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 must not have seen the same movie as the one the comments refer to here. First, I think they should have serialized Ghost Story if they were going to film it at all. The truncated version they come up with was awful. I felt the performances were mannered and so much was left out of the story that the performances of such masters as Astaire, Douglas, Houseman, and Fairbanks seemed hammy. Alice Krige was superb as Eva, though. Craig Wasson is a good actor but he was only adequate as the protagonist. The decision to cast Patricia Neal and to truncate her role was not a good one. Imagine what Anne Bancroft would have done with that character! I blame the script, which was poor. The production values were dark and the pacing was slow. A disappointing, pedestrian effort.
The book is one of the five greatest suspense/horror novels of the 20th century, IMHO. But the movie was disappointing, although a great introduction for Krige.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAll that talent.....but when ya have poor direction, and a WEAK screenplay, it doesnt matter WHO is in a movie. Very tired attempt at telling a tale..which was actually interesting in the beginning, but then QUICKLY fell apart toward the end....to bad.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nGhost Story has an interesting feminist revenge tale premise, A-list veteran actors, colorful flashbacks with nifty look-a-like youthful counterparts of the old men. scary staccato music heralding the approaching horrors, atmospheric New England winter weather, and an excellent charismatic actress in the title role. Ghost Story could have been much more effective in black and white and in eliminating some of the more lurid special effects, and to presenting a more cogent screenplay (we should not have to be wondering about why the two trailer-parkish acolytes are in the script) The biggest detriment of the film is Craig Wassan (definitely separated at birth from Bill Maher) who from perhaps editing or just bad acting, is totally ineffective. He seems to \"specialize\" in wide-eyed, wide-mouthed reaction shots; not a lot of personality here. The revelation however is Alice Krige, pale-faced, enigmatic, terrifying underneath the placid exterior. However, her Eva Galli is creepy even before she meets her fate; I mean, a young woman who says things like \"I'd like to take a bite out of you\" or \"Dance with me, you little toad!\" is already not in the land of the living. Ghost Story would have been much better in a low-key, Val Lewton mode. The overdone special effects completely undercut the chill factor.
\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 another film I missed out on Italian TV as a kid: notable for its quintet of ageing stars, most of whom had never made a horror film in their life (Fred Astaire, Melvyn Douglas, Douglas Fairbanks Jr., John Houseman and Patricia Neal), it deals with the men’s long-concealed past crime coming back to haunt them. It takes the form of a ghostly dead-ringer for the girl they all loved (Alice Krige) but whom they were forced to dispose of after an unfortunate incident when she humiliated their egos! Fairbanks, who was the one responsible for the deed, has twin sons (Craig Wasson) and so Krige directs her revenge upon them as well. Soon one of the latter, Fairbanks himself and even Douglas and Houseman all wind up dead. Therefore, the remaining Wasson and Astaire decide to confront the ghost at the scene of the crime where they also have to contend with a couple of sinister tramps who somehow do Krige’s bidding! I was looking forward to seeing these veterans on their last legs (Douglas died before the film had even premiered though, by that time, he had already completed another role, while it proved Astaire’s own inauspicious swan-song) but GHOST STORY went through too many changes of mood – while maintaining a sluggish pace throughout and emerging overlong into the bargain – to be anything but a failed curio. Having dollops of sex (including full-frontal nudity from Wasson!) and gruesome make-up effects muddled the waters all the more and marred the old-fashioned elegance inherent in Jack Cardiff’s (another notable of long-standing) cinematography.
\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 gives new meaning to the term \"uneven\", giving us a few intriguing characterizations offset by an awkwardly realized plot that relies on a few well-placed stingers to deliver the majority of the thrills.
The plot concerns a group of men who harbor a secret that has caused a curse to be visited on them in the form of a ghostly female apparation that causes death. She also may be seducing their sons.
It is quite a spectacle to have all the notable veteran actors together in one film, but unfortunately they're not very convincing, particularly the scene where Melvyn Douglas goes off the deep end begging the others to listen to him. It's no shock then that the actors who play these same characters in their youth are terrible, especially the giggling Ricky. They deliver the worst \"gee-aren't-we-all-drunk\" scene I've ever watched.
