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\nI recently rented this film on DVD and thought it would be an interesting choice seeing as I am both from the north of England (Bradford), and also interested in film-making. However, it soon became apparent that this film seemed to lack a decent level of development script-wise. The characters were weak and often stereotyped and the story lacked substance. The subject matter could be an interesting basis for a film. However, the delivery of this appeared naive and unfocused.
The ending felt as though it was casting judgement on the characters - punishing and rewarding where the filmmakers felt necessary. This felt a little awkward and silly, and seemed at odds with the 'realism' used in the style of shooting. For me, the film dealt with the characters and subject matter in a rather heavy handed and clumsy manner. It felt as though the writer had already decided how he wanted to end the story and set about crow-barring everything else in to fit it.
Another point that I feel strongly about is the watered-down Ken Loach feel the film had. I get quite upset that UK film financiers can't see that there is more to British films than 'gritty realism'. It has become almost a safe option. Film is an infinitely wonderful playground for imaginative ideas and it is not being exploited by UK feature film producers. There is a lot of talent here in the UK. It's unfortunate that most of these individuals end up either making music videos and commercials 100% of the time or they go to America.
Love + Hate would have worked better if it had been cut down to 30 or 60 minutes and appeared as a one-off TV drama.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThat's what I kept asking myself during the many fights, screaming matches, swearing and general mayhem that permeate the 84 minutes. The comparisons also stand up when you think of the one-dimensional characters, who have so little depth that it is virtually impossible to care what happens to them. They are just badly written cyphers for the director to hang his multicultural beliefs on, a topic that has been done much better in other dramas both on TV and the cinema.
I must confess, I'm not really one for spotting bad performances during a film, but it must be said that Nichola Burley (as the heroine's slutty best friend) and Wasim Zakir (as the nasty, bullying brother) were absolutely terrible. I don't know what acting school they graduated from, but if I was them I'd apply for a full refund post haste. Only Samina Awan in the lead role manages to impress in a cast of so-called British talent that we'll probably never hear from again. At least, that's the hope. Next time, hire a different scout.
Another intriguing thought is the hideously fashionable soundtrack featuring the likes of Snow Patrol, Ian Brown and Keane. Now, I'm a bit of a music fan and I'm familiar with most of these artists output, but I didn't recognise any of the tracks during this movie (apart from the omnipresent \"Run\"). B-sides, anyone? We get many, many musical montages which telegraph how we're suppose to feel. These are accompanied by such startlingly original images as couples kissing by a swollen lake and canoodling in doorways. This is a problem, as none of the songs convey the mood efficiently, and we realise the director lacks the ability to carry the emotional journey to the audience through storytelling and dialogue alone.
The ending is presumably meant to be just desserts, as everybody gets their comeuppance and there is at least one big shock in store.. But I remained resolutely unmoved because the script had given me no-one to root for. It's not enough to tackle a hot-button issue, you have to actually give us a plot that hasn't already been done to death and individuals who are more than window dressing. As it stands, this film is a noble failure, with only the promising lead actress and a few mildly diverting punch-ups to save it from the bin. 4/10. Must try harder..
\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 find it difficult to comprehend what makes viewer's feel this is a powerful movie. I would guess that the main intention of this film would be a character study and the effects of racism in a British community. It is therefore all the more disappointing that all the characters are two dimensional and the acting is at the level of a college performing arts course. I'm always sceptical of \"improvisation\", another word for being too lazy to write a decent script. I was embarrassed by the performances and sat in an audience who laughed when they surely were supposed to be moved by the story. Racism is a serious issue but I think a subtle approach in cinema works far better than laying it on with trowel.
\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\nUpon writing this review I have difficulty trying to think of what to write about. Nothing much happens in this film. The storyline is a South Asian woman who falls for an English Londoner. The problem is he and his friends have had a racist streak. At the same time her friend at work is unknowingly to her having sexual relations with her brother, and it just escalates from there. The problem is that this movie is very predictable. As soon as all this stuff has happened it's all pretty much standard. It drags slightly even though it's only about 90 minutes long. This is more of a Chick Flick than anything else. So if you're male I do not recommend this film to you.
