empathielabs/imdb_v0 huggingface dataset:
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI do not know what today's movie goers expect, but after 68 years of movie watching.. (Well maybe I didn't watch many movies in the first 9 - 10 years, so make that 58 years of movie watching) I expect to be entertained, not bored to tears, assaulted by continuous profanity (every other word) and idiotic scenes of violence that are presented in with no other purpose in mind but to show blood splattering and body parts being mangled. Surveillance is one of those movies that was made by people who have NO imagination, little if any talent, a total inability to tie scenes together and an unreasonable trait of letting a scene go on and on, long after the purpose for it has elapsed. That anyone would ever think that this was a worthwhile movie, when it is nothing more that Hollywood garbage is beyond me. As a combat veteran I have seen violence, blood and gore, in many forms, and movies like We were soldiers is about as violent as a movie can get, but it has redeeming value. Surveillance must have been dreamed up by persons in a drug induced stupor, with no writing ability, no directorial training, no experience in film editing, and a total lack of contact with reality. Just a stupid movie of two serial killers posing as FBI agents, setting up a scenario to kill some stupid foul mouth cops, etc.. A high priced piece of garbage that only an idiot could like...
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis must be the worst thriller I have seen in a long long time. The directing, the acting and the adaptation of the story leave what could probably have been a good plot into a meaningless waste of time. Within a few minutes of watching the film it was easy to figure out the whole plot and then there are more obvious clues very early on leaving no mystery. I guessed this within the first few minutes and I kept hoping I was wrong and much to my dismay I was not.
The film starts off with two FBI agents who drive to a remote town to investigate a murderous spree which has left three witnesses, a young girl, a drug addict and a cop. They are interviewed under surveillance cameras separately and each tells their account of the day. Each has something to hide about themselves and the day unfolds as they tell their accounts. This part is probably the saving grace and if developed could have made this film better.
Spoiler: The whole story ends in the FBI agents being the actual killers and the young girl is the only one who has figured this out and so left unhurt by them.
Why do they go through the whole charade of interviewing three witnesses and bonding with the young girl if their idea had been to kill them in the first place? How did they get away with pretending to be FBI agents (when you discover that real FBI agents had been killed and their badges were found on them)? How did they know how to set up and use the surveillance cameras?
Bill Pullman and Julia Ormond are so unconvincing from the beginning to the end. Maybe the idea is to develop their characters for the revelation at the end. Come on, they both look ridiculous, stupid and not sinister in the least. The character of the young girl is also wasted potential. There is no meaning to her actions and no meaning to whom she prefers to bond with in her ordeal. She does not appear distressed, but rather detached which again is not explained.
Awful film on the whole.
\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\nSorry for all you guys that are not family with the Lynches.
My sister in law asked me how you can make just a disturbing movie. I told her that if the daughter and her father would not do these movie, they would have instead to go around and kill and cut people in pieces.
After every Lnych movie I tell myself, again one and a half hour lost of my life. But next time I will check the director's or producers name.
So, you don't want to be angry at yourself and loose time, don't watch it. But if you think that you need to kill someone, watch it, this is probably a better medicine than to spend your whole life in a prison for mentally insane.
\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 film's executive producer is none other than that messenger of peace thru transcendental meditation, David Lynch, the director's father. I wonder what David's guru, His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, would have thought of this production. The hypocrisy here is as repugnant as is the film itself. It's a safe bet that Samuel L. Dieteman, Phoenix serial killer and devotee of recreational violence, would have loved every minute of it.
I doubt if many would fault this film for its cinematic craft; on that level it's quite good. But on a moral level, it's the most disheartening movie I've ever seen.
SPOILER COMING
I guess it's the phoniness of the thing that saddens me the most. Morally-numb Generation Xers learn a craft and a little post-modern aesthetic theory at art school or film school and then get involved in the arts-and-entertainment industry; and here's the result: a film which wallows in human suffering, injustice and carnage, much of which is witnessed by a nine-year old who sees her entire family brutally murdered by a couple of recreational-violence killers who, at the end, ride off into the sunset.
NO MORE SPOILERS COMING
For whom are films like this produced? Narurally, sadists are going to adore this - why wouldn't they? But who else? As I noted above, there's some really good film craft here, but good craft can be applied to any subject matter. Why apply it to stuff like this? Also, the movie is very suspenseful, but that's not because of the graphicness & grossness of the violence; it's suspenseful because it's well-directed & well-acted. I'm sure the ghost of Alfred Hitchcock could explain this much better than I can.