The movie has a few saving graces, namely Dick Smith's great ghost makeups (however misplaced they are in this film), and Alice Krige's fascinating performance as Alma/Eva. I've never read the novel that this film was taken from, but I intend to after reading some of the other reviews on this page. You don't have to have read the book, however, to realize that this is only a shadow of the original tale. There is a good story here, but it seems lost somewhere, amid exposition that shows the men having nightmares over and over again and making unsubtle references to the secret they all share.
As it stands, it appears as if there was about half an hour of footage removed from this print, particularly near the climax. After all...how is it that Fred Astaire manages to mount an excavation of the pond so quickly? What did Gregory Bate and the kid have to do with Eva? And while we're at it...what the hell was she, anyway? Why did letting her out of the car cause the apparition to disappear? If it was an apparition, how could it have sex with two men and have them not know?
These and other questions will never be answered, at least not by this film. Unless some restored footage is discovered somewhere, it will probably forever remain a curiosity with some oozing makeup, bizarre sex scenes and nudity, and a few attractive performances.
\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 story had a good plot to it about four elderly men that share a deadly secret concerning a young woman that they met 50 years ago. After all this time, the young woman returns to seek revenge on the men. This story occasionally made me nod off during the movie in the middle of tiring elevator music and the ever so consistent thunder storms. But it is well worth the wait in the end when we find out just who the mystery woman is that keeps plaguing the old men in their dreams and interfering in a young man's life. The most of what I liked in this film was the suspense in which the young woman appears to the men just before their deaths. The special effects were something. Every time I heard her call out to them I would think \"Not that face again.\" But it was a good movie, I just wish that the pace was not as slow or the acting not as tiresome. And what I also liked about the movie was the flashback of the 20's, very authentic as well as the costumes being 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\nMaybe it's because I read Peter Straub's wonderful book before seeing the film, but I was terribly disappointed by this movie. In my opinion, the filmmakers removed everything that made the story interesting and unique, and replaced it with more common Hollywood-style elements.
It's too bad, too, since this movie has a terrific cast, particularly Fred Astaire, Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., Melvyn Douglas, John Houseman, and the then-largely-unknown Alice Krige. They're just not given very much worthwhile to do.
In fact, I was all for leaving halfway through, but a friend convinced me to stay to the end, as he was sure it had to get better. He apologised to me during the closing credits.
\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 strayed too far from Straub's novel for me to enjoy. Barely made it to the middle of the film. Besides changing Don Wanderly from Edwards nephew into his son, the removed most of the major scenes and a number of characters that gave the novel so much life. What was left was trash. Straub's version was far superior to this poorly executed film. I don't think casting did all that great a job on picking the Chowder Society members either. Hopefully someone will come along and actually remake this film correctly in my lifetime. I just hate when Hollywood butchers the works of talented authors because they think their version so much better. Makes me sick.
\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\nNo serious spoilers, but some very minor ones.
\"Acacia\", a Korean contribution to the ever popular Asian horror wave, concerns a husband and wife who decide that they're getting on a bit and decide to adopt a child. The child, who has an usual obsession with the dead tree in the family's garden, eventually disappears when the couple eventually have a child of their own and the aforementioned tree seems to hold a grudge against the family itself.
And that's about it. The film moves at a snails pace, clocking in at over 100 minutes with 80 minute material. It is essentially a thin family drama with a creepy tree, and there is very little in the way of scares, just shots of the tree with weird mumbling noises playing over the top. However, the idea of the tree being the child's mother is a pretty original one, but it isn't exactly exploited to its full potential. This sort of separates \"Acacia\" from much of the new wave it belongs to: films like Ju-On and Ring tend to do the opposite, and milk bland ideas until they are red in the face.
The film does begin to get going towards the end; however the realisation of the child's fate and the parent's actions not only dampen the earlier curiosity of the story, but are revealed with such machine gun editing that it's difficult to take in all at once. The final sequence is undoubtedly creepy, however it feels like too little too late.
Overall, the film does not feel too much like a Ring cash in, however with the \"film renaissance\" that Korea is currently going through, I couldn't help but feel this film could have been so much more.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nHaving just watched Acacia, I find that I have to agree with the negative reviews here. I like Asian, and Korean horror, and I had great expectations for this film. Man, was i disappointed. Watching this, I kept thinking \"surely they just do this to catch me off guard later on\", and for a while I expected something ingenious to happen. However, I slowly realised that the film really is that bad. It is the cheapest cash in into the Asian horror market I have seen so far.
