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\nEverything you do in this world should make at least a little bit of sense. Unfortunately very little of \"Delusion\" makes any sense. Jennifer Rubin is adequate in her role as the main squeeze of hit man Kyle Secor. Secor on the other hand overacts to the point of annoyance. Jim Metzler, the embezzling yuppie is very unbelievable as the novice, revenge seeking, adversary. When Jennifer Rubin gives back the money she has carefully been concealing, all credibility flies out the window, and the guns pointing final showdown between Secor and Metzler is beyond ridiculous. Avoid \"Delusion\", unless you are delusional enough to believe the misguided positive reviews here. - MERK
\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\"Delusion\" is what you experience when you watch this flick and then believe you saw something worthwhile. This flick, which tells of a trio of semi-psycho travelers who are up to no good somewhere in the CA desert, is amateurish and just plain stupid. The film suffers from an awful story, a lousy screenplay, and some terrible direction just to mention a few of the deficits. If the flick has anything at all going for it, it's B-movie diva Rubin's even performance. Don't waste your time on this turkey. (D)
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nNow I remember what the 'indie' filmmakers were ripping off before Pulp Fiction. It was David Lynch, right?
I hunted this thing down to see Kyle Secor. What a waste of a perfectly good Bayliss. It was so painful to watch him, sort of like when someone you love is horribly sick and there's nothing you can do.
Nearly every cliche in the book: the desert, the psycho, the quirky mob boss, the biker, Tracy Walker (who fortunately was only in one scene, but I kept expecting him to reappear and say something strange and profound like \"If a man wants to know where he's going, he's got to look at where he's been,\" or some contrived garbage like that). I have a theory as to why so many indies are short on location in the desert. I think it's because they can save money on lighting.
If you like to be in pain, find this movie and give it a viewing. If you're a fan of Kyle Secor, watch reruns of Homicide on Court TV. If you want a good, quirky road thriller, check out Wild At Heart.
There is a reason that no one has heard of Delusion! My god, what a waste of a good title.
\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 Hindi remake of Mrs Doubtfire starring and directed by Kamal Hassan is a somewhat shoddy version, and not as good as expected.
Kamal Hassan clearly struggles with Hindi dialogs, even after all these years, and cannot handle even one scene effortlessly. The guy has aged and should give it a rest. Hassan doesn't bring anything new to the role or to the character as say, Dustin Hoffman does to Tootsie, or Marathi actor Macchindranath Kambli does to Mavshi's (aunt's) character in \"Moruchi Mavshi\" (Moru's Auntie, comedy play).
What was the kid doing playing with firecrackers when it wasn't Diwali? Most of Chachi's romantic 'cross-connections' -- Vs Amrish, Paresh and then Johny Walker, seem redundant to the main storyline. Tabu's bathing scene was unnecessary. The family is North Indian but must be reminded of Karva Chauth night by a 'Maharashtrian' Chachi. Yeah, right.
The fine acting skills of not one but four actors namely Tabu, Om Puri, the late Amrish Puri and Paresh Rawal have been wasted in this film.
Watch the original Mrs Doubtfire -- clean, crisp and crackling with fun, quite unlike Chachi 420.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nLike most musicals of the era, one must check reality at the door. Broadway MELODY of 1938 is not remotely believable nor plausible, but kind of fun in its strange way. This movie is really just an excuse to execute the talents of the stars. Some scenes just happen as if they were in a review, not a plot driven movie.
Judy Garland shines and it's a pity she has so little to do unless much was left on the cutting room floor.
One of the most inane happenings are the way Eleanor Powell get a lead role in a Broadway show and Robert Taylor says it's going to be work, work, work from dawn til dusk. Several scenes go by and there's no work, no rehearsals...NOTHING. She needs money to win a horse in an auction. She has no money. Isn't she getting paid while she rehearses? Taylor has to borrow money to help. He's supposed to be a big time producer. He has no money??? Anyway, that's just two elements in this strange story.
The musical numbers are quite wonderful which saves this from being a total loss. Broadway MELODY OF 1940 is much better as is Broadway MELODY OF 1936.
