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\nVisitors is a hard, hard movie to enjoy. It's so slow and leaden in it's pacing that at times I was drifting off during the film. This was about 11AM on a hot, sunny day, I might add, not midnight on a cold winter evening, so you get an idea of just how slow this movie is.
Strange thing is, it's not long. At 100 minutes it's only ten minutes longer than the average straight to video, and it's only fifteen minutes longer than the superior Darkwolf that I'd quite happily watched the day before. It just drags an awful lot, enough for you to lose interest.
When it's not mistaking S-L-O-O-W development for atmosphere, Visitors is good enough at action to almost make it excusable how slowly things happen. While the flashbacks are both cheap and annoying as a way to round out Radha Mitchell's boats-woman, the hauntings/aliens/whatever are actually quite creepy and effective, especially when her suicidal mother turns up and starts groaning in the night. Full marks for not splurging make-up all over the shop too. The single person boat is a creepy place, and at times the movie uses the full power of the location and the deserted sea to scare the hell out of you.
Still though, I find it hard to recommend Visitors. I came out of it not only feeling like I'd just watched a 4 hour film, not a 100 minute one, but also feeling like I'd been cheated somehow, as while offering many explanations as to the hauntings (Mind games? Real ghosts? Space aliens?) Visitors doesn't pick one for definite. All that watching Radha Mitchell talk to her cat and Dominic Purcell smoulder for no obvious reason about some unexplained horrific event in the past, for nothing?. Say what you like about Shyamalan, but at least he tells you what happened, however crazy/stupid you might think it. If you don't watch a lot of these movies, your fresh perspective will probably improve matters somewhat, but I found this slow, boring and highly derivative. If you want to scare yourself silly there are much better places to do it, if you want a clever thriller there are many that are smarter.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\ni didn't like this movie.to me,it didn't make much sense.it was hard to figure out what was really happening.i also didn't think it was scary.i did however,think it was silly,even absurd,but not in a good way.Radha Mitchell is the main character in the movie,which cam out in 2003.She was also,coincidently in 2006's \"Silent Hill\"which i hated.it too i found confusing and pointless.\"Visitors\" isn't as bad,but i think it is certainly below average.there is just nothing special about it.the script is just too muddled and there are things in the movie which don't need to be there,in my opinion.I think Radha Mitchell is probably a good actress,if she has more to work with.my vote for \"Visitors\" is 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\nIdea is great, spoiled big time by the judges.
Why make fun of people? if what the inventors say is true, and as most of them say, they spent their life saving on the invention, the minimum is to reject the idea without making fun out of the people.
also, it shows when they want to accept an idea by the crier that they added to the judges.
The only one i respect out of the judges is the one who always sits on the right of the table, he is a respectable person
of course the English snob who claims to be a business man, wearing a suite doesn't make you one pal
last but not least, the big guy who sits between the English and the crier. wake up man, the is no job called and inventor for you to call yourself one. an inventor is an attribute not a job man.
i think they wanted to add someone like Simon from the American idol, they thought it worked there, it can work here as well. the context is different and the idea is totally different.
it is a good idea and they could have done a good show out of it if they just change the judges and remove their act and attitude.
just stop making fun of the people.
\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 concept is excellent. The execution typifies the overall quality of the ABC network.
Apart from Peter Jones it appears that the rest of the panel consist of marketing execs. rather than real entrepreneurs.
When I realised that Peter Jones was getting together with Simon Cowell my initial thoughts were wow he's gonna take America by the balls. But it appears that ABC have come along and destroyed the concept.
I was an absolute addict of the Dragons Den in the U.K. and was interested to see that Peter Jones had manipulated the concept that originated in Japan and developed his own show for the States. The result is neither inspiring nor informative.
If you lack drama in your life you have a choice now Jerry Springer or the American Inventor To sum it up: a struggling musician selling out to a media mogul.
Idea: get me! And I'll produce a show worthy of the 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\nI can't believe I'm wasting my time with a comment - but this movie is weirdly bad. If 20 different directors were brought in to film different parts of the movie without having any idea of the storyline being filmed by the other directors, this is pretty much the result I would expect.
I also think some of the scenes were spliced out of order - things don't always seem to progress in order. The movie acts like we're already supposed to know about half the characters.
