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\n\"Ordinary Decent Criminal\" is sort of based on the exploits of Martin Cahill, already the subject of John Boorman's 1998 film \"The General\". Cahill had a rough upbringing in a slum area and graduated from petty crime to armed robbery with honours. He justified his criminal career by pointing out his poor background at every opportunity. This is a common excuse for criminals that conveniently overlooks the thousands of slum-dwellers who don't turn to robbing post offices and selling guns in order to make ends meet. Cahill made fools of the police and local authorities, not to mention the IRA, which earned him a sort of \"Folk Hero\" status as well as making him many enemies. However, he was basically an amoral, self-serving thief.
My primary problem with \"ODC\" is that the protagonist is made out to be a lovable Irish rogue. Kevin Spacey does a good job portraying Michael Lynch with a blend of oily charm and quiet menace, but the character is too amoral and selfish to be seen as any sort of hero, even an anti-hero.
The film is well shot and well acted by a fine cast, but what lets it down is the script. Writer Gerard Stembridge can't make up his mind; is he writing an Irish \"Lock Stock\" or a grittier treatment of Martin Cahill's thieving career? That's the problem when a writer bases his central character on a real person.
It's also unfortunate that \"ODC\" followed the cinema release of John Boorman's \"The General\", which was a more accurate portrayal of Martin Cahill's story. Cahill was a cunning thief who knew the value of good publicity, so it's not surprising that his exploits got the movie treatment.
What IS surprising is that a studio was prepared to take Cahill's story and give it a happy Hollywood-style ending. Kevin Spacey's charismatic-twinkly-bigamist-thief Michael Lynch gets to ride off into anonymity on his motorcycle in \"ODC\". In the real world, Martin Cahill was executed by the IRA, just to prove that no-one makes fools of an out-dated, sectarian and corrupt para-military organisation and gets away with it.
The real Cahill would never have walked away from his notoriety because it bolstered his \"Man of The People\" self-image. Having Michael Lynch give up everything to avoid death in \"ODC\" is a cop-out ending to a weak and shallow 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\none of the worst excuses for an irish accents i've heard. from a truly great actor too. its a bad irish accent not to mention a dublin accent (which is completely different) anyway the film is loosely based around the story of ganglord martin cahill and its done much much much better with brendan gleeson in the title role in THE GENERAL
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI was really looking forward to watching this film. It had all the ingredients of a great tongue in cheeker, but it just didn't come together AT ALL. Kevin Spacey's accent was tolerable except that sometimes he forgot to use it and I would rather NOT have had to listen to Linda Fiorentino's pale attempt. She and Helen Baxendale were totally lacking in charm and personality, thankfully their screen kids had loads, so you could find at least some members of his 2 families endearing. You could have strained spaghetti with the plot and I'm sure that the script was written by some adolescent schoolboy in a high school English competition. That said, when I wasn't cringing, I was smirking so it wasn't a totally wasted 90 minutes. I did find the superimposing of Kevin's face on the painting very clever and quite funny. Maybe I'm being a bit harsh but I was expecting a bit of quality viewing and it just never came.
\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 really quite odd. Clearly certain *events* portrayed identify the main protagonist as the Dublin criminal known as \"The General\" but almost everything else is just wrong. We are not talking of a distortion of ancient history...but a complete distortion of irrefutable, documented facts. The question indeed is why? The garda are shown as latter day Keystone Cops, his gang as non-menacing, and the man himself as..well Kevin Spacey. Almost pure fiction anyway, why bother to try to give a semblance of realism? Having said all that, it is a poor exercise *any* way you want to look at it. Not worth a second of anyone's time.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n\"Ordinary Decent Criminal\" is sad because it is obviously trying to succeed and equally obviously hasn't a chance in hell of making it apparently owing to the absence of a clear sense of purpose. A abysmal failure at droll Irish comedy with Spacey as a thief who enjoys outsmarting the cops and his competition becoming a sort of folk hero in his own mind, this flick manages to be mildly amusing when it's trying to be funny, slightly more than boring when it's trying to be interesting, and forget sentimental or poignant or endearing though it takes shots at those qualities as well. \"Ordinary Decent Criminal\" has a clumsy screenplay, naive direction, journeyman execution, thin story, poor casting, mediocre acting, and eventually becomes lost in itself and sinks into a mire of hopeless mediocrity. Pass on this one. (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\nTo keep from being bored during \"Love and Sex,\" first I tried to think of all the movies this was imitative of: \"Breaking Up\" with Russell Crowe and Salma Hayek (though that had a more original ending), \"About Last Night\" with Rob Lowe, and a lot of TV shows.