The basic story is perhaps not even that bad, but the way it is filmed it seems like the most laughable plot ever. The tree as a 'scary' device might be okay if used cleverly, but all the filmmaker does is giving us different shots of...yes, a tree, over and over again. He seems to hope that the tree will do all the work for him in terms of tension and build-up, but it just feels like what it is: shots of a tree. For goodness' sake!
Slow build-ups can be very effective, and a film that presents the viewer with only few glimpses of what is wrong might deliver good scares, but not Acacia. Sure, we get a glimpse of a child on a tricycle disappearing around a corner, and, yet again, meaningful shots of the tree from above, or underneath, or the side, but these scenes are just not scary. They feel silly, especially because you realise that the director means them to be scary. They simply aren't.
Apart from that I agree with some of the other reviewers, that the characters are ridiculous. In particular the one character's 'descent into madness' is laughable. However, what really breaks Acacia is the terrible editing. Its hard to see why scenes were cut together the way they are, but it's bad, and it kills any spark of interrest it might have had. It also makes me feel patronised, because I can see what they are trying to achieve with it, but I cannot believe that they think I would fall for such cheap ploys.
There are lots of great Asian ghost films, and lots of bad ones, but this is by far the worst I have seen. They must have been going through the list of 'what to put into ghost movies', and ticked them all off, but in the end they forgot to add the actual 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\nAs far as Asian horror goes, I have seen my share of disappointments along with some of the creepiest sh*t imaginable... \"Acacia\" doesn't really qualify for either of those categories. It had a few moments of tension and was interesting to watch, yet I couldn't help think that there should have been a tad more to this story. The film deals with a childless couple who decide to adopt a kid who appears to have a fascination with trees. He develops a bond with the Acacia tree in their yard and seems to communicate with it. Then, during a fight with his mother involving their new birth child, he storms off after threatening to find his dead mother who is now a tree. When he doesn't come back, the parents send file a report and wait, while the neighbor girl believes he somehow inhabits the Acacia tree. The pacing is rather slow and the ending gets a bit weird, but I have to recommend this as a slightly enjoyable effort, though the story feels a little flat. Hell, I can't really make up my mind on 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\nFrom the acclaim it got I was expecting more from a Korean horror if it's going to be viewed in the same caliber as A Tale of Two Sisters, as some other reviews have stated. This movie isn't in the same caliber except in budget spent on special effects. Think Amytiville horror. With a tree and sparse dialogue.
If you're going to have a movie with limited dialogue, the plot line and characters have to carry the film. This film could have been told quite well in a 30 minute short film concept, 2 hours with a lot of staring at trees and terror scenes that make you not only not scared, but detract in a \"What the...\" sort of way does not a good horror movie make.
Those people who are stating that this film gave them lasting impressions must literally have heart attacks when decent horror films lay it in.
\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 horror movie, regardless of which hemisphere it comes from. I know what to expect from the West, the East and most horrors in the middle. So I received the DVD of 'Acacia' in the post and looked forward to a slow build of ever increasing tension and scary children with odd, disjointed movements hiding under duvets.
The major selling point for this film was that it has a far more linear story line than many of this ilk - you get who the characters are, where they are from and what they do. You get the baseline information (nice couple, can't have children) and realise that the premise is just too normal for something freaky NOT to happen.
And then comes the bad. The number one complaint is that the story is OBVIOUS. I got it pretty much the moment the kid hugged the tree. I knew where the film was going and was even able to predict the order of death and for what reason.
The editing is shocking and unfortunately, not to the benefit of the film. Even were I still pondering the events, tension isn't allowed to build because the director seems to have gotten a new editing suite for his birthday and wanted to use it as much as possible.
And my final gripe is this....the tree was unnecessary. This would have been a perfectly good tale of subtle horror with just the couple breaking down over the death of the child - the titular tree bought nothing new or exciting to the film. So I'll finish where I started - my overall impression was 'Oh.'
\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\nOh how awfully this movie is! I don't know if it is a horror film or a drama, cause the story and the both genres are not established very well! The story is not moving, it is slow, boring, and sleepy from the beginning to end. This movie really bores me! But I really liked the camera work, it is authentic, fresh and clear, the acting is great too, the little boy was the great performer in this movie, but it hasn't made me to jump from my seat. But this movie makes me grab a pillow, lay on the bed and sleep until the credits roll...
Boring! Not worth watching! I tell you, this movie sucked!
