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\nOK, last night I saw the world premiere of Paul Schrader's The Exorcist: The Beginning at the Brussels International Festival of Fantasy Films. With all the commotion around the film it was highly anticipated.
The director was there and so were most of the stars (except Skarsgard).
Unfortunately the movie sucked big time. It was a real disappointment for me because I'm a huge fan of both Shrader and Friedkin's (RIP) original 1973 film.
What was wrong with it? Most of it actually. The FX (you would think that the Matrix and LOTR digital revolution never happened: it was so badly rendered!), the editing (no real pace or rhythm), the acting (only Skarsgard at times could convince). The script was a, IMO, set up to explain the African scenes in the original film. So the movie had the feel of a set up scene only it contributed nothing.
The only thing that I did like was Vittorio Storaro's cinematography although I've seen better from him (Apocalyps Now).
All of the time I was thinking this was just a rough cut, a work in progress. And that, given the (well known) circumstances, is probably what it is. But that doesn't change the obvious problems with the script.
I had the chance to meet Schrader (very briefly) but I didn't have the guts to tell him what I thought of the film and I was so nervous (this is the guy who wrote Taxi Driver for Christ sake!!) that I forgot to ask him to sign my copy of his Taxi Driver script...
\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\nHelp! Once again, Paul Schrader has sabotaged his own intentions with dull, pedantic storytelling. I rearranged a vacation so that I could see this \"world premiere.\" What a mistake! Why did Schrader even want to make an Exorcist film? Lofty intentions are fine, but if I wanted 2 hours of theological babble, I would visit my nephew's Sunday school. Father Merrin's struggle with his faith, as presented in his younger days, is a potentially interesting subject. But an Exorcist movie needs more! The relentlessly draggy presentation, along with ridiculous special effects, makes for a strange production. Who is this movie for? I didn't bother seeing the Harlin version, but at least they apparently tried to deliver some sort of visceral thrills.
The Exorcist series has been quite strange. The first film was excellent, but every sequel has been unloved and pointless. Why do they keep making them? I suppose Schrader made it so that he could get a lot of money. But why should we go?
\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 long as you go into this movie with the understanding that it's not going to contain any historical fact whatsoever, it's not bad.
It's on par with Sam Raimi's \"Hercules: The Legendary Journeys\", as far as plot, acting, humour, and production values are concerned. You'll see the similarities at several points. Most of the fight scenes are not as good however and the film suffers from that.
Jack Palance commands the screen as well as ever, and at no time do you have the impression he's giving anything less than his level best. Same for Oliver Reed. The problem is that their strong performances make square-jawed Don Diamont's less-than-stellar acting skills seem even more awkward. Perennial bit player Cas Anvar was very good as well, playing a character much like Salmonius in the aforementioned Hercules.
If you enjoyed the low budget swords-and-sorcery movies of the early 80s, you're probably going to enjoy this show as well. It's actually a shame they attached the Marco Polo name to it. It really has nothing to do with Marco's life, contrary to the expectations of most of the people who will want to watch this movie.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nHistorical movies always take liberties -- conversations are concocted where no one could actually know what was said, customs are adjusted to be comprehensible to modern audiences, etc. However, historical films about actual historical personages should make at least a minimal nod to history. This film does not. The only scene I actually remember is when our hero surprises an assassin who creeps into his chamber at night. He confronts the dangerous intruder with, \"I don't remember sending for room service\". The main entertainment value is in its badness; I recommended my local video story put it on the \"Turkeys\" shelf.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhat can be said of this independent effort beyond the fact that it was shot with television cameras, and whether that was by conceit or budget constraints doesn't make the watching of this variation on a theme by Romero any easier. I was constantly reminded that I was watching somebody's school project, at best derivative, at worst cheap.
Writer/director Georg Koszulinski (who also appears in the film) does some interesting things with stock footage, but that says more about his editing style than his directing style, which consists of in-your-face close-ups with TV cameras which made me think I was watching public-access television instead of an actual, honest-to-goodness film.
The story copies and pastes bits and pieces from various sources, including the aforementioned Romero's DEAD trilogy, THE ROAD WARRIOR (dig that stock footage of a \"future\" that looks like the past) and THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT.
What results is an hour-and-nothing's worth of zombies tracking down and eating humans. (Okay, the \"humans\" in this case are clones, but that doesn't change anything. It's the same menu.)
