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\nBeing a fan of the game and watching this film made me physically vomit!!
It was an awful film, though the story was similar to the games plot. the whole super human soldiers thing. Other than that Jack Carver, an all American man in the game, is played by a germen, unless thats some sort of twisted irony, that is what made me pull a middle finger at my TV screen the second it started. The fact that you can tell its filmed in a forest in the middle in what seemed like the middle of summer, this is uncalled for because the game is set in the tropical rain forest, whereas this looks like the director just looked out his window in the morning and went \"thats a good forest.\"
THIS IS A NOTE TO ALL DIRECTORS: If you ever plan to make a film based on a game/book play it, understand it and ask fans about it... don't just play it for an hour and assume you know 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\nSo im not a big fan of Boll's work but then again not many are. I enjoyed his movie Postal (maybe im the only one). Boll apparently bought the rights to use Far Cry long ago even before the game itself was even finsished.
People who have enjoyed killing mercs and infiltrating secret research labs located on a tropical island should be warned, that this is not Far Cry... This is something Mr Boll have schemed together along with his legion of schmucks.. Feeling loneley on the set Mr Boll invites three of his countrymen to play with. These players go by the names of Til Schweiger, Udo Kier and Ralf Moeller.
Three names that actually have made them selfs pretty big in the movie biz. So the tale goes like this, Jack Carver played by Til Schweiger (yes Carver is German all hail the bratwurst eating dudes!!) However I find that Tils acting in this movie is pretty badass.. People have complained about how he's not really staying true to the whole Carver agenda but we only saw carver in a first person perspective so we don't really know what he looked like when he was kicking a**..
However, the storyline in this film is beyond demented. We see the evil mad scientist Dr. Krieger played by Udo Kier, making Genetically-Mutated-soldiers or GMS as they are called. Performing his top-secret research on an island that reminds me of \"SPOILER\" Vancouver for some reason. Thats right no palm trees here. Instead we got some nice rich lumberjack-woods. We haven't even gone FAR before I started to CRY (mehehe) I cannot go on any more.. If you wanna stay true to Bolls shenanigans then go and see this movie you will not be disappointed it delivers the true Boll experience, meaning most of it will suck.
There are some things worth mentioning that would imply that Boll did a good work on some areas of the film such as some nice boat and fighting scenes. Until the whole cromed/albino GMS squad enters the scene and everything just makes me laugh.. The movie Far Cry reeks of scheisse (that's poop for you simpletons) from a fa,r if you wanna take a wiff go ahead.. BTW Carver gets a very annoying sidekick who makes you wanna shoot him the first three minutes he's on screen.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis was a disgrace to the game FarCry i had much expectations but all ended up in a nightmare. Besides the bad acting the visual effects, stunts the plot even the humor used in the movie was an absolute flop. The movie is not worth watching at all. The funniest part was when the girl comes and kiss Jack in order to give him the key to the cuffs. Guess the she got the keys to handcuffs all the time. I hope some good director will make a remake of this fantastic game into a movie someday. And I they will invest some good cash to get the visual effects right and the scenaries right as well as the ACTING right. But till then don't waste time by trying to watch this movie because it will surely make you go mad specially if you are a FarCry lover.
\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\nCompletely overlooking the whole movie adaptation of a video game, this is another terrible movie by Mr. Boll. How he continues to be hired to make movies is a constant surprise to me and obviously most of the movie going community.
As a whole I will say that this attempt was fractionally better than so many of his previous attempts. Some of the dialog was even half way decent in Far Cry though he still misuses some phrases and in some cases he doesn't even use the phrases correctly.
Now besides the fact that Jack Carver is supposed to be American and not German, Til was still entertaining in this role. One exception is the laughably lame lines he uses to get in bed with the girl. And we are supposed to believe that she is ready to have sex with him so casually after such minimal dialog? Emile? Simply there for comic relief I am sure and still lame. Jack's character looks old and tired yet is still capable of the extreme acrobatics needed to avoid one of the altered super soldiers in the lab.
Don't watch this one for the Far Cry adaptation. But you might just waste an hour and a half watching it if you have nothing better to do.
\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\nNormally I love finding old (and some not-so-old) westerns I haven't seen, to be the entertainment for the evening. It's such a great way to sit back, relax and escape the politics and world problems for a few hours. But this was not to be the case with this version of The Magnificent Seven. The casting and storyline of this series closely follow the Hollywood formula for politically correct entertainment; good old get-your-mind-right, revisionist history, where the 'bad guys' must all be white, male, Confederate (in this case), and preferably Christian (if it can somehow be worked into the script). It's sad, really. The best movies out there, are now and have always been about simply telling a good story up on the big screen - not about forwarding someone's political ideology.
