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\nA scientific experiment designed to create a superhuman being has gone wrong.The creators become trapped in a remote desert outpost,pursued relentlessly and mercilessly by their own creation.James Stockton,the scientist whose research was used despite his protests to create the monster,is called the outpost to help undo the horror that now lurks somewhere within the dark halls.James,together with his son and daughter,soon find themselves trapped inside with the others,trying desperately to survive.And with the outpost sealed from within,there is no way out...\"The Outpost\"/\"Mind Ripper\" is highly unoriginal.The sets are pretty claustrophobic and there's a bit of gore.However as a horror it fails miserably on almost all levels.There's zero suspense,the script is weak and filled with big holes and the ending is extremely predictable.So-called master Wes Craven produced this one-I wonder if he is happy with this trash.Joe Gayton directs without any style.The acting is horrible,only Lance Henriksen can act at all.OK,I'm a big horror fan and was bitterly disappointed.Avoid it like the plague-it's just the same old boring crap 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\nSighthe stupid government once again attempted to create an inexhaustible and indestructible soldier, and of course the experiments went terribly wrong, burdening us with a half man-half mutant who pukes an awful lot and squeaks like a little girl whenever he's upset. Lance Henriksen stars as the honest scientist who immediately quit the experiment upon hearing it was a military project, but he returns (bringing the whole family with him) when he finds out his beloved guinea pig has gone on a killing spree. \"Mind Ripper\" certainly is a watchable horror movie, but it's very unoriginal and features pretty much every lame cliché you can think off (including the estranged father/rebellious teenage son sub plot...yawn). The characters are like wooden puppets, the dumbest things are being said and done and there's a completely pointless dream-sequence...coming from the monster!!! There's a handful of interesting gory scenes to enjoy and some of the isolated desert-locations are effectively eerie. Lance Henriksen is adequate as always, even though this is yet another inferior production he stars, and Giovanni Ribisi surely deserved a better motion picture to make his debut in. For some reason, this anonymous 90's thriller is also known as \"The Hills Have Eyes part 3\". Is it because it handles about members of the same family being terrorized in the desert? Is it because Wes Craven was once again involved, as a producer this time? Or maybe it's because the monster gets bald near the end like the freaky Michael Berryman in the 1977 original? Who knows...Who cares? Wes Craven probably financed this project because his son co-wrote the script and it's always moving to discover that your offspring is equally untalented as you are. Not recommended!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI saw this film at Temple University. I cannot imaging that anyone will ever see this film in a theater (projected on film). The acting is similar to Saved By The Bell (The TV Show). The plot is simple and unimaginative. The sound recordist likes the sound of wind and the DP needs a light meter. Vampires, Vampires, Vampires.
Don't waste your money.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOK, let's see... a handsome young stranger is new in town, and walks around on the local boardwalk. He meets a pretty girl, meets up with the obnoxious leader of the local hip young vampires club, is dared by them to follow them into this cave, gets into a conflict over the pretty girl, an epic fight ensues...
No, it's not Lost Boys, although you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference, since I think even some of the carnival music is the same. (Do you have to pay royalties for sampling a movie?) Even the ending of this stinkbomb is ripped off from Lost Boys. The make-up is below par, even for a low-budget thriller, the characters are one-dimensional, and just exactly how many \"Oh, I had this horrible experience\" scenes of teen angst does one movie need? The humor is flat and stupid, and everything else is sadly predictable. Yawn.
The only scary thing about this turkey is the promise (threat) of a sequel, an idea that hopefully every distributor in the country will drive a stake 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\nHi Y'all,
I bought this on DVD from England. You see, I have one of those multi-region players. I thought it would be fun to get a cool movie to show to my friends. Well, surprise to Amy-Jo Johnson, she's barely in the movie. Although she is on the cover. It's really difficult to imagine how a film this bad got made in the first place. Perhaps someone has a trust fund.
Oh... It's about Vampires who live at the beach
\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 know who financed it, or why, but this \"want to be\" vampire flick is really awful. It tries to be hip, and appeal to the young MTV-generation audience, but it is just downright laughable. The acting is horrible, and the directing is horrendous. I heard the budget was $600,000. I want to know where all the money went?