The year is 2031, and the first strand of people who were cloned nineteen years before have started to malfunction, particularly in the dietary area. Of course, when clones go bad, the first thing they have a taste for is human flesh (or, in this case, cloned human flesh). It's not safe to be indoors, it's not safe to be outdoors. It's just a matter of time before the flesh-eating ghouls devour our heroes. Have you seen this before?
I don't mind people ripping off Romero, if it's done well, but no new territory is covered in this film. It's NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD meets THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, shot with television cameras. What is particularly disappointing is that the DVD cover makes it look like it was shot, at the very least, with 8mm film. This wouldn't have been a problem with me if the story had not been equally cheap. The film offers a bleak vision of the future in which technology has evolved to the point where human cloning is possible. Must we continue to clone our favourite movies?
\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 young man falls in love with a princess but then has to go to battle to save her father's kingdom. While away, he accidentally kills an enchanted animal which brings a curse upon him. He becomes a beast and begins to kill even his own comrades. When nobody returns to the kingdom from the battle, the king renders the land of battle cursed and forbids anyone from going there. One day, a rebel who wishes to marry the princess decides that it's time they ventured into the cursed land to claim it for the king and the king agrees, when they reach the land the king is captured by the beast and the rebel returns home to lie to the kingdom that the king has been captured and killed. He assumes the throne and prepares to marry the princess but the night before her wedding, the princess escapes to the land to go and battle the beast herself. It is only when she gets to the cursed land that she begins to realise that her father is still alive and that the beast may not even be that evil after all. Sadly, her discoveries lead her to pay the ultimate price in their revelation.
\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\nMost awful casting I've ever seen. Clark Kent as a crack head, a very feminine looking woman as a trans and on and on.............
Stupid ass violence just for the sake of being violent. No content, no meaning. This person has never been on the streets. It's a joke!
The only thing dumber than this movie is the fact that I finished watching it. I just kept thinking it couldn't get any worse but it did to the very end.
Trying way to hard to be an off the hook movie. Trying to be freaky. So stupid! I really have no more to say but can't leave a comment unless I write more.
Please take this advice and DO NOT BOTHER WATCHING THIS MOVIE!!!!! AWFUL!!!
\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 dumber after watching the first 20 min,luckily i walked out and saved the rest of my brain, people should watch better films and take notes on why they are rated highly,not because of the budget of the film or the special effects, just simply good acting and getting simple things right,and MOst importantly--not being LAME--, but i guess this was produced for those Sheeple without taste and not a clue of what is ''A good Movie''don't be scared of rating films low,save your under-appreciated high scores for ''once in a life time movies''. Keep in mind that many use IMDb for trusted reviews and opinions,don't spoil the broth by sugarcoating turds Peace & love
\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 cannot stress how bad this movie is. This director took every cheap little unintelligent shot at making these people look so \"distressed\". Why are their clothes so dirty? Why on earth would you get the new clark kent to play a crack head? You should be banned from motion pictures for the rest of your life Buddy Giovinazzo.
I take serious offense to this fool wanting to cast real actors as thugs and lowlifes as some kind of clever joke. Why would you ask Clark Kent to play a crackhead? Why are they yelling so much? Why is everyone so mean? Why are those kids so filthy? No one would want to be so filthy? Not even a crackhead child.
You need to grow up and not make any movies ever again.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie was a poor movie. The plot was poor and the comedy they \"tried\" to deliver came out poorly. The accidents seem contrived and predictable. I thought the actors tried to some extent but with this movie, it was so lame it can only go so far.One of the worst films I have seen and don't recommend it to anyone. The only accident to Mr. Accident was it's release.
\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\nYahoo Serious is like a $3 bottle of wine - had no substance to begin with and just gets worse with age. This film proves he is completely toxic. We can only hope that this is his final film and that its serious lack of success will diminish his chances of obtaining finance for any future ventures. It is right up there with \"Lightning Jack\" and \"Les Patterson Saves the World\" as the most abysmal example of Australian comedy imaginable. How tragic it is that with so many infinitely superior comedic talents in Australia Yahoo is given such vehicles to express his brand of puerile school yard comedy. And to think - he had 7 years to come up with the script. True genius!
\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\nMr. Accident is a deliberate series of non-stop disasters and near death experiences reminiscent of Saturday Morning's Warner Brothers Cartoons. Like the coyote who falls off the cliff 5 times per episode, the \"leading man\" (more like an over grown klutzy child) always manages to postpone his meeting with the Grimm Reaper.