\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\nAll I can do is echo the sentiment already expressed by some of the other commenters. This is CITY OF GOD meets HAPPY DAYS. The bipolarity of the ruthless thug (one minute a ruthless killer, the next minute a Luv's diaper commercial) is completely unconvincing. You can approach it in one of two ways: (1) A gritty, realistic movie turned sappy; or (2) a sappy, ABC-afterschool-special with profanity, violence and animal cruelty. Either way it just don't fly, do it? Why then has it received so much praise? As others have implied, it gets the \"conscience vote\" from the west. Show us pictures of poverty to contrast against our fluffy, double-wide theatre seats and 44-oz cokes, and we'll applaud in a heartbeat. But--oh--don't forget to candy coat it, because the bitter pill of reality (tantalizing as it is) is hard for us to swallow.
I'm terribly disappointed that this film would receive so many awards and accolades, especially when there are far more deserving works of film out there. All I can say is: beware of any film that receives awards (Hollywood Oscars = sweeping, syrupy tripe. Cannes Film Festival = beard-stroking, artless propaganda). To find the real gems, you'll have to work hard at it.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie looked like it was rushed to release for some reason. Definitely not a well made movie. So unbelievable. The scenes where the President (Holbrook) were downtown and walking among the people were a farce. There would not be a chance for the common folk to be within 30 yards of the President in that situation in real life. If it wasn't for the blood and profanity, this was shot like a TV movie. It could have been decent if it was done differently. Holbrook's (President) talents were never realized in this movie. Shatner's acting is okay. The production values in this movie leave a lot to be desired. Overall, I think most people would be better off not wasting time to watch this affair.
\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 included on the disk \"Shorts: Volume 2\"--a rather dull collection of short films. Shorts are among my favorite style of films but somehow the people assembling this second collection had a hard time finding quality content--and it wasn't nearly as good as the first volume or other shorts collections.
This short film feels like it's woefully incomplete. There is a story, but so much in unanswered that the viewer, like me, feels a bit left out and unfulfilled.
The film begins with a woman, her boyfriend and her Westie (that's a dog, by the way) going to a lonely beach. The lady speaks with an accent that, at times, is a bit difficult to follow. Given that I am hard of hearing, I sure would have loved if it had been closed captioned. Anyway, the boyfriend goes for a swim while she naps. When she awakens, her dog is gone. She panics and makes the guy follow her all about looking for the dog. They spend most of the time arguing and being disagreeable. Then, out of the blue, they stop to have sex. Later, they find the dog--end of story.
As far as the characters go, both seemed rather dysfunctional and unlikable. She was a fussy and demanding lady and he seemed to have contempt for her. When you wondered why they were together, their little sex break showed what bond kept them together.
Some might like the characterizations--I kept finding the people irritating and unreal--more like caricatures than people you might meet or know. Also, the payoff for all this just isn't worth the wait (unless you want to see the guy naked).
\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'm not surprised that this film did well at the Hamptons Film Festival. It is a shallow film that would appeal well to shallow people. Two actors pretending to be actors in a relationship who fight and look for a lost dog. The film is allegedly exploring the dynamics of the relationship, however, the relationship is far too petty to merit any such exploration. This couple has one dimension: they fight, they tease, then they make love and fight some more. There brief moment of tenderness does not reveal any possible reason that these two would be involved with each other given their venomous and volatile relationship. Beautifully shot, excellent score, but without anything of merit in the script or characters, this short is just that.
\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\nDo these guys take have a computer kick out these same plots over and over again, only the names, places, and faces are changed to prevent complete boredom. Hubby is handsome and rich, but too busy to pay attention to his gorgeous wife. A situation she constantly tries to remedy. Her friend/neighbor has the same problem so they become interested in each others hubbies--the grass is always greener. Throw in a sexy scheming made who has designs on everybody and you get a lot of stripping and dipping and a salad bowl of an unintelligible plot.
The quality of bodies is pretty high here, although not much in the way of \"contact\", even simulated is shown. Good late night erotica if Jay Leno can't put you to sleep.
\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\nBased on the comments made so far, everyone seems to either hate this movie or love it. I think it would be fair to point out that although this is not a GREAT movie, it has its interesting moments. For one thing, it was filmed on location in Colorado (was it Breckinridge or Telluride? I can't remember, but it is in the credits). The location is absolutely stunning and spectacular. It's beautiful, even to me who lived in Colorado for several years.
Next, it has Disney's penchant for wonderful character actors. Harry Morgan has never been in better form than when he plays in a Disney movie. He is literally hysterical. Also, remember the wonderful Mary Wickes? Although she has a \"bit part\" in this movie, she is great, as always. If you don't know who she is, think of the animated Disney version of Hunchback from Notre Dame (she was one of the gargoyles), and she was also the most interesting nun in \"Sister Act\", as well as the best nun in \"The Trouble With Angels.\" She has always been a great character actress and most character actors never receive the recognition they deserve.
