empathielabs/imdb_v0 huggingface dataset:
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nBeing a history buff, I rented this movie because of the subject matter. The idea of the Ellis Island experience at the turn of the century focusing on one small group is intriguing. Unfortunately, the movie falls flat. Much of the story is simply boring; nothing much happens for long stretches. The director uses goofy imagery (offered up in the form of daydream sequences) in an apparent attempt to break up the glacial pacing, but instead, it clashes with the authentic look and feel of the movie. The characters are also poorly drawn. In the end, we don't really care as much about them as we should. It's a shame that this wasn't what it could have been. I would still like to see a good movie about the American immigrant experience, but this one isn't 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\n***POSSIBLE SPOILERS BELOW***
What a long and mostly uninteresting movie! Who were these characters? Why didn't I care about them? If I'm going to watch a movie for two hours, I'd like to care about somebody or something.
We know that Salvatore dreamed of the riches to be found in the new world. Beyond that, though, we learned little about most of his family's hopes, fears, etc., as they embarked on an adventure into the unknown.
And why was Lucy even in this movie? She said little; we knew little about her or what she was doing (was she forced to service men in exchange for being allowed to board the ship?) or what her plans were upon reaching New York. To those who might suggest that she was needed to underscore the point that a single woman, however cultured, could not get into this country alone, I say that that fact is not enough justification to give her so much screen time. That point could have been made in five minutes, with Lucy as a momentary character.
More questions: Why wasn't the twin brother at the boat to meet the family? We heard about the brother, and some closure on that point would have been helpful in giving the movie some cohesiveness. Also, how long was the journey from Italy to New York? Given the conditions on the ship, it makes a difference to the viewer if the voyage took five or 10 or 50 days. (Someone said something about seeing land a \"week\" at one point, but I think that was when they were already en route.) I needed these types of details to better appreciate what they were going through.
The only scene I really liked was when the boat, filled with passengers, left the dock.
If you choose to rent this movie, do so with remote in hand; you may want the Fast Forward button handy.
Finally, may I suggest that, with the right voice-over providing helpful information about the times and the circumstances for immigrants--particularly during the slow stretches of endless shots of the countryside, people walking, etc.--this movie might have made an interesting public TV documentary.
\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 best part in this movie is the first one, located in Sicily, I suppose. Crialese shows a good talent for photography and the movie start is delightfully surprising. The rest of the story is quite boring. Crialese uselessly insists on stereotypical situations and characters, trying to melt neorealistic suggestions and video-music technique, Fellinian surrealistic remembrances and a very annoying and completely off-topic soundtrack, leading the whole thing towards an end which gives you the sensation of an exaggeratedly long story cut abruptly short. Frankly, this is a real overrated movie and Crialese is a real overrated director.
\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 generic, surface-level biography you could hope for. Busey's impersonation of Holly is accurate -- but who wants to hear Gary Busey sing \"Maybe Baby\"? Typically, the members of the Hollies are used for comic relief and melodrama (Smith and Stroud, respectively) instead of as people or even characters. When Holly uses a string section, the old jewish-looking guys who come in tell him he's using the same techniques as Mozart. It's just this kind of cheeky statement that makes film biographies like this (and \"Amadeus\", about the aforementioned Mozart) so worthless. Some entertainment can be derived from Holly's excellent styles and songs done in a B-variation.
\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 always think it would be nice if you could somehow have a 'sneak preview' at some of the old movies that are re-released on DVD, before you purchase them. That way you could save yourself some time, money and a certain degree of aggro when you feel so utterly let down.
\"The Buddy Holly Story\" is such a movie.
I do not wish to go into the characterizations, or the holes in the plot, or the messing around with historical facts that this movie encompasses, for I had already come to terms with them twenty years ago, when I first began watching it.
I had recorded it on the old (Monaural) Beta machine back in the early 1980s, and liked it so much, that it became a regularly-played favourite. The best part, to my mind, was Gary Busey's performance as the young Buddy, and his near-perfect vocals and guitar playing.
I looked forward to the day when I could have it in ...STEREO..., and that is where the disappointment comes in.
This DVD version is (supposedly) re-mastered in both audio and video, according to the shell information, but I'm afraid it left me sadly let-down and glancing at my watch, wishing for it to end.
The sound is murky, bordering on the unintelligible, and so unprofessionally mixed that it had me yearning for the crystal-clarity vocals of my old Beta tape!
