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'm really not going to waste my time with in depth analysis, i'm just going to say that i'm extremely disappointed that Catherine Zeta-Jones made the mistake of being in the main role in this absurd, nonsense, in this full of clichés boring to death thoughtless pathetic try in film-making! There is no point in trying to find the positive sides of this movie, because as a whole it is poor in every single way, and the saddest thing is that Zeta-Jones is dragged so uncompromisingly into the clichés, that she has absolutely no chance of showing even 1% of her talent!
Avoid this movie even at the opportunity of spending the night at home starring at the wall!!!
\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 really wanted to love this movie, and not only cause it had Aaron Eckhart in it but I thought the premise would be cool cause I enjoy movies and shows that revolves around chefs. The cinematography was good but besides it being revolved around chefs everything else is just very cliché. Oh and Little Miss Sunshine was very irritating in this movie although Abigail Breslin seems to be a bit irritating in every movie she is in cause she plays a lot of roles where she is whinny. It has some decent flashes of cooking, but food really didn't play a big part in the movie than I expected which was a big disappointment for me. This film had some good potential, the cast was great but they just had very little to work with. I like a good light hearted romantic comedy but this was just bland. And longer than it should be cause it felt way longer than it is. It's not a terrible movie, you just won't miss anything by not watching this movie.
4.5/10
\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\nI had high hopes for this film when I saw the listing and decided to watch it on TV, uninterrupted by commercial breaks. I've liked Lee Van Cleef in many movies but I'm afraid that having the other characters call him Chris repeatedly doesn't turn him into even a reasonable facsimile of Yul Brenner's Chris.
I found this movie to be a complete disappointment - the music sound track tried to impart the magnificence portrayed in the original but it too failed to bring the film up the the standard of the original. The rich textures of the characters in the original were mostly missing from this film. I guess if you haven't seen the original it would be okay. Too many clichés and too little depth to the characters. I missed the humanity and compassion and the three dimensional characters of the original.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe director was probably still in his early learning stages when he tried his hand at westerns. Have a look at the outfits. Everybody looks well-scrubbed, well-brushed, well-dressed and well-ironed as though ready for church. Even the horses look well-groomed and shiny. This is a WESTERN, for crying out loud! It's supposed to look dusty, nasty and sweaty. And then there's the amateurish acting of the females in this bird. The whole lot, a dozen or so, all pretty and well-endowed, were just freshly raped and widowed, but hardly a tear flows. Instead they all look with great interest (if not downright lust) at the newly arrived magnificent seven who they subsequently feed, bandage and comfort with love during their battles with the bandits. The same directing criticism goes for Lee van Cleef, who does a reasonable good acting job. Our Lee, playing the law, just lost his dear wife. But Lee, hard as organic rock, shows no emotion whatsoever and finds himself within days of his spouse's demise in the arms of a juicy widow with whom he, together with her brood, walks off into the future. The cad. And then there's another thing that always kind of bothers me with this type of films: it doesn't matter how many dynamite-induced explosions take place in the middle of a pack of some 50 horses, never mind how many shots are being fired at the rabble on top of them, only the crooks get killed and the nags always go their way rejoicing in one piece. (I know...silly moi...it's just a movie...). It's not the worst western ever made, but prepare for some serious yawning.
\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 I should now comment upon a 4th flick in the MAGNIFICENT SEVEN franchise; the sequels still surprise or amaze meby their sleaze and deliberate _absurdism. They constitute or forge a 4th waynot classic, not revisionist, not Europeanbut a sleaze Americana, kindred to the violent vigilante '70s movies, absurd trash. This installment too is bombastic sleazeinexplicably awkward and even somewhat strange.
Now what I find disturbing that these sequels not only have their opportunist fans; but that the fans simply do not sense any difference between the original's style and the sequels'.
These sequels are not boring or insipidbut bizarre. They are of course very badly writtenmessy scripts, rubbish lines. It's straight crazy; in this installment each gunman gets several women Van Cleef's young wife begs him to release a young prisoner; he finally does. The young man resumes his life, shoots Van Cleef, kidnaps the wife, rapes and kills herthen joins a wrongdoer. Van Cleef, who has previously refused to help defending a village, now assembles a small bunch and charges the wrongdoer's hacienda; then the wrongdoers charge the village where Van Cleef has set.
I liked the cast.
Van Cleef is Chris; Stefanie Powers, pretty active in the '70s screwy westerns, is Van Cleef's darling. Callan, very antipathetic, is Noah, a writer and Chris' sidekick. The rest of the aggressive bunch are Askew (one of the only three survivors), Armendariz, Lucking, Lauter; Rita Rogers is truly hot, fleshy beauty.