So what has been put before us here? And above all, why?
Yes, our world can be an ugly, dirty, even evil place, but shouldn't we dissent when an \"artist\" makes it her/his business to rub our faces in it? Or worse still, to stick it in the faces of those nine-year olds who will, one way or another, end up seeing this on home DVD?
I hope that people will see to it that this film is not seen by their kids. Yeah, I know - dream on, bernon...
\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 must say, when I saw this film at a 6.5 on this site, I figured it was well worth a view. I was sorely disappointed. From nearly the opening scene, it is obvious the two supposed FBI agents are, in fact, the killers. Could they have made it any more obvious? If that is the intended \"twist\" in this film, that's pretty sad. While Pullman and Ormond are excellent actors, even their talent is no match for a reprehensibly bad script. Pullman adeptly acts the part of a sociopathic killer... and that's the problem. There is no switch from \"I'm playing FBI guy!\" to \"I just killed 12 people and boy, are my arms tired.\" You can't blame the actors... the story fails in far more ways than one.
From the onset of the film, however, I was certain I was wrong, that no director/writer would ever be so blatantly obvious about a plot \"twist.\" Ormond and Pullman must just be acting strangely in order to divert the viewer's attention from the real killers, I thought... which gave the film's makers far too much credit. I should have followed my instincts and turned off the movie before it even made it past the 15-minute mark.
To Lynch's credit, she did manage to interject many things that make a good film: sex, violence, humor, and well-trained actors. Too bad they were in the wrong configuration. Hopefully Pell James can recover from this role... I found her performance particularly impressive, as the stunning drug addict-turned would-be savior. She should have rewritten the role so the \"crack whore\" would win.
Those people who have compared this film to Natural Born Killers, take note: Tarantino made the characters of Mickey and Mallory reprehensible, yet sympathetic. The artistry of that film far overpowers the gore, and this is not seen once in Surveillance. Surveillance only wishes it were Natural Born Killers... in fact, it has wet dreams about being even a fraction of what that film was. Folks who haven't seen Surveillance... stick to something with a little more intelligence. Like Camp Rock.
\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 went to the cinema to watch a preview of this film without knowing anything about it. Recognizing Jennifer Lynch's name and seeing the 18 certificate I realised it might be disturbing. In actuality I found the film a farce. I found myself giggling in disbelief through parts of it. The acting is atrocious- Bill Pullman and his ridiculous twitching face. I do almost pity the actors though as the script offers them no chance of any believable character interaction. After some shocking incident, (there is plenty to \"try\" and shock the viewer in this film), 2 characters are seen sharing a beer and talking about the weather. Everything was overstated, or thought it was being clever when really it was obvious! The performance from the little girl character named Stephanie was the best thing about the film. Quiet and intense. I really could not recommend this film to anyone. Its violent without point, ridiculous characters, bad acting, bad script and plain silly.
\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 *good* relatively during the first parts of it.
We have a story, from 3 points of view. So let's find some clues and complete the story.
Oh wait...none of that stuff matters because the FBI guys are the bad guys! Though that was a great twist...it was almost a terrible twist. I immediately downgraded the film from a 7 maybe 8 to 3 based on the last 10-15 minutes of it.
Does anyone else not see why the twist is so bad? Yes, it's a good shock. But it is bad because it has absolutely nothing to do with the preceding hour and twenty minutes. There's no connection to the killers.
The killers are in about all of 5 minutes of this movie (as killers) and the two FBI agents are only in 15 minutes of the previous hour and twenty.
We get it...surveillance...Oh, the Killers are voyeurs. WHICH MAKES NO SENSE, because they were only described in limited terms as just being psychopaths. And the hour and twenty minutes of surveillance we are watching of the 3 stories goes out the window as everyone is dead in 5 minutes.
All of this makes the ending even more ridiculous. Oh, they killed a bunch of FBI agents in the beginning...what FBI agents sleep together? All in the same room. To be found and murdered by amateurs and then impersonated by people who know nothing about being FBI agents? A cop 3 feet away apparently can't hit either one with a standard police issue pistol that can shoot several shots. I hate movies that try to make you feel like this could be real when they make absurd leaps they think we will believe.
The other thing is the movie ends about 10-15 minutes after they are revealed as the killers with a girl standing in the field somewhere...