Despite what you think of the images, or the plot, or the characters, the real draw card here is the MUSIC......and if you can't hear the lead vocals because they are drowned out by the cymbals, or the backing harmonies, or other ambients, then there's not much left, is there?
I'm going to convert my old Beta version to (Mono) DVD for subsequent viewings, and put this one where it belongs, out with the rubbish!
\"Extinction is the Rule, Survival is the Exception...\"
\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 would have been alright, indeed probably excellent, if the directors would have left the interviews and the concert footage separate. \"Into the Void\" is a great song, and I hate how it is cut off at the best part to go to an mumbling interview with Ozzy Osbourne. That should have been at the end of the film, or located in a special feature. The best part of concert DVDs is to put them on and let the music play, but \"Black Sabbath: The Last Supper\" is hard to put and and simply let play because the music is continually interrupted. Nevertheless, there are a few strengths to this film; the concert footage, when it does play, it excellent. Black Sabbath returns to the stage after a long hiatus without Osbourne and this film captures that well: Sabbath basically rocks the fans. The fans, of course, have a sweet advantage in the film because they are seeing the band live, of course, but also they do not have to put up with the incessant interviews that the DVD viewers are burdened with. Shame on Jeb Brien and Monica Hardiman (the directors) for doing this to the film! Also, shame on Wyatt Smith for editing the film in such a way.
\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 remake \"Lost Horizon\", as a musical, the need for a Rodgers & Hammerstein or Lerner & Lowe type musical composition was needed. Burt Bacharach and Hal David were the wrong choice. Having said that, my favorite thing about \"Lost Horizon\", is its score. It's just that the score doesn't fit the piece. The cast, is made-up of mostly non-musical talents (Ullman, Finch and Hussey, were all dubbed, and still don't sound all that great).
Frankly, the novella, on which this, and the earlier non-musical film versions were based, is mediocre, at best. While the possibilities for a truly good, cinematic musical version exist, they are not realized here. The film succeeds at being a good, rainy-day vehicle, to pass the time. Otherwise, you are better off, buying the CD of its soundtrack. Only recommended as a curiosity piece, due to the film's awful reputation. I've seen much better; but I've seen MUCH worse.
\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 an extra on this film, in the part shot at the airport in the first 15 minutes or so; I was one of the fleeing (mostly Mexican) Bangladeshi refugees running across the runways at Ryan Field in Tucson. At one point, standing around in our turbans as we waited for another shot, one of my fellow extras turned to me asked me what the move was going to be about. I told him it was going to be a remake of Lost Horizons, only as a musical. There was a long pause, then he replied: \"Man, this movie is gonna suck\". Pretty perceptive of him, I thought. I had a good time and made a bit of money, but even with some interesting personal memories attached to this movie I can't sit through the whole thing.
If you ever saw the movie \"The Swarm\", you can pretty much get the idea. You get to see a lot of famous and talented people wasted on an an idea that on the face of it is just BAD. The idea seemed to be that if you throw enough money at a movie and hire enough big names, then a good story and good writing aren't necessary. Just turn the big crank, and out comes the product. It's just not worth watching.
\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..but unfortunately no one thought about having Van killed in order to save this doomed production. The only positive thing about him in the film is his nice singing voice...too bad the songs are mostly insipid and sappy. Why did I hate Van so much? Well, throughout the film he seemed like he was doing a third-rate Soupy Sales imitation--with lots of mugging, bad jokes and way too much energy spent trying to make everyone laugh. The worst of these moments was when he was \"teaching\" the class--these kids laughed at EVERYTHING he did. Heck, Van could have read the phone book or showed them autopsy photos and they probably would have laughed! Now Van was not the only bad casting decision in the film--he was just the most obvious. Of course, having John Gielgud (a lovely actor) play an Asian was ridiculous as well as having Michael York play Peter Finch's brother!! The bottom line is that because of these insane casting choices, the film was doomed from the start....and the worst of them was the god-awful Bobby Van. Now in real life, he might have been a lovely person and it's sad that in real life he died so young, but with the material they gave him here I just wanted to rip out his tongue to get him to be quiet.
Now I also mentioned the songs--egad, those terrible songs!! The original LOST HORIZON by Frank Capra was a subtle delight throughout--and not a single song and dance number in the film. So why did they decide to add a bazillion songs that did nothing to help the film? They only served to make it seem like a gooey mess--like the original DOCTOR DOOLITTLE combined with LOST HORIZON. The end result is a sickly sweet children's movie--not one that can be enjoyed by anyone over 8.