\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 to agree that the movie is not the best I've ever seen, but I would like to make mention that the actors portraying Tommy and Jimmy Dorsey were the actual Dorsey brothers. As actors, they were wonderful musicians. The movie, based on their famous split, would have been better had professional actors played the parts. Many movies made during this time frame took advantage of the popularity of Big Bands. Most often, the movies were not that good because musicians are not actors by trade. Most of the movie-going audience didn't go to see Tommy or Jimmy Dorsey playing themselves; they went for the plot and the music. I've never been much of a Dorsey fan, but the music is good even today.
I have to comment on a previous post regarding the actors who played Mom and Pop Dorsey and that their accents would be considered extreme by a Dublin audience. Arthur Shields and Sara Allgood were actually Irish actors, both born in Dublin. You might remember Mr. Shields as the Reverend Mr. Playfair in The Quiet Man and Ms. Allgood as Mrs. Monahan in Cheaper By The Dozen.
\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 me this movie is essentially like a feature length pilot episode for a TV series. It reminds me particularly of the British remake of the TV series Wallander, starring Kenneth Brannagh. People interviewed by the police are hardy, and often as bitter as the weather, the lead investigator has huge family problems, investigations invariably lead to cruelties of the distant past, and the plotting is labyrinthine with strange occurrences and subplots making sense only at the end. Both have excellent cinematography.
The plotting of Jar City is extraordinarily reminiscent of a standard UK or US crime series. Effectively you could take the plots of any of the episodes of Touch of Frost and transplant them on top of the bleak locale in this movie and have an effective sequel.
Really the script couldn't be more obviously from the cookie cutter. You get even the most familiar of motifs, such as the police going to the local prison to interview a manipulative and dangerous psychopath, who inevitably explodes at the end of the interview.
I'm absolutely convinced that this is scones and jam for many folk, but I feel it needs pointing out to people like myself who do not go to the cinema to watch television. What I felt a keen lack of was message. The movie takes as its theme the genetic studies in Iceland. Icelanders in genetic terms have remained largely isolated from the outside world, presenting a great opportunity for scientists to study their genetics. Lots of information concerning the heredity of the population has been kept, and many genetic diseases unique to Iceland can be traced effectively in a population that has refrained from interbreeding, and is remarkably genetically homogeneous (it's like trying to put together a jigsaw puzzle of the London underground map, instead of a jigsaw puzzle of a field of daisies). A company called deCODE genetics attempted to set up a database carrying all the genetic and hereditary information for the entire population of Iceland. Due to privacy concerns this project was terminated, and at the end of last year deCODE genetics went bankrupt in Iceland. The episode is a rich topic for debate.
But in this movie genetics and medical science are not there for education's sake, they're there for weird atmosphere.
It's a grisly movie if you are interested in that, and there's often a morbid focus on food to accompany events, like a coroner who eats lunch in between incisions. The most queasy for me was when the lead inspector devours a sheep's head. Unfortunately for me this occasionally became farcical. The movie attempts the rather delicate task of mixing the grisly with the sentimental, and ended up providing unintentional humour towards the end. This is the equivalent, in cinematic terms, of attempting to prepare fugu, if you're not well-qualified, deft of hand and sharp of eye, you poison the client. This rather novice director should have lowered the tariff on his performance.
I walked out of this movie feeling rather bad about myself and about life in general.
\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\nWould a different translation have made it chillier or scarier? Are the subtitles too compact to convey the nuances of the original language? Does it even matter? You may have heard that great actors can make reading a phone book exciting. Well, this is an opportunity to judge for yourself.
If this isn't about homosexuality, murder, dismemberment, psychopaths, insanity, deviant psychology, then it is about acting - acting helped along with lots of dialog, So, enjoy the acting or muse about how titillating the dialog actually is.
For English speakers, \"Twelve Angry Men\" might be a better choice. There's a bit more interaction, and you can judge if the acting is consistent with the dialog. You don't have to wonder if you're missing something.