\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 would bet a month's salary \"The Magnificent Seven Returns\" (MSR) was made-for-TV. Other reviewers attest that MSR was a theatrical movie, and I'll take their word for it. The logical answer must assume it was originally shot for TV, and after a change-of-studio-heart, it was released theatrically instead. Every actor is primarily a TV actor: Mariette Hartley, Michael Callen, Ralfe Waite, Stephanie Powers... TV performers all. Lee Van Cleef split his time between TV and theater screens. Stephanie Powers has only made 3 or 4 \"real\" movie appearances in the last thirty years of a very prolific television career - proof positive this was shot for TV. Minor players are veteran small-screen actors who can be seen on old reruns of \"Gunsmoke\", \"Wild Wild West,\" \"Streets of San Francisco,\" and so on.
The ho-hum sets are identical to the Universal Studios Tour sets, often seen in old episodic TV. And the editing betrays the one-or-two-takes-hurriedness of TV, with limited camera movements, positioning, cutting, and lighting. The sound track, exclusive of the original Berstein themes, are straight from seventies television. Yep, I'd bet money it was shot for TV.
That's an important point in evaluating MSR. Initially I watched MSR on cable assuming it was an old theatrical release. In comparison to the original \"Magnificent Seven\", it's a joke, a cartoon, an amateurish attempt at movie making. Acting, lighting, writing, settings, action, cinematography, music (exempting the Berstein themes), editing, pacing,...on and on....all pale in comparison to the classic \"Magnificent Seven\" which is close to the perfect 60's western, and one of the great action movies of all time.
However, viewed as an early 70's made-for-TV movie, as I suspect, the film is actually better than average. Those unfortunate enough to live through the 70's as an adult, know what I'm talking about. MSR would have competed against \"Alias Smith and Jones\" and similarly bland network shows. During the seventies, \"Gunsmoke\" was a quality show, concentrating on character development rather than action, deemphasizing gun play to two shootouts a week. The first shooting, usually a murder, sets the hour's plot into motion - the second shootout climaxes the episode by killing the guest star, his nemesis, or otherwise resolving the conflict with Marshal Matt Dillon. MSR has more action than a whole season of \"Gunsmoke.\" In this light - in this frame of reference - MSR is passable entertainment, a cut above the TV fare from that decade.
\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 series finally hits rock-bottom with this lousy fourth installment, which was (thank God) the last one. None of the three sequels did justice to the highly entertaining original, but this particular film is nothing more than a shameless attempt to exploit the name of the \"Magnificent Seven\" and Bernstein's rousing music theme. The production values resemble those of a made-for-TV movie and the characters are forgettable and indistinguishable: in parts \"II\" and \"III\" you couldn't remember their names, here you can't even remember their faces. Lee Van Cleef was an inappropriate choice for the role of Chris, but nobody could have replaced Yul Brynner in our minds anyway. Don't waste your 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\nThis film is a cash in. A cash in reliant on a rousing theme tune created for an earlier classic. Yul Brynner has long since jumped ship and so have most of the production values. Lee Van Cleef takes over the lead role of Chris. I can't think of any actor who looks less like Brynner than Van Cleef. Hey, he could have at least shaved off his hair and lost the moustache, just for the sake of continuity. Some correctional centres show this movie in order to punish offenders. One step out of line and The Magnificent Seven Ride! is brought to the fore and wielded. They didn't even bother trying to make this movie not look like a TV movie! Abysmal.
\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\nJoan Crawford is convincingly disfigured as our story starts, and of course she get fixed up. But she's a bad egg, exploiting one guy, while living out another guy's anti-social philosophy. All of this takes place in Sweden, which is truly bizarre. It causes anything and everything memorable in the visuals, which are freed from having to depict Anytown USA, but it makes a viewer wonder why every remake since is burdened and rendered unspecific by the need to Americanize everything. There is plot, plot, plot so chatty that you could drown in it, and making matters worse is a framing device that adds zilch to the movie. The photography is occasionally nice, with odd angles and miniatures incorporated quite well. But it's overwrought without ever once drawing you in.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIn the animated series:
Aeon Flux was an amoral rebel that was completely detached from everything and everyone. She was cruel, selfish, loving, unpredictable, witty, caustic, confident, sarcastic, lethal, untamable, ambiguous all at once. The original Aeon had layers upon layers of depth. She almost never allowed her personal emotions to show through. The original plot was deliciously ambiguous and thought provoking. You could never tell what Aeon's motives were. Aeon was a militant anarchist whereas Trevor was a radical idealist, because of this they could never have any semblance of a stable relationship.