Now if you can remove these problems, you have the basis of a decent film. After all, the plot is lovely and is still hidden beneath all the goo. Peter Finch is particularly good (though certainly not the equal of Ronald Colman in the original). But, considering that the original was a near-perfect classic, why bother with this sticky confection. Who wants to wade through the treacle?!
By the way, this film was included in \"The 50 Worst Films\" book by Harry Medved. While I, too, disliked the film, it wasn't bad enough to merit inclusion in the book. I think it was included mostly because it was such a huge box office failure and because it was released just a few years before the book appeared. An excellent book--just not one of the best selections to the \"hallowed hall\" of dreck.
\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 put down this vehicle from Robert De Niro and Eddie Murphy, and Murphy in particular the first time but having seen it again, recently, I can see that it does have some very funny bits.
This is by no means to say that this is the greatest buddy comedy of all time, but really what can you do to the already exhausted subgenre? What director, Tom Dey, has tried to do is make it a satire of the clichés of buddy comedy and the media. Early in the movie the executive of a cable network asks: \"How is this different from Cops?\", when Chase Renzi is pitching the idea of a reality show dealing with De Niro's character, Mitch Preston (hilariously boring name by the way). That's when I saw it in a new light that I hadn't previously noticed.
The idea is to show all the elements of the buddy comedy and put a twist on them. De Niro's reluctance to star in the show and to partner up with Murphy is right out of every cop film you can think of. You can say that De Niro is actually playing himself asking: \"Why would I do another movie playing a cop?\" Chase Renzi is portrayed to be a Hollywood phony but if you look at her opening scene again, she is merely doing it to save her job. She somehow sees the ridiculousness of what she is doing but she wants to succeed despite that. One line says it all: \"Who doesn't want to be on TV?\" Maybe this is reading too much into what is essentially a lightweight film, merely set to entertain, but it does give it a little spin that I hadn't noticed before.
As for Murphy. You got to applaud him for looking this ridiculous. Trey wants to be a star so bad that he is willing to sell out everything he comes in contact with. Murphy was a big star and maybe it struck a nerve that it is all so fleeting.
The plot with the gun is of course pretty boring. The action sequences are nothing special, except the end which required a lot of effort both from cast and crew. One thing that I noticed about the villain is that he is dressed like an 80's pop star. George Michael comes to mind and that adds to the whole media spin.
So, I trashed it the first time around but what the heck; if you are gonna do this, why not point out how ridiculous it really is and De Niro and Murphy took a big chance doing 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\nWatching Showtime I got the impression that the producers got the idea to put Robert DeNiro and Eddie Murphy just for the sake of having a film that co-starred the two of them. Other than that I can't think of a reason to justify the film's existence. Not that it isn't amusing in spots, it certainly is, but the concept is so completely ludicrous that the laughs are somewhat muted.
The thing that really got me was Eddie Murphy's character. I can't seem to wrap my mind around the concept of someone being a police officer as strictly a day job. When I was working person at New York State Crime Victims Board I had to deal with all kinds of cops and they ran the gamut between the really dedicated and some real slugs, but I can't think of one who thought that this was just something I do until I get my career going in an area far afield. I mean, can you really see Eddie Murphy or anyone else going through the rigors of the real Police Academy, not the screen version, just to get a day job?
Anyway DeNiro is your basic hard working detective who's on the trail of a major gun dealer. He's undercover and Murphy is part of his backup. So what does the showboating Murphy do, he calls a reality based TV series like COPS to film the action.
So DeNiro's bust gets blown sky high, but the producer of the show gets some good footage of Murphy and DeNiro and decides on a new reality based television series. So these unwilling partners get joined and try to continue working DeNiro's case with all the TV cameras around.
Eddie Murphy's a funny guy, I loved him in Beverly Hills Cop and in the Doctor Doolittle movies, but he's done better things than Showtime and Robert DeNiro certainly has.