This Australian \"surprise\" is offensively unfunny, and at times even depressing. The 2 (out of ten) are is for the visual stunts (some never attempted by anyone since Daffy Duck) and the use of vivid colors (like in those high class national laundry detergent commercials).
There may be an age bracket where this \"comedy\" finds a following. I have definitely passed that age long ago. Calling all preteens: Here's a \"ha-ha\" for ya!
\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 pains me to say this about an Australian film but Mr. Accident ranks with the worst of the worst films I have ever seen. What's even more tragic is that it doesn't fit into the 'it's so bad it's good' category. What annoys me the most about this film is the fairly large amount of money that has been frittered away on a pointless, unfunny, underdeveloped, inept screenplay. Dumb performances (What are Garry McDonald and Elisabeth Gore aka Elle McFeast doing in this trash?), inadequate direction, no plot and a general sense of meanness totally take away from the interesting production design and leave you with a truly horrible taste in your mouth. Comedy! Ha! Do yourself a favour and stay away!
\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 everyone said this movie was utter crap and I agree with them. I spent a few years after seeing it telling other people it was crap. I recommended they not see it. But when it came on TV, we saw the ad. I turned to family and said: \"I know this is sad, but I'm thinking of watching it\". My sister turned to me and said: \"Yeah, me too.\" And you know what? It was funny.
By no means is this a good movie. It's absolutely a waste of time. But it's a good waste of time. You may still think it's crap and fair enough, but I thought it was a really funny slapstick comedy. I didn't like a couple of bits, like when the fish got hit by the car, but apart from that I thought it was good. I loved sitting there and picking out all the famous Australian faces: Flacco, Elle McFeast, Garry McDonald etc.
So, if you like to waste your time, watch this movie. Otherwise, see a drama or something.
\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 the worst movie of all-time, no doubt, and Schindler's List, did in fact have more laughs. This, not only, tells you how unfunny this movie is and how great SL is, considering it's heartbreaking and contains 1 laugh. I wish I could meet \"Yahoo Serious\" so I could personally throttle him, for this and all the other very, very, very bad movies he's ever been in. There is also very few things to say about Australia, seeing as they like this stupid fruit. Don't get me wrong people (Mel Gibson) from Australia are great, they brought us Mad Max. It makes me very nauseous that people like this garbage, (A review I just read said it was, \"very funny,\" sickening, isn't it). I, personally will be boycotting this movie and will start a petition online to ban and burn all Yahoo Serious' movies for being so, and I emphasize this, so RETARDED.
These are just my personal thoughts, no doubting they are shared by everybody who has seen this movie.
Note: If you are forced to watch this movie, Clockwork Orange style, call me to commit euthanasia on you for free.
\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 book is great. It's one of my favorite books ever. The film, on the other hand, is amazingly insipid and bad! When I heard Damon would play Ripley, I knew this production was doomed. But I didn't expect it to be this bad. The actors go around and act very showy. Except for Law (and even he is guilty of some showy acting), all the actors here are near amateurish. Speaking Italian and moving one's arms or hair about shouldn't be considered as acting. Damon is miscast. He's way too stiff for a character that's supposed to be a chameleon. Paltrow is forgettable and Hoffman plays yet another effeminate slimy character. Talk about typecasting.
What's really unforgivable about the script (written by the overrated director) is that it completely forgoes every subtle details from the book and comes up with many of its own, and none of them work! The addition of the Jazz music stuff is totally WRONG! I guess Minghella's idea of Italy in the late 50s, early 60s is clouded with images of Chet Baker roaming the Italian countryside and spreading amore. Yep, Minghella is a true visionary. The film is so bleeding obvious. That silly scene when Ripley drives through the narrow street full of mirrors. Very laughable. Yes, we get the point!!! Every point or detail comes across a mile away, so much so that the film might give the audience the false impression that they have psychic powers. We know, for example, that the Blanchett character, introduced at the beginning of the movie, will return later on only complicate things. And the soundtrack, at times, is totally inappropriate. Whimsical when it shouldn't be. The film goes on for too long and in all sorts of pointless directions. There are too many boring characters populating the landscape (many that weren't in the book). This film is bad! Really bad!
Apparently, Minghella's son told his father that the Ripley novel was his favorite. Mr. Minghella then proceeded to direct it as a favor of sorts to his son. Well, the director did achieve what he set out to do: Talented Mr. Ripley, with its Hitchcock aspirations, is a film strictly made for 12 year olds!