Second was admiring just how gorgeous Framke Janssen is so I couldn't believe for a nanosecond that she could have a problem getting a date. She is certainly in line to give Julia Roberts a run for her money, literally-- and wasn't Julia in some movie with this same plot or other?
Third was trying to figure out why the writer/director bothered to give Jon Favreau's character the Jewish name of Adam Levy; he even refers admiringly to eating a ham sandwich.
Fourth was trying to figure out why some critics had given this a good review which is why I was in the theater.
(originally written 9/2/2000)
\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\nKate is a jaded young woman who has trouble meeting and dating guys. Throughout the movie, you get to meet several of her loser boyfriends. And throughout the movie, you are subjected to Kate's cynical negative outlook on love and relationships. This negative viewpoint is continued throughout and presented as Ultimate Truth. I had a real problem with this. Why would anyone want to be taught about love, life, and dating from someone who is obviously so messed up? It would work if that was the joke, but it is not. For the jokes in the movie (which are neither funny nor original) to work at all, you have to believe what Kate is saying: that all relationships inevitably end up with bad or no sex, that the highest level a relationship can evolve to is when you are able to fart in front of your partner... You get the idea.
There is no movie in recent memory that comes close to upsetting the stomach as much as Love & Sex. Why did the filmmakers waste their time on such trash? Every joke in Love & Sex is something that I have experienced in another movie or in my own life. There is NOTHING original or creative about the story, the production, or the style. It is cynical, dumb and pointless. Mind numbing!
\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 has a really weird mixture of genres - toilet humour and action in one. It doesn't really pull it off - it should have stuck to one genre. The best thing I can say about the movie is that the dog in it is cute.
The most disturbing sequence is in the middle of the film when Moses (Sandler) and Carter (Wayans) decide to stop off at a hunting lodge/motel. I'm not quite sure what the point of this sequence is - it just seems gratuitous in the extreme. The proprietor of the hunting lodge (\"Charlie\") is a very nerdy looking guy. For some reason, Moses starts a conversation with Charlie about porno, jacking off, homosexual sex, sex in a threesome... Charlie's photo of his \"wife\" appears to be Charlie dressed in drag. There is no reason for this really juvenile dialogue and scene. Anyway, the whole scene seems to be directed to the moment when a naked Moses ends up with Carter's gun up his butt and Charlie sees them through the window. It all reeks of school boy humour about homosexuality - horrified and titillated all at the same time - which I don't find funny at all.
I have a friend who is always raving about Adam Sandler movies. This is the first one I've seen - after this, I'm not sure I want to see any more.
BTW, this is my husband's account - he's seen Happy Gilmore, and he tells me it's quite good - maybe I should give Sandler just one more chance.
Countess Skogg
\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 age: 13
Keats, played by Damon Wayans, and Archie Moses, played by Adam Sandler, are the best of friends and have been for a year. What Moses doesn't know is that Keats is really Jack Carter, an undercover cop, who is waiting for the right time to bust Moses and Frank Colton, a major criminal who Moses is involved with. When Colton and Moses find out that Keats is a cop, Colton wants to kill Moses, but he gets away after shooting Carter in the head, which does not kill Carter. Moses is found by the cops and is taken for proof of Colton's wrongdoing. But when the cops, including Carter, are about to escort him across the country on a plane, all the other cops are killed and Moses and Carter are alone in the desert. Carter has to stay alive as well as take Moses in.
A fairly average action-comedy, Bulletproof has a fair plot but a lot of the film is just plain stupid. For a comedy, I found most of the jokes entirely unfunny. But as an action movie, it has a few fairly good action scenes. Not being a good fan of either Adam Sandler or Damon Wayans, I found the acting and therefore, the characters, well below par. The climax isn't really great, and the film is so unrealistic. It is not entirely bad, but also not too good, and it is far too short. Running below 85 minutes, I though there was another 15 minutes left before it ended, but there wasn't, and the film felt too short. Overall not a complete waste of time, but I still wouldn't recommend Bulletproof.
Australian Classification: MA 15+: Medium Level Violence, Sexual References, Medium Level Coarse Language
Rating: 56 out of 100
\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\nDrug runner Archie Moses introduces his friend Rock Keats to his boss, drug kingpin Frank Colton. Unknown to Moses, Keats is actually an undercover police officer. During the bust on Colton's factory, Moses accidentally shoots Keats in the head. He survives the wound & later arrests Moses. Dodging Colton's hired assassins, the duo must overcome their mutual hatred to survive.
