empathielabs/imdb_v0 huggingface dataset:
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI am a big fan of Deepa Mehta's work, especially Fire and Earth 1947. Unfortunately, this movie of hers lacks _all_ that is needed for a good film.
The movie attempts to showcase the plight of the widows in India in the early 20th century and the new wave of ideas of their rehabilitation around the same time. Shown with a child widow as a central character, although the plot too banal from an Indian standpoint, it could still have been a very powerful movie. Alas! the movie lacked both the sensitivity of Fire and the intensity of emotion in Earth 1947.
Even if one assumes that the story is a given, although there are hundreds of things I would have liked different in that as well, the movie making is especially unfortunate. Everything is said. Everything is shown straight. Absence of sensitive implied sentences. Absence of things left unsaid. I just couldn't believe that this was a Deepa Mehta film.
There were some very standard Hindi movie characters - like an old widow with her own vested interests, or a father who has double standards of the highest quality. Can one not write a script without having these old-style standard Indian movie characters?
Many people acclaimed Deepa for making a movie and proving a point against hindu fundamentalists. Well, I agree that she took a bold step, but should one not worry about the quality of movie, or is it being a controversial one an end in itself? Its obvious, that if you start with a story as in Water, you will end up feeling the pain of the widows in consideration --- It doesn't take an accomplished director to achieve that. And the movie had nothing more than that!! So where is Deepa's contribution to the film?
And talk about acting etc. - pathetic!!! Lisa Ray has a pretty face, an extremely pretty face - but thats where it ends. She can't speak Hindi; she can't emote. John Abraham is no better. Most widows seem unnatural. The saving grace are Seema Biswas and the young girl. They are fabulous.
And this was a period film - but the Hindi dialogues suck big time. Even there utterance is also as unnatural as it gets. No rustic accents!!! No local slangs. No nothing. The only thing right was probably the shooting locales. I thought that the set of the vidhwa-ashram was reasonably real. The overall blue tinge in the whole movie is also apt.
But all and all, don't watch this movie. You _won't_ get anything. There is nothing in the story, or direction. If you have to watch it watch it for the little girl's 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\nDeepa has again tried to bravely bring out a subject that no one wants to talk about. The story line is OK, cinematography is outstanding, screenplay and acting are way below average. I guess the blame is to the citizens of Uttar Pradesh in India from where her original set was destroyed in 2000. This resulted in a totally different cast, I just wonder what a spectacular movie it would have been if it had the original Shabana Azmi, Nandita Das and Aamir Khan. The current actors Lisa Ray (who's just good for squirming in Bombay Dyeing bedsheets) and John Abraham are pathetic, need basic lessons in acting. Seema Biswas, Raghubir Yadav and Kulbushan Kharbabda have saved the movie as much as they can. The kid had done an outstanding job. The editing and the flow of the movie is also not something you would have expected from Deepa. Great subject, sends out a strong message about a practice which is still pretty rampant in rural India but falls short of the standards Deepa set for herself in Fire and Earth. Watch it once...when its on DVD, don't bother paying $10 to see it....well its out beats the average Hindi movie any day
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nCopy cats have copied this movie from a 1974 Hindi movie called \"Call Girl\"! \"Call Girl\" had an identical story line. The way in which the protagonists fall in love, then rebel and the climax all same in both these films! \"Call Girl\" is better than Water, at least from the story telling point of view. It was not as agonizingly slow as Water! Water on the contrary does not progresses at all. The aim is perhaps to make the audience sympathize with Kalyani for ever! Are Indian film makers any better than just being great copiers these days? Well they call it \"being inspired\". In their language it is: \"getting inspired (without any citation that 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\nDeepa Mehta, Arundhati Roy and a host of other so called intellectuals get the title of intellectuals because of the fact that they love portraying India and hinduism in a bad light...and Deepa Mehta makes her money from it anyway. Anyway Hindus are too gentle or scared to protest the way muslims protest so anybody can take any liberties with Hinduism. And it is a fact that during the 1930's women in the west were also illtreated when they were widowed...just that nobody likes to point out anything bad about the west or anything other than India and Hindus. She paints an inncorrect portrayal of India and the situation of widows there. Nowhere is it mentioned that child marriage is illegal. She ended the movie saying there are 34 million widows in India. Of course among a billion people, there will be that many widows. But how many are living life she has depicted in the movie?? Deepa Mehta finally is selling India and poverty to make dollars. How pathetic....