I would recommend Andy Warhol's \"Empire\" to those who like this film.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSurprisingly Kieslowski's this movie is disappointing to me because of the sometimes weird and sometimes cliché script that also seems a work of a poor observation sometimes. There is an isolated young boy. He lives with one of his relatives, but he is lonely and every night watches a woman who lives across their building. It seems! that he wants her. He is one of the youths who are not good at communication with the opposite sex. However, he likes that woman, when the woman comes to his house with a man, Tomek gets pain. Then, we understand that Kieslowski tells us a story about an isolated young boy who needs a female to flirt or who falls in love with a mature woman. He does not do something else, because may be he knows that it is his salvation. One day, he stops that woman, suddenly, he seems a shy boy, but proves that he is not, so he explains her almost everything. She lectures and refuses him. Everything is so realistic like the other Kieslowski films, no problem. The problems start when Tomek visits her, the story of a lonely young boy who falls in love with a mature woman (but an unrequited love) turns into the story of a lonely young boy falls in love with a mature woman, at the beginnings the woman refuses, but after a short time, she starts to change her mind. This U-Turn makes the movie cliché firstly. The personality of Tomek is weird? or a result of a poor observation? I disappointed with this character, this is my opinion and I will try to tell why. When he goes to her house, Magda treats him very friendly. She asks what do you want from me? To kiss me? to make love with me? to go out with me? At this point, I remember the people who say she is a femme fatale. See? Returning to the scene, Tomek rejects all the proposals. Why? Because he is shy? I don't think so, but his communication is blunt, OK. After the leg scene at home, some events make the movie misses its aim. I think that the aim of the movie is (should have been according to the story) to show us there are some people who suffer from lack of endearment and to save from this situation is not easy owing to lack of communication and being aloof especially for men. I mean that at this point, what does the movie say? It is blurred and disappointing. It is seen that he is not hunger for love or a female or sex. Then, what? And the suicide attempt scene support this weakness. So that he touches her legs, he wants to kill himself! By the way, as I mentioned before, some say Magda is a femme fatale. Totally not. She endeavors in order to make Tomek happy. Does she avoid having contact with him? No. Does she insult him? No. Does she amuse him? No. And Does she deceive him? No. She has some troubles with her (ex) lover, so she is not O.K. However, she does not take revenge for it from Tomek. She is not an angel, but not a femme fatale also.
\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 an excruciatingly boring, slow-moving movie. We can feel some sympathy for the socially- and sexually-inexperienced and awkward Tomek, but the motivations of Magda are pretty hard to see, and the ending, at least for me, was inscrutable.
Maybe it's about how we all need love, but I'd get more out of a good Busby Berkeley.
I'm told that comments have to be at least ten lines, so I'll add that in the background are some interesting shots of the relationship between Polish citizens and government employees and institutions. I wonder if it's meant to portray this before or after the fall of the communist government.
Finally, watch for the clever way the men from the gas company investigate whether or not there is a gas leak in Magda's stove.
\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 depressed creepy teenager does many bad things to a socially active older lady who does not like to use shades or drapes in her windows. He steels assorted things from her, peeps at her, does prank calls, and plays assorted unpleasant tricks on her. Oddly, he keeps none of this a secret from her. At first, she does not seem to care one way or the other that he is bothering her. Then later she seems to begin to respect him for his cruel fevered activities.
There are some illogical items to note. One is that the guy peeps into the night through a pane of glass from the more brightly lit side. In real life such a thing would not happen. The more brightly lit side of a pane of glass acts as a mirror. He would be able to see exactly nothing. Also, everyone out in the night would be able to look inside at him sitting in his well lit room.
One other illogical item is that the creepy teen takes a job as a milkman, and his one and only customer each morning seems to be the lady he is picking on. Easy work, if you can get it.
I saw A SHORT FILM ABOUT LOVE at a public showing. By the end, there was not a single open eye in the house. A SHORT FILM ABOUT LOVE is the foreign language movie for those who do not like reading subtitles. Not only are there very few words spoken in the film, but much of the movie is silent. A certain rest in peace.
\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\nConclusion: very, but very, very boring, yet I watched till the end, hoping for some upside-down effect, but the end was worse, because it was nothing. The old black&white game didn't helped at all, it usually helps psychological movies, but this was not the case. The script, the plot, etc were linear, had no substance, nothing in-going. When you deal with psychological, you deal with analysis, therefore with details, that unity-diversity formula....there was no essence, no detail. Just a story, there are many stories to tell, but something makes them unique and hard to forgive with the tools and creativity of movie-makers...well, this is not the 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 movie tries to say something profound; I'm just not sure what it was. Too much is left unresolved in the end for me to figure out the main point. A couple scenes really have me wondering what was left on the cutting room floor. I don't think the wall was very well developed I never got what was actually going on there. When the mother finally unveils it I just couldn't make any connection to the boy's silence. What was the point of the boy not talking? Was he just delusional or did he acquire some sort of power. What was the scene with the burnt girl all about? Another power the boy has or what? I don't understand how that developed any character or moved the plot. I got the bully bit but what happened to the dog? Did the dog come back or did mom get rid of Fido for good somehow?