Adam Sandler's films are usually a hit-&-miss affair, with his comedies either loved by his fans or hated by everyone. This one is not as stupid as his other films, but still cannot overcome a lazy script. The direction is incredibly patchy, with fast-paced action sequences giving way to slow comic exchanges between Sandler & Damon Wayans. Some of the action scenes  flying a plane with no engines, a car chase at night through a forest  are quite absurdly contrived. The acting is the standard for this genre, with Sandler & Wayans making a good pairing. In short, the film is dumb but fun to watch.
Grade: C+ Review by M. K. Geist
\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\nBulletproof is quite clearly a disposable film. The kind where bullet riddled good guys and bad guys are splatted everywhere, so much so that you really aren't supposed to see them as human. The yawns between the lines from Wayans and Sandler are extensive indeed. They try hard but , alas and alack, persona itself does not a good film make. Jimmy Caan plays a nifty villain but he's always had that redneck edge at the ready. My favorite's scene is the repeated clips of a TV ad in which Caan reveals the virtues of America can be shown to the world by having 2 cars in every garage. Aside from that it's a buddy movie with guns for brains. Pass 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\nI haven't for a long time seen such a horrible film. I hoped that at least Adam Sandler could be funny... hopeless. Seems, like some teenager have written it's script and he's daddy pushed this so far, that someone agreed to shoot it. (Movie)World could be better place without this, whatever it is.
\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 it on video. Predictable, horrid acting, film flubs. What more can be said, this movie sucks. The actors are annoying to say the least. This was suppose to be a comedy, but there was only one funny moment, other than that is was painful to watch for me.
1 out of 10. PASS!
\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 came highly recommended, but I am not sure why. I am not really and Adam Sandler fan though, apart from in 50 First Dates where he departs from his usual angry man routine. Damon Wayans is an undercover cop and Adam Sandler is the guy he pretended to be friends with for a year in order to bust him. Naturally Sandler is rather angry about this betrayal. Cue angry shouting and silly facials from the king of variety. They end up on the run and of course they become friends again after a big misunderstanding (involving Sandler shooting Wayans in the head - he survives thus he is Bulletproof). Need I go on? You will work out what is going to happen if you do watch it anyway. When our DVD player kept pausing (hey it was $80 from the supermarket OK?) it was commented that the player knew the film was boring and was refusing to play 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\nim sure he doesnt need the money for a life saving operation or transplant. in all honesty i think this review qualifies as a better movie than 'bulletproof'. thanks for listening.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWe screened this movie in a club as an example of how classic literature can become twisted into some of the most awful movies of all time. Just the fact that the back of the box proudly proclaimed the plot to be set in the \"techno-futile\" future should have been enough of a hint. I think that word describes the movie itself, because no matter how much technology they tried to use to save this movie, the effort was completely futile. Not to mention that our club advisor told us that it allegedly couldn't get a distributor for two years.
This cinematic failure is littered with cheesy, cliche dialogue that's worse than angsty teen poetry. Beowulf's character changes halfway through in a way that is in no way credible, and whenever he's in an action scene, he's constantly flipping like a hyper gymnast. There is even, as they say, a \"token black guy\" whose attempts at humor are completely out of place. And, of course, the daughter of the leader of the outpost Grendel is terrorizing is a total vixen. A vixen whose breasts are exposed throughout the entire movie. A vixen who wants to fight the creature, yet she never puts on armor. And her weapon of choice is a little carving knife. And despite their dire situation, she still dresses up for dinner, in a dress with a see-through skirt that exposes her short-shorts underwear. There are a couple scenes that could pass as soft core pornography, and in the second scene they even reuse footage from the first. I thought the portrayal of Grendel was bad enough, but then came the end of the film, which featured a display of CGI that might be decent for the 80s, but is totally ridiculous for a late 90s venture. I could go on, but you all should watch this film for the fully laughable effect yourselves.
The other club members and I did manage to have fun watching this by taking a cue from MST 3K and mocking it the whole way through. I'm still reeling from an extra's weapon: a perpetually spinning pizza cutter on a pole.
\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 heard many things about Beowulf, maybe because i'm from Romania and a good part of the movie was filmed here, in my country. And i expected a lot from this film. At the end, i was disappointed. It is not as horrible as other users said, but it's definetely bad. It's all about a monster killing people in a 6th century castle and Lambert the one who comes to kill him. Lambert is good, as he is in all his roles, but the rest of the characters suck, and the action isn't too good either. Plus maybe the only thing that could've saved this film, the special effects, are also very bad, the monster looks awful (not scary, but awful). Oh and another bad thing: the music. The movie tries, and manages to create the 6th century atmosphere. But all the action sequences are presented on rock music, which is very very bad. I mean action on rock works perfectly on a movie like Charlie's Angels - where that's the perfect way to shoot your action. But here, that was a very bad idea.