1/10
\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\nA moderately interesting start, some pretty scenes in sixteenth-century Japan, and a promising idea. But the execution? The comparison that springs to mind after about fifteen minutes is \"Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death.\" Really. A specialist in \"Oriental history\" who doesn't speak any Japanese, walks on tatami without removing her shoes, and is generally dumb as celery? Please. This looks like a student film: the sets are risible, the acting (except, perhaps, for the title character) close to wooden, the plot utterly arbitrary. At least \"Cannibal Women\" was funny! This is best watched with someone who knows something about Japan, just to watch disbelief repeatedly crawl across their face.
\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\nRemember those terrible war movies your grandmother forced you to watch 25 or so years ago on your old VHS recorder? \"The Fallen\" is just a bad executed remake of those movies! The story is terrible, the direction is terrible, the editing is terrible, the music is terrible, and all together make an unbearable nightmare.
It is also terribly slow! Very slow! I tried to sleep while watching it but I couldn't do it because I had nightmares of it.
Please don't watch this movie! It is THAT bad! Ten lines is a lot so I don't know what else to say.
Press the eject button NOW and you wont regret 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\nFor starters, I once met the director when he was going to WW2 re-enactments with a period movie camera and making videos of the events which looked DARNED good. I really wish he'd kept that up. Because as much as I applaud what he accomplished on a clearly \"next to nothing\" budget, when I popped out the DVD, I just wondered why I sat through almost two hours of nothing. There's no real plot to speak of, you don't really care what happens to the characters (maybe the Italian troops and some of the Germans), and the ending is yet another \"art film\" commentary on the futility of war. I could have told someone how it would end once I got through the first ten minutes. I KNEW the Germans would have a few heroically volunteer to fight to the death, I knew most of the Quartmaster GIs would be killed, it was just too darned obvious! And while I'm on the subject, I was shocked to see so much of the Axis side done well, yet the GI side done comically. All the character development was clearly for non-English-speaking roles. The GIs simply got shafted hard in this film. And I can't help but wonder if they even had someone on the set who understood how the US Army works? The phrases, terminology, actions, were clearly written by someone with no knowledge of the American military at all. Had I now known who had directed this film, I'd have sworn it was directed and written by a German...
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhat on earth was that? My family and I just waisted 2 hours of our life for this piece of rubbish !!! There was no plot, no tension, only a lot of boredom !!! My kids could do better movies with our video-camera.
But maybe we just did not get the point of the movie...oh wait, my mum did. She was the only one who liked it for the following reason: \"At least a film with no cars screeching...\" If you are looking for a war-film with no fighting in it, is still interesting and gripping and has a strong anti-war-message, then you should watch \"The Trench\".
I give this film 3 out of 10 because it is good enough for an afternoon-nap and because I am too nice...
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI've rent the movie because i'm very fond on war movies and on the cover picture i've read \" better than save private ryan\"....mmmmm ...i thought cool! guys....is just a ridiculous movie. Almost fun. Nothing to do with a proper war movie. I want my money back! Why the f...k the peoples lies??????????? F NO SUBTITLES They tried to make everything cooler with the light....but they didn't make it. Sorry about this.....but the movie is awful. The italians are shown as \"Mafia e mandolino\"
The American as stupid farmer The Germans as even more stupid farmer.
The actor are ridiculous and unprofessional.
Please....please......
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI've never written a comment on IMDb before, but this movie was so bad it left me little choice but to warn you not to waste the two hours of your life. As an avid WWII historian, I don't even know where to begin on how historically inaccurate this movie was. Carbines with Korean War bayonet lugs, K98k's missing cleaning rodes and sight hoods, German uniforms that didn't exist, the list could go on forever. Added that it's loaded with flaws, has literally no plot or climax, and acting on par with your local high school theater. The epitome of cheesy.
PLEASE...there are too many good WWII movies out there to waste your time on this junk.