\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... with a 500$ budget and a bottle of ketchup.
If you are a fan of C movies with no talented actors whatsoever, a ridiculous story, cheap effects and lousy camera-work, this film delivers.
All others be warned. You could probably make a similar movie with a couple of friends in your backyard and a home camcorder.
The film is good for some laughs though. Watch it with some friends and discuss how NOT to make a movie.
2/10 for unintentional comedy.
Why the hell do you have to write 10 lines? I have seen comments with less lines and writing this is just a lame filler.
\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\nWow! Here comes another straight-to-video scarecrow movie to keep the cinematic masochists happy. If the cheap-looking opening credits don't tell you you're in for quite a ride, then the diabolically tragic \"writing\" sure will.
A diabetic kid gets tied on to a legendary scarecrow as part of his initiation onto the baseball team. Then the scarecrow goes nuts and starts offing people. Need I say more? This movie consists greatly of cheap effects that makes it look like it was edited with iMovie (note that spooky color inversion) and actors who apparently weren't good enough to show up on some late-night Cinemax special. Actually, thats not fair, as the actors didn't have much room to work around the abysmal script. Parts of this movie really seem like parody, especially when one character picks up his guitar and starts playing the worst song ever conceived by humans, with the worst lip-synching ever performed to go along with it. The \"gore\" here is also a major disappointment. In most B-movies such as this, there is a thick layer of cheap gore FX to make up for what the story and acting lacks. Here, the stuff is so cheap that it's not even fun. This movie actually makes \"Jack Frost 2\" look like lots of fun in comparison.
If you think this movie is the \"worst one you've ever seen\" then you probably haven't gotten deep into the world of straight-to-video B-horror. Regardless, this movie will cause you a great deal of mental anguish, no matter what your background.
\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\nMy roommate and I have another friend that works at a local Blockbuster Video. He finds truly awful movies for us and tells us about them. One of them was a \"Christmas Horror\" film starring former professional wrestler Bill Goldberg as a killer Satna Claus. We didn't watch it immediately, but we didn't think there could be anything worse. Apparently, we were wrong. We were shown this slasher film \"starring\" Ken Shamrock versus a murderous scarecrow. At first we thought Ken would actually BE the killer scarecrow, and that's why we wanted to watch, but he wasn't, and that made the movie even worse. What absolutely RUINED the movie was the teen drama. If you want to save your brain cells from trying to escape from your head, NEVER EVER WATCH THIS MOVIE.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI cannot believe I let myself rent that piece of garbage! The acting was so poor, my Grandmother could have done better. The punches thrown in the movies were nowhere near the character the Scarecrow was knocking to the floor. The movie became a chore to watch!
So this group of baseball jocks decide to go hazing, even after they weren't supposed to in orders form there coach under consequences. So, naturally, they go anyway. They decide to tie a loser to a post with the so called \"Scarecrow.\" When the loser's best friend finds out about this, him and his girlfriend go to rescue him.
The kid is found out to have diabetes, and is hospitalized, while the jocks head out to the beach the next day. The scarecrow finds them there and kills them all pretty much.
I'm sure you really don't care. Anyway, the Scarecrow ends up having a connection with \"Diabetes Boy\" and the boy starts to finish off the scarecrows job once the scarecrow is killed. Yes, it is really really cheesy.
It thought this movie was full of bull sh*t. Sooner or later the only ones living (naturally) are the boyfriend and girlfriend who are the Main Characters :) The evil is then transfered to the boyfriend, and he kills himself to break the curse so nobody else will be hurt. Touching hey? No, don't waste your hard earned money on this, I give it a score of a one since thats lowest, otherwise, it doesn't even deserve that much.