\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\nLet me see...I've seen every film Lou Ferrigno has made. I've seen Batman & Robin...twice. I've memorized the dances in Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo...I've watched unfinished Blade Runner rip-off student films...yet this film is the most painful thing I've ever seen.
This was the first movie for the \"straight to video market.\" So you can thank Blood Cult for all of those mysterious Michael Dudikoff films at your local Blockbuster. You should know that this isn't even high quality video. This is consumer grade. This is you father's video camera he never uses. This is what you have to look at for 90 minutes.
I won't bore you with plot details since I'm getting sleepy just thinking about it, but I will tell you that watching this movie is a form of torture. I only watch this movie when I am angry at myself. So I recommend this film if you are suicidal, or if you are up for a mighty challenge.
If you happen to rent this film (God have mercy) you will know what you are in for from the first 10 minutes. This is when you are hit by the usual horror film intro. You know the drill. There's a lot of suspense and build up before some girl dies. Yes, you've seen it before, but not like this. This is the most boring intro I've ever seen. I honestly believe that you could get a camera off ebay for ten dollars, grab the bum that most smells like gin and candy, and tell him to film your mom cooking dinner and it would be more interesting than this intro. It bored me to tears. I cried like a baby.
Another one of the things that makes this film so unbelievably painful is its actors. Yes, I've seen bad acting. TRUST ME. I've seen 4th grade productions of Oliver Twist with more realistic dialog. The lead actor makes me ill. The \"supporting\" actress is a train-wreck of a human.
I will not even comment on the boyfriend. True horror.
So, rent this movie if you can find it. You'll never be more depressed that you spent 3 dollars on anything else.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhat can I say? This was hands-down the worst movie I have ever seen in my life (and believe me, some of my favorite movies are admittedly horrible). The acting was amateurish, the sets were boring, and the camerawork was shoddy and sophomoric. This whole movie seemed like a college final project. I had to keep convincing myself that it was done by a teenager to make it seem somewhat good. The most disturbing factor of the \"film\" is that it's not even film at all-- it 's shot on video. That was extremely distracting. On top of all that, the dialogue is simply disastrous and the plot line is so basic it makes my eyes water. Not to mention they steal from at least four other horror movies in the first 20 minutes or so. If there were such a thing as zero stars, this movie would get it.
The only thing scary about this movie is how bad it is.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nHitting the ground running, the film begins with THREE murders in a row. No plot, no characters, no motivation; the second murder happens off screen, and that victim's severed head is actually used to quite efficiently bludgeon the third victim to death! This is a high point. But the Lewises are obviously smart enough to lead with strength; soon they're covering up botched dialogue scenes with detective voice-over and shooting endless snappy repartee in ugly wide shot. By now this Betacam production's horror atmosphere is rapidly giving way to an insurance infomercial vibe, with the monumental (and rather endearing) plainness of the leads skewing things further in that direction. Shlub cop investigates, meat cleaver guy slaughters, repeat, climaxing early with a memorable severed-finger-in-the-salad gag. Only, how the hell did the fingers get in the salad? And wasn't the Blood Cult's purpose to collect the appendages they severed? When the GORE stops making sense, you know you're in trouble. And without spoiling the big, nonsensical twist ending, just take my word for it: the fascinating incompetence of the first scenes gives way to a deep cathode-tube-smashing impulse. The basic reaction is to try to put it behind you and get on with your life.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie is so mild! I tried not to expect anything greater from this film, but still it was a big disappointment. The basic idea of the story is interesting and potential. This could have been so much better. The characters are really simple, no depth at all. It's a shame that previously talented performers Tiina Lymi and Petteri Summanen didn't make the already poor characters any better. The director just don't get the watcher emotionally involved at all with this piece of cr*p.
And the the chase sequence at the end of the movie. That's hideous!!!
Why there had to be so stupid and old solution for that situation?
It's too much used element with even more terrible way of filming it. OH NO!
\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\nusually a movie that starts bad stays bad in a monotonically descending pattern. This bad movie started to seem to get better before going into a steep dive. The acting, save for the male antagonist, was awful. The plot was essentially a set up for the final main scene, which is probably good as performance art, but it was wasted in this movie. Not sure why this movie was made.