\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 there are some plot holes in this movie. We see in the very beginning a kid dies from playing the game. But who was tied up in the mail truck delivering the package which contains the game? How did the driver place the package into the mailbox when he was lashed to the steering wheel? It is not like he was Mr. Fantastic. Wow that in just the first 15 minutes... The actors are second rate, take the \"Bad Guy\" played by Patrick Kilpatrick (who?) exactly he has appeared in one episode of everything on TV and some secondary roles in poor movies (like this one). So most of the acting is like TV dramas, I can live with that, but the graphics or special effects are horrible. The disembodied \"Game\" voice sounds like a poor clone of Hal from \"Space Oddessy 2000\". What they called Zombies looked more like shadows jumping around like monkeys from \"Planet of the Apes\". The Aliens had transparent bodies like the shadow zombies. In most cases, the movie was just predictable as it had no hook or hidden agenda going. The story was a good idea but like most good ideas discussed over lunch was never developed beyond that good idea stage.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWell, the first thing I saw after looking at the DVD box was \"Best Screenplay\" and thought this would be a good rental. WOW, was I mistaken! I'm sure at one time there was a good movie in here, but after the incredibly poor acting and \"video game\" production values, this ends up looking like Tron's retarded half-brother. The first scene sets up the overall atmosphere of the entire movie. Five minutes into it, you'll be asking yourself, \"What the Hell am i watching?\", and it will just snowball from there. An awful soundtrack that makes every song sound like Rob Zombie's \"Dragula\" rounds out this miserable piece of crap into a laughably bad movie. On a side note, #3 most romantic quote in a movie - \"I think you're the final destination.\"
\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\nOK, this movie wasn't good at all. Video games aren't what I would brag on if I was over the age of 15. Cool to play games, but writing a comment about video game players may like this movie for that it is, that is strange. Just play a video game, don't make up a sorry story about getting trapped in one. I use my cell phone, I hope I don't loose my girlfriend in that. Grease being the worst ever? OK, Grease has a very well thought out story along with being a musical. Even if you don't like musicals, anyone would say Grease is good. My brother plays video games all the time and he watched 30 minutes and left because it was so awful. I feel asleep.
\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\nHmmm, not a patch on the original from Shaw Brothers. The fighting is average and looks very clunky. The story line is as to be expected from a 70's Kung Fu film, confusing and daft. Stupid voices for women,dubbed in posh English accents for men. i turned this off early and i love martial arts flicks. Get the original, its so much better than this average movie, don't be fooled, i bought the wrong flick what i wanted was the Shaw brothers movie. i have just started commenting, I'm only doing foreign and martial arts films this is just the beginning of my movie collection, i personally own most modern martial arts flicks. Hope you don't waste time watching this one, its for die hard fans of 70's Kung Fu only.
\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 a copy of this one from Netflix -- big mistake. The DVD version titled \"The One-Armed Swordsmen\" was produced by madmen who thought that the fighting sequences would be appreciated better pasted all together in one big chapter than as part of a consistent, sequential story. Some of the story was left in separate chapters, which you can select from the main menu, but the DVD is still a mess. Don't rent or buy it. Not that there was anything wonderful about the original story, an absurdly complicated piece of nonsense. Much as I liked seeing Wang Yu in his prime again after all these years, this one is an utter waste of time. I've had dish detergents that made a better film than this. What the chopped-up DVD version shows us is that no matter how silly a Chinese script may be, you have to see some sort of story to care about how the fighting sequences turn out.
But \"The One-Armed Swordsmen\" does offer you do the chance to see both Wang and Shaw Brothers stalwart Lo Lieh beating up smirking pretty boy David Chiang -- it's always a pleasure to see that happen. Lo plays a sort of second-string villain here, and serves as a prime example of why some people really need orthodontists. he film is also graced by the participation of Taiwanese actor Chang Yi as the magistrate.
Another comment above mentions the obligatory fight-in-the-inn scene (there are two, in fact) where Wang and Chiang are attacked by a pack of comical barbarians using what look like cavemen weapons, making Bruce Lee noises while they fight. None of this makes any sense, but that's okay if you're not expecting any clarity or common sense. It was fun to watch anyway.
Another peculiarity of this production is that there are no significant women characters. There are a couple of female roles, but they play no serious role in the action or the plot.
If you can find a copy of the original Shaw Brothers One-Armed Swordsman movie, the one which explains why he has only the one arm and why he uses a broken sword, go for 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 by far one of the most pretentious films i have ever seen. it is a tight slap on the face of some Indians who speak in English and were looking at the mirror. disgusting. the bubble gum version of the 1970s politics of the north Indian plains. the message - the educated English-speaking Indian tried to save the poor beggars of India in all earnestness. it ignores the fact that the poor beggars are also capable of and are saving themselves on their own.
as a love story its okay. the problem is that the love story and character development is based upon a completely fraudulent version of politics.