\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 the title suggests there is a philosophical, meritocratic thread running through this film: if a man has the talent and looks to find his way into society and money what might be the outcome if he is denied it for failing to have the X factor? This question is unsatisfactorily dealt with in this adaptation of Patricia Highsmith's book and left me rather cold along the way.
Matt Damon is the Ripley of the title and apart from blagging his way on a funded jaunt to Europe falls under the spell of his commissioned target, Dickie Greenleaf (Law). Homoeroticism and social insecurity get all tangled up in a violent conflagration which escalated and complicate themselves for the rest of the movie. Law, Damon and the damningly pleasant Paltrow as Dickie's girlfriend are OK. I liked Philip Seymour Hoffman's cameo-ish Freddie Miles, the bluff society friend that Ripley can never be. The problem is that the story is lumpen without arc - or redemption, for that matter - which makes it rather difficult to swallow. 4/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie stars Ben Kingsley as Frank, a hit man for some Russian mobsters based out of Buffalo. He is also a raging alcoholic, and this has caused his job performance to decline. After he falls asleep in his car during a would-be hit, his mob boss uncle sends him to San Francisco, where he is to attend AA meetings and get a job as a mortician's assistant. If you're thinking that this makes absolutely no sense, you're not alone.
It gets worse. Well, it actually gets better, but not before getting much, much worse. Frank suddenly becomes a master mortician in spite of a complete lack of training, but his reactions with the people in the funeral home and the AA meetings are interesting. The viewer starts to root for him as they notice positive changes in his life. Luke Wilson is a welcome addition as Frank's sponsor, although he is given almost nothing to do (his character does tell us he is gay, but this ends up having no significance whatsoever). The movie plunges headlong into idiocy with the introduction of the Tea Leoni character. She is completely unrealistic, and her role as a love interest to Frank flounders, as the two actors have no chemistry together. Around the time she comes into the picture, Frank becomes much less engrossing as a character. His characterization is seemingly random; there is no consistency in his behavior. The comedy is low-key and only intermittently funny, especially disappointing considering the comedic pedigree of the cast.
Problems abound in this one. Kingsley's accent is terrible and inconsistent. It alternates between Italian, Russian, and Hispanic. Throughout the course of the movie, Frank tells numerous people he is a hit man (including an entire AA group), but nobody seems to care, or wants to do anything about it. The movie relies on cliché scenes to carry it through its final act, most notably when Leoni's insufferable character chases Frank down at the airport, just when he is about to board a flight back to Buffalo.
Though it has a strong premise and an interesting first half-hour, the movie quickly becomes a total disaster and devolves into complete nonsense. At the end of the film, Frank celebrates one year of sobriety. I hope to celebrate many, many years of not having seen \"You Kill Me\".
My Grade: D+
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFrank Falenczyk: It isn't that I'm sorry I killed them; it's that I'm sorry I killed them badly.
Wow! Talk about a swing and a miss. You have a great cast and a great plot with endless possibilties...how do you f_ck that up?! Well, apparently John Dahl has found a way. With an atrocious screenplay featuring jokes about as funny as a malaria epidemic and dialogue so painfully dry it makes none of the characters likable, 'You Kill Me' might be the biggest cinematic failure of 2007. On a positive note, Ben Kinglsey provides another great performance as the alcoholic Polish hit man trying to get clean but the material he has to work with is crap. Tea Leoni is good as well as is Luke Wilson, Dennis Farina, Bill Pullman, Philip Baker Hall and the rest of the cast. I guess the best way to describe 'You Kill Me' is a terrible movie with good performances. Grade: D+
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI went to this film full of hope. With so many capable and humorous actors headed up by Sir Ben I thought this is going to be a little treat.
Oh how I felt like gouging my eyes out as the credits rolled. That I had wasted 93mins of my life this film that was clearly DOA. There are some real problems with this film and it will probably be easier to list them; 1. No jokes, I am not particularly hard to please comedically - high or low brow - but there really is not one laugh in this film.
2. Sir Ben mumbles through every single line whether he is supposed to be drunk or not?!? 3. There is no effort to to begin let alone develop the relationship between the love interests in this. 2 people bumping into each other randomly in the street would instantly have more rapport.
4. All the acting talent that is assembled is completely wasted. Don't be fooled into watching this because of the names.