\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\nJerk hazer Mike(David Zelina playing this college frat man as one major bastard you want to see die right away)and his college cronies leave hypoglycemic diabetic Sam(Caleb Roehrig)hanging on a wooden cross along with this scarecrow which is a legendary ghost story. They get PO'd at Sam who essentially goes into shock and aims a swinging punch at Mike that lands across his girlfriend Patty(Kristina Sheldon)instead so leaving the poor guy hanging is his punishment. Somehow, Sam's soul \"emerges\" with the inanimate scarecrow who comes from the cross to destroy everyone who left the poor guy there to rot. Mike and the gang send the uninitiated dorks back to bring Sam down but they are the first to receive a swinging blade across their throats. Mike and his posse head for the beach to gulp booze, play volleyball & bicker until the scarecrow arrives to end their little soirée. Sam's substitute brother Jack(Matthew Linhardt)is supposed to look out for him, but decides to sleep with new love-interest Beth(Samantha Aisling)instead. So when he receives a cell-phone message from Mike concerning how they left Sam hanging on the cross while they were off at the beach taking in the sun and sand, Jack is frenzied with fear. Beth's estranged father is a doctor and he agrees to see after Sam's condition after they cut the nearly dead young man down taking him to emergency hospital. Returning to the beach to confront Mike because of his negligence(..not to mention Jack's promise to coach Ramsey, played by UFC fighter Ken Shamrock, regarding no hazing), Jack and Beth will face the same straw-stuffed assassin that is bumping off the others. Coach Ramsey, who was part of a past hazing incident that went awry causing killer-scarecrow-mischief, has to confront some demons himself as he informs the survivors of the group about what they are up against.
Babes, boobs, and blood..this flick follows the basic slasher guidelines. Yet, this flick also carries the typical slasher traits of corny characters, acting, dialogue and overall plot. The flick shows signs of it's low budget particularly in the violence as most of the real action takes place off-screen instead of showing it happening up, close & personal. What appears on screen is mostly the aftermath of the killer's vengeance:one fellow holding his guts, another with a stake(holding up the group's volleyball net) plunged through his chest, blood spatter after a woman gets hit over the head presumably with a large rock, one chick laying dead after the scarecrow hit her with the SUV, etc. There is also some dubbing problems where it's clear the sounds of their voices often don't match the movements of their lips..particularly the unintentionally hilarious sequence where Ed(Travis Parker), wannabe rock star, is singing to his buddies a horrible song they all seem quite impressed with.
\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\"Scarecrow Gone Wild: He's the Death of the Party!\" Need I say more? Scarecrow gone wild got four out of ten stars from me for one simple reason: aside from the terrible acting, plot holes, cheap special effects, and anti-climactic whistling, it was cinematic gold! I think that this movie could have actually been really good, had the scarecrow turned out to be the baseball coach (as portrayed by the ever-so-brilliant Ken Shamrock). But then again, they would have had to cut those AWESOME \"Return of the Jedi\" electricity special effects.
While watching this movie, my friends and I were convinced that it was in fact written by one of our friends, a stereotypical teen-aged boy. This movie has topless women, miserably fake gore, and dialog that could not have talked its way out of a paper bag, or in this case, a cornfield.
If I could ask the filmmaker one thing, it would be this; \"How much did you have to pay the teenager that wrote this for 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\nSo unfortunately me and my mate watched this!!! It was showing on a Sky channel over here called \"Zone Horror\" which basically shows crappy B-movie horror films 24/7. It was a boring Friday night, so decided to have a laugh and give this one a look. Apart from the atrocious acting, the awful plot, the dire effects, the shoddy camera work and the brain numbing ridiculousness of it all, it was OK, LOL!!! In all seriousness it was quite a laugh picking holes in it and laughing at the goofy actors. There is a bit of semi-nudity which perked the movie up a bit, unfortunately it was the \"uggo\" who got topless as my mate calls her :oD If you're bored one evening and this happens to be playing, take a chance, you just might like 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 supposed 'Scarecrow Gone Wild' is a dull slasher flick. Yes, it have some good point, but it's a rehash from another flick. The acts is so awful nor the plot.
The story goes from a legend about a living scarecrow on the cornfield. When an initiation become a prank and cause the life a boy in jeopardy, the scarecrow comes alive and start a killing frenzy. Sound familiar, right? It's derived from Scream, Friday the13th, Jeepeer Creepers, Children of the Corn, you name it!
'Scarecrow Gone Wild' is so below average film. Barely have a scary moment. Even the final scene is laughable! Sadly, we still could enjoy it as our time killer. But I prefer you to watch something else instead. Unless you're a big fan bad and cheesy movies, off course.
4/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe initiation to the local sport team involves taking the newbies out to the corn fields and guess what? There is a scarecrow murdering people there. Only one of the newbies survive but falls into a coma due to diabetes. Meanwhile the scarecrow starts to kill all of the involved people, one by one. Whats the scarecrows secret? Will they find it out before the scarecrow gets them all? This is a low budget movie and it shows. Sound is OK but picture is really corny. The plot/script really sucks and is quite pathetic and non logical. The acting is really bad and sometimes just laughable. Cant really say much about the special effects cause there aren't that many but the few there is ranges from bad to OK(for a low budget that is). There is some nudity and thats probably the only thing worth to watch in the movie(that is if your a horny teenager, if not, skip the movie all together). Another complete waste of time and money so don't see it. Goes for hack'n'slash fans too.