Vote: 4 out of 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\nThe future of fantasy never looked so dark! Christopher Lambert gets to fight the evil demon Grendel in this grim looking trashy fantasy-epos. \"Epos\" I said? Er... there's only one location, so you can't really call it an epic adventure, can you? The location is a medieval/futuristic 5 inch tall castle, so how did they manage to cram in all the actors? Oh, I get it, those where special effects. A miniature. Silly me.
Here's some reasons why you might want or NOT want to watch this motion picture:
- Lambert gets to do his sword-swinging tricks over again like he did in Highlander.
- The sets and costumes are amazingly cool (if you're a 12-year-old).
- Rhona Mitra has a voluptuous pair of knockers which she likes to show off through-out the whole movie.
- ...er, Christopher Lambert has white hair...
- Every time they start fighting, this over-the-top raving techno-soundtrack gets going. So why are these medieval slayer-dudes fighting while they should be dancing.
- They don't have electricity in this castle but they do have speakers installed which seem to work fine. So where's the amplifier? I guess they borrowed it from the techno-dj who delivered the soundtrack.
- Watch it for the climax in the end which features an outrageous demonoïd CGI creature coming straight out of any Playstation 2 survival-horror game.
If all this got you interested, then go watch it (at your own risk), but don't tell anyone I told you to. I strongly suspect Pinhead visiting the set while shooting, because this movie has no soul. Anyway, if you want to see beautiful Rohna Mitra really show some skin, then watch Paul Verhoeven's HOLLOW MAN.
\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. Uh...
This movie is so dissociative and messed up that I literally lost a bit of my sanity after it was over. I will never be the same person again. I'm trying to put my finger on what, exactly, is so completely insane about it... It's not just the hilarious techno music, or the \"outside of time\" medieval/Blade Runner/wild west/Highlander setting, or the weird CGI \"Grendel\" monster that looks like a man made out of animated sausages, or even the \"Grendel's mother\" monster, which looks like some Alabama table-dancer who grew claws and tentacles when she stayed in the tanning bed too long. All of those things are weird, but what's really the strangest thing in this movie is the acting. I simply can't explain. This script is obviously, hellishly silly, but the actors exude deadly seriousness through it all. Lambert is always weird, and usually kind of boring, but for this one he's gone into Dolph Lundgrin territory: I can't help but just start laughing every time he talks.
I will give this movie some credit for being completely scatter-brained and crazy as opposed to conservative and boring. I'll always take a bizarre disaster of a film over an utterly mediocre one.
Warning: if you are planning on watching Christopher Lambert as Beowulf, be prepared to spend several hours thereafter wandering the streets in some kind of nightmarish, hyperactive-catatonic daze. It's true. When I was done with my Beowulf spirit journey, I woke up in the middle of the Siberian tundra in a puddle of blood and milk. There was a dead wolf lying next to me, and I later found I had a handful of human teeth in my shirt pocket. My VHS copy of Beowulf was sitting on a hastily-constructed stone altar nearby, enshrined with candles and wilted flowers. The tape told me to walk. I rose and I walked.
\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\nHa ha! First of if you've never seen a \"Dimension Film\" your in for a real treat! Known primarily for SUPER LOW BUDGET Horror/Slasher films, \"Beowulf\" was no exception.
However, this video was more in the style of ultra-cheesy. I missed the K-R-A-F-T label on the side.
Consider the Anachronisms! (something out of place and time)
We had: candles, armour, swords....
Yet we saw: telescopes, Soled Shoes, Cigarette lighters, Loudspeakers, Electricity, Body Bags, aluminum foil tins,, and spoons/forks.
Not bad for something that takes place in like the 8th Century!
This is not a horror film, is a horrible film. Its very laughable. Its really a comedy made to look like a horror film! I couldn't stop laughing!
Christopher Lambert (\"The Highlander Series\") -- must have really taken a tumble in his career if he's working for \"Dimension Films.\"
I've learned my lesson though. I'll be looking at the film studios on the videos, a LOT more closely now.
RATED NO REELS OUT OF FIVE. If you want a good laugh though, its hard to pass up on this piece of work!
This move had some cleavage in spots -- I especially liked the blonde bimbette!