\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\nPathetic NRI Crap.....Appeal to all who are not Indian's....This is the WORST of Indian cinema,made by the worst piece of NRI trash.....The story is boring and clichéd (the way NRIs and westerners view India).....Go for it if u want to be bored to death.
The movie deals with the plight of widows in India before independence.A lot of it is true even now in remote rural areas but not to the extent as depicted (maybe because its a period movie).....
There are plenty of other Indian movies directed by extremely talented directors that are worth savoring...This one is a definite miss...Watch a documentary instead or look up information on the net if you are genuinely interested in the plight of the downtrodden in India.
I wasted my 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\nWhat about Scream Baby Scream is supposed to make me not feel like a fool for buying it? I bought it because, God help me, I'm a sucker for old B-cinema even as worthless as this. Nonetheless, Something about this movie irritates me, it's probably Janet, Janet comes off cold & snooty, seemingly, with the intention of coming off as deep and noble, with a look on her face that screams constipation, she can't seem to agree to anything her uptight boyfriend wants. I'm glad that this is her only role. What really irritates me is that this is a 1960's gore film gone terribly awry, and as we all know, awry is Floridian for \"zero gore\". It's like the director started with a Herschell Lewis style but backed out of the gore scenes when his wife found out, so instead we end up with one dull conversation after the other, and basically, a whole lot of irritating nothing. In other words, we end up with Florida Bore. Joseph Adler should be embarrassed. Janets boyfriend, Jason is almost as ridiculous as she is, this guy has something negative to say about absolutely everything, come to think of it, he's probably the least likable good guy in horror history. The only thing this movie really has going for it is that it carries that 60's/early 70's B-gore vibe that you can find in stuff like Undertaker & his pals, Blood Freak, or most anything from Herschell Lewis. Even Rodney from the Gruesome Twosome is in this, I Ithought his caveman comedy routine was irritating, most everything from reel to reel is stupid, even the trip scene was stupid. The only positive thing at all is the small amount of beach scenery, but that mostly includes Janet whining about life not being perfect. In the only real ironic twist, Scream Baby Scream gets even less interesting once the story finally gets started, around the 45 minute mark. If you happen to be indifferent to whether or not your entertainment is watchable, but are offended by the color red, you might not hate this. Why does Troma distribute this? Wouldn't this be Something Weird Video's area? Scream Baby Scream very well may be the worst in Florida horror/gore of its era, but, I suppose, underneath the unlikeable characters, and the incoherent plot, lies potential. Scream, Baby, Scream really just seems like it should follow the Blood Feast pattern, so, to steal a quote from Janet, \"If it doesn't fit, I throw it out\". 2/10
\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\nMaybe you have to be a former hippie to fully appreciate this, because aside from some dated fashions, music and dialogue, it doesn't really have a thing going for it nowadays.
Four fun-loving college art students enjoy carefree days of painting nude models and riding on motorcycles. They take acid in one scene and go to a zoo. A sign flashes on the screen that says \"Do Not Feed The Animals,\" and suddenly they're in a cage laughing and hanging from a chain tire swing (?!) An evil artist (Larry Swanson) tells (in flashback) how his art career was almost ruined because of a crippling hand disease. He sends out zombie henchmen dressed in black to kidnap people, then injects them with a serum that distorts their faces. He's trying to create some new form of abstract act (I'm guessing here, the details given are a bit fuzzy, to put it mildly). Meanwhile, Jason (Ross Harris) sets out to save the day after his friend Scotty (Chris Martell) is killed and his girlfriend Janet (Eugenie Wingate) is kidnapped. I thought the zombie make-up in ZOMBIE LAKE was awful, but wait until you see it here! It's by Douglas Hobart, the star of DEATH CURSE OF TARTU. A small role is played by Brad Grinter, the director of the Z-classic BLOOD FREAK, which is much, much more enjoyable than this deadly dull turkey (aka NIGHTMARE HOUSE).
Useless trivia note: The 1984 Regal video release features the wrong cast (for THE BRIDES WORE BLOOD) printed directly on the video label!
Score: 1 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\n...Or is this another way below the bottom-of-the-barrel masterpiece? Preferably both! Somewhere between 1969 and 1972 came a host of several horrible horror movies that are all but lost again. Nothing more needs to be explained, asked, or screamed out loud. If you followed closely at my writings about CARNIVAL OF BLOOD or GURU THE MAD MONK, then you know what's in store with SCREAM BABY SCREAM. The title sounds cool; it's just the weak script that should have gone someplace else! Even so, this is hands down, the most dreadfully written piece of cinematic mastery ever worked on film!
