is to fire The Professor's all-important \"Delta Beam\" - and how about those android-type minions aboard Meredith's vessel who never seem to do much of anything?!
Ferrer manages to maintain his dignity throughout, but Meredith is an embarrassment (in what is virtually a retread of his Penguin characterization from the 1960s BATMAN TV series and film) where the budget was so tight  mostly invested in bland production design and shoddy special effects, no doubt, and both evidently influenced by STAR WARS (1977)  that, apparently, they couldn't even afford him a decent costume (he looks positively idiotic wearing a tie in a sub)! The supporting cast includes Mel Ferrer (playing a saboteur in the vein of Joan Fontaine from another Irwin Allen production, VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA [1961], and who engages in a swashbuckling routine with his namesake inside the engine-room of \"The Nautilus\"), Lynda Day George (unsurprisingly, she's the only female character around) and Horst Buchholz (as the King Of Atlantis  for whatever reason, Nemo is obsessed with locating the famed Lost Continent).
By the way, having been reduced from a three-part mini-series for theatrical exhibition, the film obviously feels choppy  though one is still able to discern where one episode ended and another began.
\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 has to rate as one of the cheesiest of TV shows in a long time.
Jose Ferrer played the title character, Nemo. He did the part justice and certainly looked the part. But nowadays, it strikes me that the Nemo he was made up to be bore more than a passing resemblance to Captain Bird's Eye, from the TV commercials. Or maybe it's the other way around.
His nemesis, Professor Cunningham, was overacted brilliantly by Burgess Meredith. He never seemed to get over his \"Penguin\" days from Batman. Although he doesn't do his Penguin \"quack\" here, he is without parallel as the maniacal Professor. Only John Colicos, of Battlestar Galactica fame, chewed up the scenery better as a maniacal despot.
I never can recall what the grudge was between Nemo and Cunningham, but it must have been severe, since the Prof. never missed a chance to try and scupper Nemo, and vice-versa.
The effects were nothing special, though Prof. Cunningham's submarine was way better looking than Nemo's. It also had a crew of strange, fish-like amphibians that served Cunningham and did his every bidding.
However, the most memorable aspect of the whole show was Prof. Cunningham's secret weapon. The Delta Beam! He was forever saying \"Fire Delta Beam!\", whereupon, a fishy crewman would horribly overract the motion of firing the weapon by use of a full shoulder shrug. Truly priceless! They don't make them like this anymore, and perhaps just as well. But like other series of this era, for those who remember it, it will always have an affectionate, if cheddar-covered, place in our hearts.
\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\nYou'll feel like you've experienced a vacation in Hell after you have sat down and watched this horrible TV movie. This movie is an exercise in over-acting (very bad over-acting) to situations that made out to be more than what they are. I won't give away the plot, but once you realize why the people in this film are running from the native man in the film you will demand the two wasted hours of your life back. The only plus is seeing Marcia Brady running around in a bikini!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt is easy to tell early in this movie exactly what will happen, and who will die. It is about 4 women and a man who on a vacation. This was made during the end of the ultra Nazi seventies, when blonde women were supposedly ultra American survivors and brunettes were all deserving of death.
This movie, like the others of that era, contrives to bring this about, and the viewer knows this. There is no mystery or suspense. The people squabble, but everything is so predictable for the prejudices of the time, it is laughable.
The five people happen upon two savage young characters, and go nuts. Everyone is nuts, so that the director-writer team can justify their Nazi propaganda.
For some reason, the guy is attracted to the blonde, who is really not much to look at, and ignores a super hot looking brunette that any heterosexual man would go nuts over. One must remember that in the seventies, movies were meant to appeal to women and not men.
Totally crap and totally depressing.