Wayno

\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 painful. That's probably the best way to describe it. It's 93 minutes of your life that you will never be able to get back. Well, actually it's more like 86 minutes because there is no way anyone would want to sit through the credits in this stinking pile of dog feces. Immediately you can tell the movie is from the producer of \"Mortal Kombat\", due to it's thumping and annoying techno soundtrack. This drains the few laughably enjoyable moments this movie can give you. The rest is drained by the completely uninteresting and annoying characters, the \"Freddie Prinze, Jr. School of Acting\" acting abilities of all involved (including the miscast Christopher Lambert), and the non-existant directing. Did I leave anything out? Of course I did. Let's not forget about the suicide-inducing script, with it's unitentionally (??) funny dialogue. Oh, yes, and let us also talk about how they shamed the original poem with this sad and useless futuristic/medieval translation. The costumes and weapons (were those giant pizza cutters I kept seeing?!?!) are just plain stupid, that's the best way I can describe them. And the last culprit of the night is the always awful CGI. When will filmmakers learn that CGI sucks? When will we see the wonderful effects used in the 80's? Probably never, but films like this and \"Star Wars, Episode 1: The Phantom Menace\" make us wish that they would bring them back. In closing, avoid this movie like the newest Freddie Prinze, Jr. movie. Then again if you like Freddie Prinze, Jr. movies then you deserve to sit through this horrid excuse for filmmaking.
\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\nRenting this direct-to-video film, I was not expecting an amazing piece of cinematography. (Not to say just because a film is in cinema it will.) Only very loosely following the story retold in the epic poem, this film provides a unique take on the tale of monsters and super humans. The general photography can be summarized as conflicted, with its mixture of mediaeval and post-apocalyptic (reminiscent of Mad Max). With a rock and techno soundtrack to boot, one comes away feeling a bit off. The fight scenes, though unbelievable, are entertaining, and Christopher Lambert possesses some of the most interesting weapon combinations I have ever seen on film, though often a tad unfathomably inefficient. The special effects used for the monster Grendel are surprisingly effective and are one of the few highlights.
Christopher Lambert delivers an average performance as Beowulf. It will be nowhere near as memorable as Highlander, but at least it wasn't as poor as Fortress. The supporting cast is rather neutral.
If you're looking for a good action-adventure story with a complex and engaging plot, I would not suggest this film. However, if you want a flick that is of little substance, full of campy battle scenes, and a somewhat predictable plot, find a copy of 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\nThe original review I had planned for this movie was perhaps a little over-harsh, so I'll preface with the good: Sleepy Hollow is a perfectly acceptable beer-and-pizza or sleepover movie, the kind you watch with a good group of people when the mood is light and no-one's really focusing on the movie. The visual elements are beautiful, and it is kinda fun, in parts. But horror, my friends, it is not. I made the mistake of watching it expecting something to shiver at with all the lights off. If this is your intention, send me a personal message and I'll offer you a list of alternate recommendations. (That's a serious offer, by the way. True horror fans deserve better.) Now my complaints, complete with SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS Why bother even making a movie \"based\" on a classic story if you're not even going to attempt to stay true to the sense, feel, tone, or theme of the original? Listen carefully between the lines of ill-written dialogue and you'll hear the slow churn of Washington Irving rolling over in his grave. I will even accept the Big-City Detective bit, but... Ricci drawing warding-hexes around the bed? Come, now. Not only is there nothing even vaguely like this in \"The Legend of Sleepy Hollow\", but it's historical BUNK. I don't care what neo-pagan axe you have to grind, but in the 18th century, \"witchcraft\" meant selling your soul to the Devil in exchange for diabolical powers; this whole fluffy white-witch goddess-worship \"an'-it-harm-none\" approach to witchcraft dates back, historically, about as far as the British Invasion. (Parties interested in real old-school pagan practices are referred to James Frazer's \"The Golden Bough\", if you don't believe me.) This creates such a discordant element thrown into the context of the film that the very framework of the Sleepy Hollow legend is shattered. So we wind up with a totally different story altogether. If that was Burton's idea, I wish he'd warned us in advance. Also, I wish he'd come up with a better story than the rather pedestrian one witnessed here. And he might as well have dropped the Irving pretensions altogether. And, at any rate, the movie isn't scary. Not once. Not at all. The warped tree came close, but was more than counterbalanced by the laughable effect of the Hessian's farce-comedy bellowing. And finally, yes, I too wanted Christina Ricci for Christmas, but God clearly never meant her to be a blonde.