In the movie:
Aeon Flux works for the Monicans and her political motives and personal motives are very clear. She was pretty, loving, vulnerable, easily tamable, emotional and very predictable. The Aeon in the movie had one layer of depth at most. The plot was obvious and contrived. Everything is completely laid out for you from the beginning. There was virtually no conflict between Aeon and Trevor, at least in terms of personal philosophies. The only conflict between them was that they were on different sides.
The movie was a horrible disappointment to me. I felt betrayed. They took the idea of one of my favorite animated characters of all time, squeezed all the depth and personality out of her, and pumped her full of Hollywood clichés. The essence of the animated series was completely lost in this movie.
The only reason I'm not giving this movie a \"1\" is because the visuals were incredible. It was neat to see some of the familiar animated scenes like the fly in the eye done with CGI.
\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 a bit unnerving when a studio declines to screen a film for the press before it goes into wide release. That many movies suck is no surprise, but when a studio itself admits as much ahead of time, the process of movie-going becomes a passion play of sorts. Consider it an early Christmas gift from Hollywood, then, that \"Aeon Flux\" isn't nearly the affront to taste and decency one might expect, given the above. Though ultimately overwhelmed by its flaws, it at least has (sort of) an idea with which to toy around. Too bad director Karyn Kusama seems to have little clue how to execute it all.
It's the future. There's been a plague. There is a dictatorship, and there are rebels. The latter are known as the Monicans, and far from being a cult of beret or tennis racket worshipers, they're into attempts to overthrow the former, called the Goodchild regime. The regime is occasionally mean to the citizenry, which is more than Aeon Flux (Charlize Theron) and her pals can stand. Through some sort of biochemical virtual reality technology, the Monicans receive orders from their dear leader (Frances McDormand), a mystical priestess-type who appears to have been cross-bred with a carrot. It falls to Aeon to strap on some form-fitting, futuristic spandex get-ups to carry out the High Carrot's orders, which are of course some version of \"destroy the regime.\" Having years earlier watched her sister get liquidated by the Goodchilds, she needs little convincing.
Not surprisingly, things get complicated. The Goodchilds might not be quite what they seem, and Aeon herself might have an unexpected history with them. Though occasionally muddled, the film's central conceit (of which I won't reveal more) contains some neat notions about the nature of human existence and survival. There's room for much more examination of which the film doesn't take advantage, but the ideas are there, at least. The big problems of \"Aeon Flux\" are technical. Kusama has made the baffling decision to film nearly all the action so close that we can rarely follow what's going on. To make matters worse, it's edited in a flurry of jump cuts that leave us completely lost. The result is some serious spacial disorientation that takes over the film. \"Aeon Flux\"'s aesthetic is one of sleek costume, oddly-angled architecture, and nimble characters. Much of the action occurs in minimalist, open spaces that beg for some unbroken long shots that might convey the grace and athleticism implied by the above. Instead, we get split seconds of flying limbs, breaking glass, and accompanying sound effects.
There is a pretty good movie trying to get out of the morass of \"Aeon Flux.\" Put this stuff in the hands of the Wachowski brothers, say, and the results could be quite different. As it is, though, I felt like \"Aeon Flux\" was willfully pushing me away from a movie I wanted to enjoy. This film is unattuned to its own strengths. Like a novice poker player dealt a royal flush, it somehow finds a way to lose in spite of its potential.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf you're a fan of the original series, do NOT see this movie.
I should have been skeptical from the previews when Aeon expresses her motives for murder. In the series Aeon had no family and no motive for her adventures save selfish interests. Obviously the chimp-writer in charge felt the movie needed to cater to the \"bad grrl\" demographic by making the character deadly, but have a good reason to kill people.
You wouldn't have thought it possible, but the movie is more two dimensional than the cartoon. The characters are all portrayed as inherently good with some conflict of interest that eventually gets resolved. All dogs go to heaven, and same for every character that dies in this movie.
The selfish,twisted,perverted, dominating personas of Aeon and Trevor are nowhere to be seen. In the end they literally develop into a cutesy couple ala Annie Hall. The only character who remained true to the show was the Relicle, the floating machine in the sky. I suppose if you ever thought \"gee, I like Aeon Flux, but I wish it were more like every other faceless good-v-evil sci-fi Hollywood slop out there\", then you are in for a treat.