\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\"Cleo's Second Husband\" is an amateurish attempt at psychodrama with more to fault than to praise. The plot is hacked, the story monotonous, the acting poor, the execution second rate, etc. Not worth the time unless maybe your a relative of one of the actors. PU! (D)
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI recently watched this movie because I'm a big Kinski Fan. But, oh my god. Don't get me wrong. I love this guy. But in this movie his whole acting is just simply a refusal to work! But fortunately he isn't the only one to blame. First of all the complete storyline is totally weak dealing with a gunmen looking for a murderer while Kinski is stuck up in jail for a crime he did not commit. That's all. All the dialogs and characters are so bad it's making you scream. But maybe that's the fun of it all. If you know the Kinski-Biography it's obvious that Kinski didn't care about those movies at all. Especially all his Italo-Western roles. He just took the money and that was It. again, this whole movie is totally weird. Only for hardcore-Fans of the genre.
\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\nHungary can't make any good movies. Fact. This is a great example of that.
First of all the term \"plot\" does not exist in this movie. It's seriously weak. Even tho a lot of people would argue with me on that. Sure, it's about a taboo, but that's about it. There are endless possibilities, which could have been really great, if used, but they nearly skipped everything. I think the whole movie is just an excuse to show pictures, which are the only decent things in this whole pile of awfulness.
The acting is just plain shitty. There aren't many lines, so you would think that the actors have great facial expressions or mimicking abilities, but no. In fact, 86% of the time, they suck. And that's when they don't say anything. If they say even a single word, you'll start tilting your head, saying: \"That's damn unrealistic\". But than again, this is partly the fault of the writing. There's also no emotion in most of the dialogs.
The editing is sometimes OK, but most of the time illogical and just worsens the whole picture. It could have given an emotional push, yet it seems the editing in here is all about putting cuts after each other.
Someone please explain it to me, why critics say this movie is a masterpiece. Calling this an \"Art\" isn't gonna make it better. Sorry Mundruczo, but you failed. Live with it. Even tho you probably won't care about my or any other guys opinion scarifying your \"child\".
\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 very bad example of uninspired storytelling, which tries to hide behind an \"artfilm\" facade, trying to shock the audience with unmotivated violence (against women) to cover up for it's lack of psychological depth of the characters & internal conflicts. Everything in this movie is pretentious, from the thank you's to Bela tarr at the beginning, to the photography, the acting, music, the story & editing. When suddenly, without reason, you are forced to watch close ups of \"charismatic\" looking hungarian country people in their boats, while the soundtrack is trying to persuade you that this is supposed to be a dramatic moment, although they are only on the way to the funeral of the local alcoholic, thats one thing. Putting completely unmotivated rape scenes as a shocker is a different thing, for which i absolutely have no comprehension. This movie is trying really hard to enter a certain genre of artistic (east European drama kind of) films but lacks the subtlety, observational skills and \"soul\" that other directors have.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nNo way this overly simplistic script, with basically one character, should be interpreted as feature entertainment. In reality it has about enough material for an eighteen minute short, and even that would seriously tax your attention span. Zero characters beyond Noble Willingham are developed. The never ending closeups of lips and telephones are sleep inducing, and the script is so underdeveloped that a chimpanzee could have written it. In fact this whole sad thing shouldn't have even been put on film. A tape recording would have been more than sufficient to put you to sleep. Definitely not recommended. - MERK
\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 recently watched this film on The Sundance Channel and it kept me interested from the start. However, it seems to take forever getting itself where it wants to go and in the end, I felt somewhat cheated. In a nutshell, Noble Willingham (of Walker, Texas Ranger fame) plays a boat salesman who starts getting harassed by telephone from a man claiming to be his son. According to the mysterious caller, Willingham has a dark, dirty little secret that affects the son and he (the son) is enjoying reminding him of it. I won't spoil anything for anyone but for me three things kept me from liking this movie a great deal. One, the movie has more foul language than Goodfellas, Scarface, Casino, and Glengarry Glen Ross combined. 