\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\nsurely this film was hacked up by the studio? perhaps not but i feel there were serious flaws in the storytelling that if not attributed to the editing process could only be caused by grievously bad, criminal indeed, writing and directing.
i understand the effect burton wished to achieve with the stylised acting similar to the gothic fairytale atmosphere of edward scissorhands, but here unfortunately it falls flat and achieves no mythical depth of tropes but only the offensive tripe of affectation. ie bad acting and shallow characterisation even for a fairytale.
finally not that scary, indeed only mildly amusing in its attempts. the use of dialogue as a vehicle for plot background was clumsy and unnecessary. the mystery of who is the headless horseman would suffice, no need for the myth about a german mercenary, although christopher walken did cut a dashing figure but not that menacing - seeing the horsemans head makes him seem far friendlier that a decapitated inhuman nine foot tall spirit as in the original legend.
no real rhythm or universal tone was ever established and not a classic in burtons oevure. stilted and clipped as my parting shot...
\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\nSeveral things become apparent after the first few minutes of this film. First, the scenery and special effects are incredible -- the best, and if everything else worked as well, its austere presence might have made it a great film.
But as soon as the actors open their mouths, you suddenly realize that you are sitting in your den watching a movie. The story itself is full of cleché and melodrama, and the dialogue is some of the worst I've ever seen. And as if that weren't bad enough, they made a fool out of the protagonist, and in my experience, you don't want to do that unless the film is a comedy.
Bottom line: I had a hard time getting into it, and I wouldn't recommend it.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nthis film had a lot of potential - it's a great story and has the potential to be very creepy. but of course tim burton doesn't really do creepy films, he does wacky cartoonish films. and i usually like tim burton's stuff. but i thought this film was really weak. the best thing about the film (and it is actually worth seeing just for this) was the art direction - the film has an amazing intangible quality to it. the script was not good. it was boring in parts and confusing in other parts, and there was no building of characters. i never really cared that people were having their heads lopped off by a headless being. i thought johnny depp had a good thing going with his approach to the character, but given that the script was weak he couldn't go too far with it - and i was very irritated by the attempts at a slight accent on his and christina ricci's parts.
anyway, it is sadly not a great film and not worth seeing unless you are interested in the art direction.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI have in the past loved Tim Burton. I loved Ed Wood, Edward Scissorhands, and even Mars Attacks. But I hate this movie. The costume drama scenes in the beginning were the sort of poorly done, stodgy things that used to plague historical drama 25 years ago. Then there were all the head-cutting scenes, which just left me cold, and that's the sort of thing that ought to mean something, I would think. Yes, there were some nice bare trees and foggy evenings and the horseman jumping out of the tree was a nice special effect, but on the whole the movie was just boring and pointless.
\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\nAdored by fans for his unusually charming creativity and by Hollywood for his softball, user-friendly movie-making techniques, Tim Burton tipped the scales too far in formula's favor with his new upset of a cinematic legend, Sleepy Hollow. Following the quest of Ichabod Crane  played by Johnny Depp, delivering this dreary film's only shining point  to the heart of the mystery surrounding a town's seemingly random and gruesome murders by a fabled headless horseman, the story plays out as if it were purposely trying to be repugnantly predictable. Contrived as a children's bedtime story, humdrum character introduction is laced with intended-upon exciting non-engaging chase scenes which, with undeveloped characters fleeing for their lives, produce about as much fright and thrill as The Nightmare Before Christmas.
Toss in an endless bundle of old trees for ambience and a wide-eyed, big-busted blonde love interest (Christina Reechi) and Burton has himself a movie that takes the age-old legend of Sleepy Hollow and succeeded in making it like a Disney movie without the charm or captivation. Dialog was choppy and ridiculous, severed heads were aplenty, and there were enough plot-revealing monologues to embarrass the likes of James Bond. Even with the backing of Emmanuel Lubezki, the most sought-after cinematographer in Hollywood today, the wonderful acting of Depp and Burton's astounding name-recognition, Sleepy Hollow is nothing to lose your head over.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA movie this dumb should never see the light of day. The acting is lame, the violence is just all over the place, the sneaking ending is just plain stupid.
It's all about a lawyer who saw a murder done by the R.I.C.C.O. squad. No one has never seen him, not even the hit men themselves. So he and a beautiful lady are on the run trying to find the leader of this R.I.C.C.O. squad, before they find them.
Then the movie goes on to a romance, gun shooting, and voodoo. Now how in the hell did voodoo come in this. Never see this film if your life depends on it. Trust Me!!!!!!!!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nR.I.C.C.O. is the STUPIDEST film ever made. I can't believe my father bought this crap. This film should da never got made. If this film was wide known, trust me it will be on the #1 spot for IMDB's worst.The acting is horrible it's scary,which it is why it's horror. This piece of s*** had no horror in at at all. It's an urban action,which is funny, because I could of swore it was a comedy. When people got shot I couldn't help but laugh. I am the only person who reviewed this and I hope that I am the last. With this vote only I hope it make it to the #1 spot at the worst!!!!!!!