They didn't even get the look right. I suppose a black metal bikini was too much to ask for, but the whole setting is wrong. 400 years into the future sure looks like 30 years into the past. Instead of a distinctly urban post-apocalyptic world, the viewer's eyes are offended with a 70's mod-squad frutopia of egg-shaped furniture, wood paneled walls, earth tones, and lots of plants. Bregna was a dystopia, not a utopia.
Speaking of Bregna, that's the only city on earth according to the movie. The show is clear that there are two cities, Bregna and Monica, which used to be one. In the movie, the \"Monicans\" are just Hollywood storybook freedom-fighters. They also have as much technology as the Bregnans, which is not the case from the show.
The only possible conclusion is that the real writer for this movie was a high school kid, and that he wrote it the day before it was due to the studio execs, and he's never seen an entire Aeon Flux all the way through. The overwhelming amount of inconsistency with the cartoon is baffling. Beyond using certain names like Aeon Flux, Trevor Goodchild, and Bregna, the movie is nothing like the show.
The actual bulk of the movie seems to try to blend the colorful plots of soy-lent green, blade runner, Logan's run, and tomb raider, which came out a dull brown mess.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe MTV sci-fi animated series \"Æon Flux\" is brought to life with Charlize Theron playing the title character, a freedom fighter who fights oppression in the walled city of Bregna, 400 hundred years into the future. For her latest mission, she has been sent to kill the city's leader Trevor Goodchild (Marton Csokas), but she uncovers secrets along the way.
Aeon Flux falls under the category of good premise, mediocre execution. Interesting story yet the film was a little dull. A lot of people are saying that this is one of the worst movies of the year and that's not true at all. It may be a disappointing film but it's an average film at best. I have never seen the cartoon version of the movie so I can't compare the two. It's probably better because they have a chance to explain the story more. The film is not that confusing but it's easy to get lost if you're not familiar with the material. The acting was alright, nothing special. Charlize Theron gives a good performance and seems dedicated to the film. The rest of the cast also give decent performances including Jonny Lee Miller, Frances McDormand and Marton Csokas. There are also more than a few interesting characters in the film including Sithandra, Aeon's friend.
The problem with Aeon Flux is that it takes itself too seriously. It carries the same serious tone throughout the entire film and that gets a little tiring. There's no humor and the film becomes a little boring at times. This is the same problem that Elektra had. Because the film is so serious, the dialog sounds cheesy and the serious scenes seem forced. The action scenes are pretty good but that's not what the film is really about so don't go in expecting just an action movie. The twist at the end isn't mind blowing but it's still a nice ending and better than other thrillers that have come out this past year (Hide and Seek). The costumes are little weird but still look nice and interesting. The visuals were are also done well so the film at least looks nice. So, the movie may be a case of style over substance. Interesting to look at but may not hold your attention for a very long time. In the end, it's not the best film out there but it might for a decent rental. Rating 4/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nRight up (or down) there with Toys and Jurassic Park 2 and The Phantom Menace.
The premise sounded cool, some of the commercials looked semi-promising, but alas, the entire movie had about 30 seconds of neat shot-ness, and that was shown on the small screen's 30 second slot.
If you want amateur writing, second-rate effects, ridiculous costumes, and an all-around snoozefest by all means watch it. The plot is recycled sci-fi fodder. Too bad too, because coming in I thought it would be bad but held out hope. It may be the worst movie I have ever seen, and I have seen a lot.
Bottom line - Don't watch it.
Unless of course you -liked- any of the above 3 movies.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nCritics have started calling it the Oscar Winner club, understandably. What after Halle Berry won it for Monsters Ball then going straight to the diabolical Catwoman. Hilary Swank triumphs in Boys Don't Cry and follows it with The Core. Jamie Foxx takes a nosedive as a pilot in the dull Stealth after scooping a gong for Ray. Now it's seems Hollywood Starlet Charlize Theron craps all over her \"Monster\" Oscar with this one of the worst Sci-fi spectacles ever made.
The film loses its audience interest after a mere 20 minutes meaning the only thing really worth staying for is the fact that despite the film being rubbish Charlize Theron is still an exceptional actress who is clearly making the best of a crude and laughable premise. Not only is Æon Flux ultimately shallow but for an action flick it's also really very dull. It will only really appeal to comic book fans and Horney teenagers who like the idea of Theron running around half naked for 90 minutes. Flux only really succeed in failing.
Set against the 2011 virus that kills 99% of the world's populace, and in the last city on Earth, Bregna, the survivors, some four hundred years later, in the year 2415, are continuing to live in the Goodchild dynasty, the name of the scientist who developed its cure.