99% of it is spewed from Willingham himself. It didn't take long to wear me out with constant four-letter words. Two, I simply could not believe that anyone would answer the telephone that many times, especially when one knows that a crank caller is on the other end of the line. No matter where Willingham is in the movie whether it be at work, home, a diner, etc., the phone rings and he always answers it spewing venom at the \"son\", and then hanging up ONLY TO ANSWER IT AGAIN WHEN THE CALLER CALLS BACK IN ABOUT TEN SECONDS! How many of us would do that? Now I realize that we probably do not have a movie if he doesn't keep answering, but I just could not suspend disbelief on that particular matter. Three, and this is the most minor of the criticisms, why is the director so opposed to showing us the \"Corndog Man\" (a.k.a. the caller/son)? Most of the time he's just a redneck sounding voice on the other end of the phone. I could have lived with that one if other things had fallen into place, but since they didn't it's just one more to tack on. I do give the movie credit for being a somewhat original idea and for holding my attention with suspense from the beginning but that's about it. Do see it, if only one time. However, if you're like me, you'll be saying \"Triple K Marine!\" in your sleep for a night or two after you finish watching 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\nI must begin by saying that this is one of the most annoying films I have seen in my entire life! Annoying factor number one: Never seeing the \"son's\" face (for the entire movie). And the infinitely more annoying factor: That incessantly ringing phone..nothing but listening to the phone ring over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...you get my point. The old man was being harassed but the VIEWER was too! At first the film was interesting to me but it deteriorated VERY quickly. The film may possibly have been good as a short but was definitely not enough to maintain anything approaching feature film length. I guess what I am trying to say is that the message about racism (which finally put in an appearance during the last two scenes of the movie) is secondary to this old mans being harassed. Who cares to sit and watch what is really nothing more than an old man spouting obscenities at someone prank calling him?? If you've never seen a movie that just gets under your skin and drives you CRAZY...check this one out!
\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\nDumb, meaningless movie should appeal to Southern Rednecks, teenagers with IQ's bordering on retarded and the average Bush supporter. Noble Willingham plays the lead in this simpleminded script for what it is and uses a generous dose of MFers, eff this and eff that and SOBs. The ending which I anticipated to \"Save\" this hollow story was the biggest letdown, leaving me hanging and wondering, \"Why\"?
It's a story of cat & mouse or more like Bully vs. victim.
Don't waste your time unless you like hearing the phone ringing every 2 minutes and constant cursing and screaming throughout this 123 minute piece of dumpster droppings.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie was horrid and at the end made me wonder why someone went to the trouble to make it. Now it was not all bad, I have studied film and this film was put together very nicely and had very good cinematic everything with interesting angles to very nice lighting and excellent camera work. I wish I could have seen it back in school because it would have made a good film to write a paper on. BUT........ Since I have graduated and lost most of my film pretentiousness I have realized that a film should be entertaining above all, this movie was long and boring and I'm not sure when it finally got to the point that it was worth 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\nThis movie is bad.
This movie is REALLY bad.
This movie is might as well be half a minute long and shown 200 times in a row, because you'd get the same effect.
The phone rings. Man A answers the phone and gets annoyed by Man B. Man A curses off Man B, and then hangs up the phone. Repeat.
This is the entire movie.
DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE. TRUST ME.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI get the impression that I was watching a different movie to the majority of other people I know who have seen this film. It's not really that I found the film offensive or anything - just that the script was unbelievably amateurish for a film that had obviously had a bit of money thrown at it. I really respected Paul Haggis' work on the Million Dollar Baby script and was bitterly disappointed to see how bad this script was. It was clear to me that it was desperate to be the 'racism' version of Traffic, but I don't think Traffic was really a film worth ripping off in the first place.
The worst feature of thisfilm is the way it shamelessly spoon-feeds its audience. Does Haggisreally think we are so dumb as to require a shot of the blanks? Do wereally need to see the phone book sitting on Farhad's dashboard, withthe address circled in black texta? Can we not be left to make someleaps in logic for ourselves?
I also had a major problem with the dialogue which was so 'on the nose'. I have heard one critic say that the quality of dialogue is deceptively high, because even though people may not speak this way, they certainly do think this way. That is irrelevant. It is the job of a script like this to utilise dialogue in a way that helps add to the characterisations and believability of the (in this case highly implausible) situations that are set up. These characters all speak using the same voice and all they ever talk about is racism.
Surely the purpose of a film like this should be to promote the fact that race should not really be an issue in these situations, but by making it the sole focus of every scene, doesn't it become innately racist itself? Characters walk around spouting their philosophies and conveniently memorised statistics on race relations as though they're regurgitating extracts from the research essay they've just written. It's utterly unconvincing and obvious.