And Steve Guttenberg tries to do manic, a-la-Robin Williams comedy in this movie. Ewww. And the whole premise of putting an ex-con in charge of a bunch of kids just doesn't seem realistic in this day and age.
\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 a waste of the celluloid it was printed on. It is a disastrous scene, much like a particularly gruesome train wreck.
Watching this is like trying to explain the meaning of life. The main plot point is that the character played by Steve Guttenberg is a party animal who's not supposed to gamble, because that would violate his parole. The kids he befriends refuse to play with him as coach for a while, because he gambles. BUT... a few minutes later, after they've won the championship, a large sum of money saves their shelter. And where did they get the money? GAMBLING!!! Add this to the creepy scenes at the funeral home (why exactly are there BEDROOMS in a funeral home?) and the useless peripheral character
\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 would be one of the few people who owns a copy of this classic. But i dont only own 1, i actually own 2. Its THAT good.
Well, when i say good, i mean bad. But i will try to do a thorough review. I even watched 'born a ninja' which one of the other reviewers here mentioned, to compare it to this. And born a ninja is actually worse, but not quite as funny.
And is this ever funny. EVERYTHING about this movie is poor. EVERYTHING. The plot is absolutely stuffed (note the 'you'll need to keep me alive if you want to know where to find your wife'). EVERY action sequence is stuffed too. Our hero danton is more than a hero; he can stab people with twigs, take 3 bullets in the heart at 50 cm away without even bleeding, and tie a rope up to a tree which, when an enemy steps on it, ties a knot around the enemies leg, picks him up, and throws him 50 metres into a bunch of spikes.
The acting is so bad it is impossible to comment on it, but it should have you rolling, especially dantons 'jump out of the ground and growl at the bad guy'. Oh yes, and the bad guys: somehow, it seems they resurrect themselves 5 times each in the movie. Perhaps it's just that there weren't enough actors, but in a movie of this calibre? i doubt that.
The 'plot' is about how danton was a soldier in the vietnam war, and now his colonel is hunting real people for training for his mercenaries. The colonel just happens to pick up danton, then danton fights back. This is just the excuse for a rambo clone, with most of the movie being danton slaughtering soldiers. And i really cant explain the plot any more cos there is nothing else to the movie. It still rocks though.
What else could be wrong you ask? Dont get me started. Hand grenades which actually go off at the actors' feet because the explosion is the size of a match.Scenes where there are 5 people chasing danton, then the camera cuts away and back and there are 7. The way that every time danton loads the grenade launcher he is against the same background even though he is in completely diffrent locations. And the worst part is when danton pushes the plastic boulders onto the enemies, and one enemy is completely untouched by the boulders, so he doesn't know what to do so he half heartedly dies without even being touched. It's ridiculous!!!
But funny. Very, VERY funny. This is one of the few movies i can thoroughly recommend to everybody, cos if you dont find it funny, you are 1 in a million. And for the rest of us it's magic.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI remember seeing this film when i was about 10, one of my friends had it. At the time it was just a film as i was about 10ish and just thought of it as another action film.
When i look back now as a complete film buff this is quite a shockingly bad film. Whoever produced this film i am sure had a short Hollywood career. Although the lead actor seems to have done a few films according to IMDb, albeit i haven't seen any and don't really remember him too much.
Anyway, just to say that this film is really bad, in all ways it could be. I would love to see it again though :oD
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWas unlucky enough to see this while travelling by coach across Africa. It was far and away the worst film I have ever come across. Deserves to be the #1 all-time worst ;-) No acting, no plot, very little speaking. Lots of ape-like grunting though, in this hopelessly unlikely film. An unwitting self-satire - you'll either laugh at it or cry.
\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've enjoyed watching Lost from the beginning and endured a few bad actors in poorly written episodes because when Lost is good, it's really good! But this episode that features Mr Echos demise had so many drawn out scenes with lingering closeups of bad acting that I found myself tapping the fast forward button. This episode stood out so far as by far the worst. In fact, the variation in quality of Lost has been so inconsistent, I find myself often wondering how many writers they are using.