All is not well in this utopia and it is not what lies beyond its high walls that protects its citizens from the never ending jungle but what unspoken, unwritten taboo that holds and binds these unwritten taboo that holds and binds these unfortunates' together that lies within these walls of paranoia, conformity and unquestionable obedience. Filmed in and around Berlin, ironically, this is a story set against a totalitarian state, a walled city, where its peoples are no longer capable of reproducing, and its sinister and most secret plot of how it sustains life.
Æon Flux is the assassin that has been assigned by the underground rebels to change the course of Mankind, forever. This is the story of her fight for justice, freedom and revenge.
Æon Flux combined lousy narratives, ropy pacing and truly dire effects. Looking more like an unrealistic video game rather than a film. The only thing that is fortunate about the failure is that no sequels are in the works, Flux might just be the beginning and the end of what could have been one of the worst franchises in history, thank god for the lousy box office takings then.
My final verdict on this truly lousy feature? There really isn't a story here just Charlize Theron jumping around in a black suit like a grass hopper. The acting is very wooden moronic and emotionless compared to the other cinemas that are out there today. It try's too much to be like an adaption and doesn't really take much from the cartoon which is what I was expecting, the only thing that was done half right that pays tribute to the cartoon was the fly in the eye scene. Avoid at all costs.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhile Aeon Flux was mildly entertaining and a slightly better way to spend a Wednesday evening than the pub, i did leave pleased that i had got buy one get one free tickets. knowing nothing about the film as i went in, in fact i didn't even know there was an animated series before i read this site, i was ready for anything, and as some other viewers noted, the trailers showing a well filmed, good looking, and interesting piece of cinema had pulled me in. half way through the film though i was kind of disappointed, it did remind me of the fifth element but i too feel it just lacked the extra bit of depth and left me with the empty feeling. and enough of the pointless and slightly boring gun fights, if you're going to do them, do it with some style, not just loads of explosions and inept guards falling down. personally i'd rather have seen a bit more about the story and the people in the city or got to know more about how the chairman was being undermined, than yet another long and loud gun fight.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI got to know ÆON back in the early 90s via television and I loved it...
What did you like about it ? The cranky drawing style ? The flawless artistic action involved ? The absurd and deadpan communication between the characters ? The whole layout of the surrounding future world ? No matter what you loved about it...
The Aeon Flux film of late 2005 has nothing of that.
Karyn Kusama, the so called \"director\" of the film, was hopelessly over-strained with transporting the original content to a new film. If you 're not familiar with the original series, you won't understand anything during for the first 60minutes of the film.The story is inscrutable and the vapid characters do not develop during the film.
Kusama's attempt to improve the storyline by implementing some rather weak explanatory conversations between the main characters is not only a lame attempt to cover up her flaws as a storyteller , it's simply unworthy of the original ÆON concept.
Charlize Theron might be an attractive woman, but she can't impersonate the ÆON character. Although she was attached to strings doing action scenes, her lack of talent for physical motion simply ruins the action sequences in the film. The result is a tremendous amount of hectic picture cuts to cover up the sheer lameness of her physique.
Forget about all the rest, it's not worth talking about...
I give 1point for Ms.Theron showing her boobs and 1point for the nice architectural photography in the film. That's 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\nLaughable.
Clichéd.
Overdoses on style to compensate for poor writing.
Remember when MTV actually used to air music videos and other shows besides Reality Shows? Aeon Flux (2005) is based upon one such show  a cartoon from the mid-90s  featuring a superhuman female protagonist in black latex clothing. Aeon, played by the lovely Charlize Theron in this adaptation, is a cold detached rebel who is as dexterous as a line-dancer and as deadly as a viper-snake. She needs to be, if she expects to kick the asses of the totalitarian government.
I love science fiction, but hate the sudden influx of half-assed futuristic dystopian technology-overdosed films like The Island (2005) and Equilibrium (2002) (bottom of the pile). Aeon Flux has all the problems that are present in these films, but amplified. That is, there is nothing original left to show so they compensate for it with the sleek style that Matrix (1999) catalyzed. The special effects are therefore sensational in Aeon Flux which earns it a few points, but scratch the surface and there is literally nothing there.
To make matters worse, all performances in this film are atrocious and some actually wound me to watch. Charlize Theron's character Aeon Flux is interwoven with the most cheesy tough-chick schtick and it seems as though the director Karyn Kusama cannot quite decide where to go with her next  should she make her more detached or more emotional? She doesn't know! Let's go both ways! Imagine you take a shotgun, load it chock-full of character developments of different sorts and there fire into a random mess. This is the character of Aeon Flux.