\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\nCan there be a worst film? Even Ed Wood at his horrific worst couldn't come up with something this bad. Cheesy, stupid, long-winded, preposterous...and those are the good points. I saw this trash back in the early 80's when I was incredibly bored to begin with, and actually sat through the entire thing without blowing my brains out, although that probably would have been a more pleasant experience. I actually remembered it because it was so bad. It makes me sad in a way because some of the best directors got their start by making TV movies (ie Spielberg) and it was a wonderful way for them to get their initial material before the public, but crap like this just totally killed the entire process.
\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 wonderful semi-humorous homage to Expressionistic black and white films of folks like FW Murnau, Fritz Lang, Carl Dreyer, Marcel Carné and others. Allen plays a character caught in a Kafkaesque nightmare, at first thinking he is part of a vigilante group trying to catch a killer and slowly realizing that he might be a suspect. The writing is a little forced (this is, after all, Woody Allen trying to be a coy Kafka), but the point is made, and no harm done. The cinematography is interesting, about 100 shades of gray, but make sure you watch in a very dark room with a good screen, or details will get swallowed in the fog. This is an amusing little movie with a few laughs that are actually snorts of \"uh-huh\". The acting is fine, considering the odd vehicle, and it's worth watching if you are big Woody Allen fan. Also of interest to those knowledgeable about Expressionistic films. I'd give this a 6.5 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\n\"Shadows and Fog\" is surely one of Woody Allen's weakest films, right up there with \"September\" and \"Hollywood Ending\" (though nothing Allen has done equals the awfulness of \"Anything Else\").
\"Shadows and Fog\" is Allen's homage to the German Expressionist style of film-making, all stark and stylized light and shadow and...you guessed it.....lots of fog. But you can tell Allen got caught up in the technique and the parody and forgot to make a movie that anyone would care about.
Luckily, he made \"Husbands and Wives\" the same year, so things weren't a total wash for him.
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\nIt may be, although there are still two or three I've missed. This film constructs an interesting nocturnal cityscape, reminiscent of so many foggy scenes from Sherlock Holmes movies, and populates it with sinister, Kafka-esque characters. Into their midst, the movie drops Mia Farrow, who sounds like she's still playing Hannah, and Woody Allen, who seems to be reprising his nebbish role from Play It Again Sam. Are we supposed to laugh at his stammering and hand-wringing? I suppose I would, if the rest of the movie were clearly a comedy, but it's not. At least I don't think it is.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film reeks of production line planning. It appears like the filmmakers looked at recent hit movies, and threw spaghetti on the screen - Jimmy Stewart! June Allyson! Anthony Mann! Baseball! War! Baby! Airplane! - ROLL 'EM! - The film does address the age of the Stewart/Allyson performers; though, I'm certain we are still supposed to think they are much younger.
There are messages in \"Strategic Air Command\" I found curiously shocking and offensive, but I'll stick with one truly wretched element: The happily married couple is challenged when Mr. Stewart's character makes an important decision without consulting his wife. In the film's most dramatic scene, she calls him on it. It ends completely unresolved - Allyson is crying her heart out on their bed, and Stewart walks out on her. NO discussion; he simply says he is correct, and walks out on his devastated wife. For all he knows, she could slit her wrists.
Later, Allyson apologizes for questioning her husband's decision.
Unbelievable!
Stick with Stewart-Allyson in \"The Stratton Story\" (1949).
** Strategic Air Command (3/25/55) Anthony Mann ~ James Stewart, June Allyson, Frank Lovejoy
\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 anonymous film which could have been directed by anyone at all.Where is Anthony Mann,the director of such classics as \"El Cid\" \" the naked spur\" or \"the man from Laramie\"?
There are marvelous shots of planes in the clouds,lovingly filmed.The story is very trite ,and almost completely devoid of dramatization.The couple lives an almost routine life and the user who complains about June Allyson's choice for the wife ,IMHO,totally misses the point.With her less-than-attractive look,her hoarse voice,she was the perfect housewife the screenplay needed.At the time,women were barefoot and pregnant:there 's not one single woman among the base staff,even in the desk jobs -.All they had to do was worrying about their hubbies ,who were fighting for democracy and against an Enemy whose name we never hear ,but in 1955,it was not hard to guess it.