In addition to character actors and all-star casts, in the 1960s-1970s Disney may have not had the \"greatest\" movies, but, if you really watch some of them from beginning to end, you will NOTICE that every movie has some really funny or hysterical moment in it. The entire movie may not be funny, but there is always a comic gem (at least 1 or 2) in every single \"live-action\" movie Disney ever made. Whether it's Harry Morgan in one of his bellowing tones of voice, or Tim Conway floundering around, or Joe Flynn giving one of his priceless looks of horror, it is all good. The whole film may not be good, but there are ALWAYS hysterical moments in every Disney film from this period that I have ever seen. Disney in this time period always managed to make a person smile, despite the dumbness of the film.
Bsed on these comments, I disagree with viewers who say every Disney movie in this time period is awful. That statement it not quite accurate. Rather, it is easier for me to give credit to the funny moments and overlook the weaknesses in the plots.
Some live-action Disney movies are true classics (Old Yeller, Bedknobs and Broomsticks, Mary Poppins), but for those that aren't, I am able to appreciate them for what they were -- good clean family fun in a time when movies had become vulgar, crude and offensive.
\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\"Snowball Express\" from the Disney Studios isn't quite as dated as some of their output from this era. There are no hippies or hot-rodders, just dull-as-dishwater Dean Jones inheriting a ramshackle hotel/ski-resort from a deceased relative. When Jones and family pull into a sleepy Colorado town, the folks who give them directions--looking like extras from \"Deliverance\"--are curiously vague about the hotel (we expect it to look like a one-room shanty), but actually the accommodations are very nice. Jones' teenage daughter has a sour look on her face throughout (which doesn't prevent one of the local yahoos from leering at her), and of course clumsy pop Dean Jones is a regular stumblebum on the slopes, leading to a lot of pratfalls in the slush. Perhaps this square scenario might've benefited from some magical whimsy, for this script is a frozen stiff. * from ****
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie was pointless. I can't even call it sci-fi, since that requires more from a movie than merely taking place in space. \"Max Q\" isn't even set in space for the entire movie. The story/plot is unoriginal, the cast isn't anything to write home about, although it would be strange with a top cast in a mediocre film... Furthermore, it's not particularly exciting or well-told. At least it's evenly balanced in a low quality sort of way, in that nothing or no one stands out. Everything is equally bland. I usually find some quality in \"space flicks\", even if it's just 90 minutes of semi-lame entertainment bordering on low-budget pathetic, but \"Max Q\" didn't even give me that satisfaction. All in all , a complete waste of time.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'm sorry, but this really does feel like a modern day Apollo 13 knock-off. Totally implausible (at least Armageddon FELT like a comic book! This felt like a bad High School film project), acting was about as cliché as one can get, and....landing a space shuttle on an LA freeway? Come on. Seriously. Jerry, what were you thinking? And all the clichés: The pregnant astronaut's wife, the nosy reporter who gets in everyone's way, the stalwart manager with \"Go Fever\". And it's one thing to twist the laws of physics or politics or whatever to make an entertaining story, but at least make it GOOD! Fact and science were totally butchered for this. The space shuttle doesn't have fuel tanks in it's wings, and even if it did, it couldn't steer by shifting fuel between them (and neither could a DC-10).
If you like bad acting, bad storytelling, low realism, and cheesy clichés, this one can't be beat!
\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 laboured along with some of the most predictable story lines and shallow characters ever seen. The writer obviously bought the playbook \"How to write a space disaster movie\" and followed it play by play. In particular, the stereo-typical use of astronauts talking to their loved ones from outer space - putting on a brave show in the face of disaster - has been done time and time again.
Max Q appears to have been written in the hope that the producers would throw $50 million at the project. But, judging by the latter half of the film which contained numerous lame attempts at special effects, the producers could only muster $50 thousand. To learn that the film was nominated for a \"Special Visual Effects\" Emmy has me absolutely gob-smacked.
I think a handful of high school students with a pass in Media Studies could have created more believable effects!