I guess Murphy wanted a chance to work with DeNiro and DeNiro must have gotten one hefty paycheck to do this film.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nTwo popular actors are paired in showtime like De Niro and Murphy playing a police and an actor. Although they share the most screen time together, they do not reach their expected performances such films like Analyse This, Meet the Parents, Dr Doolittle and Nutty Professor. The film starts interestingly but becomes a thin, ordinary comedy which is quite disappointing.It feels like especially De Niro doesn't enjoy being in Showtime. Thats a shame because he really shows his feelings thats what I think. Unfortunately, if the idea had been used cleverly this could have been a more interesting piece of work and could be followed with a sequel like any other popular Hollywood movie. Well, I don't think there would be a sequel to this at least casting De Niro and Murpy again. ** 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\nWith all the hype surrounding the stars of the movie, this movie left me wanting. I expected a much better movie considering the inclusion of the talents of Murphy, De Niro and Russo but found that the movie fell flat on it's face. Comedy sequences were overdone and the superior performances of the stars especially De Niro and Russo couldn't save this one!
** 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\nThe movie is not as funny as the director's preceding (and only other) movie, Shanghai Noon. Showtime did have its moments, but it did not satisfy me. Why it needed to be so foulmouthed, I don't know, but I give Showtime **/****
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThere comes a time in every big name actor's career when they get sloppy and accept projects that they wouldn't have touched with a 1000 ft. pole in their golden days. Remember \"Taxi Driver\"? That was a fine film. I can hardly believe that the De Niro of \"Showtime\" is the same actor.
I would rather watch \"Time Chasers\" twice than see this film again. If anyone offers to take you to see \"Showtime\" or gives you free passes, or whatever, run away as fast and far as you can.
\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\nMINOR PLOT SPOILERS AHEAD!!!
How did such talented actors get involved in such mindless retreaded
drivel? Robert DeNiro plays a Dumb Hollywood version of the standard
violence prone tough cop (i.e., he beats up the bad guys and rolls his
eyes at cops who prefer to stick by the book), and Eddie Murphy plays a
not so tough cop who would rather be an actor (i.e., he screams out,
\"Freeze, police!\" and has his \"tough look\" down pat). Naturally, they
are partnered when Bobby's loose cannon tactics get him in hot water
with the media and he is essentially blackmailed into starring in a
\"Cops\"-like reality show. Take a breath, cuz that's as funny as it
gets.
No energy was put into the script - it feels like a pale retread of
every copy buddy movie tossed into a blender with \"15 Minutes\" starring,
yes, DeNiro himself as, pretty much the character he is playing here.
The jokes fall flat, the action feels listless, and no one seems to be
having a good time. It's dead on the screen.
Please don't waste your time. Even if you have an overwheming affinity
for one of the actors - avoid it and do them a favor. Becauze if this
makes money, these kinda of scripts will be deeemed perfectly acceptable
for actors of their quality.
And to Mr. DeNiro. You used to make serious films. I remember them -
they were good. You were nominated for awards for them - remember how
much fun that was? Now after \"Analyze This\" (which was good), \"Meet the
Parents\" (which was also good), and \"The Adventures of Rocky and
Bullwinkle\" (which was NOT good), I think we need to see you parodying
yourself less, and BEING yourself more. \"Casino\" feels like a long time
ago. And no, I don't count \"15 Minutes\" as serious Bobby. Anyone who
took that media satire seriously must get their weekly world news
\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\nEddy Murphy and Robert De Niro should be a combination that results in a great comedy. Great expectationa often lead to dissapointment, and this proves to be the case.
When Eddy as a police officer spoils a drug deal being done by Detective Robert, they botch it so badly that they end up doing a live action reality TV cop show. Logic is not a great component of this movie. The super-gun that they spend the second half of the movie chasing down confirms it. A twelve guage machine gun that leaves large holes in sheetmetal and three will destroy a house in about a minute (without reloading) is as more a fantasy than science fiction. A five pound gun, firing hundreds of shots per minute without any recoil, is certainly the weapon of the future using the technology of the past.
It is clear this movie was designed for neither adults nor children, so if you are somewhere in between, this is the movie for you.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFor all intents and purposes, Showtime was the worst movie I have ever seen.