One wonders why a young person who has never seen a Mann movie should choose this one among all the great movies he made.
\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 low grade cold war propaganda film crossed with a soapie. It may have some long-term significance as a snapshot of 1950s US thinking, but there is little else to commend in the mawkish storyline, wooden acting and grating style. There are some interesting photos of long-gone aircraft, but that was not enough for even this aircraft enthusiast to leave it on the screen for the full length.
\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\nFirstly, let me make it clear that I love aircraft, and usually any film with them in is worth watching - and I've sat through some shocking ones. However, the same is not true of this film. James Stewart is an excellent actor, but he is wasted in this Strategic Air Command promotional film. The acting is mediocre, and the direction is weak. I had to stop watching this awful rubbish about half way through. This was despite some really good, maybe even the best, aerial photography. The trouble is, even for an aviation nut like me, making something out of the shocking aircraft featured (B-36 and B-47) just grates on the nerves too much. It's a shame that the film wasn't made when the B-52 appeared, then the superlatives used for the aircraft in this film would have been valid. Then I might have been able to sit through it. Perhaps I'm missing the point of the film, which may be the angst suffered by loved ones while their beloved are on active duties. In any case, it could have been done much better. Recommendation? Well worth missing.
\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 load of crap. It's quite disturbing to see that anyone is able to say that this is one of the best films of the year. What can I say? Bad acting, bad action scenes which becomes really comical in the end. Pardon me if this was a comedy, then I didn't understand it. If it was I regret laughing of the tent scenes! Do yourself a favor - go to bed instead of watching this! Good night!
\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 told about this film from a friend who saw it late night during the week He told me it was so bad that I had to see it! So I went on an auction site and bought the film. This is probably the worst film I have EVER seen. It makes you laugh when it really shouldn't. Terrible acting and terrible storyline. Plus he looks nothing like Michael Jackson?!
I still recommend buying this film as its one of the funniest things you will ever see. Van Peebles is a joke in this film.
Robots cant bluff... PSYCHE!
I have to say though the special effects are actually amazing... PSYCHE! DVDs were probably even out when this film came out but if I had my way it would be a straight to VHS release yes people it is THAT 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\nSolo is an action movie about a Terminator-like android that is constructed and trained for the military. When a flaw is discovered, he is issued to be deprogrammed. Rather than face death, he chooses to flee into the jungles of Central America, where he takes refuge in a village. The military chases him into there, leading into a big action feast.
Mario Van Peebles does a decent performance the android. His movements and gestures look mechanical enough to get the job done. Actual scientific realism is abandoned in order to make a good action hero. And it works out; the action scenes aren't that spectacular, but they aren't all too bad either. The acting from the other characters is pretty bad, but I was not expecting anything too good. The special effects were decent as well.
Solo is decent as an action flick, but very forgettable. It lacks the substance that most movies possess. But if you just want to pass a couple hours without much thinking, this will get the job done.
\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 novel WEAPON which serves as the basis for this atrocious piece of garbage is one of the best techno-thrillers to come down the pike in a long time.The character of SOLO, who is NOT supposed to look like a human, is a wonderful creation and it was simply awful to see him reduced to just another Terminator-clone with Mario Van Peebles horrendously trying to \"act\" like a robot. There is NOTHING worthwhile about this film.
Why does Hollywood insist on snapping up the rights to excellent novels and then butchering them? There are so many things wrong with SOLO that listing them seems as unfair as inviting a man with no legs to a brisk game of Hopscotch. Avoid this awful film and seek out the 2 novels by ROBERT MASON that feature the awesome character of SOLO. The books are WEAPON and an excellent sequel SOLO.But don't pay any attention to this awful dreck of a film.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI had the dubious opportunity to view this movie on TV. It's the perfect example of how to take a terrible script and turn it into one of the worst films ever made. Not only is the acting bad and the effects terrible, the movie has more logical holes than ten pounds of imported swiss cheese.