If you thought this is an early slasher (which benefits the average IMDb user to write up another comment), better luck next time! The real truth behind the script has NOTHING to do with the movie, which supposedly tells of a blue-faced psychopath out to \"kill\" and make some ugly facial sculptures on his victims. It feels like you're watching another early \"SCOOBY-DOO\" episode. My favorite scene is the monkey cage where the four young hippie teenagers play in. And hooray for an actress under the name \"Eugenie Wingate\" for giving us the worst facial makeover, ever! 1969 has never been this bad, but it is!
Try finding this 30-year old rarity at a bargain basement for five bucks; it makes the perfect novelty item for going back to those psychedelic days of flower power, bad fashions, and trashy music! Interesting note: SCREAM BABY SCREAM is also listed in Troma's film archives on the company's website. Only time will tell when this reaches the top of the Bottom 100 List along with a few more early 70s cheapies; gosh knows they NEED to!!! PLAN 9 is 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\nHave you ever watched a film, when after it's conclusion, your left pondering what in the world it was all about? Well, say hello to \"Scream, Baby, Scream\". It's not that the story's complex or anything like that, it's just that it plays out in three completely different modes...1. A fun 60s drug movie...2. A much overplayed soap opera...and 3. a horror flick (with very little to \"Scream\" about). Much to my surprise, I've found out that it was written by one of my all-time favorites, Larry Cohen. Well, I guess even the best have to learn through trial and error.
Playing out much like something from H.G. Lewis(only with lesser fx), this \"bad\" film does have it's perks. For most of it's short running time there's a pretty cool jazz score to be heard, and there are a couple of memorable scenes...one of those being where a group of kids decide to experiment with acid and take a nice long motor bike ride to the zoo. The camera tricks the director uses to indicate their hallucinatory state is just plain retarded, but amusing. Trust me when I tell you, there's no need to run out of the house to catch 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 found this movie at a XXX store for $1 on VHS. The interesting thing about it is that Camp Video bought up the rights to it and slapped on a 1986 copywrite date in the credits. Anyways, enough of odd facts.
This film is absolutely not scary. To even call this horror or a \"thriller\" is laughable. There were only maybe 5 minutes at most of what you would call horror in this 80+ minute film, and that consisted of the acting, because it was HORRORible! All puns aside, the writing for this film was absolute garbage as well, just as the special effects and makeup was laughable. No wonder this is such an obscure film, probably the director has spent the last 35 years scouring the country for all existing copies of it and burning them in one big pile so no one else could be subjected to 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\nWhy remake the original \"Assault\"? To my mind \"Assault\" was Carpenter's true masterpiece. It had all the elements good Carpenter movies contain. External threat on a small group of individuals. People taking the challenge because they are forced to do so. Isolation! Just remember, the guns in Carpenter's original made no sound, being thus a lot more threatening than conventional devices. And now this remake. Concentrating on \"main character I\"s psychology and on his relation to main character II (the evil but honorable). The anonymous threat in the Carpenter movie replaced by a rather conventional conspiracy/corruption background. The \"remakers\" just didn't understand the main plot of the original. And thus produced something pretty ordinary.
\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\nAssault on Precinct 13: 3/10: Let us forget for a moment that Assault on Precinct 13 is a remake of a classic action movie. Taken completely on its own merits Assault is a debacle.
Lets start with the Rio Bravo style scenario. About a dozen people are trapped in a decaying police station in Detroit (If the Detroit location is giving you Robocop warm and fuzzies stop right now. It could have easily said Topeka in the opening credits and nothing would have changed. In fact the last bit in the forest would have made more sense.) Surrounding them are our bad guys; corrupt cops.
Now I know what your thinking. Corrupt cops? Were the Nazis and drug cartels busy that weekend? Of course these are no ordinary cops. These guys are right of the cover of the latest Tom Clancy video game. Yup we have body armor; helicopters; laser sights; night vision goggles the works. So we have thirty S.W.A.T. members/Special Forces armed to the teeth verses 4 cops (drunk mind you it's new years eve), 2 girls in party dresses and half a dozen criminals.
So how do our heroes defend themselves? Truth is they can't. They all should be dead within ten minutes tops. (Not to mention the characters inside have an annoying habit of walking past the windows.) Now an illogical scenario is no reason to completely pan a movie esp. a B style action film. However with the exception of Laurence Fishburne and Ethan Hawke all the other characters seemed to be comic relief. (At least I hope they were)
While Ja-Rules and Leguizamo's characters are bad enough. It's Aisha Hind's minstrel show that takes the cake. Rarely has a more stereotypical African American character appeared on the modern screen. Her performance resembles a frat boy in blackface and drag acting ghetto.