5. For a cold ass hit-man he rubbed out more people in Gandhi than this flaccid waste of time (a by the way dyed beards look really creepy) I was hoping that this was a slow burner but in the end the only thing that could inject any life - and justice - into this is Frank pulling out his 9 and offing the whole cast starting with Tea and ending with himself - sorry it was that 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\nI love Ben Kingsley and Tea Leoni. However, this is easily the worst movie I have seen in 10 years, and I see my share of movies. A stinker. This is a bad idea for a movie, poorly executed. Nothing about it is funny, credible or interesting. I was looking for wit, irony and genuine humor. Instead, this looked like most of the cast members wandered on to the set to do Tea Leoni a favor. It's too bad such acting talent was wasted on such hollowness. Don't bother. I have to wonder what opinion the makers of this movie have of their audience to subject them to the idea of Polish gangsters in Buffalo, NY sending a contract murderer to San Francisco to become a mortuary assistant while attending AA meetings. Bill Pullman should begin reading scripts before he agrees to be in a movie. Sad.
\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\nComedy? What's so funny about watching an ugly deadbeat alcoholic attending 6 sessions (by the time I turned it off) of alchoholics anonymous? Set off by a woeful script of grunts and mumbles and drunken slurrings. Served up with lashings of Hollywood's religious \"God will Save you\" redemption drivel Another Reviewer mentioned the \"Sassy dialogue\" of Tea Leone - well I managed to watch nearly an hour of this boring film and I still haven't seen any sassy yet - in fact my 80 year old grandmother has more amusing comebacks than Tea's character in this rubbish. Tea is more stony faced and shows less emotion than Keanu - in fact one wonders if she too isn't addicted to something - maybe botox her face is so wooden? Save yourself from being killed with boredom from this film.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is possibly one of the worst movies I have had the dis-pleasure of watching in my entire life. The plot is ridiculous and the characters are horrible people. I watched this film with 3 friends and we all agreed to turn it off 30 minutes before the end. Ben Kingsley's character is just plain stupid but not funny at all. It is a wonder why an actor of his talent would be involved in such tripe. Tea Leoni does a fine Hillary Clinton impression throughout to portray the very cold and uninteresting female lead who has all the endearing qualities of a broom handle. Throw in a pointless and unexplained sub-plot and a horribly cringe worthy montage, and you end up with a waste of 93 minutes (60 in my case). Avoid this film at all costs!
\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****Contains Spoilers****
As a fan of Rachael Leigh Cook, I watched for this show to finally come on so that I could see it. I taped it so I could watch it several times, and there is something about this show that really bothers me!
I recognize that this was a made-for-TV movie. Not only that, but it was made for Lifetime, which is a channel that I despise. Because it was made for TV, I can ignore the huge plot holes. I can ignore the massive lack of character development in Ally Sheedy's character. I can overlook the fact that George C. Scott and Rachael Leigh Cook, both of whom are very talented actors, were definately not reaching the best of their abilities. I can look past the fact that Don Diamont's character was so cliche'd, that you knew when you saw him he was the villain. I can even pass over the obvious mistake in the timeline (She's raped during her winter break, and then over a year later she has the baby from it.)
The major thing that I can't get over is this: There are two trials for the custody of the child. In the first trial, custody is awarded to the child's father because he is \"better educated, has a degree from a community college, and has a full time job.\" In the second trial the judgement is reversed because the Judge feels that there is lack of evidence that Emma (RLC's character)is an unfit mother, and custody shouldn't be taken from the primary caretaker and given to someone with no previous interaction with the child.
The problem is this: Nowhere during the course of these trials is the fact that a thirtysomthing year old man raped a 15 year old girl and got her pregnant taken into consideration! Whether it was a rape or not, he had sex with a minor! Wouldn't that be taken into consideration when the judge is choosing him for custody because he's a \"mature adult?\" Mature adults don't have sex with minors!
It's not the worst cable movie that you would ever see, but it's not a great show either. ** out of ****
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA very sensitive topic--15 y/o girl abandoned by mother as a baby and who goes to visit her, continues to be ignored, is raped by her mom's boyfriend, becomes pregnant. There was not enough depth displayed of this situation. Too much of time is taken up on the chase with the truckers transporting the baby. (Interesting, this baby with asthma--you never see him cry-- except once--, be fed, have is diaper changed during the whole truck transport ordeal.) I would have liked to have seen more of the interrelationships, more focus on the fact that this girl was a minor--this should have stood up in court immediately.
And this was a true story! It deserved a better telling than that!!