Why? Because having Deniro in the cast adds immediate credibility and makes you want to watch the movie. I had also made the mistake of watching 48 Hours and Beverly Hills Cop recently before seeing Showtime and for some strange reason thought Eddie Murphy was still funny. Well he's not. In fact it almost seems like he has been neutered. As I watched this movie I was in amazement that Deniro decided this was a good enough script to lend his name too. No chemistry between him and Murphy whatsoever. Horrible writing, horrible jokes, a movie that you THINK is supposed to be good can't get much worse than this. Not too long after sitting through the wretch that was Showtime I happened to watch National Security starring Martin Lawrence. The movie had its funny parts but wasn't that great. But still it was 20 times better than Showtime. Please if your a Deniro fan DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis 3-hour made-for-TV miniseries came home with us from Blockbuster's this weekend. The production company clearly spent a lot of money on sets, costuming (Bridget Fonda, especially), and special effects (including a great Jim Henson talking polar bear & reindeer). They should have spent a bit more money getting a coherent script. The story line was so loose that it really never came together. One can overlook Irish-accented Germans, but not herky-jerky storytelling. With senseless loose ends which included a special guest appearance by the Devil, this one is certainly not destined to be a Christmas Classic. A shame that they wasted good performances by the two female leads.
\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\nSometimes Hallmark can get it right - like The 10th Kingdom - but many of their fantasy films plod, and this falls into the latter category. The version I saw may have been cut (a demon [?] shown in the trailer and publicity stills didn't appear), but anything that made the movie shorter can only be a blessing.
POSSIBLE SPOILERS IF YOU ARE UNFAMILIAR WITH THE ORIGINAL FAIRY TALE:
Anyway, the film updates the story to the early part of the 20th Century (?), and makes Gerda and Kay (here called Kai - being a Lexx fan, I kept expecting him to say, `The Dead do not solve puzzles') 18 year olds. Hans Christian Andersen's basic story is followed: the boy gets a shard of ice in his eye, goes bad, is taken off by the Snow Queen to solve a puzzle in her palace and Gerda goes to find him, having various adventures on the way.
As the two main characters are older than in the original, a lot of time is spent getting them together and `in love'. Unfortunately, I was never convinced that they were particularly in love, and certainly not enough in love to make sense of Gerda's quest. By the time the main plot kicks in, the movie's pace has slowed to a crawl. Alas, when Gerda begins her search for Kai, it only manages to pick up the pace to a leisurely stroll.
There are a few odd additions to the story that seem to go nowhere. At the start of the film the Snow Queen kills Gerda's mother, but no explanation for this is given. A polar bear living in the Snow Queen's palace is more than he seems (though this is possibly because the producers realised that the bear's feelings towards the Snow Queen would be OK in a Fairy Tale, but not in a modern film). Again, this is never explained. Also, hints that the Snow Queen has an erotic desire for Kai are dropped, but never followed through. The script is also full of anachronisms that really jar you out of the `fairy tale' mood.
The production looks good, though there is evidence of penny-pinching: the Snow Queen's palace is the hotel where Gerda and Kai lived covered in ice. The three main characters are played with varying degrees of success: Kai comes across as bland as does Gerda initially, but once she sets off to find Kai you warm to her. Bridget Fonda looks great as the Snow Queen, but seems to be in a different movie to everyone else.
Ultimately, the film is unsatisfying. It looks good, but drags and lacks 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\n\"The Snow Queen\" is based on the famous and very beautiful fairytale by Hans Christian Andersen, about a girl, Gerda, who goes on a dangerous journey to rescue her friend Kai from the clutches of the Snow Queen. This adaption attempts to capture that story's sense of adventure and luminously intricate imagery through lavish sets and production design, but fails on a number of counts.
Like so many Hallmark productions, the potential of the story is completely undercut by heavy-handed scripting and direction. The two actors playing Gerda and Kai are blandly pleasant but forgettable; Bridget Fonda as the Snow Queen looks the part but is otherwise miscast for the role. There's a notable lack of dramatic tension to this meandering three-hour miniseries. At least some of the pacing problems can be attributed to the addition of filler scenes that add very little to the original story, particularly in the opening hour that introduces the main characters.
That said, \"The Snow Queen\" would be just about ideal for pre-teens with a liking for fantasy and a bit of patience. It's great eye-candy without being scary, and the acting is pitched at the sort of pantomime over-the-top level that spells out the storyline in very, very bold text. Just make sure you read them Andersen's story too.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nDANGER: Watch for falling spoilers...