In the original Assault a gang member takes over an Ice-Cream truck and drives around the neighborhood shooting little girls in the head. I have had an irrational fear of ice-cream trucks ever since. After this Assault I have a perfectly rational fear of remakes.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'm sure a lot of guys will love this movie. The only woman who shows any \"balls\" (unfortunate pun regretted) is made to look, talk, and seem like a guy, the other 2 women are portrayed either as sexual objects with one thing on their mind- sex / being sexy, with sex as their only attribute and skill (Iris) - or as freaked out pretty little princesses who's neurosis negates any strength and professional authority they had before all hell broke lose (Doc). The only strength Iris has in the end is the result of some advice from a big strong man. Besides my negative gut reaction as a feminist, I have to give the camera work props- and Ethan Hawke is great in the very first scene. After that his performance loses steam. Empty entertainment for a brain that wants to take it easy. At least the film skims the subject of the duality of good/bad in the criminal mind.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt's New Year's eve, a cop-killer (in the form of, Laurence Fishburne) end up at a precinct that's closing down due till snow. When the people are layed siege on, cops have to team up with cons to survive. This re-make of the John Carpenter classic just had to add a few beyond stupid plot twists, take out all the tension, and add a horrid John Lequizamo to the cast, didn't it? The first film was thrilling, gritty, and a joy to watch. This one is more Hollywood, clichéd, and painful to behold. The only thing I took from this movie was OCD can be very annoying...VERY. The ending song is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO bad.
My Grade: D-
DVD Extras: Commentary by Richet, Demonaco and Jeffrey Silver; Delet scenes with optional commentary; 5 minute \"Armed and Dangerous\" featurette on the weapons expert; 7 and a half minute \"behind Precinct Walls\"; \"Plan of Attack\"; \"The Assault Team\"; 12 and a half minute behind the scenes featurette;, Trailers for \"Unleashed\", \"White Noise\", :Seed of Chucky\"
Miscelanious: I got this at Best Buy and it came with a bonus disc including the first 2 minutes of \"Cry Wolf\"; a 10 minute first look at \"Unleashed\"; the trailer for that film; and a Fuzion interview with John Leguizamo
\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 think it's necessary to outline the plot for you, because the site and other users have done a superb job of that already. That said, here's my take. This is by far the worst movie of 2005, and there have been some really, really bad ones. I don't even need to go into detail because there is NOTHING redeeming about this movie. Bad acting, bad plot, bad directing, bad special effects-you name it. If it doesn't stand alone as the worst film ever made, it's tied with some other piece of crap. I'd be embarrassed to have my friends know I was in this movie. But hey, most people that are gonna see it will do so no matter what reviews it gets, so more power to ya. When you feel the gaping void between your neurons two hours into your evening, don't blame 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\nThis movie definitely made me laugh but that doesn't mean it was exactly funny. Well, then again, me and my friends had a lot of fun watching it.
I doubt there is anything about this movie that hasn't been done at least twice before, just like the plot itself. All of the characters are overused movie cliché cardboard-box roles that don't even require acting skills; accordingly, such skills are not delivered. We have the corrupt cop, a ruthless killer who claims to care about his men and their families whilst caring nothing about people he shoots in the forehead at so close a range as to have blood spat on his face. We have the \"worn-out cop on the edge\" so nicely pointed at in the discussion boards of this movie; we have the old one-day-away-from-retirement-cop who just about everyone must have immediately identified as the most likely man on the inside, since he had most to gain and he didn't utter a trustworthy word throughout the movie. About as see-through as a glass house on a sunny day. The big black gangster king was a copy of all previous big black gangster kings in movie history (they could've just called him Marcellus Wallace), but just slightly tougher and more ruthless, because something has to emphasize that we also know Laurence Fishburne from actually good movies. Then we finally have the HIGHLY EDUCATED doctor who can't think of anything reasonable to do as soon as the situation differs from her ordinary life and who spends the majority of the movie sitting in a corner helplessly trying to figure out how to hold on to the weapon she was given. NOT USING IT.
The whole siege story is not interesting, not original (having been used twice before), and this movie manages to add absolutely nothing interesting to it. There is the initial probe, then the laying of the siege, then the assault, then the escape attempts. Meanwhile a bunch of strained, stressed, freaked out cops and thugs manage to hold off a Police assault team with high-tech equipment and the quite important advantage of VISION. Then again, in deep night, with the power cut and with a snow storm raging overhead, there is definitely a lot of light coming in, so who really cares about night vision.