If it weren't for the subject matter, I would have given this closer to a 0 rating. I rented this from the library. Only later I found out it was a made for TV movie.
oh well
\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\nAn ex- informant of the East Germany finishes in Mexico like spy of a student group in 1971 in where she falls in love with one of the activists. This is the first co-production of Mexico with Germany, and although it is a good picture of the ideals that marked, and continue marking (at least to the CGH), youth, as much finishes being something insipid since to the internal dilemmas that it faces Dark brown (Noethem) like the passion by his ideals that Adela feels (Campomanes), as soon as they glimpse, in the case of him, I want to suppose, by the barrier of the language; and in the case of her by its lack of experience. Reason why in the end a concrete identification with any of them does not exist, which causes that what could have been films that even served as document like Red Dawn, finished being one more a film; although I want to clarify that in the room many of the assistants were excited in the conversation with the director, which says to me that no longer they are so young or my ideals have changed.
\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\nYou may be interested to know that BARRICADE was viewed as a failure by the studio and shelved for a year before ALICE FAYE's popularity reached such a high that the studio decided to release the film despite the fact that it was never fully completed. It fared modestly OK at the box-office.
Faye refers to a murder during her nightclub stint in New York City--and this scene was actually in the script and was the way the film was to start. Instead, it is entirely missing and what could have been an exciting sequence (including a complete song number by Faye) was never filmed. However, the rest of the story is pretty much intact and made release of the film possible at a running time of 71 minutes.
A tired looking WARNER BAXTER is too old to be believable as Faye's romantic interest and is merely perfunctory as the broken down reporter. Audiences today would be offended by the depiction of Chinese using fractured English phrases like \"Me likey make noisy\". Key Luke is one of the Chinese loyalists but plays his role in a low-key, straightforward way. Arthur Treacher is all but invisible and yet gets fourth billing on screen due to editing changes in the story. Originally, Joseph Schildkraut had a role in the film but his part was eventually edited out.
A mishmash of a film that will serve as entertainment only for the most die-hard Alice Faye fans who will get a chance to see her in a dramatic role--albeit a weak one. Charles Winninger is totally wasted as a kindly man running the American consulate.
Despite all the weaknesses, there are a couple of scenes involving narrow escapes that are effectively played and Karl Freund's B&W photography is top notch.
\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\nBarricade finds Alice Faye without any songs as a refugee trying to flee China and without passport. She's in a heap of trouble, I won't say what exactly, and even American extraterritoriality won't help her out.
I mention that because one of the grievances that the Chinese including the bandits who attack the American mission in this story set deep in the Chinese interior was that particular institution whereby American citizens who committed crimes were tried by American courts set up by our consulates. We were far from the only country doing that however.
Anyway the story opens with her on a train for Shanghai trying to use a hokey Russian accent. The accent intrigues Warner Baxter who's pretty plastered.
Bandits however interrupt the journey and the two of them seek refuge in the American consulate presided over by Charles Winninger. He's the best one in the film and I only wish that a better story was given because I liked his character. He's a widower and a proud member of the consular service, appointed in 1900 by William McKinley. He requested a transfer ten years later and that's the last he was heard from. As Assistant Secretary of State Jonathan Hale aptly put it, he's the real forgotten man.
Baxter does all right in a role that someone like Clark Gable would have done in his sleep at MGM. The heroics would have come more natural to Gable than to Baxter as the mission is barricaded and defended against the bandits.
Alice Faye did have one number to sing. Why Alice's song was cut out, God and Zanuck only know. One thing I'm still trying to figure out is when the mission inhabitants take final refuge in the cellar with a trap door, just who was left upstairs to pull the rug over the cellar door?
Barricade had the potential to be a lot better than it was. But sloppy editing and lost faith in the project made 20th Century Fox release a project unfulfilled. Watching Barricade is like eating a badly cooked meal.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nTo paraphrase the previous reviewer's comments, if you're a Stooges fan, avoid this one at all costs! My basic question is, being the experienced troopers of comedy that Moe and Larry were, why did they insist on attempting to continue the act when it was so obvious that their home studio, Columbia, was so clearly not interested in giving them serious writers and veteran comedy directors? This movie plays like someone who's giving a pale imitation of the trio and you can see how very hard Moe and Larry are working to make every little bit of slapstick relevant. Joe De Rita, despite his background in vaudeville is just not up to the job as a replacement for Curly, Shemp, or even Joe Besser. If that's who Moe and Larry had left to pick from, they should have just closed up shop and enjoy their retirement years. Leaving us fans with better memories of far better films they had done earlier. Always leave them laughing is the motto for comedy and always quit while you're on top. Hence Seinfeld's leaving the sitcom while right up there, instead of sticking around for the inevitable decline.