The film Aeon Flux puts forward all the 'mandatory' ideas in a dystopian society - individual vs. society, nature vs. science, emotion vs. cold reason, etc. You've seen all of this before, and better done at that. Go read Orwell, Bradbury or Huxley, or even watch Logan's Run (1976) or Blade Runner (1982)... anything! Avoid this viciously uninvolving cheese-fest for as long as you can.
3/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nStarted watching this but didn't believe in any of the characters. In particular the relationship between the bakery assistant and the waitress just didn't work for me at all. The scenes between the bakery owner and the assistant were nice but the rest was just very slow. It was a very superficial movie and it gave me the feeling that I was watching play rather than a film. The characters were very 'stagey' and the storyline was a lot like a stage farce. By the time the pyromaniac waylaid the assistant I was bored and didn't care what happened next and so I switched off. Glad I didn't pay to see it. Didn't laugh or even smile once. There seems to be a strange tendency for Americans to classify their films as 'comedy' when they are funny peculiar rather than funny ha ha. I have finally learned to avoid what Americans term dark comedies which usually turn out to be gruesome weird and unfunny. Now it looks like I will have to be a bit more discerning when they call a film romantic comedy as well. Maybe comedy means something different when applied to a film rather than a series in America. I don't understand why America can produce amazingly funny comedies like Two and a half men, Will and Grace, King of Queens but can't seem to produce really funny films without resorting to toilet humour. This film wasn't gross or anything. But it wasn't anything at all just one big yawn...
\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!!!! MILD SPOILERS !!!!
The premise goes like this : A store gets burnt down and assistant Sergio is asked by the father of the man who started the fire to take the wrap to which Sergio agrees .
So far so good , but there`s a fair lapse of logic involved Sergio agrees to do this for the sum of 25,000 dollars but why ? Come on guys if you were a good looking white boy would you run the risk of getting a long spell in a tough jail ( A very real possibilty for arson ) for the sake of 25 grand ? I know I wouldn`t , and seeing as you`d have a criminal record no employer would want to touch you with a barge pole so is $25,000 dollars all that much for a life of workfare and welfare cheques ? There`s also something else that seems to have gone without notice from the premise , since Mister Lumpke has told Sergio that his son did the fire he seems unware of the possibility that he may know too much . Wouldn`t alarm bells be ringing in your mind about someone wanting to keep you quite if they told you something ?
I guess we`re not suppossed to think about such details since A PYROMANIAC`S LOVE STORY isn`t suppossed to be an intelligent thriller , it`s a light hearted romantic comedy/ chick flick that`s probably best apprieciated as a girls night in . Looking through this comments page it is obvious that the movie has its defenders but as a cynical male I wasn`t too impressed and William Baldwin does go way over the top
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nNot having any idea what this film was about, but based on the fact that John Leguizamo was appearing in it, we decided to watch it. Well, it turned out not to be the wisest decision. In fact, as another commentary in this forum puts it, we felt embarrassed for the actors that participated in this movie.
While the film is by no means horrible, it doesn't make sense at all. The over the top performance by William Baldwin doesn't help the situation either. John Leguizamo is a multi-talented actor who deserved better. The basic problem it seems to be the film was a project that started with good intentions in making a little comedy and the people in charge ran out of ideas along the way. The result is an uneven film.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis was an attempt toward a romantic comedy, and one which did not work. Although the film was cast in an interesting manner, the dismal script betrayed the best efforts of all. The director's fey mannerisms may have succeeded if he had adopted a point of view. It was embarrassing to watch William Baldwin and, in particular, Armin Muller-Stahl.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nNot really worth a review, but I suppose it's my duty to warn you all - especially since there are some pretty good reviews of this Canadian bomb floating around out there... Bad acting and a slow moving, absolutely atrociously boring 'coming of age' tale in which 3 boys lives are turned upside down when a man on the run shows up at their clubhouse in the woods. At firs the boys make good with the intruder and at one point even view him as some sort of a role model... However all this changes... and you still won't care. You will recognize Chris Penn, whose biggest cinematic impact is Corky Romano, and a young Devon Sawa, whose career peaked at 'Casper'. I was hoping for a '12 and Holding', 'The War', or 'Lie' and all I got was a waste of time. This film struggles to keep it's audiences attention and never makes an impact or maintains a note of anything remotely interesting.