\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 third installment in the Scarecrow series is by far the best of the lot. I know, I know...but how good is it? Well, let's not be silly. It's still pretty bad, but by comparison to the first two, it's a fine film. Again shot on digital, with decent lighting and good camera work.
****SPOILER****
When a college baseball team hazes new members, one is left in a diabetic coma. Of course, they abandon him in a cornfield, tied to a scarecrow. In keeping with the legend, the boy's soul is transferred into the body of the scarecrow, which comes to life and wreaks terrible vengeance on, well, pretty much everyone. The co-eds drive to the beach, which is somehow very close to the cornfield. On the sunny beach, they are killed one by one by the whistling scarecrow.
Writer/director Brian Katkin does a credible job of bringing some much-needed drama to the film. Unfortunately, the drama leaps over good and lands in common cheese. Much of the acting was fair, but there were some really terrible bits, including an awful piece of poorly done lip-synching. Some plot points were left mostly unresolved, and most were used to get someone alone so they could be slaughtered. Again, better than the previous installments, but still lacking.
\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\nSo me and my friend are carousing our local movie rental store and are looking for something to pick up to go along with Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, so why not pick up the third installment in the Scarecrow series!?! Keep in mind that this is not just Scarecrow Three; this is, Scarecrow: Gone Wild. Now both of us had seen to the first two Scarecrows so we felt obligated to finish the job. Let's start with the cover of the DVD first. First we notice a picture of Ken Shamrock (\"The World's Most Dangerous Man\") on the cover. Apparently he was used to market the movie as the \"lead actor\". By the way, he has the least screen time of any member of the credited class. Next we notice a picture of a very attractive and very scantily clad woman in the middle ground of the cover. I can assure you that she is not in the movie....at all. At the time of rental we assumed that this was to reiterate the fact that the scarecrow was \"going wild\". In the background we noticed a large carnival on an island out in the ocean. I can also assure you that the carnival is also not in the movie...at all. Looking back me and my friend should have known something was up. I mean really, who the heck puts a carnival on an island. Now on to the actual movie. We start when a young man is inexplicably fused to a scarecrow in the middle of a corn field. Don't ask me how they were fused but think of when Brandon Lee waking up from the dead in The Crow. It's just that stupid. But in the scarecrow's defense, he has \"gone wild\". Anyhoo, the scarecrow, who now lives vicariously through the young man, takes a trip to his local beach to brutalize those who had done him wrong. Because yes, in the world of The Scarecrow, beaches are conveniently located in the same general vicinity as cornfields. To make a long story short the scarecrow kills all who stand in his path without any warning except for the scarecrow's trademark whistle that signals a slashing. This is however rather impossible to believe because the scarecrow's costume's mouth is clearly sewn shut. Several tracking shots that would make Kubrick roll over in his grave later, and we have one of the worst third installments in a series ever. Well except for maybe the third Matrix. As Joel Siegel would say, \"This Scarecrow is wildly bad.\"
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI knew I was in for a LONG 90 minutes when the opening voice over mispronounced the word 'scarecrow' (it sounded like Scare Crew). And sure enough 90 minutes later, after witnessing beyond horrid acting, tedious drama, scarecrow's punches going nowhere near their intended target, but \"hitting\" it anyway, Ken Shamrock \"acting\", and the most stupid illogical ending, I've seen in my life (Ok, no, I take that last one back, in about a week). After making it through all that, I openly weeped that I couldn't just go to Lacuna a la Jim Carrey and just erase it completely from my mind. Any thoughts I might have had that Director Brian Katkin might have made an OK film given the right circumstances that I had after watching \"Slaughter Studios\", are totally and completely gone from my mind now.
My Grade: F
Eye Candy: Tara Platt and Lisa Robert get topless
Where I saw it: Starz on Demand (available until September 22nd, 2005)
\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 the 1st scarecrow movie and didn't bag out that one, though i knew it was b grade it actually had some decent gore and the guy playing the scarecrow was an awesome acrobat and had some good skills going. The effects were better and the costume looked heaps better then this movie.
I borrowed this one with an open mind, i am also a fan of ken shamrock (former ufc superfight champ) and was hoping it was a decent movie.
Boy was i wrong, the movie sucked, the monster was pathetic in both appearance and in actually being scary, the storyline was SO predictable it was like watching the movie in preview mode, as i already would guess what will happen, the music was so bad, with a horrible lip sync song that made me wanna punch the screen.