\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\nMartin Lawrence could be considered a talented man, but those days are long gone. Runteldat shows a man who at once tries to play the sympathy card to his plight yet takes responsibility for it whenever he thinks it'll benefit his ego. The sad truth is that at this point in his life, his best days were behind him: his half-funny show was dead in the water after his co-star left and to today he faces a career of voice acting and god awful action films.
One gets the impression that this concert film wasn't made to give Lawrence's career another boost after his humiliation but rather a childish attempt to clear the air by both trying to pathetically salvage what remained of his life and somehow twist it into something to be proud of, some defining moment in which he showed himself to have 'earned' his fame. Sadly, the concert is nothing but a gravelly-voiced Martin incoherently trying to be funny, invoke pathos, and then claim he doesn't care about it at all because hardcore. The sad truth is that this is the real public embarrassment for Lawrence: the way he rambles on invoking sad pity laughter makes you wish that he would just strip down to his underwear on stage, wave a gun around, and just reenact it all over again. There is no real insight to his performance at all. Much like the childish title states, Martin is trying to make his ultimate moment of truth his own in his way and fails miserably. He would have been better off waiting for the E! True Hollywood Story instead of running on a stage and making an idiot out of himself for the second time.
Perhaps the saddest thing about this concert film--or rather, career eulogy--is that Martin didn't put any thought into this. What was this film supposed to prove? Sadly, that his fame was fleeting, he was a flash in the pan before the underwear incident, and now that the only way he can get work is piggybacking Will Smith or a Pixar production. They might as well called this concert 'Tombstone' because that's what it is. Martin Lawrence just dies on stage here, and with it goes what could have been an interesting career. Now? Just a pathetic side note in history.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt is not uncommon for a celebrity to be faced with the proverbial \"wake-up call\". And, should they survive this event, they come to a deeper understanding and appreciation of their particular good fortune. However, in the case of comedian's, they are rarely as funny after their epiphany as they were prior to it. Such is the case with Martin Lawrence. Frankly, I pay little attention to celebrities as I have much better things to do with my life than to spend it monitoring others'. So, I was unaware of the majority of what Lawrence had gone through prior to this film. It was interesting but, unfortunately, all to common. I was left with the larger impression that this guy's stand-up act just wasn't very funny. Save the big life messages for a book, just be funny on stage. If you want to see a funny Martin Lawrence, go rent some of the old Def Jams for which he hosted. Don't rent Runteldat.
\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 usually really like Lawrence and being in Australia I haven't seen much of his stand up, so when I saw this at my video shop I thought, yeah I'll have a look. I wish I hadn't seen it now. Obviously Lawrence had a profound experience that opened up his mind, and I guess he wants to share this with others but this was neither the time nor the place.
This whole experience seemed like a motivational speech in hell, it really did. I believe the catch phrase of the night was \"ride it until the wheels fall off\" which he intermingled with just plain lewd jokes revolving around sex and sexual organs.
Don't get me wrong, I don't mind crude humor, but Lawrence lacks the gift of classing it up in the fashion of Eddie Murphy, Richard Prior or Robin Williams. Lawrence was just plain lewd, the only time I laughed was when he relived his experience with the law and his recovery in the hospital. If there were minus points, i would give them....
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt's the single unfunniest thing I ever watched. It's sad how he tries so hard to come up with a good joke and all he does is curse and thinks his disgusting vulgarity is funny. He is the most bitter person I ever saw. His whole act he is trying to show how much he doesn't care, and by that only showing how much he's angry at the critics and the people with any taste and sense of humor who'd rather go through immense torture than go watch his \"show\". There are good comedians, there are bad ones and there are horrible ones. But this guy is in a league of his own. I feel sorry for him and even more for the people who find him funny.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI saw this late at night on a minor channel and I put it on expecting a laugh or two. Martin Lawrence is a good comic actor and I reckoned he might be a good stand-up comedian/actor in the style of Richard Pryor.
I couldn't have been more wrong. This concert was awful. It was full of racist comments directed at white people, Muslims and people from India (Muslims and Indians are the same thing in Lawrence's narrow mind) and rambling, clichéd cod-philosophy (Lawrence, like many black comics and directors, can't resist the urge to preach when given a platform. Do we really need a lecture on Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights struggle during a stand-up comedy show?). Then there were his fawning comments designed to ingratiate him with women, it made my skin crawl listening to him.