But the best part comes right at the end. In the first scenes showing Precinct 13, we see it is situated in an outskirt of an industrial city; factories and office buildings surround it on all sides. From this point, the besieged walk maybe a hundred meters in a sewer and where do they end up? Some alley ending right in the middle of a forest! A FOREST! Where did that forest come from? Who decided to lay a pine forest in the middle of an industrial area? How is this forest, in the last scene, suddenly on a hill over the city in question, while in the scenes inside the forest it looked deceptively FLAT??
From here I leave the judgment to you, and to your common sense. Go and see this movie if you're looking for an unintended good laugh, I can really 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\nThe opening scene keeps me from rating at absolute zero. I wish the entire movie was as gritty and real as the intro.
In order to enjoy some movies, a lot can be forgiven,(hand guns with 60 shots, hero's with super human powers, all women are gorgeous AND half naked) but Puuuuleeese this \"Assault On My Intelligence 13\" is so far fetched that I'm surprised the cast showed up for a second day of filming.
Firstly, how did these guys get to be cops? Based on stupidity I guess. How do the main female characters justify being half naked in the middle of winter in Detroit or wherever the heck they are. As a matter of fact no character reacts to the elements whatsoever in this movie. No windows, no electricity(which miraculously returns unexplained)during the storm of the century and they are all comfy as bugs in a rug. What technology exists which disables all cell phones, radios, and brain function. This must be the same power which causes Maria Bella to walk from her disabled car knee deep in snow with no coat and hardly any dress.
\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 \"Assault on Precinct 13\" is gritty, witty, and - perhaps most importantly - short. This remake is mercilessly padded out and talky. Worse yet, the African-American hero of the first movie is here replaced with handsome white boy Ethan Hawke, which makes this \"Assault\" less progressive than the 1970s one. God, how I miss John Carpenter and his improbable plot line and his weird sense of humor. I even miss his B-list actors, who are leagues better than Hawke and company.
I can't say I care for the new villains in this version - they stretch what little credibility the story ever had to the limit. The female characters are useless, the criminals are all generic hoods, and Gabriel Byrne gives another of his bored performances. The music's all wrong, too - it's bland action stuff that actually detracts from the tension. Simply 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\nThis was perhaps the worst movie I've seen in a long, long time. Forget that it's clear no research was done regarding Detroit (forest in downtown Detroit! Bwahaha!!). The writing was horrible, the premise completely implausible, and quite frankly, the characters were embarrassing. I cannot for the life of me understand why seasoned actors would stoop to such a low and participate in something this god awful. Now, I have never seen the original and don't know if this movie pays tribute to it's original form. It's my understanding that the original was not set in Detroit. Why they would deviate from that without researching details about the setting only tells me that it was more than the cast that was looking to pay the rent.
Don't waste your time on this junk, unless you're from Detroit and wish for some comic relief.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI am a huge fan of the original Assault On Precinct 13. The ice cream scene haunts me to this day. I'm 33 now and I still remember being horrified by it as a child. When I heard they were remaking it, I thought it might be good but when I saw the film, it's 100% not the same film. It's not a remake. It's a bad stolen idea. It was completely ruined. The cast, Maria Bello, Laurence Fishburne, Ethan Hawke, Gabriel Burne, John Leguizamo and Drea De Matteo are all great actors but even they couldn't save this film. It was just wrong. Even the setting was completely opposite. And how in the hell did no one in that city notice that there was a war going on next door? Why didn't help show up sooner? Stupid. No sense.
\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\nIs it just me, or is this an AWFUL film? I'm going with it's an AWFUL film...
Knowing full well that it's a guy flick (usually defined as full of car chases, crashes, gunfights, explosions, etc.), I still expect some small degree of credibility. If I can't somehow believe in the premise, the film WILL NOT WORK. Thus, we come to the problem with \"Assault on Precinct 13.\"
Not one for spoilers, I never report details of the plot. However, I will make an exception here, because the plot is SO inane. Bad guy is jailed in Precinct 13. Bad guy's buddies want to bust him out. Surprise. The bad guys' buddies are actually corrupt cops. Brooding, troubled, but heroic young cop saves the day while romancing the girl. UGH. Yes, it really is THAT simple, and that dumb.
\"Assault on Precinct 13\" takes place in Detroit. Not a bad setting for crime and corruption (I spent 3 months there in late 2004, so I know what I'm talking about). Even so, it's outrageously violent and insulting to the police and the citizens of Detroit. I have spent a lot of time in downtown Detroit, but I cannot imagine how the final chase wound up in the downtown Detroit forest. I must have missed it...