I will continue to watch but hope things get better and hope I stop secretly wishing for the sub-par actors in the series to die off.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI have been watching \"LOST\" with my family since the first episode, it used to be great. The last season it was very disappointing, it seems as if they (writers)don't know what to do with the show, so, they keep trying to make it up for it by stretching one story line in a whole episode. The present season, which by the way I decided to keep watching only to see Rodrigo Santoro, and also with a tiny little hope that things would get better; has been one disappointment after another; my husband and son even stopped watching. First of all, he (Santoro) only appears for 30 seconds in each episode. But the real problem is with the story line, THERE IS NOTHING REALLY HAPPENING, each episode could be shown in 15 minutes. We watch each episode waiting for something that never happens; I am not asking that every secret be revealed at once, but how about some variation in the story lines? In the first and second seasons, we had different story lines, we saw the characters history, a little action, a little romance, now is like one big event that takes the whole episode to unveil. It is almost tiring to watch it, when it finishes you have a feeling that you lost your time. Now, it is important to note that the actors still great.I can't believe they killed Mr. Eko(Adelawale...)he was great, Jack(Mathew Fox)is still incredible, the perfect hero, so kind, magnanimous, brave. Sawyer(Josh Holloway), the \"bad boy\" is kind of mellowing because of Kate(Evangeline Lylli), but that's cool. I miss Sayid(Naveen Andrews), Sun and Jin(Yoon-jin Kim & Daniel Dae Kim), they are all an important part of the plot (or should be), but we barely see them. I hope Paulo(Rodrigo Santoro) will have a big part on the show; if not, why did you make such a big deal of him joining the show (Access Hollywood, etc)? Sorry if I've been rumbling for too long, but I feel cheated by this show. When I started watching it was great, I got used to it, and now it is very disappointing to see the way it is going. I'll be here, hoping for the improvements!!! Katia
\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 don't really know why but I watched this with quite a sense of anticipation. Unfortunatly it was misplaced. Firstly this is not horror, it doesn't scare and (unless it was even worse than I gave it credit for - which is possible) doesn't try to. It's a trashy comedy and the fact I smiled once means I gave it a 2 not a 1. This film ripps of Gremlins in a truly special way, I can't claim to have ever seen a film which devotes its self more. Very, Very bad - avoid.
\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\nLame is really the best way to describe this movie. It has a real poor script, uninteresting dialog and characters and it's lacking in basically everything else as well.
There are too many characters and problem is that you don't care about any of them. What the movie is lacking is one good and clear main character. Instead now the movie has a bit of everything, it has a bit of an hero, it has a bit of a love interest and it has a bit of villain. I wish it only had a bit less Ghoulies though, fore they are just mostly very annoying in this movie.
Ghoulies are supposed to be devilish creatures, who murder for pleasure. In this movie however all they want to do is drink beer and watch naked college girls. Besides, someone had the 'brilliant' idea to let the Ghoulies be able to talk this time. This works out really poorly and annoying. The Ghoulie-puppets had been definitely upgraded for this movie and they are more detailed looking and are able to do more, however at the same time they are way more fake looking than the ones from the previous Ghoulies movies.
It's obvious that the aim for this movie was more comedy than horror this time. The movie is like a lame '80's high-school comedy (even though this movie got released in 1991). It's humor is really the worst and most lame thing about the entire movie. It's so incredibly annoying and simply not funny at all.
The story is not going anywhere with its story and the movie is just basically one big mess, that never seems to end. The Ghoulies plot line seems basically to have nothing to do at all with the other plot lines of the movie, involving the human characters. The movie is not at all about the Ghoulies terrorizing a college, with the humans trying to hunt them down and stop their rampage. No big surprise that this is Brent Olson's only written movie as of yet. He simply has no talent for it and I think that he has discovered this as well and has gone back to college himself instead.
Even when compared to the previous Ghoulies movies; this movie is just simply terrible!
2/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis rubber monsters failed trying to be cool,scary or even comedians,looks like a wannabe movie of Porkys or Animals House but the sequences and history is not always clear also can't catch your attention all the movie looks cheap and with an amazing bad taste,the only thing that's makes you laugh is the awful rubber monsters who must have a cost of one dollar each,because the work or them never looks realistic,the movements and expressions make looks the Muppets as a Pixar 3D movie when you compare with this. Hope Marie Carlton is the only thing that makes supportable this awful movie,and when she dies in the movie,this turns even worst than before.A movie who only must be seen in fast forward.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWould someone explain to me when the Ghoulies learned to speak? This was a horrible film, I loved \"Ghoulies\" and \"Ghoulies 2\", but what's this? Unless you want to kill yourself, please stay away from \"Ghoulies 3\". On a scale of 1 to 10, \"Ghoulies 3\" gets a 1!!