Worst of all, the show simply wasn't funny and I found it boring. I turned over halfway through and flipped back to find him either still preaching or going on and on and on about the birth of his child (there was no humour in the story of the birth of his child and it was self-indulgent on his part to bore us with the details. He clearly didn't have very much to say or he would have cut this section of the show out).
This show was rubbish: Runteldat!
\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\nMartin Lawrence is not a funny man i Runteldat. He just has too much on his mind and he is too mad which trips his puns pretty early in the game. He tries to make fun of critics, which boils down to \"f*** them\". Then he goes on to rather primitive sexual jokes on smokers with throat cancer and it just goes downhill from there. 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\nAnthony Wong stars in both this and the original (far superior) Untold Story, but the similarities stop there. Wong doesn't reprise his role obviously, and instead plays a bumbling policeman who gets involved with a rather suspicious female, Fung (1994's Miss Singapore, Paulyn Sun) who's a repressed nut-job, sure. But her tame jealous \"wanna be with a guy who's with a girl\" killer is no where near as compelling as what Wong played in the first one. The movie itself seems tired and by the numbers. Yeung Fan as the physcho's love interest's unfaithful girl tries to keep one from total boredom by stripping down whenever possible, and Sun does have a nice ass, but even that can't save this dud.
My Grade: D
Mei Ah DVD Extras: Sub-titled interviews with Cheung Kam Ching & Paulyn Sun; Anthony Wong filmography; a very brief synopsis; Theatrical trailer for the film; & trailers for \"Chinese Erotic Ghost Story\" and \"Twenty Something\"
\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 with big expectations. The blurb on the back indicated that this was going to be a nasty one. But it was pretty tame and a little unsatisfying. The violence was nothing I haven't seen a thousand times before, the gore level was only average (mind you there was probably more than what has been seen in Hollywood in the last 5 years - perhaps more), and at no stage was I even feeling uneasy let along frightened. Again a CAT 3 movie with big wraps, has not lived up to its hype.
Sure hire this movie, but don't go in with any expectations. I am so keen to get into the whole Asian horror scene, but am continuously disappointed. I did love Ichi, and Audition, but then again, Miike stands alone at the moment.
Please inspire me..... there is a large cluster of jaded genre fans who are starved of quality horror!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis was one of the shows that I wanted to follow-up on. But, I'd just couldn't bring myself on devoting my time to this show. To have a show that centers on the topic of politics, you really need a strong plot with twists and turns to enhance the mood of the show, something like \"The West Wing\" or \"Commander-in-Chief.\" Rob Lowe was OK, but actors like Kyle Chandler just couldn't act (he was awful in \"Early Edition\"). It was a pain to sit through this show. With its lack of suspense, urgency, and characters who can actually act, I just had to give up on this show and am glad it was canceled so I would have nothing more to miss.
Grade D-
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie is a window on the world of Britain in 1973 - a world of holiday camps, fags and birds. I was actually at Pontins Prestatyn while this was being filmed, so it's fascinating to see where I holidayed as a kid, and what a world we have left behind. The 'plot', such as it is, concerns Stan and Jack's attempts to turn a job at a holiday camp(25 quid a week!) into an opportunity for chasing young women and winding up Blakey. They are joined by the rest of Stan's family and some laughs are to be had from Arthur (Michael Robbins) and Olive's (Anna Karen) persistent chuntering, as well as the sheer oddness of Blakey, but the idea that young women would see anything desirable in brilliantined Stan (Reg Varney) or lecherous Jack (Bob Grant) is just risible. Harmless enough in its time, now it's just a curio from a bygone age.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis has got to be the most appalling abuse of the word comedy ever witnessed.It is simply not funny and the scriptwriters have obviously just tried to use the name of the TV series in order to make a few quid at the box office. This film makes a carry on seem subtle as far as sexual innuendo goes ( no mean feat), and has all the charisma of a corpse with rigamortis. A complete washout I'm afraid!!
\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 problem this film has is the same problem the TV series had and that`s the laddish Stan and Jack . There`s nothing wrong with laddish characters but Stan and Jack are played by actors who seem to be in their late 40s/ early 50s ! And there`s something objectionable - not to mention crediblity defying - as they cop off with girls young enough to be their daughters
As for the rest of HOLIDAY ON THE BUSES , I found it instantly forgettable . It`s basically a 30 minute episode spun out to 90 minutes with having all the action take place at a holiday camp instead of a bus station
Amazingly almost a third of voters on this site have given it a 10 ! Come on guys , this film doesn`t deserve more than a 5
\n
assistant\n0
\n"