There were several additional plot elements that were more clutter than use. Like the radio talk show in the background discussing the Iraq War. I think that was supposed to create some sort of comparison to the grief and insecurity the mother and Addison were experiencing but for me it was distracting and strained. I didn't buy the link very much. I also found the teacher getting on Addison about not saying \"here\" for roll call a bit much. The mom seeing the doctor was pointless, how did it serve the plot? Was that to show how desperate the mother was getting, or was it something about the medicine that I didn't get? Was that the dad coming back in the last scene, or just some guy? So did writing on the wall work? What happened to the Dog?
\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 about a grieving wife who lost her husband through suicide. She is tormented by her son who refused to speak after that.
Child grief is rarely explored on film, so it is refreshing to see a film like Addison's Wall. However, due to the very nature of the film, there is no tension or drama. Apart from a few key emotional moments, everything in the film is very plain. The abrupt ending that does not solve any mysteries certainly do not help the film to be more watchable. Addison's Wall could have been much better, such as exploration of the contents of the wall, a more intensive care program to help Addison to go through his trauma. Instead, the film feels very unfinished and non engaging.
\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 the strength of the single positive review and I can only imagine that guy is a shill.
The acting of the female lead is actually quite good, but the entire film is just so excruciatingly boring I could hardly bear to sit through it. This is the very definition of dullness.
So far, this film is rated as 8 out of 10 on 7 votes. That must mean the director, director's girlfriend, producer, actress and drinking buddies have given their own film a 10.
For the rest of you, who simply want to be entertained or enjoy a good story, avoid this.
This man on the street shall give it a 2 out of 10.
FDA note: while this movie can be used as an aide to obtaining a good nights sleep, no medicinal value is implied or offered.
\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 the most god awful movie I have had to sit through. 30 minutes into the film and I couldn't take any more. Seriously, do not bother with this one unless you are a sentimental nut job or one of those pseudo-arty types that like this kind of tripe so that they may feel more cultured. Boring, although the acting is fine; the kid is just plain irritating. Some scenes are a little strange with very weird close-ups. I don't know why they did the whole movie in black and white, but whatever effect they were hoping to have failed miserably. There was just nothing to watch, and although its a sad tale, supposedly, its just so stupid that its hard to feel any sympathy for the characters.
\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 nicely evoked 1930s setting provides much interest for a viewer in the early 21st century; unfortunately, \"London Belongs to Me\" has little else to recommend it besides lashings of quaint English charm. All of the problems rest with the deeply unfocused story. The main plot concerns the actions of young lad Richard Attenborough, the problems he gets into and how the community in which he lives bands together to save him from society's laws. Or something. The main issue here is that Attenborough's character brings everything upon himself and, quite frankly, is guilty of almost every accusation brought against him, so it's baffling why the film (and all the characters) have so much sympathy for him. He's treated as a victim of circumstance when he really, really isn't; and what's more he isn't shown to have very much remorse for his actions, only caring about getting away with things he didn't mean to do. Alastair Sim gets a lot of screen time in a subplot that has absolutely nothing to do with the main plot line and you wonder what he's doing there (though Sim is, as always, superb). You know there's a problem with the structure when the main plot impacts constantly against the subplot but not vice-versa. And, following a sedate pace and a careful build up, the plot completely falls apart in the last 20 minutes with a deeply unsatisfying and unexplained conclusion which doesn't even show us if Attenborough's character has developed at all from the previous proceedings. The film doesn't end, it just stops.
The acting, direction and the general feel of the film can all be commended but unfortunately the story and structure of the piece jars constantly. A last point of trivia: Alec Guinness based his performance in the vastly superior film \"The Ladykillers\" on Alastair Sim's performance in this film, right down to both the characters having almost identical first scenes.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI watched this movie based on the good reviews here, and I won't make that mistake again.
The first couple minutes shows that a group of people have been brought together by some tragedy, but you don't see what it is. Flashback 12-hours and we get to see the boring lives of each of these people, which in the end are totally meaningless to what is about to happen. When the ending is finally reveled, you realize that you just wasted an hour of your life waiting for a big payoff that doesn't happen and means nothing to what you have been watching. The only connection these people have is that they have all had a \"bad day\"--but even that continuity gets lost in the boredom.