\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've had never been disappointed by a Kurosawa film, but this is probably the first. \"Doppelganger\" is the worst I've seen from this director.
Tartan Films is advertising this as \"The most frightening film yet from Kiyoshi Kurosawa\". What? The most frightening film from Kurosawa is definitely \"Kairo\". And if you think this is horror, your in for a surprise. This can't be classified as horror, or thriller. This is a drama, and a pretty bad one at that. A lot of scenes that were meant to be shocking have turned out being funny, and a lot of the plot is really confusing. And since it's Kurosawa, the pacing is slow. But it's so slow that you'll lose interest forty minutes in, and feel like doing something else. The thing that annoyed me the most was the use of CGI. Now CGI, if used well, can be really cool. But if executed with little care... It can be a disaster. I think that describes one scene here that has a very minimal use of CGI.
The only positive thing I can give \"Dopppelganger\" is that it has really good acting. Koji Yakusho gives a great performance, along with the rest of the cast. But that's pretty much it...
Please, do yourself a favor, and go watch \"Kairo\" or \"Ko-Rei\" if you want to be scared. This is a bad, bad attempt at a smart drama. Which it is intelligent, but... Well, there's a lot missing.
3/10 for the good acting.
\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\nVoor een verloren soldaat , for a lost soldier, is a sad example of how not to translate to film a touching, complex psychological study, of that most magical time in a man's life, when he is still a child, but starting to become a man. The novel records the real life experiences of Rudy van Dantzig, as told thru the boy Jeroen, during the waning days of WWII at age 11 as he deals with his incipient sexuality, and his deep fears of abandonment as he has been sent to the province of Friesland, north of Holland by his parents because of the lack of food in Amsterdam and has not heard from them in many months as the postal service has broken down.. The arrival of the liberating soldiers in the film, is presented in a painfully corny way, with the soldiers providing entertainment vaudeville style. Then one soldier, Walt, romances Jeroen and the pair is presented as two frolicking males.who consummate their love in a sexual experience. This taken in stride by the 11 yo Jeroen. The reality was somewhat different: Jeroen describes his encounters with Walt, 6 in all, in detail but in oblique language. But there is no misunderstanding their nature. Walt is aroused to an intense passion by Jeroen, during which he handles him roughly, so that in their final meeting, Jeroen is bruised and suffering a painful wound on the shoulder where Walt has bitten him. During this encounter, Walt rapes Jeroen, twice. Jeroen could have easily avoided Walt after their 2nd encounter, when Walt first assaults him as Walt is clearly anxious to keep his abuse of the boy from the other soldiers. Why Jeroen keeps seeking Walt out is a mystery of the human heart and not explainable, by me anyway. What the film leaves out is the aftermath: the nightmares, the dejection, the frantic search throughout Amsterdam on the chance of finding Walt, for Jeroen loved Walt, and nothing could shake 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\nRead the book, forget the 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\nTo truly appreciate this film you had to be there (acting?) or have been a crew member.
Yes, I am \"Selena\", and at the ripe old age of 42, have serious doubts about what we were doing/did.
It all started out to be like a \"John Waters\" type thing, friends acting badly in bad films. Somewhere along the line,the fun discontinued, people who were supposed to be friends didn't speak anymore, and BAD became worse.
I regret the bad image I might have projected.(Try to fit in size one gold spandex pants,)
Other than that, the film SUCKS so badly, I would not even make my mama watch it.
To my director, cast and crew I say,
\"Why can't we just all get along??
It's been OVER TWENTY YEARS, PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
\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\nThree young movie theater employees are given the task of re-opening a long closed old-time theater at which many years before a shocking series of grisly murders took place. It seems many more murders have occurred since then but all of this remains unknown to these three young upstart employees hoping to finally make it big on their own. As they approach the grand re-opening night, things keep getting stranger and more unsettling with items suddenly starting to move around by themselves without any seen aid and a terrifying old man seemingly haunting the premises.