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI am not sure who recommended Surveillance to me, but I think I have an idea: one of the \"Fat Guys At the Movies.\" The person said they were astonished by how great it was and said it was one of the goriest/disturbing movies. (I'm paraphrasing and doing this only by memory, so forgive me if I misquoted.) At any rate, I made the decision to watch it. So I take full blame for my own miscalculation in watching one of the most horrible, predictable and STUPID movies I've ever seen. Strange, I doubt I've ever called a movie \"stupid\" but that was the first word that came to mind about one-third in and stayed in my mind until the end.
Where to begin? Unbelievable premise and reactions, incredibly brain-dead characters (could blame the writing or the actors, or I'll just blame both) and enormously bad acting. I'd sooner believe Bill Pullman as President of the USA than a FBI agent here. (Of course, there's a reason for that, and I'll partially go into that.) And to top it off, if you can't figure the so-called shocking \"twist\" in the first 5 minutes, then you must have arrived late to the theatre or came into the room to watch it late. Don't worry, they'll tell you the \"twist\" every five minutes thereafter.
There's been some serial killer(s) on the loose in the most depressing town in the county, or world. But there's more to the story! Some dumbass and corrupt cops like to blow out tires for their own amusement. Could there possibly be more? Oh, yeah, there's a family, well maybe not, but there are four humans, one boy, one girl and an adult couple. The girl says she sees things with much less conviction than Cole sees dead people in The Sixth Sense. There's gotta be more to this than what I mentioned! That's what makes a movie interesting! Adding as many subplots that may/may not be developed is the way to go! Okay, then I'll continue. We have goofy FBI agents that made me laugh. A pair of giggling druggies who's shocked at first their dealer OD's but then resorts to robbery. A gosh-tooting great-guy cop who must've been put in for comic relief who's always battling an angry/suspicious cop. And finally, (poor, poor) Michael Ironside who didn't just phone his performance in, he barely text it in.
None of these work. They're all told in various forms of presence tense or flashbacks, and believe me, you'll lose all sense of caring after the first of many subplots begin. In addition, the reaction some of these characters are the most shocking of all. I guess I'm referring mostly to the cops, but mainly the girl who did or did not just lose her family and barely blinks.
This stupid, stupid movie stinks. It's barely gory as the person that recommended it said it was, unless his exposure has been limited to Goosebumps stories. And what's with the title? Surveillance? Oh, I get it; it's because it was used in 1/50 subplots just to film interviews. Since that's so random, it might as well been called COP CAR, BULLET or COFFEE. Just stay away from this horrid mess.
\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 a snuff movie. I'm shocked it is even considered to be in the IMDb library. And, Bill, Julia, and all other \"professional\" actors involved should be ashamed to be part of this sick flick. I thought I was going to view a somewhat classic horror film with a creative end that writers like to invent....that usually make no sense when writing a horror film, but as a viewer, we try to rationalize and understand. This ending was not creative. It was sick and has all the earmarks of a snuff movie. I am shocked it was edited to this ending, and more shocked that it will be out for distribution by the end of June 2009. It should not be shown in a theater. It is harmful to innocent minds on many levels....watch the movie, the ending, and you will understand this statement. Plus, included in the plot is a sweet little girl \"not yet 9\" her character says. She is not in the snuff ending, but she is an integral part of the movie. Why do directors feel they need to shock with a sick flick in order to get recognition? The director is in the wrong line of work if she thinks this is an art 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\nAfter a very scary, crude opening which gives you that creepy \"Chainsaw massacre\"-feeling, everything falls apart.
SPOILER ALERT: As soon as the two FBI-officers start jabbing, you know they are the real killers. Anyone who have seen enough of these \"fooled-ya\"-movies can figure this out.
This movie is mader with one thing in mind: To depict brutal murders. Why, then, is not the little girl tortured and murdered as well? Will this be next for us movie-goers? The torture and abuse of children? Whats wrong with you people? Lynch is truly has a disgusting, ugly mind.
\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 P.of S. was highly recommended to me by two friends that have great
(similar to mine) taste in films and have seen more than anyone I know.
I have no idea what they saw in this movie. Sadistic,cruel and repulsive is fine in an entertaining movie,but this is a windbag effort trying to pass itself off as highbrow lowbrow movie making.Or is it lowbrow highbrow?
The ancient generation gap cliché \"no redeeming social value\" comes to mind. Bill Pullman is trying,maybe a little to hard,and except for the kid the rest of the acting seems self-conscious and kinda lame.
Save yourself from this and watch a double feature of \"In Cold Blood\" and \"The Hitcher\".
As somebody said, this would never have been made if Jennifer Lynch was not the overrated David Lynch's daughter.