\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 into this film really wanting to like it - it headlined a film festival earlier in the year, and boasted an all-star cast. But (and you could tell there was a \"but\" coming) it's a failure of a film. Outstanding character acting by Sarandon and Walken is destroyed by editing and the antics of the supporting cast. Turturro's performance is lackluster, and most of the comedy is overplayed. The recurring puppet shows are pointless, and a few scenes are completely out of place.
That said, there are some wonderful moments sprinkled in the film. A genuinely touching stage moment, several of the seductions, and a few of the comedic color actually work out. Unfortunately, they're overshadowed by the diffuse, incoherent script and some bad acting.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhile I'm normally a big fan of John Turturro's work as an actor and director, ILLUMINATA is a great disappointment. Although the film has some charming moments, overall it falls flat. Worst of all, the film is confusing. Where is the movie set? Italy or an Italian troupe in New York? Why bother making a historical film if it fails to convey a setting? If you want to see a well-made, inspiring historical film also about theater, go see Tim Robbins' THE CRADLE WILL ROCK. This movie has many pluses, including a fine performance by John Turturro.
\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\nBest around the middle, when most characters get horny and go after someone they haven't had before. It is around this point that we get to see Susan Sarandon's majestic breasts (even if through a veil). Strangely enough, Beverly D'Angelo who isn't shy about nudity doesn't show any at all, while Aida Turturro  of all people  does. On the other end of the spectrum, the less said about Walken playing a homosexual the better. The film itself has little plot; the dialogs from the theater play and the \"normal\" dialogs cross over often and that's not the sort of thing I'd consider a good idea. Life in the theater: who cares? Occasionally the dialog has something going for it, but the film drags in stretches.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI don't mind the odd artsy film. But when they are larded with arcane symbolism and murky dialogue and when it's obvious they were done for the filmmaker's ego rather than the viewer's benefit, I get upset. I'm not a stupid person yet I simply didn't understand what this film was trying to say. Or do. Film is a magnificent form of human communication. Why do some filmmakers use it instead for obfuscation?
\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 partly bad luck for \"Illuminata\" that it comes out after \"Shakespeare in Love\" as it deals with virtually the same themes of life as art, art as life and the Magic of the Theatre and the same archetypal Foibles of Theater Folk, but a whole lot more ponderously.
There are scenes that come alive, as a play develops and gets reinterpreted by a writer's life, but there's a whole lot of Orson Welles-ish ego in this produced by/directed by/lead acted by John Torturro as a vehicle for his wife Katharine Borowitz (with an adorable cameo by their son).
Each actor gets his/her moment literally in the spotlight, but there's so many \"masques\" or set pieces that seem like 19th century parlor games. Bill Irwin Talks. Susan Sarandon gets to be a diva. Christopher Walken gets to be a different kind of villain - a gay critic. The women have to disrobe unnecessarily because this is an Art Film.
The art and set direction are marvelous, though quite dark. This should get an award as the Best Use of a Jersey City Theater as A Set Ever In a Movie. (originally written 8/21/99)
\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 treads on very familiar ground -- the confusion of art and reality in the life of actors. It does not have anything particularly novel or interesting to say on this subject and is in fact rather dull. The final scene in particular is interminably tedious. Seeing the audience crying at the \"moving\" acting they are seeing on the screen made me ask \"who do they think they are kidding?\"
Nevertheless there are some good performances and interesting scenes, particularly from some of the minor characters. Ben Gazzara plays an old and slightly touched actor, who gets a whole posse of policemen clapping his performance when they come to arrest him.
Christopher Walken again plays an over-the-top wacko. Remember his character \"The Continental\" on Saturday Night Live; an aging eurotrash satyr chasing a young woman around the furniture and trying to get her into bed? He does an identical turn in the film, chasing his young (male) prey around an antique table and plying him with champagne.
Overall this film was both enchanting and irritating, but mostly irritating.
\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'Illuminata' has expanded the limits of John Turturro's mediocrity from second rate actor to third rate director, writer and producer. This film was dreadful. It is disjointed and flits from scene to scene with little flow or meaning relevant to the main story line.
We are served with a smorgasbord of fragmented scenes, each a non sequitur to all the others. The only thread that seems to run through them is that they occur in the lives of the members of the same theatre repertory company. The few scenes that do matter to the plot are so convoluted that you frequently can't tell if the dialogue is from the story or the actors running their lines for the play within the story.