A film should reveal its meaning gradually, not slap us in the face with it in the opening scenes and then never let up. I can see that Haggis' intentions with this film were honorable, but dare I suggest that by directing his own script he has not been able to identify and, therefore, overcome its flaws. I really hope that writer/directors will be really careful in future when approaching this 'mosaic' style of narrative. It has been done well a number of times, but getting the balance between the personal and the political right is very difficult. And Robert Altman will not be outdone in that department.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI saw this \"movie\" partly because of the sheer number of good reviews at Netflix, and from it I leaned a valuable lesson. Not a lesson about ethnic diversity however...the lesson I learned is \"Don't trust reviews\".
Yes, racism sucks and people are complicated, but the people who actually need to see this movie are going to be the ones who are the least drawn to it and least affected by it if they DO see it. The only reason that I can think of for the number of good reviews is that it's being reviewed by people who aren't used to thinking, or who've seen their first thought-provoking movie and somehow think that Haggis invented the concept. In fact, he basically made this film, which should be called \"Racism For Dummies\", as emotionally wrenching as possible, seemingly to give people who don't spend a lot of time thinking the impression that they've discovered some fundamental truth that's never been covered in a film before. Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintanence it's not... An after-school special for the unthinking masses, cut into bite-sized overwrought ham-fisted pieces to make it easier to swallow without too much introspection.
It's as if they portrayed everyone as being the worst possible extreme, simply to make us happy that we're such good people because we don't identify with the characters. Let's face it people. NOBODY identifies with these characters because they're all cardboard cutouts and stereotypes (or predictably reverse-stereotypes). It's well acted (even if the dialog is atrocious) and cleverly executed, so much that you don't think to ask \"where's the beef?\" until you can tell the film is winding down. The flaming car scene was well executed, like much of the movie, but went nowhere in the end.
The messages are very heavy-handed, and from the \"behind the scenes\" blurb, the producers were clearly watching a different movie, because there is very little to laugh about in this movie, even during the intended funny parts. I have to stress that this is NOT entertainment, more like a high school diversity lesson...call it the \"Blood on the Highway\" of racism. They could even show this in high schools if it weren't for the \"side-nude\" shot of Jennifer Esposito.
In this film, everyone's a jerk and everyone learns a lesson (except for Michael Pena who gets the best role, but the most predictable storyline).
This is a bad film, with bad writing, and good actors....an ugly cartoon crafted by Paul Haggis for people who can't handle anything but the bold strokes in storytelling....a picture painted with crayons.
Crash is a depressing little nothing, that provokes emotion, but teaches you nothing if you already know racism and prejudice are bad things.
\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 agree with what so many others have said about the shallow and offensive nature of this film's examination of racism. It is baffling to me that so many people seem to have been fooled by its pretentiousness. I want to comment on the Matt Dillon character as an example of what's most infuriating about this movie. Here we have a man who -- contrasted with the film's underlying message that \"we're all a LITTLE racist\" -- effectively rapes a woman in public, cruelly humiliating her husband and deliberately goading him to make a move that, as he well knows, will lead to his arrest or even death. He does all this after pulling the couple over without any legal cause but because, as we come to understand, they are black and wealthy and he is a hurt little boy who is now the police and can therefore do as he pleases. This behavior is not a LITTLE racist. This behavior is evil. It is disturbing to me that this extreme of racism is held up next to another character's behavior -- spouting her paranoid stereotypes about gang violence -- to illustrate that everybody's a LITTLE racist. Later, we're spoon-fed some tripe about Dillon's poor old dad and how black folks drove him into the poor house. Is this supposed to explain, or worse, excuse this behavior? And is Dillon's character meant to redeem himself by committing the utterly unmotivated and unbelievable, laughably coincidental act of saving the woman he sexually assaulted the very night before? Please. The fact that so many people seem to feel some kind of self-congratulatory admiration for this film makes me feel sad about the shallowness of our understanding of racism, and our apparent lack of commitment to condemning and ending 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\n*** SPOILERS***
One of the worst films I've seen since last years \"The Village.\" An insult to anyone of any intelligence at all. Poorly written and astonishingly contrived. Nobody, especially in Los Angeles talks the way these characters do. No subtly at all. If the point of this film is to say that \"we all have a little bit of bigotry in us\" he does a horrible job of stating the obvious. Not only was his point clearly base, but every character in this film was AMAZINGLY STUPID. The car jacking scene almost made me walk out, along with the rescue and oh lets not forget the WHITE off DUTY Rookie COP picking up a hitchhiking black thug and... I could go on and on. Awful, just awful.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI can not believe the positive reaction to this movie. I had great expectations for it and was disappointed. First of all, they used every cheesy racism cliché in the book. It was so predictable. For instance, from the second the young Latino guy showed up you just knew that he would be a really nice guy because he looked like a gangbanger. Matt Dillon's character has been played a million times, a cop who had been hardened over the years and would see the light to some degree by the end of the movie. The predictability hardly ended with those characters. A phenomenal cast was wasted on a weak script. The morals of the story were PC to the max. There were a few clever twists but not nearly enough. The dialouge was embarrassing at times. It wasn't all bad.I just can't believe this movies high score so far. It was somewhat entertaining, just a little insulting to ones intelligence. I admire what this movie was trying to achieve but it fell well short.