\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 just spent the last half an hour reading through the other reviews and I don't know if I want to laugh or cry. There's no way that ADJL is like Harry Potter, Danny Phantom, Fairly OddParents, other then a secret magical world, which has been close to overdone. Also, no way is ADJL anime. Anime is very much a drawing style(and some will say more, such as plot and Japanese origin), either way ADJL is not anime so stop saying it is and if you're looking for something that is like anime, look else where, like Teen Titans and Avatar.
ADJL is typical. It's just like all the other Disney shows. An arrogant main character kid who thinks he knows everything and doesn't bother to listen to people who're older than him and continues to make the same mistakes. Best friend sidekicks. Repeative plot with a hint of a twist. And sibling rivalry. Can't they once make a character that has brains and isn't full of himself? Can't they have kids respect their elders? Can't they think of something different with the plot? Can't they have the siblings get along and not hate each other? ADJL is just too generic, because you also have bad guys that get defeated and come back again, and are also complete idiots, that have no background for their hate. C'mon, you'll think that someone who's at least 30 will be able to out-wit a 13 year old.
Watching ADJL is like watching nearly anything else on TV these day, same thing over and over again. Nothing special, just new designs characters and one small idea that has been used again and again.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nLoosely based on novels by Earl Derr Biggers, 20th Century Fox's Charlie Chan series proved an audience favorite--but when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor the studio feared audiences would turn against its Asian hero. This was a miscalculation: actor Sidney Toler took the role to \"poverty row\" Monogram Studios, where he continued to portray the character in eleven more films made between 1944 and his death in 1947.
20th Century Fox had regarded the Chan films as inexpensive \"B\" movies, but even so the studio took considerable care with them: the plots were often silly, but the pace was sharp, the dialogue witty, and the casts (which featured the likes of Bela Lugosi and Ray Milland) always expert. The result was a kindly charm which has stood the test of time. Monogram was a different matter: Chan films were \"B\" movies plain and simple. Little care was taken with scripts or cast and resulting films were flat, mediocre at best, virtually unwatchable at worst.
Thanks to an adequate cast and a few interesting plot devices, THE SHANGHAI COBRA is among the best of the Monogram-made Chan films--but even so it barely manages to achieve a consistent mediocrity. In this particularly entry, Chan (Sidney Toler) is called upon to investigate a murderer who kills with what appears to be a cobra-like bite; at the same time, he decides to make certain that a government supply of radium tucked away in a bank vault, of all places, remains secure. Do these two seemingly unrelated plot lines come together? Well... could be! Sidney Toler is always enjoyable as Chan, but most of his Monogram performances seemed \"phoned in\"--and that is as true of COBRA as it is of any Monogram Chan film. As usual, the really enjoyable performer is Mantan Mooreland. Changing times have led us to look upon Moreland's brand of comedy as demeaning to African-Americans, but he was an expert actor and comic, and taken within the context of what was possible for a black actor in the 1940s his work has tremendous charm and innocence.
Fans of the 20th Century Fox series are likely to find Monogram's Chan a significant disappointment and newcomers who like the Monogram films will probably consider them third-rate after encountering the Fox films. Like other Monogram Chan films, THE SHANGHAI COBRA is best left to determined collectors. Four stars, and that's being generous.
GFT, Amazon Reviewer
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nNot one of Monogram's better(not trying to be amusing here either)Chan entries. The Shanghai Cobra has a lot going for it, but, in the end, is just way too confusing and cluttered to be overly satisfying. The film opens with a murderer named the Shanghai Cobra having already struck twice and now is about in a scene at a diner in some way. We have a guy, a girl, and another guy having some implied connection when one guy dies in the streets. Yes, I am simplifying things here for the sake of brevity, for this really is at the core of the problems with this film - it has too much going on without any real, fulfilling explanation. I haven't even gone into the diner cook who has some involvement and a juke box that talks to you and has a screen and everyone doesn't seem to have a problem with that! All this is in the first five minutes or so. Then Chan enters film working for the government and flying out to help a friend. He also has right to check a bank's store of radium and is looking for a man wrapped in bandages that he helped arrest in Shanghai many years earlier. I found the plot very involved as stated earlier. Toler is back as Chan. He is ever affable. Benson Fong and Mantan Moreland are back too. Both do good jobs and are quite amusing. But the convoluted plot just didn't convince me, and much of the film was watched with a weird, questioning glance. This isn't a bad movie not just a very interesting one except for the most devoted of Chan fans.
\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\nAdmittedly, I am not a fan of the Monogram Chan films. . The plot, involving radium theft from a bank vault, is a bit far fetched and a long way from the atmospheric mysteries that Fox produced. Mantan Moreland and Benson Fong (as No. 3 Son Tommy) provide some laughs as usual. But otherwise there isn't much here. Great title that is wasted.