There are NO refunds for watching bad movies. Save your money. There were too many good films in 2005 to waste even $3.00 at Blockbuster on this one.
FINAL RATING: 1
(Only because I have seen worse films.)
\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 expect it to be juvenile but you at least expect a complete and coherent movie. What a waste. I am extremely disappointed, not at just having watched a bad movie, but at having such a great concept be tainted by a common movie that we've all seen before. If this crud makes $1 over its budget, The studio would be wise to declare victory, round up all available copies, store them deep within the nuclear waste repository under Yucca Mountain, and then never make another movie like it again. Most of this movie will keep you thinking, \"This is not what I wanted to see.\" This film appeals to the unintelligent and maybe to teenagers. It's a true shame because most movies are made for that demographic. I had much higher hopes for 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\nI accidentally happened upon this movie when I was looking for something to watch while eating lunch. I actually turned to the WE Network because it said it had the last 20 minutes of some movie about the importance of \"sticking it\" for some gymnastics team -- I figured cheesy goodness. Well, I got cheesy alright.
First, I missed a good 20-40 minutes at the start of the movie. Luckily, most of it was recapped fairly quickly, especially in the bedroom scene where Crystal admits that she felt responsible for the death of her rapist.
I love Jenny Garth and will watch her in just about anything. She's just so pretty, and I want my lipstick to look as perfect as hers always does. She looks great throughout this movie, and doesn't really age over what seems to be more than a decade.
Overall, I felt bad for the actors as I watched this movie. All of them tried to sell their parts, but all were so poorly written that it was a constant struggle. Frankly, I was surprised to see Terry Farrell and Mitch Ryan (Greg's dad from Dharma & Greg) in this.
But the writing was not the worst part of this movie. About a half-hour before the end, her mother dies, and when they show the headstone the death date is 1979. Having missed the beginning, I had gotten the impression from the wardrobe that this was taking place in the 80s. Not one leisure suit or bell bottom in sight. Shame on the person who did wardrobe for this film! Don't get me wrong -- all the outfits in this movie were beautiful, but they were completely wrong for the time period. It almost makes me wonder if they told the wardrobe person that it was a period piece.
Bottom line -- good for a laugh or to feed a Jennie Garth fix. :)
\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 seen many movies worse than this one. The story line, the dialogues, the acting: it's horror! The story just jumps from a to b to c without any logical steps in between. Every time you think you've missed something, but no: that was the way it was intended to be. And why on earth is the character that Jenny Garth portrays so in love with that no-no loser guy (who actually now plays in the movie Cinderella Man with Russel Crow!)? O well, it's no Spielberg, of course... I have to write ten lines to get posted. This movie really isn't inspiring enough to write 10 lines! It's a romantic feel good movie with a lousy story, so if you're up for that: you'll have a ball.
\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 person is a so-called entertainer who has to resort to profanity, vulgarity, and slander to try and make others believe he has talent. I have often seen comics use a little of each with effect but when all you can say is laced with it, it is a sign of a drug affected warped mind. Makes me wonder where his twisted and fried brain will be in a few more years of abuse. Poor man!!! I admit I could not watch all of it - too stupid for words. The amazing part of this is that somebody actually believes he is a philosopher!!! No wonder self respect and decency are dwindling and perversity is rising. Could it be that the UFC might have been a factor in his deadened brain?
\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\nJoe Rogan's whole act is profanity laced with bile. He is a pot smoker who entered Fear Factor, thinking it was a joke. He said he would egg people on because he did not know how stupid people were going to be. The producers of the show he explained were going on the premise of playing pranks on unsuspecting contestants to see how far they will go. The level of evil involved is a little twisted. Mr. Rogan's special is just filled with the rants of someone who is too good for regular human beings. I found him to be offensive and his stuff can be heard by more talented comedians such as Eddie Murphy or Chris Rock. Rogan even does a five minute set on the N word. Overall, ignore this special.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is a truly awful movie. The jokes are few and far between and the pacing is a down right endurance test. The only thing funny to come out of this production is it's comparison to the classic film \"This Is Spinal Tap.\"
Avoid this film as if it were one of the plagues of the Bible itself.

\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf Jacqueline McKenzie and John Lynch weren't such talented actors this film would probably be even worse than it actually is.The story of two mentally disturbed people who fall in love and have a baby is an interesting one,and well worth exploring.However on the negative side,the plot becomes increasingly over the top as the story progresses,and the music choices more and more bizarre,so that by the end I found myself laughing when I know the director intended for me to be crying.