\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\nIf you find the depiction of violent murders and wanton police brutality expressed in a plot less film with glacial pacing entertaining, then you're bound to enjoy Surveillance. This film was garbage for both the mind and spirit. The notion that this is a \"thriller\" is comical; that would imply some kind of tension and twists. You kept waiting for the story to actually finish \"starting\". It never rises above a glorification of weak-minded violent criminals and individuals from all walks of life. Picture all of the violence of \"No Country for Old Men\" without any kind of chase or sympathetic characters. Thrill-killers run amok. The acting is good, mostly, but the script is a pile. Don't bother, and tell your friends to don't bother.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThere is a growing trend in the media to vilify and ridicule men. One sees it in television adverts and program plots. Cheaters is a prime example, they could find plenty of female cheaters yet the vast majority shown are men, why? The prime threat to any government's power resides in the male population, they're less likely to abide by authority and are more of a physical combat threat. A way to reduce the threat is to emasculate men in society via the media. Other examples of psychological propaganda are crime dramas full of self righteous cops including big-jawed aggressive women accusing everyone they question trampling their rights and making those men feel like scum. In Australia many top male sports stars have been arrested recently for dubious assaults and drinking charges, another example of the government controlling the male populous by arresting their heroes and asserting dominance. Cheaters, aside from the political machinations is an invasion of privacy and a violation of rights, furthermore most of these women assault the men! If it were round the other way the men would be in jail!! If it were an honest show they would be finding women cheaters, because they don't normally get caught due to the fact that their male lovers are quite happy to get in no strings attached and get out without rocking the boat. Men's mistresses want the men to themselves and want to own and control the men and thus get the men caught anyway.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'm not bothered by the sleazy hosts, nor am I bothered by the cynical, self-righteous stance the makers of this crap take.
What I AM bothered about is that the vast majority of the episodes are fake. I wouldn't even be surprised if ALL of the episodes were staged. Hence this isn't a reality show but something far worse even than Oprah: garbage television with zero comma zero appeal. Like daily TV soap opera but with more action and fighting and less plot.
The premise would have turned out great - if only it had been executed without cheating the viewer. If only this idea were free of all the legal complications/trappings that would most certainly ensue due to what would happen with real people, and what is eventually aired. Hence the only way to create this \"\"\"reality show\"\"\" was to get some rather desperate actors and make them improvise (and what pitiful and unconvincing improvisation it is most of the time!). Shouldn't this be obvious to anyone who finished grade school? Most reviews I read here don't even mention that any of this is fake, let alone that all of it might be. Wishful thinking or just boundless naivety?
The actors hired in this pathetic show are the kind of bottom-of-the-barrel unemployed actors who are miserably waiting on tables, waiting eagerly for a call from a talk show (or this crap), which is when they finally get a chance to make several hundred bucks. I even recognized one actress (in the role of \"cheater\") that I saw years earlier in \"The Jerry Springer Show\". And I only saw 6-7 episodes of \"Cheaters\". How many more of these loser actors are there that appeared in Springer and \"Cheaters\" that I don't even know about?
However, to compare \"Cheaters\" with Springer isn't fair to the latter. The Springer show is not all fake; a bulk of the episodes are unstaged - hence often highly entertaining. There is no value to be found in \"Cheaters\", unless you're a struggling actor and want to get tips on how NOT to act in front of the camera.
The producers use various (very cheap, transparent) tricks to create the illusion of realness, to give their footage that elusive documentary feel. But it's all in vein. In the end, the more intelligent train-wreck-seeking viewer is left with absolutely squat. \"Professional wrestling\" has more credibility than 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\nI think cheaters needs to be off the air and end the reality show once and for all i don't care what anyone says you can attack me or agree with me but its times like this that the show is just spewing out propaganda and the host of Cheaters Joey Greco is a little bastard who wants to think that showing people on camera is effective and unawares no it just will show disgusting he is also the wiretapping and following of people by \"cheaters spy's\" is illegal and a federal offense we are living in a police state like the Soviet union and Nazi Germany rolled into one i am happy that there is poor reviews on this trash this needs to end soon or we are going to lose our liberties as a nation no wonder our country is going to hell its because of this and other filth shows i liked the older shows better from the 1950s-1980s i hope you all agree with me on that thank you infowarrior
\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 show is at least partially Faked (So is not reality, just pretending to be reality), which makes me believe at least anyone without face blurred out is a Fake episode.
Proof in the episode where he pretends to be stabbed There is already camera crew on the boat, before he gets there, can been seen as his boat approaches.