\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 amazed anyone likes this film. i never walk out of movies, but my friend had to physically stop me from leaving the theater during this insulting disaster. the white characters are saints and the Asian characters are practically nonexistent and worthless to the story. they exist only as objects, surprise. characters of other races fare much better. the twists and turns were laughable and predictable. but if you're reading this, you know that already. Paul Haggis is a hack. Hollywood can't even do multicultural movies right. do yourself a favor and watch a much more honest take on race relations, Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle!
\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 a disappointment. The story line is so simple - \"the good guys sometimes do bad things and the bad guys sometimes do good things\" - dressed up into a racial setting to make it seem clever, sophisticated and meaningful. It isn't. It lacks any subtlety.
Everything that happens is telegraphed and then gone over again in case you missed the explanation.
For a film like this to convince and move the audience it has to be represent the ambiguity of the characters and their motivation and actions; not simply present it as a series of 180 degree changes in each character's actions.
Half way through I really wanted to waste no more time on it, but I thought I would stick with it in case it improved; big mistake I should have stopped then - it simply got worse.
\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\nTerrible writing, highly contrived, from a \"do-gooder\" who knows absolutely nothing about race relations in L.A., or the USA in the present day. The gushing positive reviews are a mystery to me - but could only be provided by folks who think that someone's \"good\" intentions should be applauded regardless of how shallow, simpleminded and just totally unrealistic the results are. If you want to see a film which deals realistically with modern day L.A. race issues - the movie you need to see (and probably already saw) is Pulp Fiction. There's more honesty and realism regarding race in any two minutes of that film than there are in the full 4 hours (oh I'm sorry, it just felt like 4 hours) of this stinker.
If anyone ever needs proof that the path to hell is paved with good intentions - then this is the movie for you.
\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\nCrash is overwrought, over-thought and over-baked. A great example of how to make a pompous and self-important film with a message. Haggis tries too hard to make his point and overreaches in just about every category of the film. It feels very much in love with its own sense of social relevance and has all the subtlety of a jackhammer to the skull. Sure, race relations affect everyone and there's a great deal of ambiguity to the issue, but the universe of 'Crash' operates to suggest that we are all victims to our own perceptions on race. It's a tiresome thread that repeats itself ad nauseum and wears out its welcome within the first 30 minutes. I found the outcomes of the characters unsurprising and forced and the film took forever to sputter out and die. The fact that this film is in the top 50 movies on IMDb is a testament to the public's willingness to get suckered by Hollywood malarkey.
Indeed, if you want the real \"Crash,\" go check out the one by David Cronenberg: dark, twisted and original. This film plays as preachy, tiresome, and masochistic.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie was offensively PC, predictable and clichéd. I couldn't imagine a movie that better exemplifies the myopic, narcissistic preachiness of today's Hollywood. If you haven't seen this don't bother watching it. If you have, show some courage and tell people how awful it really is. My wife, a minority in her own right, was offended by the inherent and unendingly racist message of the film. This movie has nothing to do with the real world and has little, if anything at all, to add to any discussion about racism in this country. Instead, it's the kind of cheap, sensationalist crap that is promoted as deep and challenging thought. What kind of a bubble do you have to live in to think that this is at all impressive?
\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'Bland' is probably the word I'd use to try and start describing this film. I only watched it because it had a good rating on here and i was SO let down.