Overall avoid this crappy movie.
Save some 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\n1. The Largest Amount of Money Spent was on the package of hot dogs they put on that guy's stomach, the ones that were supposed to be intestines. 2. Ken Shamrock is in it. 3. Ken Shamrock gets destroyed. (he doesn't die which is sad.) 4. It leaves you wanting more... aspirin. 5. The makers of the film are the kind of people who don't care what their monster looks like. \"Just give him a $30 mask.\" \"Good enough for me.\" 6. The Scarecrow RUNS A CHICK OVER. AWESOME. 7. The film-makers don't actually make their actors sing or play the guitar. 8. The Scarecrow uses a volleyball pole as a javelin and impales the dude who doesn't actually play the guitar or sing. 9. The Scarecrow can choke a dude in like 3 seconds. 10. It makes you actually think of all these things and write them down for other people. god what am i doing.
\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\nAnother sequel! Why on earth do they keep making these? This has got to be the weakest 'franchise' ever, yet it is still being funded and spawning sequels. SCARECROW GONE WILD - which I only watched so I could officially trash the whole series - brings back the evil straw-man who, again, butchers up some college kids... That's basically it. The acting sucks (as usual), the death scenes are beyond pathetic, and don't be fooled by the title, this thing doesn't have as much nudity as you may think. A couple nice topless girls, but nothing too pants tightening. Let me just conclude my continuous insult (or review) on this movie by saying: if I come across a SCARECROW IN SPACE or a FREDDY VS SCARECROW on the video store shelves, I'm going to be in absolute awe...
\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 an extremely horrible movie. And if your thinking you've seen another horrible movie, exactly like this one before, you probably have. You probably saw Scarecrow 2 made in 2003. Yes thats what I said, Brian (the director) stole the movie idea. And not only did he steal it, he actually might have been able to make it worse. I bet the even the actors were scared to tell people they were actually in the movie. Also I have to mention that the director was trying to make up for the cheesiness by showing as much tits as possible. Also the kissing scenes were put together like a porn movie. In fact that is probably all that the director has ever seen, and tried to put together a decent movie, which will never work.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFirstly this has nothing to do with the much better 18 weapons of Kung Fu starring Gordon Liu. I mention this as my Kung Fu Theater presents DVD has a totally misleading picture on the cover, the wrong plot on the back and goes on to mention (no idea why) The Young Hero starring Hwang Jang Lee. Apart from an introduction to the history of the 18 weapons style told by a monk to some children during the opening and the usual mysterious manual that everyone is after, the weapons never really appear again and the fights are all boxing style. The hero is Lee Shao Hwa who I have never heard of before or any of the other actors. The film mentions another director Wu Yuen Ling as well as the one IMDb lists. The other actors are Wang Fu Quen, Wang Wing San, Chen Fei Fei, Wang Ki San, Suen King Kai and Hwa Yue Suen who seem to have sunk without trace after this film. The fights are reasonable and frequent but not great and the 'star' doesn't have much charisma. The twist at the end is just stupid and the film seems to end abruptly as though they got bored with it. The scenery and the training sequences in the river are a little different from usual. Unfortunately the pretty sister gets drowned not the very irritating (though acrobatic) young boy.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI have a friend that works at blockbuster, and he gets 5 free movie rentals a week, so one day as we were scouring the aisles for something interesting, i stumbled across 18 Weapons of Kung Fu, and judging by the box alone, this movie seemed pretty wack, but nonetheless we gave into temptation and rented it -- afterall, it was free.....and thank god it was....this is by far THE WORST movie i have ever seen....the budget must have been a pickle and a piece of string...the plot was ridiculous, the only mention of the \"18 weapons\" is that there is some book that teaches the ways of the 18 weapons that some bad guy is after -- and thats it! there isnt even any weapon fighting in this movie...that and the action sequences are just flat-out BAD....9 times out of 10 the other guy's punches and kicks come about a foot away from landing on the other guy's, and there are MANY times when the the movie will skip frames (a result of ridiculously poor editing)....the dubbing is as well laughable, and it is hardly even understandable....and we wont even get into the acting...the ending will definitely leave you saying \"wtf??\", however to be fair i must mention that the fighting techniques used by the actors were somewhat decent, and the old guy is a mad chump....but thats about it...thankfully i didnt have to pay for this movie, but i guess at least now i know exactly how bad a movie can actually be....