\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\nOn the Opening night of the San Francisco Silent Film festival I was quite excited to see films that are historical and well not common. The guest speaker who opened this film created a sense of hype towards the obscurity, and how this film is underrated. The sci-fi part of the film was very interesting and fantastic for its time, but i'm not sure if it was due to the fact it was shown directly after the Brilliant 1928 \"The Wind\" or if it seemed that Russian filmmakers take after what Russian novels are famous for (hundreds of characters, tangled plots) but I know for certain that the dramatic parts, as in the parts on Earth, made absolutely no sense, were boring and I became lost within about twenty minutes. Maybe it was the acting but I found myself convinced as to why this film is \"unknown and underrated\": It's boring, there is no plot or basic story and the acting is horrible. This certainly is no \"Battleship Potemkin\", however I will say that Russian films do not make a real good effort in lightning up what life in Russia is like.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI have barely managed to view the entire film... Only after about 85min out of the movie's 110min did the journey to Mars begin, and then there were 5min left for the closure. These 85 long minutes were VERY boring and didn't contribute anything to the film. When finally reaching Mars, it wasn't much better plot wise. It all could have been fitted into much shorter running time and nothing would have been missed.
What I cannot understand is the piece of trivia saying the because of the film new-born Babies were named \"Aelita\"... Why would someone want to name his/her baby after a villain, who despite having only one eyebrow, apparently has 3 breasts???
The only interesting thing here is the sets and costumes for the Mars scenes. They are an interesting experiment in Constructivism, just as \"The cabinet of Dr. Caligari\" was for Expressionism, five years earlier.
I give it 4/10 for the great looking design...
\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 dedicated Russian Scientist dreams of going to Mars. He eventually gets there but it takes the whole film before we are able to have a laugh at the Russian style of Revolution in Mars.
\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 strange, even for a silent movie. Essentially, it follows the adventures about a engineer in post-revolutionary Russia who daydreams about going to Mars. In this movie, it seems like the producers KNOW the Communists have truly screwed up the country, but also seems to want to make it look like they've accomplished something good.
Then we get to the \"Martian\" scenes, where everyone on Mars wears goofy hats. They have a revolution after being inspired by the Earth Men, but are quickly betrayed by the Queen who sides with them. Except it's all a dream, or is it. (And given that the Russian Revolution eventually lead to the Stalin dictatorship, it makes you wonder if it was all allegory.)
Now, I've seen GOOD Russian cinema. For instance, Eisenstein's Battleship Potemkin is a good movie. This is just, well, silly.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAfter watching Avalon (which was decent only because of the very nice digital fx), and several anime films written by Oshii, including Jin-Roh (which is fantastic) I decided I should check out the Oshii cinema trilogy box set. Being that the Red Spectacles and Stray Dog are related, I will comment here on both. And let me tell you, it was one of the biggest wastes of money I have spent in a while. I first watched Stray Dogs and then The Red Spectacles. I am sad to say that these films are quite possibly the most boring two movies I have ever seen. For only about 10 minutes in each film do you get to see some action between the the characters, who are only dressed in the \"Panzer Cop\" outfits for a few fleeting scenes. The rest of the time you will see some very drawn out scenes filled with boring dialogue in some less than impressive locations. I really don't understand the motivation behind these two films at all. I love the Wolf Brigade outfits and the idea behind the plot, but the films themselves leave much to be desired. I would suggest NOT watching these films, and certainly do not buy the box set like I did, unless you enjoy wasting money. Oh, and if you are wondering what I think about the 3rd movie in the set, Talking Head, I couldn't even bring myself to watch it before I purged the box set from my DVD collection via eBay at a $20 loss. If you want cool Japanese live action, check out Returner, or Ichii the Killer or the Zeiram series.
\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\nRed spectacles
I loved Avalon, I think This director has made some awesome demented visions of the future. This film however was boring pretentious crap. The opening scene showed great promise for what the cover art and description promise a surreal live action amimae style future noir. I feel I got that with Avalon.
With Red Spectacles I was only driven to feel a uncomfortable to desire to what the hell the point was. The film barely made sense to me and I could not care less about the people in it. This would all be ok if the film was effective art. While the opening scene looked interesting and the scene with the giant robot-suit person holding the giant machine gun in the rain looked cool, it did not watch the film worth watching.
Thumbs down.