And the plot holes are too numerous to mention. But I will pick one out as an example. Now, I'm no NASA expert, but surely it's highly implausible that a worker attached to the shuttle simulator would suddenly hold a position of power in the control room when things start to go pear-shaped with the program. Surely there is someone more experienced at Mission Control who the Program Director would call on rather than a twenty-nine year old who has not been in the control room before.
The only saving grace for this film is the work of Bill Campbell. He manages to make a good attempt at salvaging something out of the train wreck that is this script.
I give this film 2 out of 10, with the above-average work of Bill Campbell in the lead role saving it from a lower mark.
\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 plot was not good.
The special effects weren't.
The acting was... not very good at all.
Like others, I felt there were numerous holes in the plot that you could fly, well, a space shuttle through.
I thought the ending was rather unbelievable.
By the way guys, about the \"blow torch in space\".
Blow torches have their own supply of oxygen (Hence the name \"Oxy-Acetylene torch\"). Two hoses run from the torch: One to an acetylene bottle and one to an oxygen bottle.
So a \"blow torch\" would work just fine in space.
\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\nSome famous stories are prone to being moved to another epoch and, as such, becoming an embarrassing TV-movie. Oscar Wilde's Canterville Ghost is one of them. This TV movie for kids is utterly cheap, concerning acting, character work, credibility, directing and even concerning the modest special effects. As often, the question arises: what was this made 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\nWhat can have been on Irene Dunne's mind when she accepted the role in this distasteful account of a woman of negotiable morals? Certainly, the Irene Dunne of the 1940's, whose reputation as a faithful Roman Catholic who publicly abhorred smut, and shunned any film scripts or Hollywood society, that might be even be remotely construed as corrupting public morals--would never have become associated with such a dubious project as this.
Perhaps, New York's Cardinal Spellman, in his private audience with her, gave her a good dressing down over this role? That we will likely never know, inasmuch as she never spoke of it in later years, though she did denounce her morally suspect, (though quite successful) 1932 film, \"Back Street\" as \"trash\".
Certainly by the time she received the distinguished St. Robert Bellarmine Award in 1965 for exemplary public Catholicism, \"Ann Vickers\" was no longer recalled by the general public.
Suffice it to say that \"Ann Vickers\" works neither as entertainment or social commentary.
Miss Dunne's role as an adulterous social worker, who sleeps around, (between reforming prisons and writing a best seller on correctional rehabilitation) doesn't dovetail with her temperament or on screen demeanor, and one keeps suspecting that the whole thing is a kind of tongue in cheek gag, (what else can we think when we witness a montage of Miss Dunne's sympathetic beatific gaze superimposed over a shot of a female prisoner being scourged?) By films end, she has renounced careerism in favor of marriage, (to crusty convict Walter Huston no less--and what kind of lunacy would ever conceive of pairing these two romantically?)
Irene Dunne completists will no doubt wish to see this curiosity, if only for the chance to hear her promise to rehabilitate a cocaine addict under her charge: \"I'm going to get you off the snow cold turkey\" !!!
Well, if nothing else such sordid goings on, do present her light years from her usual milieu of operatic trills, furbellowed chiffon and strawberry phosphates--cocaine addiction not being the first subject one associates with the irreproachable Miss Dunne.
\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 rented this type of \"soft core\" before, but I can honestly say, I wasn't expecting this to be in the same type as \"Rod Steele: You Only Live Until You Die\"--which was both sexy AND funny. It had a good script, a sincere leading man, and a sense of purpose. It also has Gabriella Hall who is hot. The reason why I didn't expect this movie, was because the box was missing the \"Must be 18 to Rent\" Sticker. I was looking for more \"cheese\" and less \"cheesecake.\"
First of all, I think movies shouldn't be allowed to start with \"actors\" rehearsing for a part at a talent agency (or wherever \"actors\" rehearse). In this movies seeing the \"actors\" rehearsing highlights the lack of preparation that went into acting out the real characters in the movie.
Okay, having found out that this WAS a soft core movie, I didn't necessarily turn it off and demand my money back. But, the dizzying way the extended video \"erotic\" scenes are added to what was probably a late night pay-cable release are very annoying and easy to fast-forward through without the sustained quality of, say, Rod Steele. You know they must've had some money, because I think some of it is filmed overseas.
I will have to say the main actor trying NOT to spill the invisibility potion on himself is one of the most baffling acting jobs I've ever seen. And, I've seen Torgo from Manos! It may actually have been worth the dollar rental fee (that and Gabriella Hall). Still, there are better corny movies to rent with your friends.