The actors playing \"ambulance officers\" didn't remove his shirt or expose the wound in anyway so they work on it, which would never happen in reality.
They also parked the ambulance in the car park and did not drive up to the Emergency entrance (Which does not make any sense, unless its fake and they would not be allowed to go there)
\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\nFirst Off, I am a huge fan of Robert Blake, always have been.
This movie came on Movieplex last night 10/13, and the title interested me & of course the star. But after watching it I was left more confused than I was before it started.... There are some good scenes, and I thought they would lead somewhere, but they didn't, it turned out to be an \"anti-cop\" \"anti-buddy\" \"anti-hippie\", pretty much \"anti-everything movie\", with an extremely confusing plot that also went nowhere.
Robert Blake is great as the lead, well as great as someone could be with this bad movie, I am still a huge fan of Mr. Blake and love his acting even in crap like this...But this drug induced 70's tripe, well... better stay away from this one...And, that ending, what a pisser.
\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\"Electra Glide in Blue\" is a slow moving B-flick in which Blake plays a desert motorcycle cop who wants to be a homicide detective and becomes embroiled in a murder investigation. A mediocre film at best, \"EG in B\" features some members of the band Chicago, a whiff of action, some philosophizing, and lots and lots of boring dramatic filler. Not worth the time.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI watched this movie a couple of weeks ago and must say: I was not impressed, not at all. I do side with the other posters when it comes to the fine performances, but some good performances do not make a good movie.
On the discussion board, I found a review by an anonymous poster that captured some of the main points. It says: \"'Deed Poll' is a movie that raises many questions but hardly answers even a few; a movie that is disturbing and above every attempt at categorizing; an experiment and a very conventional sexual drama despite some shocking scenes. The brilliant acting of Barbara Kowa and André Schneider, the partly very impressive editing and the good camera work (Steffen Ritter) make up for gross plot holes and some technical slips (especially in sound). However, the boredom the audiences have to deal with for 40 minutes remains.\" Unfortunately, this is true. I wasn't intrigued by the story at all. The protagonists are cold, ambition-less people. They do a lot of drugs and have a lot of (incestuous) sex. So what? For many times, the direction seemed to be virtually non-existent, not to mention the technical aspect: the poor sound quality was enormously disturbing.
What's the point of the movie? What's the message behind it all? The anonymous reviewer said: \"Somehow Biermann failed to make a clear point and so the movie remains hanging in mid-air without a message. Thus the boredom I blame on the movie. The movie is reserved and emotionless, cold, almost neutral and it doesn't take long to see the flaws: for long stretches the characters of Sean and Ivy are not credible (they clearly have difficulties with the English pronunciation), the character of the mute brother is not developed very well. Some moments are very promising though - in the scene where the call boy is skinned (the one and only true love scene) an intensity is reached that one would love to see the whole movie long. As a spectator one has to regret the chances given away.\" Again, I must agree. I did like the final scene, especially because of the beautifully captured faces of Gianni Meurer and André Schneider, but it was nothing compared to the boredom I had to suffer for the first thirty minutes. (The sex scenes, though, were aesthetically staged and perfectly edited.)
All in all, \"Deed Poll\" was not my cup of tea - a good, controversial idea wasted -, but it was a interesting to see how a movie can be made with practically no money. Maybe if they had a bigger budget and a more experienced director, this would have become a better 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\nit's hard to make a negative statement here after all this raving about how great deed poll is, how wonderful the actors did and so on and so on. i did not like the film. it's crappy!
there are orgies, they have taboo sex (gay sex, bi sex, oral sex, rape, anal sex, masturbation, brother-sister-sex, brother-brother-sex, sex on drugs, sex without drugs, sex, sex, sex seems to rule their world. i guess the director is desperately in need of a getting laid.) the story is just dirty and shameful. i wonder what made those people get up with this story. and above all: who cares?
the technical stuff didn't satisfy me as well. the sound is poor, so is the editing and the \"direction\" is absent. the actors are admittedly fine, but guess what! it's their job! their job is to act! no need to jump off your seats if an actor did a decent job. do you applause when a bus driver brings you home safely? see?
i gave it 2/10 because after all this thing had something that i can't put in words. b movie charm? camp fun? nudity? i don't know.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nNot even Emeril Lagasse cooking can save this disjointed, overheaded idiotic nonsense, starring emeril lagasse as a TV chef from the food channel,who with help of the crew to try to make the show better, poor plot and stupid script throw this show down the drain, Robert Urich wasted in the poorly supporting role and sadly this was his last one ever(R.I.P.),
This is the worst show of 2001 and it will be on the list of the worst shows of this decade.