\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 is supposedly about three young idealistic people, two of whom join the Naxalite movement and blah blah. It is really just another film about some beautiful, rich people trying to decide who they should bed next; the peasants and naxalites and the political struggles of the era merely serve as a picturesque backdrop. Literally, as we don't hear the villagers say a word, never mind learn anyone's name, thus they occupy the same 'role' as the 'natives' in old Hollywood films. The movie is also dull, and the story does not actually get us anywhere - except to various bedrooms. We are apparently supposed to admire the artsiness of it all, which merely means no good song and dance routine, which would not have saved the film of course, but might have at least alleviated the boredom.
My friend Japna was annoyed at the immorality of the whole story, not the bedroom bit but the whole pointlessness of the story. The message seems to be that ideals are not worth pursuing.
\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 uses random events of historical significance as its backdrop and willy-nilly criss-crosses the lives and time-lines of its 3 central characters. To what purpose, one may ask? The problem with this film is that the script becomes the 'story', not characters or their lives.
It starts off with a bunch of rich, aimless college kids (and a couple of not-so-rich too) drawn into the Naxalite movement. Affair, rejection and separation follows. People go their own ways, seemingly. Only till the heroine forces herself upon them. Not once but twice. After a pause in the 'Movement', the next hurdle for these 3 is the Emergency imposed on the country by Indira Gandhi. Lots of political figures roam around for no obvious reason. The sub-plots are too contrived and don't add up to make a logical whole.
The movie tries to impose a false pace but never reaches a true rhythm. Barely coherent at times, there is no maturation and growth whatsoever in the arcs of the 3 ex-college buddies. Even after they are presumably married, engaged, settled or whatever, they are ever too eager to just ditch it all and head off to a village to have sex with the ex-lover or ex-flame. What fertile imagination the screen-writer possesses. So many 4-letter words are used without any rhyme or reason that its downright abusive!!
Chitrangda Singh has a horrible American accent that she doesn't try to hide. Its hideous hearing her mouth cliché-ridden dialog like 'Whats up? I didn't think you'd come' (this, after the hellish nightmare she's just been thru) or, in the beginning, 'I appreciate your concern but I can take care of myself'. Yikes. What kind of clown wrote the dialogs for this? She invites her friend in to have a cup of 'South Indian' (no less) coffee, wishes someone Good Morning and then is wished Good Night by someone else in the family. Now whats up with THAT?!?
The countless uncredited villagers and tribals are the best actors. The editing is really erratic with too many cuts. Obviously trying hard to make a bold statement, Sudhir Misra screwed up big-time on this one.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt would be quite easy to make this movie sound fun: a call girl gets shot in the forehead by a North Korean spy, but survives. The bullet that is embedded in her brain makes her long for knowledge, as well as sex. Unbeknownst to her, she walks away from the shooting with the cloned finger of George W. Bush in her purse, a key which can unlock the power to use nuclear armaments. Just call it a romp, and at least a few people will show up to the theater. I'm not sure how many did go to see this four year old film when it opened in New York this past April, but I sincerely hope not many. It sounds like a light and playful pinku flick, but it has art-house pretensions and is really just incredibly boring. Many pinku films in the past have been successful in their artistic aspirations, but this film's aspirations just make the time that elapses between the sex scenes excruciating. And then the sex scenes aren't even good! I've seen some pretty outrageous stuff in dirty Japanese movies. I've never seen this country produce something with sex this dull. The Spice Channel is more imaginative. The only worthwhile thing in this movie is the body of the lead actress, Emi Kuroda. Otherwise, this is pure torture.
\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\nOkay. I really tried to tap into the (so called) silly & surreal humor that this film sets out to be. I'm told that the Japanese version of this film is much shorter than the one shipped to America (go figure!), and has less political references. Apart from all that, I found this sexual/political farce just as boring and pointless as standard porn. The central female lead is easy on the eyes, and could actually act. I would love to see her in a non pink film where she could actually flex her acting muscles (and no,not the ones you're thinking of). It's obvious that Japan can (and does)produce just as much crap as other countries. I couldn't recommend this to anyone, with the distant possibility of someone who has a Jones for Asian porn. Go see a real Japanese film.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nMy wife and I met doing a professional production of \"The Merry Widow\" in 1982 -- in English, but a straight translation.
Only the very basic skeleton of the original plot is visible in this \"adaptation\". Most of the characters have been deleted, along with the entire B plot, and all but one of the characters remaining have been renamed. Most of the characters in the movie aren't in the operetta, either. The action has been moved from Paris to, at first, Washington, DC, and then to the fictional country of Pontevedro, which the movie has renamed \"Marshovia\", and only later to Paris. The net result is that we don't reach the beginning of the original play until about 45 minutes in.