\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\nAfter just viewing the movie, I must say this is one of the worst films I have ever seen. This takes my worst movie award away from Komodo, which is no easy feat. It is neither a porno nor a legitimate film and it gives them both a bad name. The acting, camera-work, plot, script, and sound are all awful. My personal favorite part of the movie is the duck asking the bartender if he has any grapes. Why was a joke such as this put in the film? Was the director thinking; \"I need a humorous scene to balance out the great acting so I will use some lame ass joke I read on a Laffy Taffy wrapper.\" Another retarded part is when Norman spills the invisibility potion on himself as he attempts to keep it from spilling. Why did they even bother to give the film a NC-17 rating, were they hoping to get as large of an audience as possible? At least if it were rated X it would be more sexual and therefore taking the viewers focus away from the overall low quality. I pray for someone who worked on this panty waste of a flick to respond.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\ni was surprised after watching this piece of crap , if you have seen an episode of TOM and JERRY in which jerry pours some liquid onto him and becomes invisible than you are likely to see the same cartoons with added EROTIC topping a man becoming invisible and doing S*i* is the conclusion of the movie. involving too much sex in a cartoon themed movie doesn't increase its worth :( , and most of all i was surprised when the same cartoon ending was used to show up the Mr.Invisible and that was really awful i must say , flour drops off the rack and our very own Mr.Invisible becomes Visible \"watch ZACK and MIRI make a porno\" i bet you wont get bored,
1/10 from me
\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 would think that anyone embarking upon a followup to the groundbreaking Naked Civil Servant of 30-plus years ago would at the very least try to honor the original with some kind of inspired vision, but no. Here we have a sort of biopic of one of the most stylish people of the late 20th century that itself boasts no style whatsoever. True, the filmmakers have assembled some outstanding actors - and handed them a chipped mug of drab gruel to work with. Everything in the infrastructure of this film is wrong, starting with the script, which is another one of those TV-movie condensations of great lives wherein every other line is a \"famous quote\" by the subject and every other scene is an in-your-face introduction to the next pivotal character in the subject's life. We get Swoozie Kurtz as a PR maven who promotes Crisp as a stateside entertainer; Denis O'Hare as the editor of a gay periodical who hires Crisp as film reviewer, becomes somewhat alienated from him when he appears indifferent to the passions of 80's AIDS activists, and then returns to the fold as a compassionate friend of the dying octogenarian; Jonathan Tucker (in a fine performance) as a shy, insecure painter of gay-themed canvases who is befriended by Crisp; and finally Cynthia Nixon as performance artist and Woman-About-Bohemia Penny Arcade who, intrigued by Crisp's persona, offers him a spot in her traveling cabaret act. Nixon is a persuasive and gifted performer but is given no chance by the script to embody the down-to-earth and streetwise Arcade. Crisp spent the last 20 years of his life in a one-room flat in an old tenement building in Manhattan's East Village. He famously said that he never cleaned because \"after a few years the dust doesn't get any worse,\" or something like that. But looking at the depiction of that flat in this film you'd never get the flavor of that dustiness. He frequented a local coffee shop on a busy avenue and would be seen pretty much each day of the week sipping tea and watching the world go by. In this film we get a diner that looks like something on 12th Avenue by the Hudson River. Most of the \"streets of New York\" scenes have a sterile, unreal look with no sense of the period.
The soul of this film is the great John Hurt in the title role. After nearly 35 years he can still grasp the essence of this peculiar post-Edwardian Englishman and put it across to third millennarians. His every line, every gesture is exquisite. In the later scenes he even modulates his vocal projection to suit that of a person whose life is winding down toward death. Crisp wrote shortly before he left this realm that when one grows very, very old one's skin takes on the character of a smelly overcoat that cannot be removed and one longs for death. One senses that feeling in Hurt's performance. So, for him and him alone this film is worth a look.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIn this follow up to The Naked Civil Servant we see the final years of Quentin Crisp's life in New York. John Hurt is again Crisp (come on who else could play the part?) and its a role he inhabits to the point of disappearing. For me Hurt is Crisp and I've always found it very hard to take the man himself because Hurt was more him than he was himself. Its masterful performance. His equal is Denis O'Hare as Phillip Steele, Crisp's long time friend and confidant.