If this was supposed to be a \"Crash\" clone, it's a complete failure.
\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 acting in this film was of the old school: corny and stiff. Irene Dunne is luminous, and comes off the best even though she has some very unnatural lines to say. Still, her ability to convey emotion comes through.
Old movie buffs will find at least some redeeming qualities in this film through observation of cinematic technique of the 1930s. Otherwise, it is not really that worthwhile.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOne of the most boring movies I've ever had to sit through, it's completely formulaic. Just a cookie cutout of a movie, you could predict about every scene in the movie just from knowing the genre, as this movie adds nothing new. The dialogue is never funny, interesting, or intelligent. The acting is weak and the soundtrack is annoying - basically everything looks to have been done by an amatuer filmmaker. Nothing fresh, memorable, or entertaining in this movie, combined with the fact that it is LONG gives it an easy thumbs down. Sorry, fans.
Overall Grade: F
\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 earlier reviews but it was so slow and the plot so basic that well I wondered if I had read the wrong reviews.
Please, a boy meets girl next door at 11 and both aspire to love and being basketball legends. Grow apart, but watch each others progress. Guess what! Both get scholarships to same university and become lovers again until his father is caught out playing around with a younger woman. Our young hero unable to cope has lapse in court concentration but some how decides to go pro and drop studies, and guess what is picked up by Lakers. Dumps the heroine because she was not there for him during this emotional period. So for 5 years they go their own way. She returns from Spain having lost the zest for the game and our hero is getting married in two weeks. Mom tells her that she should fight for her love so she professes her on-going love and challenges him to a basketball shootout. He wins he marries she wins he loves her. Well he won but decides to dump other girl for our girl. The End has her playing basketball and he has baby duties. Sorry 2 is my high score. My partner she scored 0 for a soapy story for those who read Mills and Boon
\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 plot that is dumb beyond belief. However, that said, it must be admitted the lead actors go at their roles as though it were Shakespeare. And that is as it should be. It isn't their fault the writer seems to be in a coma.
Hats off to what is really a very cunning performance by Joanna Kerns. She proves that just because it isn't on the page doesn't mean a role can't be seized and dug into. And she does so with gusto. Good for her.
Ditto to Christine Elise who is called upon to be little more than confused and weepy, but goes way beyond what is asked of her by the script.
And to Grant Show as well. A graduate of daytime and prime time soaps (Ryan's Hope, Melrose Place). He is always versatile and underrated. His primary drawback seems to be his impossible-to-ignore good looks. He is a sturdy, well grounded actor capable of much more than he is generally given the opportunity to do.
The rest of the cast is basically window dressing.
The direction is adequate and the script, as I alluded to, is fairly idiotic.
Watch this one to enjoy three good actors in the leads taking delight in performing some much needed scenery chewing. It's fun.
\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\nNot even original in the plot. Ho hum. There were a couple of angles that could have been quite interesting, but the film follows the path of 90% of Hollywood movies. I don't really \"get\" Samuel Jackson's acting most of the time in his other films, but he was rather good in this film. He rarely yelled and went much further in his character rather than reverting to an \"in your face anger.\" I liked Eva Mendes - as usual - and even though she is great eye candy, she proves herself to be much more than that as an actress. Luis Guzman was actually really good also, except that I disliked the change of his character towards Samuel Jackson at the end of the film. How can one's character center around a dislike for a former cop and then turn into lollipop land within a split second? Is there no original thought left in Hollywood?
\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 starts really interesting - the story develops around the main character, who runs a \"cleaning business\", specialized in cleaning up crime scenes. As a former cop, he runs into some strange situation, when one job does suddenly \"offically vanish\". Furthermore, he discovers some relation to an investigation into police corruption. His \"Columbo Feeling\" is justified, the deeper he gets into the background of the story. The good actors (Jackson, Ed Harris, Eva Mendes) play in an suspenseful story with some twists --- but only up to the last 25 minutes. (up to here 7 of 10 stars). SPOILER:::: Suddenly the movie looses its touch and in the end there is a completely unnecessary shoot-out, involving the 14-year old daughter, a betrayal of friendship and a not justified righteousness out of the character development... why not having Cutler giving up his investigation for the sake of the friendship? or having the daughter discovering some facts? or ... many possible much better story finishes are imaginable... a truly wasted ending!