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is the ultimate Kung Fu movie! This is the only Kung Fu movie! This is the only Kung Fu movie I have ever seen! I am giving this movie way too much credit! My best guess for the reason for making this movie is that someone wanted to show off someone else's martial arts abilities, but realized that you can't just film a guy fighting another guy and have people watch it, so he put a story behind the fighting... and people still didn't watch it.
This movie's story line was onion skin thin. That acting was goofy and stereotypical of any Kung Fu movie. The dubbing was literally the worst I have ever heard. It seemed if you played a small role in this movie, like the fat guy or the two guys trying to catch the main character with a net, it didn't matter who over did your voice. It could have been a dyslexic with a slurred stutter and nobody would have said anything. But beside all of this, the movie makes up for itself with the somewhat awesome fight scenes.
The fight scenes were definitely what this movie was all about. But the instigations of the fights were totally absurd! On most all instances, a guy either pops out of the tall grass, or glances at the main character from a distance, and then attacks him. But once the fighting started, things sort of balanced out. There were only two things that really hampered the fighting, though. Those constant \"wooshing\" sound effects that were added to every swing of a fist or foot or sword, and the poor editing that made 25 percent of the fighting VERY jumpy and choppy. Someone would be in the middle of a back flip and then suddenly be on the ground being kicked, and then instantly be back on their feet blocking a punch. But while the cut and paste editing was more of a nuisance than anything else, it didn't really affect the overall movie.
In the end, this was not a great movie, but I wasn't expecting a great movie. A great movie is not something you should expect when you see a box cover like this movie's. All I saw this movie as was a way to pass an hour and a half of boredom. I rarely say that, but this was just one of those movies you have no practical use for, so you watch it whenever you have some free time. Enjoy the movie if you decide to watch it! Good day gentlemen.
-Scott-
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie had all the potential and makings of a great feel good, great love story...the cast is perfect, the visuals work, the original premise works, the characters work....but the story moves from one chess move to the next in a most predictable way...not one character in the movie has any depth or has any depth explained by the director. All we know about Catherine Zeta-Jones character is she is obsessed with her world....nobody is allowed in and nobody challenges her world...that much is obvious....but the remaining characters all have their own dimensions that are really never explored or exposed....Aaron Eckhart's character had so much more to offer to the story but wasn't allowed, Abigail Breslin's character is so easy to understand that her performance comes across somewhat predictable and phony....in the end everything reverts back to the forced turbulent world of Catherine Zeta-Jones which the audience never totally falls for....honestly, her turbulent world is not much more than a portrayal of a selfish, self obsessed, spoiled lady who most people would not have much time or sympathy for in the real world. The director needed to make her a hero and never does....in the end, it is Eckhart's character that ultimately wins because he wins.
Not a lousy movie, just a movie that could have been a lot better with more depth of personalities allowed in, explained and exposed.
Cheers
\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, i must admit, when i saw the trailer for this movie, i was looking forward to it. I am generally a fan of light hearted romantic comedies and from the trailer, thats the impression i got of this movie. However, i spent most of the movie waiting for the comedy to begin. Although there were a couple of amusing scenes, in general the outlook of the movie was quite depressing.
I also found it difficult to fall in love with any of the characters as they all seemed a little underdeveloped, the time which the director could have used exploring the characters taken up by a needless overuse of Opera, making the movie feel dragged out and slow.
All in all, although there are some touching scenes, the trailer is quite deceptive and i would only suggest you go watch this if there is really nothing else that tickles your fancy.
Not fantastic, and as i have said before; Bland.
\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\nGo to the video store and get the original. I do not understand why Hollywood has that need to take a perfect foreign movie and remake it. \"Mostly Martha\" or \"Bella Martha\" has a much better cast. Beginning with the heroine Martina Gedeck, who convinced me much more in the role of the work-obsessed perfectionist than the more famous Catherine Zeta Jones, to the Italian cook and the niece suddenly deprived of her mother and forced to live with an aunt, not fit for child-rearing.
In many ways, the American version of the movie is a copy of the German original. They just exchanged the actors. However, they also changed the story because it would have been difficult and not very believable to materialize a father for the little girl in an American context.
I was thinking about that. Maybe the father could have been Puerto Rican, or Cuban, or Mexican. Well, there are so many \"guest workers\" in the U.S. Take your pick. But I doubt that any of them would have shown up to shoulder the responsibility as the Italian father did in the original. Therefore, the American movie leaves that part out but keeps the Italian cook. And by doing this the whole story changes. In the original \"Martha\" is so removed from reality that she thinks it is okay to send her niece off with a complete stranger in a foreign country.
The American \"Martha\" is softer and therefore the movie is sweeter and does not have that edge the German movie has.