I would highly recommend this film as an example of how NOT to make a movie and what director not to use in one of yours.
I turned off the TV during the last ten hideous minutes of the show. Calling it \"pathetic\" is a gross understatement.
\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 see Barry Corbin in the cast of a movie, you can never be sure if it will be a classic or trash. Guess which category SOLO falls into. Apparently derived from a popular sci-fi novel, WEAPON, SOLO stars Mario Van Peebles as a human-looking robot who decides to think for himself and is thus targeted for elimination. He hides out in a Mexican village, obviously to save money on locations and extras. Paying in pesos is cheaper than paying in dollars, I suspect. William Sadler is along for the ride, as one of the robots and soldiers sent to destroy Van Peebles. Van Peebles manages to beat them all with ease, of course, while Corbin watches all this with bemusement from afar. The movie is a horrible ripoff of the THE TERMINATOR and CYBORG series, and apparently has little to do with its source material. It is horribly written and acted, and the big fight at the end if downright comical. Van Peebles, a decent actor elsewhere, is a scream as he pretends to be a robot covered in synthetic flesh. He looks like he is doing the Robot Dance most of the 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\nSolo is a poor film - that cannot be ignored. The acting for the most part is very wooden (the only exception is Adrien Brody's performance as Solo's creator Bill) and the story is slight enough that you would probably forget it WHILST you where watching the film. That said, such films are more about the action than the plot/acting and, as such, live or die by the action set pieces - that after all is the point of such films - to give 14 year-olds something to smile at whilst the adults watch films of actual substance. And even on this Solo fails to deliver - what little action there is is poorly done, dull and uninspired. After seeing the trailer for this on television I was hoping for something along the lines of Predator with a robot replacing the Predaot. Instead I got a fairly lifeless action film with a poorly constructed attempt at depth by taking on message that robots can feel too. Watch Terminator II or Predator instead.. both classics that this film desperately wants to be except it lacks the inspiration or, to be fair, the 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\nMario Van Peebles tries to go the Jean-Claude Van Damme route and play a renegade robotic soldier who goes AWOL to preserve himself, however the government isn't going to take this lying down, so among the simplistic plot Van Peebles protects villagers from the rebel forces and defeats a improved version of himself in this disappointing film. This blatant rip off of Universal Soldier (Which is far more fun then this) simply goes nowhere. The main problem is that the movie is so unbelievably inert. Van Peebles just waits around and there just isn't enough ass-kicking to justify a viewing. On the other hand the movie does sort of resemble a competent version of R.O.T.O.R although where as that abysmal bad movie was hilarious, this one only yields occasional laughter in its laughably unconvincing action sequences. Also like R.O.T.O.R it makes no sense in its narrative and basically the movie is awesomely boring. Plus the villains are disappointingly weak and basically the movie needs an actual action scenario to work, because the material is too dull. In all regards Solo is a very weak film.
*1/2 out of 4-(Poor)
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nYou know I only watched 15 minutes of this film, so I can't really describe how great it is. I mean the concept alone is so original and intriguing it just did not let me go. Then there is the mass of academy award winning people involved here plus the academy award nominated director. YOU JUST CAN'T miss. I mean imagine it is the middle of the night and you're not sleepy yet. This film comes on. You watch it and are shocked. It is so brilliant, so original it is so GREAT. It will feel to you that half an hour later you've turned off the screen, but as you go to your bed you see it's only 15 minutes after midnight. ENJOY!!!
3 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 didn't have much high hopes for this one. Before seeing it, the story yelled \"stereotype\" at me.
I mean... come on! It's so stupid the plot line about the innocent android that realizes that the people who created him are immoral, then decides to change everything.
I had to see it three times. The first two times I fell asleep because I was so incredibly bored by it. It's very rare that movies bore me so much I fall asleep during them. The third time I forced myself to watch it, simply to be able to warn people about it.