\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\nRequest you to not watch this movie... It starts with a promise and as it goes on you crave for the movie to end... Predictable,not entertaining at all,wasted movie... Save your time and watch better thrillers.... The synopsis sounds good and that is why I watched the movie... But it was way too predictable with nothing to give you a start... No great suspense.. no great direction... nothing phenomenal with the acting... shy away from this... low rating... Nothing to write about this movie so I am filling up the remaining lines of text so you can imagine how much a time waster this movie is...really irritated at how good a premise that was and how bad a screenplay was written out of it...
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI normally don't try and second guess a crime thriller, but Cleaner was just entirely too predictable. Samuel L. Jackson playing the character Tom Cutler, along with his profession created an interesting twist in the beginning of the film, however, that was about it. Without even thinking I knew where the plot would be taken and within 30 minutes I had already figured out who the killer was. Rather then trusting myself and having seen several films that make a turnabout, I watched to its completion. What a disappointment, I was right from the beginning.
The casting of characters was a good, as well as the acting from Jackson and Harris...except for Eva Mendes. From the starting gate she didn't play a believable character in correlation to the script and this ruined the entire plot too soon. Maybe this was a directing mishap or just weakness in the story itself. Her role as Ann Norcut should have shown more emotion and distress for the situation that was building around her. This would've made the build-up a bit more compelling and the ending more dramatic. Nevertheless, Cleaner is watchable, not memorable. I've seen episodes of CSI that were more thrilling then 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\nTom Cutler (Jackson) is a retired policeman who now works as a crime scene Cleaner-upper. In his latest job, he cleans a new crime scene and destroys evidence and isn't aware the crime hasn't been officially reported. Uh oh, this can't be good.
You hear about Cleaners all the time, but usually when a mob or gangland hit is involved when bodies etc need to be removed and the area cleaned up. This one is different in that Tom Cutler works with the Police to clean up after the police have done their investigation of a crime scene. Hey, someone has to do it. You know the Police won't. The movie makes that quite clear and it is up to the family to get the area cleaned up.
This is almost a good thriller, but a side plot involving Tom's daughter (Palmer) makes this story somewhat awkward. I guess they had to fill in some time. Oh, they brought this side plot around to connect with the another side plot, but it was still a reach and awkward. See?
This was almost a good thriller because there was a noticeable lack of tension, suspense and the pace was somewhat draggy. The music didn't help either as I noticed the music was more appropriate for watching people take a long journey. You know, journey music. Get it? HA!
The acting by all was excellent in this almost a good thriller.
Violence: Yes, Sex: No, Nudity: No, Language: No
\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\nMatthew Aldrich. This is a name worthy of remembrance. This is the individual that took fingers to keyboard and came up with one of the worst scripts of all time. Cliché. Predictable. An insult to the public's intelligence.
Is he the sole beneficiary of blame? Of course not. Renny Harlin took this abysmal excuse for a script and made it into a movie. Sam Jackson and Ed Harris actually read it (or not) and chose to star in it. Culpability abounds.
This is the Denise Richards of film scripts. There aren't enough Razzies in the universe to give proper recognition to how truly horrible this writing really is.
In all fairness, Samuel Jackson's profession is incredibly novel and the manner in which it's presented is highly creative, but, at the end of the day, it's all just trimmings. Pretty trimmings.
Package it any way you want- garbage writing is still garbage writing.
\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 remember flipping through channels on HBO and saw this. This, my friends, is one of the worst TV movies I've ever seen. There is no excitement in this film.
The story starts out with Drew Summers(Candice Cameron Bure) driving to a small town while in a trance. She stays with a couple who coincidentally, had a daughter named Laura Fairgate who looked exactly like her and is played by the same actress. Even the townsfolk agree that they looked alike. Thing is, Laura was killed over a year ago. Her boyfriend went missing around the same time she was murdered, making it look like he had killed her.
While settling in this town for a while, Drew starts to have visions and nightmares. These visions and nightmares might prove that the boyfriend of Laura isn't the killer after all. Throughout the film, you find out that Ray Ordwell Sr.(Denis Arndt) is the one that raped her frequently over a period of time and killed her.
The movie is too long and very boring. The film just drags on and on and on and on. Amazingly, I saw another TV movie after this called (Cloned) 1997 which was good but I'll review that one later.