\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 Shanghai Cobra starts out like gangbusters, with a rain soaked diner scene straight out of Shack Out on 101 or Gun Crazy (the first one). Unfortunately the film then proceeds to plod its weary way through a standard Chan formula that is only barely enlivened by the always wonderful Mantan Moreland. It's as if director Karlson blew half his budget in the first five minutes, just getting the set up the way he wanted it. Watch the beginning and think about The Phenix City Story.
\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\nJack Lemmon was one of the finest actors that had ever graced the screen. He could effortlessly switch from dramatic roles to comedic with ease, making most of his peers green with envy. While his performance in \"Save The Tiger\" is Oscar-worthy, I feel it was given to him as he had missed out on his other opportunities to win the award due to other, better roles that had preceded this current one.
This is also one of those pretentious movies that comes out to basically showcase the talent of the cast, or in this case, one particular member. It's too bad the screenwriter's output didn't match that of Lemmon's. Don't waste your time with 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\nJack Lemmon was one of our great actors. His performances in Days Of Wine And Roses, The Apartment, Some Like It Hot, Missing (to name the first ones that come to mind) were all worthy of Best Actor nomination. His only win was for Save The Tiger, and that's a shame. He gets melancholy down to a science, but never brings it into balance with the driver in his character. He actually did a similar character much better toward the end of his career in the one-note Glengarry Glen Ross.
As for the movie, wonderful supporting work by Jack Gilford as Lemmon's partner and Thayer David as an arsonist, go for naught because the rest of the script is a muddled jumble of cliched vignettes, angst, neurotic nostalgia, and pointless moralizing. Worth seeing once as a time capsule into 1970's style experimental direction by Avildsen.
\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's premise seems to be that the passing of the World War 2 generation in America, with its apple-pie phoniness and hypocritical morality, was a terrible tragedy. Those awful hippies ruined everything apparently.
What holds the film together are the excellent performances - particularly Lemmon's which is truly remarkable. Otherwise we have a boring slice-of-life drama (just over 24 hours of Jack's life) with pretensions.
I found it a chore to sit through.
\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 Canterville Ghost (1996).The director made this too sappy a production. Maybe it's the generation, but I really liked the Charles Laughton version. There is a time and place for \"emoting\" and this production does not translate very well. Patrick Stewart, reciting Shakespeare was very good, but still inappropriate. Would neither recommend nor watch again. The close-ups and padded text and sub-plots were lost on me. Adding extraneous material and scenes takes away from a truly great work. The screenplay writer should find another profession in which to misplace his talent, maybe afternoon soap operas would be a better venue. Check out the really good version and 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\nThere is nothing like an Oscar Wilde comedy, and this movie is nothing like a comedy. The melodrama labors from scene to scene and the comedy is completely absent. In the original story, the humor comes from the Americans who are oblivious to the ghostly traditions of Canterville Chase. The American father even offers some oil to the ghost to quiet the creaking chains. Read the book!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThere's a certain irony in a parody of the Gothic genre being turned into a mess of clichés by filmmakers who either had no idea what the story's purpose was, or just didn't care. All of the hallmarks of your average family film are present- rambunctious younger siblings, a grumpy teenager who doesn't want to move, unsympathetic parents who are unable to see the apparition, and of course a romantic subplot. The movie has very little in common with Wilde's original story, which was largely written to poke fun at the melodramatic Gothic novellas that were all the rage at the time. If Wilde saw this version, he'd probably laugh- and then of course, write a parody. One can only hope that the children who watched this bland, mass-produced pap eventually discovered the wit and sparkle of the original version.
\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 excited when I read \"The Canterville Ghost\" would be shown on TV. However, I was deeply disappointed. I loved the original story written by Oscar Wilde and sadly nothing of that was transferred by the 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\nI watched this movie by accident on TV and it was so unbelievably awful I could not switch it off. Every single piece of wit and intelligence has been removed from the Oscar Wilde story by the inept screenplay writer. It barely matters because the dire acting, clichéd camera-work and cloying music would have ruined anything resembling like a decent script anyway. The worst performance comes from Patrick Stewart who comes across as the most hammy, talentless, minor mock-Shakespearean nincompoop as the ghost. \"Get thee out of here!\" he screams at one stage while waving his arms like a pantomime villain. A truly terrible film and why wonders why Stewart, who can act when called upon to do so, has soiled his reputation by making worthless pieces of crap like this and the XMen.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"