I got the distinct impression that the people responsible for this mess had tried to take all the cool/neat things from other scifi/action movies, and put them together to make a kick-ass movie! They took the android/robot, lots of action, thin story, stereotype characters, and a big fight in the end and threw it together. Unfortunately, the movie sucks. The acting is so wooden you could build a house out of it, the storyline/plot is absolutely laughable, the camerawork and editing is horrid, the direction is non-existent, and to top it all off, everything is so cliche and ridiculous that it just annoys the hell out of you.
I was left with the feeling that I could've spent the time watching this one doing something much more creative, like trimming my fingernails, or watching the grass grow.
\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 usually a big fan of Pacino (Scarface, Serpico, Devils advocate) but since Scent of a woman he pretty much plays the same role and shouts a lot. This movie had no endearing characters to warm to. Brandon played by Bongo McConnahey is the least likable of the bunch. He nowhere even approached a real human being. Pacino was hopelessly unlikeable and my goodness how old is Renee Russo? The only high light of this wretched mess was the hot hooker with the perfect lipstick and she has like 10 lines total. Even the usually reliable Jeremy Piven was utterly unlikeable.
Note to writers of movies, they do not usually work unless one of the main characters is at least a bit likable (noteable exception Scarface). As the movie closes and old Brandon is at the airport my only thought was, please let a plane crash into the airport and kill Brandon.
\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 went into this movie determined to like it. I usually enjoy dramas like Wall Street, Glen Gary Glen Ross, Boiler Room, etc...I went into this movie thinking I would be on the edge of my seat. Plus, I am a big Pacino fan.
What a piece of garbage. Quite possibly the worst movie I have seen in five years. This makes Pacino's debacle in Any Given Sunday actually look good. First, half the movie is watching Matthew McConaughey lift weights. OK, we get it. You are in shape Matt. We don't need to see every other scene with you pumping iron, shirtless.
Secondly, how many plot holes are in this movie? Why introduce the phone call from Brandon's long lost Dad and never address it again? What was the point of his Mom hanging up on him - why even have her call to say he is sending her too much money - what was the point of that? The guy from Puerto Rico who lost 30 million? Also, since sports betting is illegal in NY, and its acknowledged its illegal, how can they possibly guarantee everyone's bet at the end?
This was simply a very poorly written script. It had potential, but it was devoid of a coherent plot. I thought Pacino learned his lesson about script selection after Any Given Sunday, but apparently not. My Gosh, this is the same actor that starred in the Godfather!
Don't waste your money.
\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 poor script and acting. I was very surprised that the director was able to convince his cast with his empty story that tells us nothing new. All is in the cliché of the \"mentor\" and the \"talented immature pupil\". The characters aren't' even interesting nor sympathetic. Artistically it is as empty and insignificant. The colours are very impersonal and light. Only the poster may be appealing. Al Pacino tries very hard to give depth to his character with no success. Too bad because the sport betting can be a really interesting subject to which many could relate. But I can't have a complete comment on this movie any way as i got out from the theatre 20 minutes before ending. Everything was so predictable that it was a waist of time...
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie was utterly and unequivocally terrible. The plot was so predictable and boring and the script so corny and pretentious that by the end I wanted to stab my eyes with the nearest pen.
Normally I don't write reviews, but I was astonished by the number of positive reviews it got. While I admit that the acting was okay at some parts, the script's deficiencies more than outweighed the decent acting. The only reason I watched this was because a few of my friends were watching it, introducing it as most likely the worst movie ever made, judging by the trailer. We were not disappointed in the least. Its only saving grace is that it contained my new favorite pickup line:
BRANDON: I just want to get to know you.
GIRL: You just want to get into my pants.
BRANDON: I want to get into your mind, your heart, your soul. I don't see you wearing any pants in this equation.
Overall, I would rate this movie as the worst movie I ever saw that took itself seriously.