Unfortunately outside of the performances the film has little to recommend it. To be certain the film gets the details right. Filmed in and around New York the film the film looks and feels like New York and its environs, but dramatically its kind of inert. Its Crisp talking to people being witty,trying to come to terms with the world as it is (he ended up regretting some poorly chosen words concerning AIDS) and dealing with the infirmities that old aged thrust upon him. Quentin the man is always interesting, but his life as portrayed is really not.
I am disappointed by the film. I've always admired the man and his unique point of view. I just wish he was better served by this film about his life.
\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 last night at the Tribeca Film Fest and holy god was it bad.. From the script to the editing to the acting to the cinematography-- none of it worked. Not to mention the set design/costumes were so distractingly wrong for the time period (it spans the years from the late 70s up until 2006 or so). Even John Hurt, who's usually an amazing actor, was so over-the- top ridiculous. Granted, Quinten Crisp is an over-the-top guy to begin with, but Hurt was given nothing to work with here. I don't know much else to say except the audience I saw it with absolutely loved it.. so maybe it's just me. But audiences love anything at film festivals when they're sitting next to the director and all the actors. It's not a very accurate test of how good the movie is or how well it will play. Personally, I thought this movie was terrible. On the other hand, it was so terrible that it was hilarious. Get drunk and give it a shot when it's on HBO in 2 years, if it ever makes it that far.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis must be the most boring film I ever saw. The only positive I can say about it is that thankfully I didn't pay to see it. We were given a free showing in school and everyone in the audience just sat there embarrassed wondering when the fun would start. This piece of junk is a badly filmed, way too long film. The actual idea on why making the movie took about 10 seconds to present. The only ones who can be interested in this film are those who lost their jobs and want to know why. They might find some of the interviews interesting. A different edit might have made an interesting documentary of this, but I doubt it, the interviews shown were not engaging in any way. As it is, it is just a tragedy, both to behold and to be a part of. AVOID THIS FILM AT ANY COST!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nCan you people please stop believing everything this man says. Get
your facts straight before you start praising this liar. He's not even
from Flint. He just says that to keep his \"blue collar\" look. He's
from a rich suburb next to Flint. I mean he went to a private school.
His parents paid for him to go to school. Wow, that sure does seem
like they suffered a lot from Flint going to the dumps. He was also born in Canada. Oh wait, that makes him a Canadian citizen. I wish he would just move there. Instead he lives here in his 1 million dollar New York apartment. Thats working class right there. I sure can't wait for his DVD set to come out. I want to here him talking about how big corporations are bad. Where will I get those dvds? Oh yeah, at Target and Wal-Mart. The two biggest corporations in America, which were also the only two stores allowed to sell them.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nLeni Riefenstahl would be embarrassed by the disgusting propaganda Moore tries to call \"humor\". That this movie, and Moore's other prevarications, actually attract admirers proves that, alas, it's possible to fool some of the people all of the time.
Let's see if we can bait foreigners. Let's see if we can extol obsolete factories. Let's see if we can add to the sum of hatred in the world. Let's see if we can pretend we're funny. Let's see if we can out-isolationist Charles Lindbergh. The only thing Moore lacks in comparison to Lindbergh is a medal from Göring.
Admittedly, in this film, Moore had a bit of self-deprecation to his schtick. In this film, Moore mocks Roger Smith, CEO of General Motors, as an aloof, uncaring elitist. Moore could do that in 1989, but now that Moore has surrendered himself to aloof, uncaring elitism, this characterization of Roger Smith has an ironic twinge. Who really wouldn't rather be Roger's buddy than Michael Moore's?
\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\nDuring university, our Philosophy professor, Mr.R, played us \"Roger & Me\" in its entirety. This was at a time when the obese misfit was still pretty much unknown; a charlatan-in-the-making, a soon-to-be-household-name who was still busy honing his fact-bending skills and still learning how to manipulate the easily impressed, the pathologically paranoid, the mentally ill, the sexually frustrated, the illiterate, the semi-literate, the clueless, and the laughably gullible among ye.
As we finished viewing it, I thought: \"Yeah, it was somewhat entertaining - in a totally daft Bugs Bunny kind of way - but what an ultra-biased, anti-Capitalist propaganda turkey that has no objectivity whatsoever this is; its sole purpose being to take cheap shots at people and ideas which the film's creator has pet-peeves for. This isn't a documentary by any stretch of the imagination.\" However, our beloved Marxist professor was absolutely thrilled with R&M, and we ended up not only NOT criticizing any aspects of it, but Mr.R actually spent the remainder of class praising its \"qualities\". Just so we understand each other, the words \"propaganda\", \"viewer manipulation\", \"left-wing Extremist\", or \"selective fact presentation\" never exited his perpetually smiling mouth... And just to remind you: this was supposed to be a philosophy class, not INDOCTRINATE YOUR STUDENTS WITH YOUR OWN POLITICAL B.S. course.