Oh, this is truly horrible. In fact, if it wasn't for Mary Woronov's secretary character being such a fiercely independent outspoken empowered young woman who steals practically every scene in which she appears and the incredibly hot chick who played the unbelievably sleazy yet totally sexy Selina, this would be a total loss. The only other good thing I have to say about this film is some of the movie theater murders are done in truly inventive, albeit not overly gory (a preference for me but not necessarily for others), fashion. The rest just wallows in constant sleaze (so extreme the rare few may actually find humor in it) and runs through the predictable slasher kills annoying characters off one after the other routine.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI agree that Mary Woronov (Murdoch's secretary) is one of the only good things about this film. She is my favorite actress ever, every role she plays is always done so well. Her character is sly, sarcastic, clever, light hearted, funny and cunning. She really pulls this role off well and you get a good feel for what her character is all about.
The rest of the movie is pretty bad. The music is the most entertaining thing left. One of the characters has this really strange circular radio that she brings with her while she wears her tight zebra striped tank top.
One thing that was a little intriguing about the story was the idea that someone hires these three college-aged kids to spruce up an old abandoned theater. He gives them the keys and says - go at it. That would be really fun and I wish someone would give me that chance! Imagine going into an old abandoned theater with two other people and you get to decide how to decorate it, and fix it up. You have total control over the whole building. That would be so fun! Unfortunately, the characters do not think of this as an exciting adventure, they think of it as a big chore. They walk around with long faces and fight with each other the whole time. It's kind of a bummer. But it's fun to think about the possibilities that these people aren't even excited about.
The movie does a pretty good job at making you feel helpless or a little spooked out by the theater itself. However, the acting (besides Woronov.. and possibly Murdoch, the boss - just because makes a really good money hungry fake smiley business man who never has any luck) is really horrible and you just end up feeling unsatisfied. Plus, the random slapstick is a little tacky and kind of ruins the reality that the film tries to create.
Watch this if you dig Mary Woronov, funky 80's Casio keyboard style electronic beats and if you think having a giant spooky abandoned theater to yourself is at all intriguing.
\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 most hardcore bad film buff will be surprised by the overall ineptness of this grade-z \"film\". Mary Woronov, a clever actress best known for her roles as Mary Bland in Eating Raoul and Miss Togar in Rock 'N' Roll High School, is by far the best thing about this tripe. This film is almost too bad even for MST3K - honestly!
\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 so dumb and slow was it ever slow. The only good part of the film was the girl in the tight shinny gold pants. There was no gore whatsover and what is a 80's horror movie without a little gore. Plus the killer wasn't at all scary nor were the murders. But if you like to watch the world's worst horror movie then this is for you. Don't waste your time like I did watching this.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA movie theater with a bad history of past gruesome murders reopens. Of course, the bloody killings start anew. Written, directed, shot, scored and edited with an appalling lack of flair and finesse by the singularly talentless Rick Sloane (who later disgraced celluloid some more with the absolutely atrocious \"Hobgoblins\"), this horrendously ham-fisted attempt at a slasher spoof strikes out something rotten in every conceivable way: the excruciatingly lethargic pacing, the painfully static, grainy cinematography (there's a stinky surplus of drab master shots featured throughout), an annoyingly droning and redundant hum'n'shiver synthesizer score, the flat (non)direction, a tediously talky and uneventful script, the groan-inducing sophomoric sense of lowbrow humor, the bloodless murder set pieces, a pitifully unscary killer (he's just some wrinkled-up old guy in pasty make-up), the uniformly obnoxious and unappealing characters, a dissatisfyingly abrupt ending, and lifeless performances from a noticeably uninspired cast all ensure that watching this schlocky swill is about as fun and rewarding as eating rancid raw eels drenched with sour vinegar. This crud totally lacks the necessary crude charm and sleazy vigor required to be enjoyable junk. Instead it's just a bland, plodding and meandering stiff that never catches fire or becomes even remotely amusing in a so-shoddy-it's-smoking sort of way. Only a smidgen of nudity and the delightful presence of the always dependable Mary Woronov as a snarky, sardonic secretary provide a little relief from the overall crumminess of this lousy loser.