I Feel Very Sorry for Emeril Lagasse for making this sitcom, he even said himself it stunk.
It's hard to believe that they are the same producers of designing women that did this mess.
TV Review: 1 Star
\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 know my summary sounds very harsh, but this film has very limited appeal. The average Joe out there would have a hard time sticking with this film. The entire film consists of animated loggers doing their jobs and dancing on floating logs. This is all done with very splashy and artsy colors and the film might be great to show to patrons in an art museum. However, unless you really love this sort of art or are a Canadian who loves films about your native land, then this is probably going to be next to impossible to finish. I have a rather high tolerance for this sort of thing and even I had to force myself to watch after a couple minutes. I can respect the work that went into it, but it's just not compelling.
\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\nWe found this movie nearly impossible to watch. With such a super cast, it's a shame that the writing and direction were so awful. The excruciating pace at which the story was told was maddening. The flash-backs were clumsy. The characters were one-dimensional. The heavy-handed metaphors -- the river, the cat -- were repeated way too often.
The movie Nobody's Fool, based on another novel by Russo, was infinitely better, probably because it was more tightly written and directed.
The photography in Empire Falls was lovely. Too bad it wasn't a travelogue.
I read the novel and enjoyed the writing style but had some quibbles with the novel itself. I would give the novel 4 out of 5 stars. Perhaps the screenwriters and director were so awed by the novel's reputation they felt they had to include every darn thing in their movie. This was supposed to be a television movie, guys, not Books on Tape.
\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 relieved the later reviews have turned sour - reading all the positive feedback, I was starting to worry that my understanding of movies (and life) was completely different than everyone else's in the world. Everything in this movie rang false to me...the characters, the dialogue, the manipulative soundtrack, the corny narration, all of it. As each scene unfolded I kept thinking, \"People don't act like this.\" It's relentlessly heavy-handed and maudlin. In a way I think the movie bullies you into liking it, or pretending to like it, because it's Serious and about Real People and confronts Issues. But man, it really did not work for me.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nPut simply, this mini-series was terrible. Let me count the ways. 1. Absurd plotting. 2. Over-acting. 3. Scattershot approach to characters. 4. Annoying narration. 5. Inability to create viewer interest.
This film can't even pass the \"Soap Opera for Dummies\" test. I'm sorry I have not read this award-winning novel, so I am judging it only as a film, but it really stinks. Imagine going to a party where they show you dozens of appetizers. You look at the wide variety and want to taste them, but suddenly they are withdrawn, and you wonder where they went. That's like this film, with way too many characters introduced and never drawn out. There are enough stories and characters in this film to create a 20 episode series, yet we are given less than four hours to digest it all.
There are more facial expressions and reaction shots of Ed Harris than you'll find on 10,000 monkeys. The pace is extraordinarily slow.
Dennis Farina and Helen Hunt are so far over-the-top that their characters are not believable. Joanne Woodward's character is one-dimensional.
The persistent river metaphor becomes trite.
And, probably the most absurd part of the film--the cat. This evil and vengeful cat who follows the hero around to scratch him and his seat covers--well, come on now---it's not even good Stephen King!
Probably the most interesting character in the film, and one who is not drawn well, is John Voss, the disturbed boy whose final act of desperation accounts for the only plot device that works in this film.
Just about everyone in this film is unbelievable.
To sum up, there's little here to inspire. The drama is poor melodrama. It's just a terrible effort.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWow. What can I say? I was born in 1960. I love bad TV movies. Love them. I get involved. The works. I want to get involved. I'm spending time watching the thing. I watched the emmys last night on TV. How in the infinite world was the Empire Falls (excellent name)TV movie up for any awards? It truly had wonderful talent. Of course. And they tried admirably. But how can ANYONE pretend that was an OK (tv for goodness sakes) screenplay? OK direction? You know, I wish everyone the best. Really. But I thought it was totally mind-bending that Hollywood was placing this very very bad film up for so many honors. Awards? For me it was sort of a wake-up call that Hollywood is such a small insular community. Being cynical is not really my thing. But wow. --xptyngi
\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\nDespite the all-star cast, this attempt at epic fails. It comes across as a set of flat cartoon stereotypes strung together by an all too, too clever social commentary.