Basically the film is about racism in a post 9/11 America and the director went at it with a sledge hammer! There was no subtlety in the film at all and it felt as though they were trying to achieve a kind of Magnolia feel to the film - which is never a good idea as that film was three hours of tedium and confusion only for it to start raining frogs at the end...
All in all a HUGE disappointment.
\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 gone to the movies expecting to see a great film based on all the word of mouth and terrific reviews. the minute the opening sequence started i knew i was in trouble. the music and credits were trying so hard to evoke emotion i wanted to puke. all i got from this film was clichéd characters, contrived dialog and an unemotional script. director/writer Paul haggis' has managed to get great reviews with his manipulative, self righteous writing, but it doesn't fool me. some performance were good. don Cheadle is always good. i think Terrance Howard is slightly over rated but he was decent. ludicrous was way too on the nose. he should stick to rapping. Brendan Fraser was fine. Jennifer Esposito left no impression what so ever. i find nothing interesting about her. Sandra bullock is always the same in every movie, she's just okay. Matt Dillon was very good and i enjoyed watching him work. Ryan Philippe was good as well. but as far as the script and the lousy directing- this is actually one of those movies that is so annoyingly bad i actually took the time to write about it. i would not recommend this film to anyone, what a waste of 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\nOkay, it was very good...but Best Picture? Please, not even close. Munich was better, Capote was much better, Good Night and Good Luck was much better...Brokeback Mountain - well, that should have won! The Academy voters seem to act like the current day Democrats - please just a little of everyone, but don't dare take any concrete positions. That's why we have a complete moron in office in the US.
This has been the WORST AA presentation ... and forget 1987 ... since way before that. Hollywood is so afraid of it's bottom line, that it can't be set \"straight\". Many voters apparently didn't even see Brokeback Mountain. Get real and get with it.
This was the most pathetic year since I have been watching in the mid- 60's and I was only two.
Wake up, whoever you are. Hollywood IS mainstream, and that's what happened to the Box Office in 2005. King Kong, the last Star Wars film, another Batman film, a re-make or whatever of Charlie and The Chocolate Factory, and much more to come in 2006.
At least there were original best pictures, i.e. Munich, but heard that one before, Capote - great; Katherine Keener should have won, even though now we know Reese can sing like a Cash/Carter, etc., Syriana was a much better picture than Crash. That film has been done, since the early 1960's and we have to make that the best film? What a horrible Oscar night and a horrible year to end with in 2005 and another boring year in 2006. At least the BAFTA for best picture went to Brokeback, and what about the horrible song that won? Pathetic. I think we only have about 20 years left as America or the USA, before someone comes in and changes up things a bit. Maybe it will be China since they own so much of this country ... or India, because they have all the high-tech jobs and are the largest democratic country in the entire world.
America has become the land of the fat, the pathetic, and the stupid. Trash can be found in more places than Florida, West Virgina, South Dakota, and in the mid-West.
Drive-through a local McDonald's or Burger King for goodness sake. Order all you want until you get a heart attack. Put yourself out of your misery.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie is bad. Just bad. In absolute terms, bad.
The dialog jumps off the screen and slugs you in the face with its thoroughly artificial banter, and then defecates on your ability to detect even trace amounts of subtlety.
Racism is bad. Racism in Los Angeles can be especially bad. I live in the city of Angels, I can attest to that. What is so terrible about the bigotry in Los Angeles is its insidious nature. It creeps at you with a knowing glance, or a swallowed word. Until just at the edge of a full on fist-fight, It almost never comes right out and says, \"why did he have to be black!\"
I can see quite clearly that the car-jackers are black, the detective's partner is hispanic, the DA is white. As long as there is film rolling through the projector, I can let the visuals, music and words take me to that conclusion without just telling me the conclusion. Characters emote, and we read between the lines to make the connections and conclusions.
That is a partnership and trust between filmmaker and audience. That trust is raped by this movie.