\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 Most Fertile Man in Ireland revolves around Eamon Manley who is 24 year old and still happens to be a virgin. He lives with his mother in Belfast. He is also a very shy guy towards women. Everything has changes for Eamon when he is seduced by a woman(as far as I can remember a neighbour). It is not because he looses his virginity but he discovers that he has a super power. Despite having protection, this neighbour becomes pregnant. He is told by the doctor that he has very high sperm count. His mother brilliantly comes up with an idea which makes us see ginger headed babies all around in the end of the film. He starts helping out women in both side of Belfast to conceive babies. First voluntarily then with the help of his colleague runs a business out of it. The Most Fertile Man in Ireland has its funny moments but needed to come up with better jokes and with a better script. I couldn't help thinking that it gave me the impression of a TV sitcom rather than a movie. Kris Marshall is a different name on the silver screen but does not shine as star. It's more like the guy you saw in such and such movie. Like him being in Love Actually(I think he was very funny in that one)..Well, it was okay to watch but couldn't help dozing off from time to time. ** out of *****
\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\nHeaven, Mary and all the Saints above! A young man has got super sperm, it's miracle bejesus, call the Pope, all you ladies out their desperate to get preggers, line up out side his door and drop your marks and sparks finest! Risible retro ealing comedy type comedy, trying to bring you a bit of the auld Irish charm. Has an effect like placing two fingers down your own throat, voamitus maximus! One out of ten!
\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\nAmidst all the many problems that make this a dire piece of celluloid is the stupidest plot device in recent cinema history. Richard Gere determines who the Jackal's real target is through some form of revelation. He does not work anything out, it just comes to him. When in doubt \"He's going after the First Lady!\". This film blows chunks.
\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\nLaughably awful. One might think that all the big-name actors involved in this movie would at least make it believable, but they do not--this one is a stinker.
Characters either sprint around without having a good reason to know where they are going, or they stand around making constipated faces when they should be running for their lives.
Check your higher brain functions at the door if you intend to try watching this movie. Or, get a bunch of your most clever friends together and give this one the \"Mystery Science Theater 3000\" treatment. That's what I was doing through the second half of this turkey.
And PLEASE don't confuse this with the excellent movie \"The Day of the Jackal,\" a far-superior thriller from 30 years ago.
\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\nSpoilers!! Bruce Willis, the part-time Comic and funny guy plays a Hispanic assassin nicknamed after an African scavenger prairie dog? I guess all the good Hispanic nicknames like Sicatriz (Scar), Scorpion, Viper, Cobra, Snake, Tarantula, Latigo (whip), Navaja (blade), etc. were not available?? And why would some South American assassin be acquainted with a terrorist from the Irish Republican Army?? Last time I checked, the IRA is not looking to open any branch headquarters in South America. And why would some prison-tough, battle-weary Irish terrorist look like a middle-aged Richard Gere? I thought maybe this movie was going to be a spoof of \"The Crying Game\" when Gere's character was introduced as the person who was going to hunt down \"The Jackal.\" What bad casting! And why would the FBI be hiring depraved terrorists in order to track down assassins?? It seems like a terrorist goes for mass destruction, and an assassin usually hits one target in a non-spectacular manner. But Gere is the only person who has ever seen Willis alive, according to the FBI. I thought this movie was supposed to be a remake of the very great film \"Day of The Jackal\" but this movie is just a dumber version of \"Assassins\" with Stallone and Banderas. Both of these movies are really dumb, and part of the dumb-ness is the fact that as the audience we are forced to watch Bruce Willis go through his routines and we should say \"Wow! isn't he smart!\" THE PROFESSIONAL with Jean Reno was a much better movie about assassins. \"The Jackal\" is just a movie about two fat middle-aged millionaire actors who could get paid for standing around looking pretty and pretending to be smart! \"The Jackal\" is so poor, that I expected to see Sly Stallone, Dennis Rodman, Mickey Rourke, and Jean Clod Van Dumme making cameo appearances as \"other\" hitmen or FBI. Needless to say, \"The Jackal\" has eluded the FBI for twenty-five years, but as soon as Richard Gere gets on the job, it is only a few days before \"The Jackal\" is kaput! I guess the positive message of this movie is, \"Thanks to terrorists, our streets are safe from assassins.\" Overall, the \"Jackal\" has no redeeming qualities.
\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 may well be the worst remake Hollywood has ever produced, and that's saying something. I'll take it further than that and say this movie is so stunningly, deliriously bad that IT MUST BE SEEN. I don't know if I'm even capable of tackling all the things wrong with it--like the fact that the casting director appears to have pulled names out of a hat, or the mind-blower of Richard Gere's character being allowed to walk away scot-free at the end (I'm sure the people saying, \"It's just fiction, who cares\" would have no problem if it was a former Al-Qaeda operative who just wants to return to his home country)--so I'll just devote my review to the utter hilarity, which is mainly the scene where Bruce Willis is testing out his gun.