Boy, was this a bad movie. I know that they were going for a \"true love conquers all\" kind of thing, but about all this film conquered was about 3(which felt more like 9) hours of my afternoon which I will never get back. The movie is about two young lovers named Kai and Gerta who live in a remote town in a fantasy world. Kai is the much-abused bellboy at a hotel owned by Gerta's father. At first Gerta ignores Kai's advances but she eventually warms up to him much to the disgust of (You Guessed It!) Gerta's father. As if this obstacle wasn't enough to overcome, an evil snow queen shoots a shard of glass in Kai's eye and he becomes a mean person treats Gerta poorly. Kai is eventually taken to the Snow Queen's fortress (Which is the same set as the hotel just covered in ice, because the good people at Hallmark like to go all out) and Gerta sets out on a mission to get Kai back. Along the way she runs into the 3 other seasons that are evil in their own special way, but Gerta escapes them with the help of some dull and forgettable characters she meets along the way. (All the while you will want to turn it off, but can't force yourself to do it. It's probably the most evil and most effective spells cast by the Snow Queen) Anyways, I will spare you from the ending because anything you can think up in your head right now is probably better then how they ended it. So, in conclusion, the Snow Queen is an incredibly boring movie, which takes the fan out of fantasy.
\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\nRudolph Maté's film from 1950 is given a revamp for the 80's, Dexter Cornell(Dennis Quaid) is a university lecturer who used to have a successful writing career, but thats now gone down the tubes along with his marriage. The initial exposition plants the notion in the viewers mind that everybody has something against him, so when the revelation comes that he has been poisoned, we are not that surprised, unless of course you are familiar with the original. Dexter after being told he has less than 48hrs to live, decides to trace back his steps with the help of one of his students Sydney Fuller(Meg Ryan), but they find they have many obstacles in their way.
The film begins promisingly in black and white, as Dexter staggers in the rain towards the local police station where he wishes to report a murder...his own, but the Huey lewis style 80's beat that accompanies this scene only serves to remove any sense of tension and tells the viewer that this is going to be pretty bad, its only a question of how bad? Sure enough we are soon using the old flashback medium, but now the film resorts to full Technicolor. There are some brief homages to Noir, as the embracing couple stand in front of a venetian blind, but there's really nothing here to recommend it, the performances are awful, Ryan in particular doing her usual dizzy blonde with a cutesy pie smile routine. The film is a lazy attempt to put some unneeded ooomph into an already fine movie premise, obviously trying to cash in one the Body Heat audience, the seeming results are undoubtedly aimed at a teen audience and to be sure, they are welcome to it. 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\nGreat story and great lead actors (Quaid and Ryan) but the movie suffers from bad directing,bad screenplay and bad script.The lead actors do their part but could not save the movie at all.Too bad because this could have been a good 80's style Hitchcock suspense/mystery/thriller.Ryan looked so young and fresh in this one though.An ok look for big Ryan fans.....
\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 a fan of the 1950's original and about 20 minutes into this remake I started to think this was going to be as good as the original but it wasn't. The motive for the murders was incredibly stupid. Two of the lovers in the movie turn out to be brother and sister-excuse me while I barf. The main character stops in the middle of the movie to have sex which doesn't make sense considering the situation he's in. If the film makers wanted a sex scene they should have put it earlier in the movie before the main character (Dexter played by Dennis Quaid found he's about to die and that he's accused of a crime. There is a reason for where the sex scene is at. Early in the movie Dexter isn't living life to the fullest so he's not interested in sleeping with Meg Ryan. I still feel it would make more sense for the sex scene to have either been cut or earlier in the film and the two siblings not to have been lovers.
One of the dumbest parts of the movie involves a gun fight, a couple people getting killed and one person being run over all within 15 yards of a crowded carnival and yet NOBODY AT THE CARNIVAL NOTICES!!! Also in the scene is the tar pits the university where the movie takes place is built on. If you fall into the tar you sink to the bottom and in a matter of seconds. Not only is it hard to believe stuff would sink that fast in tar, but more importantly who builds a university on tar pits. I would say more about how stupid the end of the movie is but I don't want to put a spoiler in my post.
\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\nInteresting plot but painfully dull. The script lacks... lacks acting. To me this film compares with \"Made for TV\" type movies. I was lucky to survive the film without falling asleep in my popcorn. I watched this film with my family. It is fairly safe to watch with your kids. (only 1 semi sex scene)If you wish to see a young Meg Ryan...check out this movie. Very 80-ish. You will like this movie if you like the combination of depressed people at Christmas, booze, super glue and tar. Or maybe you are like me... and have have a higher standard for acting in films. However I did like the way the movie began and ended! 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\nThis review contains a partial spoiler.