I give this movie 1 star out of 10. Avoid this TV movie. It is not worth your time. This is the worst TV movie of 1997!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhile Watching this movie you notice right away the cheesy elements of a standard TV movie... though through out the picture the plot changes (if you are bold enough to say this movie has a plot) are by the book and unoriginal... and with every one the movie KEPT GETTING WORSE!
Candace Cameron Bure, famous for her role as DJ Tanner on the hit TV show Full House, is not very convincing as a Possessed twenty something.. trying to avenge the Possesers Death. I believe she is fine actress.... just not in the thriller range.
The Filming was trashy, and like I said the plot stale... though watching it I knew I was in for automatic cheese, I had NO idea how much worse this film could get...
I highly do not recommend this movie... unless cheep Filmaking and poor writing is what you looking for
\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\nNightscream is a TV Movie so it's bound to be pretty dire especially as it's a supposed horror film. This young girl is haunted by dreams as she arrives in a small town where there was a murder of a woman one year before. She is amazed when everyone in the town thinks she looks exactly like the murdered girl. The townsfolk are amazed when she keeps entering dream like trances where she reveals accurate details about the murder and murderer because the police got it all wrong apparently. Thinking that they are in danger of being found out, the murderers (there are two of them) start to hatch a plan to get rid of her before she gets to the real truth. By this time you will have probably fallen asleep and why do the makers of the film have the 'mist-making' machine on full throttle in the dream sequences.
\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 horrible even for a TV movie. I can't believe it took three people to write this movie. I am not familiar with the novel on which this film was based, but it has got to be better than this. I'd rather watch a \"Full House\" marathon than this stupid movie. I gave it 2 out of 10 stars only because it was made better by commercials.
\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\nThink you've seen the worst movie in the world? Think again. The person who designed the cover of this box should be accused of false advertising. The cover makes it look like a good, scary horror suspense thriller. But, no. What we have instead is NIGHTSCREAM. A movie that makes a \"sweeeoooowww!!\" noise every time a credit flashes across the screen. The biggest name in the entire film is probably Casper Van Dien who hardly has a part.
I voted a one for this one only because I couldn't vote any lower. If I could vote something like negative five-thousand, trust me, I would have. So, for now, I'm going to give NIGHTSCREAM 1/2* out of 5 just because it ended.
\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 truly was disappointed by this film which I had high hopes for. It seems to have been rushed out to take advantage of the success of screwball comedies at the time (including MGM's own \"Libeled Lady\", which featured two of the same stars) and the success of William Powell and Myrna Loy. Three years into their pairing, they were still attractive to watch and filled with fire in their scenes together, but a weak screenplay and rushed premise destroys any chance of it being a great followup to the previous year's \"Libeled Lady\" and the two \"Thin Man\" movies they had done prior to this. \"Double Wedding\" tells the story of a clothing store manufacturer, Myrna Loy, who is intent on dominating the life of her sister (Florence Rice), future brother-in-law (John Beal), and her own servants (which include Sidney Toler and Mary Gordon). When the independent spirited William Powell comes into her life, having distracted Rice and Beal from Loy's constant control, Loy meets her match. Sounds good so far, right? Yeah, an interesting premise falls short, sad to say, because Loy's character is so one dimensional it is hard to even like her let alone see Powell fall in love with her, which we know will soon happen. It's another attempt to put a career minded woman in her place by changing her views on her what kind of life she has been leading, something Hollywood did often during its golden age. When Loy says she doesn't have time to both run her business and have a man in her life, its a groaner.
Fortunately, other than Powell, there is free-spirited Jessie Ralph on board. A salty wealthy older woman who helped Loy start her business, she has an acquaintance with Powell and can see immediately through Loy's cool claims that she loathes him. Rice and Beal are a boring couple, and the whole premise of Powell getting between them is senseless. Then, an ex-wife of Powell's shows up, which really isn't necessary at that late point in the story, and the final wedding scene (where a crowd of people try to get into Powell's tiny trailer) is a weak attempt to bring some farce. (It is funny though, that Powell keeps getting hit by items meant by Loy to hit Edgar Kennedy with; Those chuckles are most welcome, since there are so few others.) Powell and Loy would do better in two later screwball comedies, \"I Love You Again\" and \"Love Crazy\", which are sophisticated, witty, and fun. This film attempts to be all three, but ends up a sophisticated bore.