\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 all the cast and crew who worked on this excuse for a movie, another payday in L.A. For any audience hoping for a fair return for the price of admission, a huge waste of time and money. The saddest aspect of this ugly exercise (to me) is that we are watching an extremely talented actor, Pacino, seemingly playing a parody of himself. That's what remained with me as a total mystery. I can fully understand the need for movie industry people to work and thus make a living. What I fail to comprehend is an artist of Al Pacino's talent prostituting and embarrassing himself with this level of mindless junk. Hopefully he'll choose projects of better value in the future...and for value, save your time and hard earned money. Skip this!! Let's send Hollywood and Al a message.
\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\nAl Pacino was once an actor capable of making a role work without resorting to constant use of profanity. In other words when he could act, he didn't have to talk like some street junkie. McConaughey must have been impressed by Pacino because he became a promoter of the \"F\" word also. This might be the kind of society that they actually live in, but most of us have the common decency to watch what we say in mixed company. I don't recall the exact words that a professor used in explaining the constant use of profanity, but it was something like this. \"It shows a lack of intelligence, poor language skills and disrespect for all those that have to listen.\" Maybe it is time that Al takes some acting courses again to sharpen his talent. Oh yes, the movie... Probably the worse thing that McConaughey has played in. Hopefully his next role will be in the company of more talented people. Rene Russo as always was hot.
\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 will leave it to my bettors, uhh, betters here to gape and gawk at this wonderful wonderawful movie, and just say that I thought it stunk. The great thing about this site is you always get a variety of views, and seek them out, by all means. No telling what you will come out of the film with. For me, the ones who saw through the simplicities and shenanigans of it have my money. There was one, dead on perfect when he pointed out the two grand moments of the thing, which belong to Pacino. The meeting and the airport. Other than that, well, what a waste of time. Utterly. Pacino is just doing the same thing over and over and over, he would have been better served by taking the performance down about five notches at about the level of his protégé. Everybody always says, but this movie could have been so much better. Sure they all could have been. But really most of them just should never have been made. Including 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\nJust finished watching 2FTM. The trailers intrigued me so much I actually went to see it on opening weekend, something I never do. Needless to say I was very disappointed. The story has so much potential and it's frustrating to see it get screwed up. I really feel the problem with the movie was the directing and Matthew McConaughey. First off I am not a MM hater, I thought he was awesome in both Reign of Fire and Lone Star. I enjoyed his performance in those movies without having to see him with his shirt off 3-4 times. Yes we all get it that he a good-looking guy with a nice body, but I think most people knew this 10 years ago when he came on the scene in A Time to Kill. Showing him with his shirt off pumping iron like a sweaty madman 3-4 times in the movie is totally unnecessary. I think one time would have been sufficient. It wouldn't surprise me if they threw those unnecessary scenes in so girlfriends and wives would be willing to tag along with their significant other, no woman wants to see a movie about sports gambling, unless......Enough about that, let's get into his role. I feel his acting was very forced and he didn't seem very comfortable. I know his character was supposed to be this charming southerner, but his lines were corny and cheesy. It was almost like he was referencing Days and Confused lines a few times! In short, I didn't like his character even though I was supposed to. The accent, his shirt off, corny pick up lines, weak sales pitches. His character was just too much of a tool, as Brandon or Jonathan. Pacino and Assante were great, but that' no surprise. Piven is fun to watch as Arie....oooops I mean Jerry. I just feel this movie was very commercial and put together poorly. It's insulting that they could take a great story, and throw in crap ingredients to try and make it a box office success. 1. Cool story that appeals to the male man 2. Hunky Hollywood actor for female women (make sure he has numerous scenes with shirt off lifting weights) 3. Al Pacino with 4 great speech scenes, and 25 great one liners 3. Every character shall be dressed in thousand dollars suites and have an extremely dark tan 4. Jeremy Piven to play the same character he did in Entourage and Old School 4. Throw in Armand Assante to seal the deal 5. Plot, good writing, character development, and intelligent casting are unnecessary
This will be good enough for most people, but not me! Anybody who disagrees with me, ask your self this. Would this movie be much better if: A. Directed by Sodeberg B. DeCaprio or Ed Norton as Brandon instead of MM
I will probably be part of the minority in thinking this movie sucks. I realized this when the woman next to me started crying during the ridiculous ending scene of Pacino shedding a fake tear while embracing Russo. The financial success of this movie will ensure one thing. The movie going public gets what the movie going public wants, big budget crapola.