It's as if with every bit of dialogue and introduction to a new character the writer peeks out and says \"Isn't that clever? Am I not smart? Isn't that biting social commentary?\" And,sadly, the answer is always \"Ummmm...no.\" Wearying self-absorbing stuff that is more like soap opera (in the worst sense of the term) than a movie...and an obvious attempt at television immortality. Thankfully, it died young. Empire Falls falls flat.
\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\nTypically elaborately crafted HBO production with a first-rate cast, a rich small-town atmosphere and some nice narrative vignettes, graced by above average production values.
But, and that's a huge 'but', the various subplots, peopled with some likable, mostly annoying caricatures, are paper-thin and go and and on in dull stretches for over three long hours.
The often silly story veers uneasily between melodrama, without being entertaining enough, and personal drama, without being profound at all.
A shame, because some scenes really shine. Two or three, that is.
4 out of 10 grubby Paul Newmans
\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\nEverything that made the original so much fun seems to absent here. This is simply a \"run of the mill demons on the loose wrecking havoc\" slasher, but without the passion that graced the original.
There's nothing new in the story, in fact it seems like they ignore the first one altogether. Here, the demons run loose in a high security apartment building and, naturally, kill most of the residents in grisly fashion. The makeup effects actually seem less convincing here than the first time around. Although the actors weren't exactly brilliant in Demons, in Demons 2 they're actually a lot worse. You don't care about these characters, AT ALL. The plot is nonexistent, the music poor (apart from one Simon Boswell song), it's not scary in the least; it's just not that good.
Easily the worst film Dario Argento has been involved with and Lamberto Bava's also (Bava has a cameo in this film, not a very funny one).
Maybe 3 is too high a rating, but at least I could watch it all and didn't think of stopping midway. My advice; Stick to the original.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhen the word \"presents\" finds its way into a title, preceded by a famous name, the work is usually immediately dismissible. For some reason, people who are capable of creating good art don't seem to be able to see it in others. However, I've always been willing to give the second installment of the Demons trilogy a try. For one thing, the soundtracks are absolutely to die for. Most American directors would have sacrificed small animals to line up the kind of talent on the soundtrack of Demons 2. For another, well, two words: Asia Argento. (Of course, she was eleven when this film was made, and a number of years away from her seeming decision that she would style her acting after early Helen Mirren: steamy looks and little clothing.) As well, Lamberto Bava comes from one of Italy's finest dynasties in that odd horror sub genre known as Giallo (he's the son of Mario Bava, who may well have invented the genre in the sixties). And the original Demons is an absolute must-see for fans of eighties B-horror films. So how bad can this be, right? Well, bad. The demons continue their assault on Italian media, as the movie opens in a modern Italian high-rise where many people going about their lives have their televisions on in the background. They're all watching a kind of combination news report/mater video of some investigative reporter types trying to get proof of the events of the first film (which would seem to put the time frame of this one no more than a few days after the first film). Through the usual horror-film extra inability to concentrate, the reporters manage to bring a demon back to life, and he comes through the TV screen to start the plague anew.
Yeah. It's that bad. About the only thing good one can say about the film is that the soundtrack (when you're not being buffeted about by the likes of The Smiths, The Cult, Gene Loves Jezebel, etc.) is stunning. It comes from the keyboard of Simon Boswell, who got his start as a part of the Argento Dynasty and has since gone on to score such films as Lord of Illusions and Hackers.
Makes a half-decent free rental if you're planning on drinking heavily, but it's certainly nowhere near the fun the original was. Cronenberg's wonderfully funny high-rise-nasty-creature romp, Shivers (aka They Came From Within), is a whole lot better.
\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\nPlease, why on Earth did Bava had to add insult to injury making this pathetic piece of follow up crap?
To begin with we, \"the viewers\" at home are treated to a narration from some unknown ding-bat informing us of the aftermath events of the previous episode indicating mankind's triumph over the demons, (yeah right).
I can tell you \"right now\" that this doesn't in anyway what-so-ever have anything to do with Demons as this is a completely new story with a different backdrop altogether. Bava as usual, makes a casual appearance that doesn't even seem to fit into the main context of the story at all. Acting in this one beyond appalling and the whole concept about the demons appearing through a TV set, Oh God I'm not going to go on. Go see for yourself.
As usual you'll be treated to laughable dubbing, crap scenarios that don't make any sense and above all un-answered questions. How typical of a sequel that dished out the first batch of crap.
Overall if you're one of those DVD Argentophile collector's, then maybe you'll wanna give this a go otherwise avoid like the plague, it's no way near the first, so you may wanna avoid like the plague.