Shallow from the outset, 'D.O.A.' at least starts as if it might be a slick, entertaining piece of nonsense like Fincher's 'The Game'. It's central character(Dennis Quaid) suffers from a nightmarish sequence of events that appear to be setting up a twisted and cunning thriller. But the plot rattles along at too great a pace, leading to a dramatic twist not half way through, when the character learns that he has been poisoned and has only 1-2 days to live. And this, simply, is too big a twist to add casually to a story. Once this has happened, the film's only chance of success is if it treats the psychology of someone in this situation as its principal, indeed, its only subject matter: but 'D.O.A.' continues as if this was just a normal revelation like any other you might usually encounter in a thriller. The problem is two-fold: firstly, Quaid's actions don't convince as what someone is his situation would be likely to do; and secondly, even if they did convince, it's hard to care about what happens next when the most significant point of plot has already been prematurely resolved. The rest of the film is pretty standard fare for a film of this sort, but made more tedious than usual by the character's slightly-treated predicament, which logically dwarfs the events the film is interested in. Dennis Quaid, in the lead role, doesn't convince either as a burnt out professor or as a man who is destined to die: Meg Ryan is, as often, ditzy and annoying. Another negative feature is the ugly 80s soundtrack. Watch 'The Game' instead, which from similar roots remains tight and character-driven, whereas 'D.O.A.' drifts into developments that only undermine its own premise. As the premise is itself quite intriguing, it's a shame to see it drowned in a surplus of over-cooked plot.
\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\nPOSSIBLE SPOILERS --
I love Dennis Quaid and I like Meg Ryan. I was looking forward to seeing them together, being married and all, I wanted to see their on-screen chemistry. Okay, that being said, I guess the fact that they are actors, their off-screen relationship didn't have to permeate their performances, especially with this script.
How stupid can a professor be to glue himself to anyone. I don't remember the original, but I can only assume that O'Brien probably was handcuffed to his leading lady, probably in a more inevitable way. If I were \"bonded\" to someone I'd be pretty angry. The crush I would have would definitely have dissipated quickly. Meg showed not even a little annoyance only slight surprise. Dennis would have to take me kicking and screaming. That whole section of the movie was so horrible -- especially Meg having to go to the bathroom (#2) between dumpsters in the dark at night. Ewww. No f****ing way!
What's with Dennis socking every single suspect in the movie. Sock first ask questions later. Not once, not twice but too many times -- I could have kept count if I were so inclined.
The most interesting part of the movie was Nick and his family drama. Too bad that couldn't have become more of the plot. The assumed off-screen drama leading up to this tragedy. I think it could have been written in without distracting from Dex' quest.
My blame lies with the writer of this screenplay. Unless the director and others doctored it up so much that it's unrecognizable.
I won't even get into the real reason poor Dex was murdered. How ludicrous is that. Even when Dex confronted the real killer and the reason was explained, (a true \"film noir\" moment) everyone on screen seemed bored. Oh, _____ happened. Oh. (yawn) \"Dex even says this is a silly reason for a triple murder. Oh the tension, you could cut it with a spoon.
If anyone but Dennis had been in this movie, I'd have to give it 1/2 star (only because I really have seen worse), but in this case 1 1/2 stars.
For Dennis and Meg stars, see ANYTHING ELSE.
\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\"D.O.A.\" is a non-thrilling thriller from directors Rocky Morton and Annabel
Jankel. The acting is okay and the screenplay is pretty bad. This movie also has some moments which will make you laugh at how stupid the scenes of violence
are. For example, someone is shot near a window. We then see from outside
the building what looks like that person jumped. I laughed my head off when this happened. This movie tries hard, but ultimately fails. Only watch this movie
when you have no other choice.
My Critique: **
Rating: [R]
Rating Reasons: Violence and language.*
*There was no rating reason available due to its 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\nI rented this movie primarily because it had Meg Ryan in it, and I was disappointed to see that her role is really a mere supporting one. Not only is she not on screen much, but nothing her character does is essential to the plot. Her character could be written out of the story without changing it much.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis meandering tale of mob revenge is simply not very interesting, even with Ed McMahon in a ripe role as the chief heavy. Jim Brown kicks ass effectively, Gloria Hendry proves again that she can bring life to even the poorest roles, and Brock Peters is decent as The Cop Who Plays By the Book. It's still dull and badly constructed, and even the print shown on cable is now emasculated of its original James Brown score.
\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\nAs a flagship show, Attack of the Show (AOTS) is endemic of the larger fall of G4 TV; it is a show (and a station) that has fallen so far that it parades sex to try and cover its glaring faults. Its predecessor, The Screen Savers, was a venue for troubleshooting technology problems and scouting out the latest and greatest in technology. It was a nice show with a likable staff and it was fun to see some of the modding and other experiments the crew could put to together.