\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 'Wes Craven presents' movie from 1995, directed by Joe Clayton and starring Lance Henriksen. A group of scientists save a dying man they find by their desert stranded government outpost by injecting him with their experimental virus, of course, one of their colleagues goes overboard and the virus transforms the man into a near unstoppable monster with them trapped inside. Lance Henriksen plays the morally offended researcher who leaves the project before all this, but returns after receiving a call for help to save the man (pre-unstoppable death machine mutation).
Deciding to combine two trips in one he brings his family along with him (they're going on vacation afterwards) and proceeds to give them entry to the top secret government facility, thus putting them right in the middle of the chaos within. In case you can't tell, this one relies on the viewer to work with it a little and put aside some petty (see: major and blatant) details.
Overall though: Watch-able with mild bits of enjoyment. Note: The Outpost is commonly known under the title 'Mind Ripper'
\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 only reason I saw this movie was because it had Giovanni Ribisi and it was supposed to be \"Horror\". Don't be fooled, this movie has to be the worst \"horror\" film I have seen. It's about these people who go to a secret location which has a \"Monster\" in it. The monster is a man with a deformed face running around in blue sweat pants who has a craving for brains. Some people die, some people don't. In the end they throw the monster off of a plane and then fly away happily. BUT OH NO! THE MONSTER IS STILL ALIVE AFTER FALLING OUT OF A PLANE! Go spend 2 hours some other way like watching paint dry on a wall, trust me, it's more entertaining than this crap.
\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 really loved the Millenium series, starred by Lance Henriksen, which is why I bought the film. Obviously at some level it was a mistake. Mutant/monster films are usually very bad and this film is no exception.
The basic idea itself is not totally judged to fail (well nevertheless this film would never have been a success, even with a good director & actors), but the way it turns out this is just a B-class movie. The scenes that are supposed to be scary seem more funny to me and the critter is not credible at all.
However, watching this film with group of friends in restless mood makes this film shine as it is so unintentionally hilarious.
\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\nSPOILER!!!! Mind Ripper hmmmm.... I had just watched the nightmare on elm street movies and had just found out about Giovanni Ribisi. I thought Giovanni Ribisi hadnt done any horrors so I checked into it. I saw \"the outpost\" (mind ripper) I checked on my Tivo for it. There was an air date on Sci Fi. So I was set. I got my pop corn ready came in and set on the couch and what the hell is this? A freakin bold guy in blue sweat pants running around yelling! Nothing is scary about this movie at all! If anything its funny! Funny how low the budget is, funny how predictable it is, funny how bad the acting is and funny how much money it DIDNT make. Ok giovanni ribisi is a good actor but this movie is dumb. It is so stupid. They killed him at the end and then they go on this plane and the \"monster\" is on it. They shoot him in the head with a shotgun and it falls a long way to the ground. And
-GASP- The killer ending, Its Still Alive! WOOHHH! Scary! woooohhhh! Sucky fat sack of crap waste of 2 hours.
Bottom Line: You have somewhere to go and you need to kill some time. Mind ripper isnt the suggestion. I'd rather sit out naked in the snow than watch this movie a second time.
OVERALL GRADE: F- - - - - - - - - - (ENTERNAL)
\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\nWhy a film maker with a track record like Wes Craven would want to lend his name to a tedious collection of cliches like this is anyone's guess. And if he did stump up any money for it - all of £50 judging by the looks - he should have been banging on the director's door for a refund the minute the film was released. There are many \"Alien\" rip-offs and this is one of the worst. Even the reliable Lance Henriksen, saddled with a character dumb enough to allow his kids to wander around a dangerous government lab, can't save it. As a cure for insomnia, this rates a 10+. As a piece of quality film making - forget 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 is Wes Craven at his worst! this is the very worst horror, if you can call it horror, you will ever watch, esp from one of the masters of horror Wes Craven, Poor Direction, Poor Acting, Poor Set, Poor Atmosphere makes this the biggest pile of rubbish ever! the bad guy is totally unconvincing, you couldn't even feel sorry for the guy! the gore, and horror involved in the film is laughable, it's just plain rubbish! the only good points i can think of is, It stars Natasha Gregson Wagner, Giovanni Ribisi, and Lance Henriksen, but not even that cast, could stop this from spiralling out of control, and into one of the worst horrors ever. If you still ain't watch it yet, don't bother, you'll only hate it.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"