\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(Spoilers more than likely... nothing really important you couldn't have figured out yourselves) Yeah, it's really weird. I rented it at a Blockbuster for the reason it had absolutely NO description of the movie on the back of the box, only a list of the bands that had songs in it. But after that, I had a dikens of a time finding it, even here on IMDB. I kept confusing it with \"Night of the Demons,\" but, you know, they're basically the same thing.
The parts I loved most about this movie was the whole thing in the garage. That black gym guy was hilarious the way he screamed ALL the time. Even when screaming wasn't really necessary, he'd let out a \"LISTEN UP NOW!! BLOCK THE DOOR WITH CARS!!!!\" and so, they'd run cars head on into other cars. But, then he got balls and shafted by a zombie with a broom stick I believe it was. The other part that kinda caught my attention was the part with the crash outside the building with the guys that they girl didn't want to come over... To what significant aspect of the movie did that give us? What was it? Why was it there? Why did the movie end with a guy breaking the TV's in a studio? I saw that there was a zombie running towards the screen, but he was kinda far away. I mean, he could have just turned the TV off. Yes, this movie was shot on a whim and yes, I hated it. Good day...
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film SUCKS!! It looks like they just chose to place scenes together at random. Good gore, but little plot. Sally whines and complains about everything till she becomes a demon. I figured that she had PMS. It sure seemed that way. The dubbing in this film is horrible. One scene the woman was talking and a few seconds before we hear any audio. I knew at that moment my suspicions were correct that it was not from the US. I tried to follow along but got lost about half way through it and found it very hard to believe, even for a horror film. Some good characters, but not many. Not worth wasting one's time.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe films use of blue-black and vibrant skin tones to create a noir-ish feel to this movie unfortunately do not work. In fact its quite irritating as it obscures the demon characters and reduces them to one dimensional beings.
At least the original had an hysterical energy and the gore set-pieces were quite stunning. Black gore is hardly frightening, nor is the main female demon at all frightening in her attempts to snarl and growl at the screen in her best camp Lugosi style.
The narrative is grossly disjointed and if you could imagine 'Naked Lunch' directed by Russ Meyer you may appreciate the attempt to be William Burroughs-esque. Otherwise give this film a wide girth. Bava and Argento fans - once again - are bitterly disappointed.
\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\nSaw this last night and being a fan of the first Demons, I had hoped that the sequel would have the same fun, spooky spirit of it's predecessor. This is unfortunately not the case. The set-up is similar as the first, in which a horde of flesh-eating demons burst forth into reality by being released from a horror movie being played... (The first had been a movie theater, this one takes place in an apartment building and on TV.) Once the demons are released, madness and mass carnage ensues. That's pretty much it as far as plot development goes. It worked nicely in the first part because of the ghoulish make-up FX, fast pace and unpredictability. The sequel, however, doesn't cut it. The first problem seems to be that there are way too many characters who we don't really care about one way or another. If they were annoying or idiots, then there would at least be some kind of gratification when they are inevitably butchered/demonized/eaten alive...but these people are just kind of there waiting to be slaughtered. Plus, the fact that most of the characters are in different parts of the apartment building (and out of it), they are constantly cutting back and forth between them, which kept pulling me out of the story. There are some amusing bits, courtesy of the splatter FX and campiness. Such as a constant flow of dripping blood eating through one floor's construction after another as if it were alien acid... The first demon possession of a crabby birthday girl leads to the destruction of her entire party, and a creepy demon child clawing his way into the room of a tenant who is pregnant with child. However, that sequence parlays into a ridiculous-looking rubber demon baby puppet thing that bursts from the chest of the human child that constantly flies across the room at its intended victim. I got a couple of chuckles out of that scene, but I don't think that was Bava's intention. The scene probably would've worked better if they just kept the child demon around to attack the woman, but hey... Other little things like the over-zealous acting of most of the characters and the bad dubbing don't help matters. In summation, I managed to see the unrated version on DVD, and can't imagine having to sit all the way through the previously only available R rated version, because the make-up FX and gore were the only thing I got out of it. Also notable is an early role of producer Argento's future hottie daughter, Asia. In fact, she probably gives the best performance of the whole cast and she's barely on screen. Argento/Bava fan's might want to check it out just to see it, but will probably find themselves looking at their watch, like I did. Gore fans might get a kick out of some of the fx, but will be laughing themselves out of their chairs at the most goofy-looking evil baby puppet since Little Selwyn from Dead/Alive. You could do worse, but it certainly doesn't live up to the original.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"