In the original the \"Italian\" cook is not so good looking but much more charming , the little girl is more of a brat but much more believable and \"Martha\" is more representative of a career woman in today's world than the watered down version we are presented in the American version. And the whole opera music in the American version was very annoying. I loved the Italian songs in the original and bought the CD.
Hollywood recognized that \"Mostly Martha\" was a great movie. Maybe the distribution companies should have put it in more theaters or it should have been shown in English without subtitles. In any case, the original is so much better. By the way this reminds me of another remake. \"Shall we dance\" is one of my favorites in the original Japanese version and totally forgettable in the American version.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nMuch as I really like Catherine Zeta-Jones, I wondered once again, why remake a good movie? This version lacked the tension and passion of Mostly Martha. It was a clear rip off. Maxime Foerste was more convincing as a hurting child who healed with love. I couldn't believe Abigail Breslin. Martina Gedeck owned this role. Unfortunately Zeta-Jones should have found another one that she could own (she has other roles she does own.). Sergio Castellitto was good as a vulnerable but joyful Italian. Aaron Eckhart seemed passionless in comparison. This version was pleasant but bland.
The love between Mario and Martha was perhaps predictable but satisfying. The therapist added an interesting bit of color that didn't seem important. I liked it when at the end he said he'd be back but the movie was over before he returned. I have Mostly Martha at home. Every now and then I revisit 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\nThere is only one word to define the whole movie, that is: awful. How \"Mostly Martha\" was remade is awful. The title of the movie is awful. The actors are awful. And the idea of combining good cooking and USA is awful. If you have seen \"Bella Martha\", well that is the original title and it means \"Beautiful Martha\", this one is a punch in the stomach. The acting of Ms.Jones is so poor and unnatural that even Jessica Alba, considered one of the worst actresses (http://www.razzies.com/history/05nomActr.asp) would have done better. Not to mention the cook, who would better play a different role. And the little girl... not worth mentioning. Bella Martha was a very nice movie, an authentic one... why was it remade? There was a story.... here they took it out. There is no story... What shall it represent? In one way also this movie was perfect. You know when all ingredients fit together? Well this is the case here. A perfect 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\nHow bad idea was to remake an almost Oscar -worthy film?! MOSTHLY MARTHA is MUCH MORE BETTER, has deepness, finesse and so on and mainly: a wonderful and talented actress in the leading role (Martina Gedeck). It's a joke and ugliness with the handsome Aaron and the whole atmosphere... again a ridiculous effort from Hollywood. There are more and more remake and the films are full with schemes.. Isn't anybody there who can create a good and newly script? Or this is a safety solution to make remake or movies from the well-tried cartoon figures? The films are getting much less interesting nowadays. Oh yes: If you want to see a REALLY good movie watch the original one. It's definitely worth.
\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\nThere really is only one reason to watch this barely adequate and utterly predictable movie about an uptight chef Kate Armstrong (Catherine Zeta Jones) whose life changes when she inherits her orphaned niece Zoe (Abigail Breslin) after her sister is killed in a car wreck. And that reason is to watch Aaron Eckhart (Nick) who, with his floppy haircut and appealingly laddish attitude, looks good enough to slap between two slices of organic Pannini and eat with an olive oil and balsamic vinaigrette dip and a few finely diced sun dried tomatoes. He reminds me of Sean Bean. The thought that he might take his shirt off really was the only thing that kept me awake until the end. He removed his apron petulantly several times, but to my disappointment, never went further.
I can't be too critical because I was watching it on pay per view at home, so it hadn't cost me the price of two movie tickets at least, and I was brought up to be grateful for small mercies. But really, this is Rom Com at its most formulaic. Zeta Jones gives a very flat, monotonous performance, she seemed utterly lacking in passion, (possibly due to the amount of time she apparently spent in the cold store at the restaurant? Thirty takes in there can't have been fun) and her face barely changed expression throughout the whole movie. Abigail Breslin was pretty good as the niece, she's such an appealing little girl that it's quite impossible to criticize her, and anyway I loved her in Little Miss Sunshine. Patricia Clarkson is always good value and I can't really fault her performance as the restaurant owner, because she seemed very underused, given what a good actor she is and how little she had to do here. But the whole thing is just so clichéd, much of the dialog banal, and the outcome so obvious. This is the cinematic equivalent of paint by numbers, and Zeta Jones and Eckhart generate little heat on screen.