A good film pulls you in directions as an audience, and it steers you with cues to drive to a point. This movie beats you down with its point and insults you and your intelligence along the way. My unanswered question is, why did we as a society say collectively, \"thank you?\"
\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\nGiven this film's incredible reviews I was expecting something truly exceptional. It certainly starts well with witty and sharp dialogue, and a fine cast in place. A series of Robert Altman-style interwoven stories reel the viewer in with some compelling scenes. I found it gripping entertainment right through to the second half of the film when sadly, it collapses like a pack of cards. A series of ludicrous coincidences and right-on messages stack up until I'm left deeply disappointed and wondering what all the fuss is about. Paul Haggis has tackled the subject of race in LA, and that alone seems to have elevated this movie to a new level of interest. Given that most of the Academy voters live in LA and have experienced racism to some extent, this film is sure to have an impact on them. That means the Oscar for Best Picture will go to the race movie or the gay movie. Let's hope it is the latter, because Brokeback Mountain is a bona fide masterpiece that deserves recognition.
\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\nCrash is supposed to be a film about racism in Los Angeles. But in fact, it's just a bunch of coincidences between several characters that connect each other during one day in one of the biggest cities of the world. Who the hell is going to believe that? There are unrealistic situations, one after the other. On the other hand, this film pretends to show racism between Asians, Iranians, Latinos, Blacks, and Whites. But the big error relies on a pre-establish racism coming from the writer. Mainly because the White characters in this movie are usually portrait as people with a better social-economical status than the rest of the other races. Iranians are poor, just like the Asians. And Latinos, as always, are portrait as Housekeepers, police officers, or with a very low profile job like a locksmith. Jesus!!! Don't you guys think it's about time to change these stereotypes? Same with blacks, portrait as gang members, with the exception of a Black TV Director, who was the only fresh character for me. This movie sucks so hard, that makes me so disappointed about the kind of cinema coming out from Hollywood these days. Always with stereotype characters. No realism whatsoever. Nothing to identify with. It's simply a big waste because this could have been a great opportunity to show Latinos, Koreans, Iranians, and blacks, from a different perspective.
\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 remember viewing this movie when I was a kid. I recall it terrified me immensely and it stayed with me all these years. I spent a couple of years trying to find it online...didn't remember the title, only the storyline. After searching and searching, I came across a VHS that was being sold on E-Bay. I was excited and when it finally arrived, I jammed it into the VCR and couldn't help but feel a bit nostalgic. Needless to say, I was slightly disappointed. This wasn't the movie I remember watching as a kid. It was boring at times and I found Beryl Reid's incessant whinning extremely annoying. Both performances by Reid and Flora Robson were good overall but the movie wasn't scary. I think any movie is worth viewing to form you're own opinion but sometimes, well......
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe `plot' of this film contains a few holes you could drive a massive truck through, but I reckon that isn't always top priority in horror. Two elderly sisters in rural England keep their brother in the cellar since more than 30 years. Now, he escaped and started a killing spree, focusing on militaries that are homed nearby. `We only did we thought was best for him' they keep on repeating and  strangely  all the army officers love these women and don't doubt their sincerity, even though 5 of their men died. I don't know whether to find the revelation near the end suspenseful  or tedious! In a way, this film reminded me about `Arsenic and Old Lace'. In that black-comedy classic, two half-insane siblings mother their goofy younger brother as well, yet they do the killing there. The old ladies in `The Beast in the Cellar' are by no means less crazy, though. The `horror' in this early 70's film is very amateurish and cheap, but there are a few neat attempts to build up the tension. Too many `old-ladies' talk about the good ol' days, though and that rarely is something you seek in a horror film with such an appealing title. Flora Robson, who may be recognized by classic film buffs, plays one of the sisters. She gave image to the Queen of England is the legendary Errol Flynn swashbuckler film, the Sea Hawk.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOne thing I have noticed about British horror movies from the 1970s is that they don`t hold up to repeated viewing THEATRE OF BLOOD is a case in point as are all those Amicus anthology movies . Add THE BEAST IN THE CELLAR to the list
Much of the drama of this movie revolves around the build up of a plot revelation at the end . Once you know what the revelation is this becomes a rather flat film . It does open with a fairly good hook but after that we`re treated to long boring sequences of two old ladies making small talk . Correct me if I`m wrong but how many people watch a horror movie expecting a couple of old ladies making small talk ? The only sort of interest to be found in THE BEAST IN THE CELLAR is the anti-smoking stance . Some people have mentioned that this is an anti-war or anti-military film but watch carefully and you`ll see that everytime a squaddie lights up for a fly puff he gets killed . Rather strange considering attitudes to smoking weren`t nearly so hysterical as they are nowadays
\n
assistant\n0
\n"