\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 guess this is in the public domain as its out on DVD. First off, this is a feel good propaganda movie to be shown to a wartime Aussie audience, so its not to be considered a serious retelling of Tobruk. The first half to 3/4 is very dry stuff set in Australia, I guess like many American war films where the recruits are getting together, oh man its soooo long. Than we get to Africa and Tobruk, pretty bad, low budget stuff. The battle scenes on the DVD copy I watched were almost completely black. See it if you must, but be prepared to use the fast forward as I doubt you can take it after a few minutes. I enjoyed the cheesy Italian \"Battle of El Alamien\" a whole lot more, also Richard Burton did an African theater war flick that was good \"The Desert Rats\", this movie is just a real period piece and should have stayed in that time, does not hold up well today (I doubt it was highly regarded back then either). I say the same thing about my American counterpart war flicks so don't take it personally Aussies (I love Australia, been there twice!).
\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 You Need In the run up to 'What You Need', every episode since 'The Lonely' had been a winner to some extent. This episode is the first major failure since 'Escape Clause'. The Serling script is again based on someone else's materiel, a short story by Lewis Padgett. As with 'And When the Sky Was Opened', Serling altered the content significantly, removing a scientist and his machine and inserting an elderly peddler.
'What You Need' works best when it is being sweet. The opening half, in which the peddler provides customers in a bar with objects they will need in the near future, has a gentle charm about it that may have worn thin throughout an entire episode but works well in the time frame it is allotted. Sadly, the main plot which it sets up is full of gaping holes. The minute Steve Cochran's performance as a two-bit thug becomes the main focus the episode falls apart. Cochran's part is an underwritten stereotype and his flat performance highlights this flaw. His exploitation of the old peddler is dull and predictable and the revelation that he will murder the old man is totally unconvincing, making the whole slippery shoes scene seem completely false. Ernest Truex is good as the peddler, bringing a magical, mysterious but warm edge to the character, but he's not good enough to help the floundering script.
To make matters worse, the weak script is also full of inconsistencies. For instance, we learn that the peddler's power to provide people with what they need stems from an ability to see into the future. So how exactly does this allow him to produce a pen that will magically pick winning horses. That seems like it should be a little outside his realms of power. Also, for a man who can see the future, the peddler certainly acts surprised to find the thug waiting for him in his flat. There are many more holes that can be picked in 'What You Need' but it's hardly worth it when the episode is so thin that you can see through it anyway.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI don't mind some adult humor, but this feature was just downright dirty. The first 10 minutes consisted of Pryor swearing at some guy taking pictures, followed my even more profanities. I don't know what happened between that time the the last 5 minutes because I walked out. After seeing this I never looked at Richard Pryor the same way again. And to think that he actually went on to host a childrens' show.
If profanity and tasteless, unfunny dirty jokes make you laugh, then you'll probably enjoy this. But if you're an \"old-fashioned\" type, then don't bother.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis may not be the worst movie to ever win best picture but its up there. Well on second thought this is probably the worst film to ever win best picture. Still though you would expect it to be a worth while film. That in fact though if questionable as well. The film contains almost no depth and is just \"fun\" after \"fun\" if you want to call it that. At first its very interesting but it seems as if everything is exaggerated on so many levels.
The acting was not spectacular to watch but it was quite interesting seeing Charlton Heston in his first lead role. I found many of the characters like the tone of the movie annoying after awhile. Who I did like a lot was James Stewart as the philosophical clown. He to me saved the film in that he gave it a much needed extra layer. Sadly though after Stewart there was not much else.
The directing of the much respected Cecil DeMille was non existent to me. I found the movie corny at times and his use of Betty Hutton was a mistake. The look of the movie was very good at times but it did not generate that magical feeling that classics need to have. The writing was actually pretty good considering how shallow much of the movie was.
From movies like this did the term \"Hollywood Trash\" come up. There is no depth, no valid attempt at drawing emotions out of the audience and simply no artistic value to the film. Then of course the many holes in the plot throughout. This movie was consistently annoying and frustrating. I even had a sense through this film that much of what I was watching was not only and inaccurate depiction of circus life but instead the opposite of how it really is. Why this won best picture is beyond me but its not like the first or the last time the Oscars will and have made a mistake.
\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\nIn a year when \"Singin' in the Rain\" and \"High Noon\" were released, this overstuffed turkey somehow won the Oscar for Best Picture. Half the film is nothing more than circus performances. The other half is soap opera and melodrama. Heston and Wilde both overact, although they are models of restraint compared to the annoying Hutton. Playing a self-centered trapeze artist, Hutton acts like an overzealous high school student in a badly produced school play. Grahame is the only cast member to turn in a decent performance. DeMille has no interest in telling a good story, only in creating an overlong spectacle, not matter how dull.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"