In the original version, you'll recall, the Jackal practices his kill on a pumpkin. The pumpkin explodes on impact, an effect known as \"understatement.\" In THIS version, Willis sets up a pumpkin target, but he doesn't use a sniper rifle--he uses a gigantic remote-controlled cannon which costs tens of thousands of dollars and can only be stored in the back of a huge conspicuous minivan (this man likes a challenge). He reveals the cannon by pulling away a tarp, at which point Jack Black, who is there to observe, jumps around and says, \"That ROCKS! This thing ROCKS!\" about 18 times (I guess Willis didn't have to disassemble it first, he just lifted it, tarp and all, out of the back of the van, despite it probably weighing several tons). The scene then turns into an Austin Powers movie as Willis misses the pumpkin and takes out a tree, then has Black run through the mud with his pants falling down, finally blowing off Black's entire arm. The pumpkin falls to the ground, unharmed.
If I can recommend this movie for ONE non-ironic reason, it's for the Diane Venora character as a tough Russian major who becomes romantically linked to Gere despite having a facial disfigurement--a bold move for a Hollywood feature. By mid- movie I was really liking this character, so it was a shame when she had to be killed. I would have liked to see a movie about her. Other than that, this pile of crap is only useful as an objective intelligence test. 3/10.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt is hard to screw up this story. GREAT book / GOOD Film version from Fred Zinneman, yet this film is AWFUL! First the casting was terrible. Richard Gere should of played the Jackal himself as Edward Fox was a similar type of cypher and they didn't need to mess with the original script by adding so much worthless (expensive) fluff. This film reminded me of so many Bruce Willis films, as you see huge expense with NOTHING cinematic to show for it. (It is his \"Conspiracy Theory\") It takes some real doing to make a film this bad from such a fine original script. EVERY person from Michael Caton Jones down should be banned from making films for 10 years; such is the insult this film is to real filmmakers. Were Hollywood to go on trial for having no idea what they were doing, this film would be Exhibit A. Shame on you ALL!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI was looking forward to seeing Bruce Willis in this, especially since I remember being mesmerised by the original when I was young.
This movie is a perfect example of how movie companies can take a very good story and dumb it down until it's just another formula ridden hype of the fabled American law enforcement system/army VS, (the Russians.... no sorry the cold war is over, make that WITH the Russians) VS the TERRORISTS, similar to probably 50 other movies.
Furthermore it treats its audience like a bunch of idiots. The choice of weapon is well, plain ridiculous, are we seriously expected to believe that the world's most feared and experienced hit man/terrorist would select that for an assasination?
The whole point of the original story was the tense dual of intellects between the ordinary detective who is given the responsibility and the professional who crafts a ruthless but elegant plan to reach his target and then get away. None of that survived. All we have is the tired old American CIA/FBI/army vs the evil terrorist plot, we've all seen 1000 times before.
But of course the movie company's MBA's realised that a new intellectual angle here would lose them revenue from the short attention span gang, so the answer is ......Bruce Willis, BIG explosions and a crippled plot. They assume the American audience wont be able to relate to a threat to a foreign statesperson (where is France on the map afterall) so it has be an American!
Another example of a movie defiled by the boardroom.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA ruthless assassin has been hired to eliminate someone at the very top of the U.S. government. Constantly changing his identity and location, he is known only as the Jackal. Everything about this hit man is a secret. Aware of the Jackal's presence but uncertain of his purpose, the FBI's Deputy Director faces the biggest challenge of his career. In order to track down this cold-blooded killer, he and a by-the-book Russian intelligence officer enlist the aid of an imprisoned Irish terrorist. These unlikely allies enter a global race against the clock to stop the mysterious mercenary before he can complete his assignment. If you are looking for a non-stop action movie like Die Hard, then The Jackal is not your movie. It´s a slow spy thriller with many cool gadgets and weapons. Richard Gere does a good job playing an impassioned terrorist who is helping the FBI for a deeper cause than just freedom. And Willis puts forth a good effort as the Jackal. OK film but nothing more.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nVery shortly: a bad film. If you are looking for pure action and no brain (or brain 'illusion') or you are under 15 years old and like Bruce Willis this is THE movie. Also, don't expect the scenario to be consistent or even believeable if you think a little, so don't if you just want to enjoy yourself.