If this story were a person it would be a schizophrenic with mulitple personality disorder. It couldn't decide if it was a drama, a romance, a comedy, a tragedy, a sex farce, or a parody of theatre. It came closest to being bearable as a sex farce.
Turturro was lifeless and impassive as Tuccio, supposedly a complex and passionate writer whose play gets its big chance when the currently running show needs to be cancelled due to the illness of the lead actor. Susan Sarandon gave a good performance as the aging actress trying to seduce Tuccio for a role. Unfortunately, she found it necessary to go topless which only goes to illustrate that the hardware of aging sex symbols is much better left to the imagination. Christoher Walkin gave a delightful performance as the uppity theatre critic who makes impassioned overtures to a member of the cast. Beverly D'Angelo and Ben Gazzara also had minor roles.
I gave this film a 2. Other than Walken's vignette, there is really not much to recommend it except that the puppets used in the opening and closing credits were phenomenally lifelike and beautiful. Avoid this movie like the plague that it is.

\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 story is: a turn-of-the-century troupe of actors, along with producers and theatre-owners, have very complicated relationships. A resident playwright has written a psychological drama. He wants to get a good production on stage, but can't unless he convinces a pariticular reviewer to revisit the production, and give a positive review. If his production does not go on, then the troupe will put on The Doll House, recently written by Ibsen. Many different relationships among the principals are explored; none of them interesting. But the involvement of the characters with one another lead to giving the play by the resident playwrght a second shot.
This movie is purely an excuse for the director and his friends to get together and put on a movie. The story lines are incoherent to anyone who isn't a buddy of one of the stars. The only reason I didn't leave the theatre after about a half hour is that a fat lady was resting a full meal atop her stomach at the end of my row.
\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 liked all the Lilo and Stitch movies. The TV series weren't that great, but I put my opinions of the series aside when I watched this movie. And I must say... It was bad.
One thing I found disappointing was the animation. Yes, you heard it. The animation. I found its quality greatly degraded since the first movie. Its quality was only as high as the TV series', something which I did not expect at all. If you're looking for eye candy, don't expect anything much here. Also, the animation failed to portray any serious moods. Even in the supposed sad scenes, I didn't feel anything for the character, another downgrade from the first movie.
The next, was the absolutely horrible voice acting. I found it very, very unconvincing, and wondered why, Disney, with all its riches and glory, couldn't afford voice actors with real talent. The voice actors' skill were just as annoying as the one in the series. I tolerated the one in the series because, hey, who wouldn't be tired out when made to voice act for so many episodes? Heck, I don't even know how many episodes there are (Theoretically, there are 624, but I just can't believe that). However, I thought that the voice acting would improve in the movie, and I was put down in the face by the truth, that what they could do in the series was already their best.
Next, was the horrible script. It was cheesy beyond redemption, and the writers just try too hard. They try to put some jokes in, but I just found them annoying. Maybe it wasn't the voice acting, but the cheesy dialogues that ruined the sound section. (On the upside, the soundtrack wasn't too bad, and matched the mood quite well.)
Fourthly was the problem with the storyline. I predicted everything, and the storyline was what made the characters so unoriginal and unlikeable all of a sudden. You have the aliens get new positions and responsibilities inouter space. After the initial hype, they realize that they actually didn't like it and miss their old life.
Meanwhile, the evil villain gets broken out of jail after a very 'action packed' action scene and breaks in to Jumbaa's lab to steal his experiment. The experiment was then cloned into 100 others and the hamster wants to conquer Earth. When the main characters find out, they try to stop the evil hamster but gets confronted in some cheesy final showdown against the experiment and owns him in an extremely lame excuse for trying to make the series to look cool. The characters then give up their new privileges and return to Earth to resume their life. Seriously, how many other movies has used that ending already? The that storyline was extremely short and formulaic, so don't expect too much from it.
So Disney has failed in sound, graphics and storyline. The only charm of the series was the original characters, and how they managed to retain the 'feel' of the characters, but even that wasn't able to save the movie. I tried to like it, I really did, but I give it a rating of 4/10. Another Disney failure.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI have now seen quite a few films by Pedro Almodóvar, but this would have to be the most disappointing so far. This film seemed to lack the zaniness that is usually everywhere in his films, and the story just never got me interested. Many Almodóvar regulars appear in this film, so it's not like there was a lack of on-screen talent, but this film just seemed more serious than his other films. If there was a comedic edge to this movie, I certainly couldn't find it, and it made for one surprisingly weak movie.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"