Nick likes Italian food (doubtless indicating his burning inner passion) and cooks to the sound of Puccini. His appearance in Kate's kitchen at 22 Bleecker (the restaurant's name) predictably ruffles her feathers but his uncanny ability to bond with her niece by cooking pizza and building a Bedouin tent in the living room, brings Kate around and, despite a few stumbles along the way, she ends up giving him her prized possession. No, not her honour. But her recipe for saffron sauce.
I'm being very unfair here, aren't I? I mean Rom Com is Rom Com, and we all know what we are letting ourselves in for when we sign up. But does it always have to be so mind numbingly dull?
\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 a longtime fan of the original of this movie (Bella Martha/Mostly Martha), and everything that makes that movie great and enjoyable to watch is missing from this one. I miss the slow pace, the build-up of characters and their style in small gestures, the dominance of lights and moods and moves over dialog. I don't think that the story itself is enough. Martha/Kate is more secluded, and Mario/Nick is not a clown. In most of the cases the things that makes one scene great in the original, its is not working in its copy here. The small alterations take away the tension. My opinion is that you should go and see the original. It'll worth the inconvenience of subtitles.
\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 hesitated seeing this movie, having really enjoyed the original, 'Mostly Martha'. What a disappointment. Catherine Zeta Jones is a good actress but this wasn't her film. The original had poignant moments, perfectly punctuated with an incredible soundtrack. No reservations felt like it never connected. The food, the characters - nothing felt passionate. In Mostly Martha, the food came alive- every scene was filmed in such a way you could taste it with your eyes - the smells, the textures. The food in 'No Reservations' was in the background - rarely did we get a closeup of the preparation; the characters were not real enough to carry the movie without it. It was hard finishing the movie - many of the scenes felt awkward. See the original - it's a truly enjoyable movie; the soundtrack incredible.
\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 spelled that right. This movie is so predictable, the actual word needs additional letters to exemplify the predictability. From the moment the principal characters and situation are introduced, it is paint-by-numbers as to where this plot will take us. The foreshadowing was as subtle as a two ton sledgehammer. You could take numerous pieces of dialogue and anticipate the role it would play in the ending.
Catherine Zeta-Jones and Aaron Eckhardt did decent jobs in undemanding roles and Abigail Breslin played the cute role admirably. It's just that the movie brought absolutely nothing new to the romantic comedy genre. The romance was tepid and the laughs were weak and few. Sure, it's an OK movie if you have nothing to watch, but you won't miss anything by missing 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\nI recall years back, Michael Douglas wanted his wife, Catherine Zeta-Jones, to be in a romantic film because he felt his wife had all the goods. No doubt she does, but NOT in this film. A colossal waste of time, no story, no character development, no chemistry, nada. This was not the vehicle that we all hoped this film would be, boring and a HUGE disappointment. Didn't even watch the whole film, torture. Catherine Zeta-Jones was obviously trained in how to work a kitchen, move around, present a dish but this wasn't the food network, nothing learned here and once her counterpart appeared, supposedly a romantic interest brewing, where was the chemistry. The poor slob on the second floor of her building trying all the ploys to connect and no character development there. The loss of her sister was poorly played out as who knew there was a closeness. The sister's daughter just was plopped here and there with something that was supposed to draw you in, NOT. Just a waste of movie time. The promoters certainly did their job to put this lack-luster film on all the networks tempting you with all kinds of teasers. Sorry to say, don't spend a dime.
\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\nCatherine Zeta-Jones and Aaron Eckhart star in a \"romantic\" drama about an uptight chef played by Zeta-Jones, who ends up carrying for her niece when her sister is killed in a car crash. While she's out taking care of family matters she's replaced by Eckhart.
Unfunny maudlin tale with no chemistry between the leads (she's a dead fish and he's okay, but not much of anything). Watching this I was wondering why anyone would want to see this since Zeta-Jones' character is so unlikable. Come on she's so obsessed with cooking and being the best all she does is cook for her therapist or talk about food. Ugh. I won't use any of the numerous puns that come to mind. I couldn't finish 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\nWhen I saw the trailers for this movie, it looked like a good romantic comedy. I expected some light fluffy fun. Instead, I was bored and a little depressed.
Honestly, there was no chemistry between the leads at all, and the movie had little, if anything, that was funny about it. The little girl was adorable - when she cried, I cried - but I thought they might have used someone a little bit younger in the role.
Either way, the movie was filled with long, dull silences or swelling opera music. I'm not anti-opera, but I would have preferred them to spend that time letting us get to know the characters, who were all stiff and underdeveloped.
I was really disappointed in this movie. The whole time I watched it I kept thinking of how much better it could have been.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"