\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 normally a fan of Bruce Willis, and despite him playing the cold-hearted professional killer, I thought him the most appealing character here. That said, his character makes such a mess of his professional activity, it's incredible he hasn't been caught before. The plot is thin to the point of being nonsensical. The end was no less annoying and insulting for the fact that it could have been predicted from about 20 minutes into the movie.
** spoilers follow ** In Hollywood morality, the good guys always win, with a few casualties along the way, and the bad guys die, or are at least heading for justice by the end. The breathtaking insult of the film is the way that our IRA terrorist, who has somehow become a cuddly, touchy-feely character, gets to walk off to a new life. As does his former terrorist playmate (who is now a loving wife and mother).
Who's the bigger villain? The former (and, so far as we can tell, unrepentant) terrorist, or the hired assassin? I don't see much to choose between them --- in real life, or in the film.
This is the poorest film I've seen this year.
\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 would ward off any temptation to view this movie, it is quite simply dull. The characters are predictable and mindless. The assassin is quite unenigmatic. There is no tension, fun, no style or even a glimmer of originality to be found in this train wreck. And the morass of Hollywood cliché's are stifling. Oh, and you have a movie that makes a hero of an IRA terrorist. Cute. And now I need to speak some more to fill up the ten lines. And a little bit more Is that enough? Not quite, how about now? No, well further confabulation should do the trick, but The Jackal is really not worth ten lines of exposition. The original was great though.
\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 lets say you are a producer, you have some money, and you somehow got Richard gear and Bruce Willis, so now all you need is a script...but , why bother? see, this movie is really terrible, the acting is pretty good, but the casting is awful gear and Willis did their best to play these characters they simply cant play. now, this movie has no plot, or rather, there's something that tries to pass off as a plot: there's a mean hit-man (Willis) who is cool dangerous and sophisticated (actually he's none of those things, but from some dialog between the other characters, you are supposed to get this impression), so this hit-man is on a mission to kill someone, now there's an ex-IRA prisoner who is kind and nice and very likable (gear) who the FBI release from prison so he will help them. so now the FBI is \"investigating\" to find this hit-man, the investigation consists of a series of unlikely information - like some random person lost his wallet and someone used his name to buy a car - which is always right on the money. since there's no real plot and the script is so crappy, you cant expect any real character development, or tension, so instead of creating them through the story, they simply add some disconnected dramatic music, which signals you that something very dramatic is going on , instead of actually creating something dramatic..
the bottom line is that this is a very bad movie, and a complete waste of time which somehow got an incredibly high score for its level, probably because of the cast - and this is exactly what the producers where counting on.
\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\"How many ppl know about this?\"...\"Lets keep it that way!\" I wonder at least some new dialogues can be made or not? The movie is a real poor copy of the original. Bruce Willis probably did this movie while he was half asleep. The way he looks at Richard Gere's face with his cold-blooded stare when they meet near the port...oh my god! scared the hell out of me. Why does he kill Major Koslova and her mates isn't still clear to me. Another thing that I could not understand was the poison solution that he put on the car (what in the world was it?).
The movie plot is haywire and climax is dull. Another funny thing was how the Russian was killed in the club. I fell off my chair laughing when I saw that scene. Also, what was that thing about the gay guy..what purpose was it serving. I think the movie is made too swift to be easily understood. You have to really think what the hell was on Director's mind. LOL.
And the best scene after all was Richard Gere trying to hold on to the pillar between 2 fast moving trains. must have made someone loose his head if not contact with the pillar.
\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 could not believe how terrible and boring this Hollywood remake was.It's so dreadful. It easily lands a place in my top 10 worst films of 1998.About the only thing it had going for it was Bruce Willis,who should stick to action films,as a completely emotionless killer who'd kill his own mother for the right price.But I'd rather listen to Robbie Coltraine talk American for a week than listen to Richard Gere's nauseating Irish accent again.But this film is also implausible,unconvincing,uneven,unexciting,unimpressive and lands Sidney Poiter in a rubbish role to make a possible career comeback.One for filmroll-footie purposes entirely.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"