And the main source of tension in the plot is deleted, too. In the original, years before, Count Danilo and the heroine were very much in love, but his family refused to allow them to marry because she was poor; it's his broken heart that has rendered him a careless playboy. Now that, as a widow, she's the richest woman in the world, she still loves him, and he still loves her, but his pride won't let him admit it to anyone, even himself, and she must spend three acts playing mind games to break him down. The trope of the aristocrat with money problems who won't admit that he's in love with a rich woman for fear of what people will think supplied the main plots of a substantial fraction of Viennese operettas for decades after the 1906 \"Widow\". In this movie, they've never met before, which rips out not only the heart of the whole thing, but nearly all the comedy.
Lamas does a pretty decent job, though.
An interesting musical point is that several times we hear a snippet or so of \"Trés Parisien\", an extra song written (in English, despite the title) for the London première, which was not, as far as I know, usually found in American productions until the 1980s or so.
\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 feel terribly sorry! Where the Lubitsch-pic was enchanting, marvelous, full of spirit and elegance, this one here is only - colored! Lana looks like 51 (in fact she was 31 at that time, but obviously depressive) and tries to play a shy and dull girlie. Think of Jeanette McDonald, who gave the role of the widow a double-faced depth by \"playing\" with Count Danilo. That Lana had to play an operetta although unable to sing - crazy! She only sings one song - the title role of an Lehar-operetta, that is really funny! The only really good thing is the great waltz scene at the end: glamorous! And - after watching this scene - have a look at the introducing waltz scene in \"Gentlemen Prefer Blondes\"! Any similarities?
\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 not exactly what I would call a Mad Max film, after seeing Road Warrior and experiencing the excellence of that film, I felt somewhat disappointed after seeing this. It supposedly started out as some kind of kids in the wilderness film, and was merged with the Mad Max franchise(bad idea). The casting was not exactly the best, I mean come on Tina Turner? One of the main problems with this film is that there are no good villains. No Wez, no Humungus, not even a decent Toecutter! Nothing really even happens, if you are going to plan on seeing this sub par action flick (can it even be called that?) make sure you see Mad Max 2 or Mad Max, or better yet both. Another problem with this film is that there are too many people, even the Thunderdome battle sequence is dull, Max doesn't even kill anyone! The music is bad, the characters are bad (not in the good way) and after seeing this film, it left a very bad taste in my mouth.
\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\nEvery time I've seen this movie I get the same impression: some parts of it are so amazingly stupid/bad that they crack me up, they aren't intentional, and there are a lot of them; the rest is just plain bad, stupid and/or irrelevant. A movie like Evil Dead gets credit for being bad at it's own expense because it's the intended result-it' stupid and cheesy because Sam Raimi succeeded at what he was trying to do. This movie doesn't have that excuse, it's stupid and cheesy because the filmmakers failed so miserably. The crap result gets heaped on top of the crap writing and crap performances to make it a shame that the lowest rating a movie can be given is one for 'awful.' Watching this movie has the same effect as listening to a Billy Madison essay--\"Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it.\" I should be able to give this movie something around a -5.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nLike the previous two 'Mad Max' films, 'Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome' is not exception to the violence and strange plot. Mad Max is in a post-war society where he must destroy master blaster and get the children to 'tomorrow morrow land'. This is generally a warped film with Peter Pan references and Tina Turner, methane-pigs, and odd characters. I got very bored by watching it all, and it offered nothing to me. I did not feel inspired after watching this film; the only decent thing about this film were the extremely-odd characters that got picked off in various ways throughout the film. It's too weird for me, and it was much too dull.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIntelligent summary, isn't it?
If Mad Max was something of a simple, straight forward, nothing special but nothing wrong either kinda film, they totally made up for it with it's sequel, The Road Warrior. So, in theory, with a third great film it would've been a great trilogy... now, it's not!
Such a huge disappointment Beyond Thunderdome was! It's main premise is pretty cool, with an 'underworld' (think a mix between Metropolis and The Time Machine), but it all isn't carried out with too much conviction. Add the obnoxious Tina Turner and the no good story-line of the people waiting for a plane, and this is just one huge stinker.