\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\nPacino, and Maconadump really hit the mark with this stinker. I swear, I am an avid movie goer and fan. I have been a fan of most of the people in this abortion at one time or another. Until now. The story-crap The acting- crap(Rene Ruso-Major League was good) The plot-crap The subplot-garbage The teenage attempts to relate to sports betting-junk
I have vowed to watch Romy and Michelle's High School reunion 2 times a day for the next seven days as my punishment for not turning this colostomy bag of a movie off after 10 minutes. I was out of town for a seminar, and this pile of mung cost me $9.99, and 2 hours. I have been cheated. This director should be in jail for fraud.
Get with me if you have other review questions. I am always right.
\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 by far probably the worst film Al Pacino could have starred in. The movie had no real plot. It kind of careens into 24 different directions. It seems that the target audience for this film are people from gambler's anonymous.Mat Mcconaughey's character is not believable enough to be Pacino's protégé'. So he won a few bets for some degenerate clients as a sideline to a shitty job recording on a 900 service. Does that automatically supposed to convince an audience of his skills? It was just plain stupid to think of. The trailer did promise to show us how he makes his sure-shot picks but after going through the whole film I have yet to see what skill if any he ever had. If you want skill try looking at Robert de Niro's character in Casino now that is showmanship. At some point in the film, Mat's character picks his winning bets at a flip of a coin. Anybody could do that. Al Pacino seems to talk a lot and I mean blabber mouth in your face dialog. I think that style started with Scent of a Woman and worked for him because he finally won an Oscar but now I think its just irritating. He seems to be always sermonizing. He does do a mean act of portraying a man having unstable angina (that's an impending heart attack) its typically reminiscent of his acting in Godather part 3 which he plays the aging,diabetic mafia don corleone but other than that Pacino's talent is wasted on this film. Rene Russo is just plain eye candy for this film. She's kept in shape and shows it off in the tight clothes she wears throughout. This film is plain crap. Do not waste your money on it. It is much worse than the gambling picks of Mats character in the film.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nPlease do not go see this. I did have several laughs throughout this movie, but they were all due to unintentional comedy.
There were only three characters in this movie, so it was amazing how bad the character development was. Pacino played Pacino again and was aggravating most of the time. The scenes in this movie seem like they were put together from 20 other bad movies by a really poor editor. There is no continuity and I found myself wondering why I didn't leave 15 minutes into this.
I would suggest never seeing a movie directed by D.J. Caruso. This really was awful.
\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 to do American divorcée with more money than brains buys a rundown villa in Tuscany. (Much more money; whilst having to dicker over the price, she subsequently manages to cook sumptuous buffets for her workmen and wander around Italy indefinitely with no job or apparent means of support.) Interminable boredom and the inevitable Italian lover ensue; this is a chick flick in the most pejorative sense of the term. Lane acts like an unskilled clueless teenage ingénue throughout - which dynamically clashes with her seriously fading looks - along the way smashing into a variety of (mostly Italian) cardboard stereotypes, dykes, divas, senile contessas and gigolos among them. Bloated with unnecessary scenes, the most ridiculous being a clumsily inserted and pointless recreation of the fountain scene in 'La Dolce Vita'. (A similar conceit was used in an effective and appropriate narrative context in 'Only You', Norman Jewison's vastly superior ode to Italy and romance). 'Tuscan Sun' may be the most vacant piece of cinema of the last decade, despite its admittedly well-lensed panoramas of Italy. Bonus negative point for the extraneous lover parachuted in at the last minute to provide requisite Hollywood ending for its targeted audience of Oprah-brainwashed housewives. Avoid at all costs, unless, of course, you view Oprah and Dr. Phil as pinnacles of intelligent discourse.