The acquisition of TechTV by G4 bothered some longtime fans of the station, but early returns were actually promising. The emphasis on gaming was a nice addition and I really enjoyed a lot of the coverage of E3 and other big entertainment events.
Unfortunately, AOTS now stands as but a shell of its former self. Those overseeing the channel have shifted the focus of the channel away from technology and gaming and toward anything that might elicit drool from young adult men. The result is that AOTS spends as much time parading Olivia Munn or touting the adult film industry as it does covering games. It is so bad it is practically unwatchable.
While some may get puerile joy out of this sort of thing, those who genuinely enjoy gaming may wonder where the good coverage went. Equally troubling, young gamers who might tune into G4 thinking their getting gaming - that active gaming group between 10-15 - are instead being fed things aimed toward a more mature audience. On a channel like HBO or Cinemax, things like that are expected. On G4, it's tragic.
At least SpikeTV, another male-aimed channel, has good programming like CSI. AOTS, and G4, has very little good left to offer.
Too bad, really.
\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 show is what happened to The Screen Savers after G4 got its hands on it, taking it from a useful source of computer-related information to a show that had as its high point the shoving of a miniature web server up someone's posterior.
As G4's ratings plummeted, they moved away from their original target audience, gamers, to generic hormone-driven young men, adding eye candy to the staff and a sex advice segment. Now even the gamers who applauded the show initially are turning away in disgust. I look forward to the show's, and the network's, overwhelmingly overdue and well-deserved demise.
\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\nSince this show was changed from TSS (the screen savers) to AOTS (attack of the show)it has gone down hill. TSS with Yoshi and Kevin Rose Alex... etc. Made the show awesome, then they got fired from TSS for an unknown reason. When the show switched to AOTS, it became less about computers, and more about gaming and magazines. It also promoted bands that nobody had heard of, or cared about. Finally I couldn't watch it anymore once Kevin Rose left. He kept it interesting, but he went off to do his own thing, which is good. Kevin Rose now has several online pod casts, and shows, etc on the REV 3 network. Check it out. REV3.com I think, you can get to it by going to www.systm.org. If you want a real tech show rather than aots, then go watch Kevin Roses shows or listen to the tWit podcast.
J<
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI saw this movie a while ago and I was looking forward to it. My biggest problem was having seen the trailer I was expecting a very stylish marshal arts movie with plenty of action and maybe a bit of plot to think about along the way. I was sorely disappointed as it would seem that once you have seen the trailer there is nothing else worth watching (if what you are expecting is as described above). My girlfriend at the time gave up half way through and whilst I continued to watch in the hope that something interesting might happen... nothing did. I found no attachment or real interest in any of the characters. I would say just don't bother unless you have a few hours of your life that you don't really care about losing.
\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 still laughing- Not! I'm still asking my myself what the point was. I barely got a chuckle, this movie sucks. It tries to be charming and touching, but it turns out stupid. I do not recommend it.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is one of the most predictable movies I have ever seen. And this supposed to be funny..... Boring, boring, boring. Find the fast forward button at your remote and use it... I can`t say I laughed once, and the only good feeling this movie gave me was relief when it ended.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe most accurate description of how Billy Crystal fairs in \"My Giant\" is to say that this movie is to his career as \"Ishtar\" was to Warren Beaty's - it didn't ruin it, but it slowed it down.......a lot. Crystal should know the three golden rules of Hollywood: 1) never play opposite a kid 2) never play opposite an animal 3) never play opposite someone that is almost 3 feet taller than you, is as innocent as a kid and \"acts\" like an animal.
What is this story? A comedy? I guess, but I didn't laugh, except at the scenes where Crystal is on his own and not burdened with his (what-is-her-role-in-this-movie) ex-wife or the afore-mentioned Giant. Did I mention there's also a kid in this film? Well, forget about him. The son is brought in to make us feel sorry for Crystal, and we do, but for the actor, not the character. Billy Crystal is a funny man. If you don't believe me, watch him in old episodes of \"Soap\" or \"Saturday Night Live.\" Go rent \"City Slicker\" or \"Running Scared\" or \"When Harry Met Sally.\"
\"Giant\" is more ho-hum than fee-fi-fo-fum.

\n
assistant\n0
\n"