Anyway, now I get to the really interesting aspect: this professor, Mr.R, is now a highly successful screenwriter in Hollywood. He has written several left-wing scripts with A-grade stars in them.
The moral of the story: those are the kind of people for whom all doors are open in Hollywood.
Michael Moore is a talentless filmmaker (which he proved beyond a smidgen of a doubt with \"Canadian Bacon\"), but being a Marxist liberal opens doors to just about anyone. Tinseltown is teeming with rabid pro-Chavez extremists, hence why political brainwashing through simplistic portrayals of reality has been part-and-parcel of the Hollywood experience for many decades now.
Embrace this demagogue and you've betrayed your own brain forever.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI was forced to watch this film for my World Reigonal Geography class. This film is what is wrong with America today, instead of figuring out the best way out of hard times or situations we would rather complain about how it is someone else's fault. This film goes through the downfall of Flint, Michigan and blames it 100% on General Motors. In the process of doing so Moore goes to great lengths to make the executives of General Motors out to be villains just because they are doing their job in a capitalist society. Moore films several evictions throughout the film and does not ever even ask once if the person is being evicted because of a GM layoff. Additionally, he never interviews the landlords of the tenants filmed. Moore goes to great lengths to twist historical events to fit his political agenda in this film of pure propaganda.
\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 this film has such a low IMDb rating is not surprising. In our post-Enron era, do we really need any more reminders of America's obsession with the greed creed? The topic has become so politically charged that a lot of viewers not only are not going to be entertained by movies of this sort, but will respond with barely concealed rage. It was all I could do to sit quietly through this cinematic memo of corporate corruption without extracting the DVD and smashing it into a thousand pieces.
What's really irksome with these kinds of films, including \"Purpose\", is their pretense that behind the glitter, there's some meaningful message that makes the film worthwhile. In \"Purpose\", I found no such meaningful message. What I did find was a story that idolized the materialistic trappings of capitalistic power and wealth. The two main characters, nauseating in their glibness, do very little actual work. Instead, they party, they play golf, they strut their coolness, they sound \"hip\" with dialogue straight out of MTV-culture-speak: \"rock my world\", and \"Now get back to partying; that's an order\". John is smug, self-important, shallow, and smirks a lot. Robert, who wears funky little glasses, is even worse.
The film includes two youthful garage geeks, who look and sound like they're right out of the film \"Antitrust\" (2001). Stereotypes are played for all they're worth, and in this film also include chic-looking computer equipment, and Barbie doll chicks on hand for those occasions when our can-do future billionaires need some relaxation after all that heavy-duty partying. And with the time-bound images and dialogue that such a story necessitates, can you imagine how dated this film will be in fifteen years?
About the best I can do for this waste of cinematic celluloid is to say that it does have some nice aerial views of San Francisco. The film would have been a lot more enjoyable, a lot more entertaining, if they had ditched those odious characters and that repulsive story, and simply flown us viewers around in that little plane for the film's duration.
\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\nComputer savvy John Light (as John Elias) goes from Stanford drop-out to successful young Dotcom-era tycoon. But, Mr. Light's sneering success could be short-lived, with partners like ambitious Jeffrey Donovan (as Robert Jennings). Mr. Donovan used to bed down with Light's girlfriend, Megan Dodds (as Lisa Forrester). Donovan wants Light to know that binge drinking and casual sex don't have to end in college. After reading a naughty Internet sex session, Ms. Dodds shines Light on. He may lose is \"Digital Dreams\" Internet empire, too! Veterans unsuccessfully trying to lending dramatic gravitas include red lollipop-sucking Mia Farrow (as Anna Simmons) and quick-drawing, computer-hating Hal Holbrook (as Tom Walker). Ms. Farrow looks sweet with her lollipops.
*** Purpose (2/21/02) Alan Lazar ~ John Light, Jeffrey Donovan, Mia Farrow
\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\nHam-handed homage to honest hacking. Felt good in a soft-core way about equivalent to its mild pornography, until its vapid lack of technical and economic reality, emotional and moral sophistication became apparent.