\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\nYes i really found this film distasteful.
I didn't like the Sandra Oh character, she really annoyed me. It is unlikely she would be accepted into rural Italian life due to the fact she is non-white. this was a bit of PC nonsense.
the film is also offensive to Italian men. For instance, the one man she (Diane Lane) has an affair is turns out to be a caddish cheat. But guess what: at the end your typically plasticky American brick-head turns up, all cheesy white smile and tan, and she finally finds what she wants all along: a real American man, and now she has colonized another part of the world.
In fact, this film is quite racist in its depiction of Italians and the way it subjugates them as either smarmy lotharios or backward peasants.
the photography was good but the film and its attitude were trash.
\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\nRidiculous, nauseating doggerel with terrible acting; ineptly, superficially, and condescendingly trawling all the most banal clichés about Tuscany and Italy, divorce and midlife. The main actor nervously grimaces her way through the film, struggling to portray the appropriate level of smug, self-congratulatory self-pity the worthless character and script call for. I'm sure the book was bad, but it can't have been this bad! The camera is permanently fitted with a vomit-yellow \"Tuscan\" lense filter (perhaps the Tuscan sun wasn't Tuscan enough?), which they forgot to remove when the scene shifts to Rome and (how imaginative!) the Amalfi coast. You've never seen the white marble of Rome's Vittorio Emmanuelle monument looking so yellow... I mean Tuscan. One of the worst movies ever, and therefore quite worth a look.
\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 Lane is beautiful and sexy, and Tuscany is gorgeous but this film is no better than mediocre and that's being generous. The story line is grafted onto a travelogue and remains thoroughly uninvolving.
Set in (let's say) a suburb of Newark, the plot would be deemed ridiculous. All that saves the movie are the Tuscan countryside and occasional scenes set in Florence and Positano, and a film of the while-the-sun-sinks-slowly-in-the-west variety would have served better to show what it certainly one of the loveliest locales in all the world.
\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 had no excitement and does not have anything to hold your interest. The movie had nothing exiting,funny,dramatic or romantic about it!!! How can a movie be romantic if the girl never gets a the right guy until the last seen in the movie, than the movie ends??? Maybe part II will be romantic, but somebody else will have to risk wasting their money! I have nothing else to say other than do not waste your time!!! The movie had nothing exiting,funny,dramatic or romantic about it!!! The movie had nothing exiting,funny,dramatic or romantic about it!!! The movie had nothing exiting,funny,dramatic or romantic about it!!! The movie had nothing exiting,funny,dramatic or romantic about 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\nThis movie was supposedly based on a non-fiction book. I'm not sure what book the script writer(s) read to write their adaptation but it has absolutely nothing to do with the true life adventures of Frances Mayes in Italy. Instead, it is an uninteresting tale that takes liberties at every juncture to bash men. Note the following examples:
********************************************************************
SPOILER DETAILS
********************************************************************
Bash Number One : Lane's husband cheats on her and her marriage ends in a divorce.
Bash Number Two : Lane ventures into a local Italian town and is promptly solicited by every male on the street.
Bash Number Three : Lane is saved from the horny town folk men by a charming gentlemen. She falls for him after consummating an afternoon of love making. She later finds out that he's already attached and cheating with her.
Bash Number Four : You have to broaden your horizon for this one because the reference is definitely is in the movie. Her lesbian couple friends decide to have a baby by invetro (SP?) fertilization. I am told that in most lesbian relationships, you have one person assuming the female role and another assuming the male role. In the movie, after the female has been made pregnant, the \"male\" lesbian decides to run out on the relationship because she can not handle it.
In conclusion, this movie has nothing to do with the book that it was supposedly based on.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"