Maybe they can brighten things up again with part 4 (although that one is just probably gonna be 1 huge budget-explosion kinda thing), because this just isn't right.
3/10.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nEven allowing for my unabashed love of the first two films in the franchise, and sweeping away any sort of biased leanings I might of had for the character of Max, I just can't bring myself to rate at average this cartoonery waste of space that so nearly soils what had gone before it.
Gone is the rugged nasty streak that brought feeling to the character Mad Max Rockatansky, gone is the impacting feeling of desolation in an apocalyptic world, and more crucially, gone is director George Miller's passion for the franchise. The dreadful score matches the cartoon heart of the film, it seems that the makers didn't really know what to do with the amount of cash given to make this third {and thankfully last} instalment. Sure the stunts are spot on {to be expected by now}, and of course Miller manages to paint a barren desert landscape by purely lifting from what he has done before. Yet he clearly struggled for fresh ideas with the action since The Road Warrior's crowning glory of the Petrol Tanker pursuit is replicated here, only he uses a train instead!!.
It's just a very poor show that may have seemed like an ambitious turn of events back in the mid 1980s; but when viewing the three films together now, Thunderdome just comes across as a director losing his edgy approach whilst sadly getting caught between the mix of comedy and fantasy action. And the truth is that neither of those genre slants would have worked singularly, in the context of this series, anyway. I give the film 3/10 purely for one real good Thunderdome fight sequence, while the stunt men here deserve some credit at the very least. But this is the third time I have tried to like this film, and as glutton for punishment as I undoubtedly am, I wont be trying again, ever.
\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 all three mad max films in succession for the first time a few days ago and was left bitterly disappointed with the third instalment. it destroys the fine work of the first two films with weak and cheesy action and a story line that turns the apocalyptic Australian wastelands into a comical sand pit one would expect to see in a children's adventure movie. the character of max is unrecognisable from his dark and cynical persona seen in the previous films and changed into a predictable uninteresting saviour that left me feeling betrayed. if you haven't seen this film yet then simply don't. Let the story end with the road warrior and save yourself a very painful hour and a half. (spoiler alert) the other major issue i had with this film that truly left a bitter taste in my mouth was the flying man. we had already seen him in the road warrior where he had helped max and yet when he reappears in thunderdome it looks like the two had never met. whether he was supposed to be a different character or a relative of the road warriors gyro man i do not know. however it was not explained and is a weak element in this overall weak film. 2 out of 10. doesn't get a 1/10 because of the thunderdome fight.
\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\nOriginally I wrote what was a sarcastic,scathing review of this pathetic piece of dung,but every time I submitted the review I got \"this contains a very long word which is not allowed\", also words that were not misspelled were judged incorrect.
Now the word that was judged too long was never identified.After numerous attempts at eliminating words eventually I got the sneaking suspicion that the IMDb site is politically sensitive and set to reject certain words automatically.Nothing I wrote was obscene or racist in itself.But after eliminating all of the longest words the same message was repeated again and again,also words that weren't judged misspelled were all the sudden considered misspelled!
The pc police are everywhere.
\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 without question one of the worst movies I have ever seen. However, it is also one of the most unintentionally hilarious. I like to compare it to Plan 9, in that it can be so bad, so awful,so dumb, and such a waste of time that I find myself laughing out loud.
One of my biggest problems with it is that it's a complete ripoff of Robin Hood, and let be honest and say that I love Robin Hood with Errol Flynn, and Robin Hood: Men in Tights. But let's face it, from the forbidden love between Peck (who is definitely slumming it. Although in all fairness this was still a good few years before the masterpiece To Kill a Mockingbird) and the female character (who is so forgettable, apparently, that I have forgotten her name.), to the final scene where the good guys dress up as monks to fool the bad guys screams \"ROBIN HOOD\" all over it.
However, I don't think the film isn't worth seeing. On the contrary, I think that this is one of the funniest movies I've seen in years, even if it was unintentional.
\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 turned out to be more of a women's romance-soap-suspense film than what I hoped it was....simply a tense thriller. Yes, the final 20 minutes were suspenseful but much of the previous 75 bordered on being just plain tedious.
Ruter Hauer was a little too subdued, not playing his normal intense character. Natasha Richardson sports somewhat of a dumb look most of the time and her character was very unappealing.
The story is so-so. It's not as bad as I'm making out, but it sure isn't anything I'd watch again, and the back of the VHS describing this movie was misleading.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"