Basically a muddled '90s remake of '85's \"Real Genius\", with fewer and stupider geniuses, and a cynical bad ending.
Perhaps this movie would appeal to someone delighted by the thesis that becoming a billionaire is so easy it's almost accidental. Or perhaps to technical types who like seeing themselves depicted as cool and sexy. Speculating about the reasons someone might like this movie is certainly more interesting than the movie itself. The movies closing credits song is more interesting than the movie itself.
\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 tells the true story of escaped black slaves who found their own mountain-top commune as free men in 17th-century Brazil. The story is interesting and edifying. However, this film -- as a film -- is terrible.
The soundtrack is not period music or tribal music. It is Afro-Brazilian pop music from the early 1980s. Battle scenes are fought to the sounds of cheesy pop rhythms best left to the disco or bad cops dramas. Admittedly, the lyrics are folk-ish tales of the slaves' heroism. The special effects are absurd. Rather than invoke the mysticism of African religion and atavistic beliefs, they merely make the film look cheap. They are completely unbelievable, and I don't mean merely in a sense of verisimilitude.
Life within the commune of Palmares could not have been the way it is portrayed in the film. For this society, as shown in the film, is one-part kibbutz, one-part Afro-pop festival. Moreover, it is almost embarrassing to watch the director play upon the clichés of blacks as talented singers and dancers who simply want to be happy. He portrays daily life as a series of dance parties in which the freed slaves paint themselves bright colors and whirl around to the strains of '80s pop music. On the other hand, they have an abundance of beautiful food, but the viewer hardly sees any work being done. The king inveighs against private property in a hackneyed and clichéd way. When a man complains that people are taking the vegetables that he has grown over many months, the king says, \"What comes from the earth belongs to everyone, as the earth belongs to no one. If they need food, they have a right to take yours.\"
I am glad that I learned about this episode in history, but I am relieved that a film with such low production values and that trades upon such worn stereotypes would likely not be made today.
\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\nDreadful, stupidly inane film dealing with corruption at the Louisiana Purchase Lumber Company.
Everyone in the state of Louisiana seems to be corrupt and inept. A member of the college's English Department can only sign his name with an X.
When it appears that a straight laced Senator (Victor Moore) is coming to the state to investigate, everyone there tries to blame the innocent but foolish Bob Hope character.
Is it any wonder that Vera Zorina did not get the part of Maria in 1943's \"For Whom the Bell Tolls?\"
Naturally, the corrupt officials along with Hope try to show pictures of Zorina with Moore so as to ruin him politically. Moore marries the head of the restaurant who he had insulted when he asked for a ham sandwich. He thought the reason that she was upset was because it was a kosher restaurant. This is the extent of humor is this absolute mess of a film.
When Hope tries to defend himself in Congress, he does a take-off of James Stewart in \"Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.\" By then the film is too far gone for any good response.
The music and lyrics are both absolutely terrible. That song praising Louisiana, sung in various ways, is absolutely terrible. Irving Berlin had something to do with the music of this utterly terrible 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\nMy wife and I couldn't even finish the film. Truly, it was rather painful.
First, the historical accuracy is compromised not so much by the events themselves as the ridiculous one-dimensionality of the characters. For instance, Augustus takes the \"burden\" of power only with great reluctance. Indeed, he is portrayed as if he's some sort of great humanist and believer in democracy.
Second, the camp! My lord, the dialog is horrifically bad. I recall the soap opera my mother watched when I was a child having better dialog than this. The constant exposition and pontificating grates upon the ears like fingernails on chalkboard. Ugh. (Okay, I exaggerate a bit, but the dialog truly is bad.) The HBO series Rome is superior for no other reason than that its characters were at least believable, regardless of their historicity.
Rome was also wise enough to know they couldn't stage epic battle scenes. The creators of this film did not. When Caesar attacks Munda, the battle scene is practically farcical.
I will grant that the costumes are perfectly good. The sets are fine, though their CGI backdrops can be a bit jarring at times. The sound is bad, thoughboth in terms of the music, the foley work, and the dubbing of so many of the side characters.
Anyway, it's completely not worth renting. As a history major, I was hoping for an alternative approach to Augustus than HBO's Rome, which, I feel, failed to capture his overall \"feel\" quite as well as they did Caesar or Antony. Instead, I should have just stuck to my reading.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"