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\nYou know the movie could have been a lot better when the animal - in this case, a little dog - is the best actor on the screen! The acting in this film is so bad, so amateurish, by dog got embarrassed watching this. He (\"Rusty,\" our Golden Retreiver) could have done a better job than the people in here.
By now this is almost a trite story: kid finds animal, pet is not liked nor wanted by one of the parents but the \"pet\" winds up saving one the kids and is now a hero and an official member of the family. Sound familiar?
I remember this movie being a big hit, but never got around to seeing it until the mid '90s on VHS. I was shocked how bad it was. Why so much fuss over a film? Was it because there was so much sleaze in the early '70s that a nice family film stood out in the crowd? Possibly. There wasn't a whole lot of wholesome entertainment in the decade of the '70s plus a lot of people are suckers for cute little animal stories. Who could resist this cute little dog? Not me. But the movie I can resist: it's a Grade B storyline with horrible acting.
Recommended only for small-dog animal lovers and I mean \"lovers\" because even the average pet owner will fall asleep trying to watch this film in this day-and-age.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf you are like me and observed the original \"Benji\" phenomenon from afar, finally seeing the movie for the first time 30+ years later, you may be shocked to discover how truly awful it is, and more mystified than ever about its popularity back in 1974.
My judgment is not entirely objective as I tend to have a favorable bias toward children's films and for that reason cut them considerable slack. On the other hand I have always hated this particular dog, a feature on the last couple seasons of \"Petticoat Junction\". Never a great show, the dog-less early episodes were at least a nice showcase of beautiful actresses and the introduction of the dog cut into their screen time.
Benji is an 86-minute mega-dose of the dog, following him on several daily circuits through the town of McKinney, Texas. If this sounds boring you would be advised to give \"Benji\" a wide birth and to never let your remote control fall into the hands of a \"Benji\" fan (if there are still any out there).
Unlike \"My Dog Skip\", \"Monkey Business\" or \"Because of Winn-Dixie\" the human actors in the cast are extremely weak. \"Big Valley's\" Peter Breck plays the standard stern father and just seems to embarrassed at the idea of appearing in something this lame.
If one of your children (of any age) appears to be finding \"Benji\" entertaining you should consider cutting back on their medication.
Then again, what do I know? I'm only a 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\nThe dog can act...unfortunately nobody else in the cast of this sordid faux children's film can. A stray yet very clever dog insinuates himself into the lives of two motherless children, much to the chagrin of their bitter and cold-hearted father. In what can only be described as Dickensian, the evil widower forbids his children --- who may or may not be mentally challenged --- from playing with Benji. Neither the children nor Benji obeys. Soon the children are kidnapped and Benji has to help the police find them. It's only then that the old man realizes that Benji is good, not bad.
Tom Lester, whose only previous acting experience appears to have been playing the dim-witted Eb on GREEN ACRES plays one of the kidnappers. So does the regrettably over-utilized Deborah Walley. Walley's previous screen triumphs include BEACH BLANKET BINGO and the woeful IT'S A BIKINI WORLD. She also played both Gidget and Tammy in the past and here attempts to obliterate her good-girl reputation by playing it bad!
STAY away from BENJI...he's a dog and this movie is a dog!
\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 adorable dog (called various names during the film) is seemingly loved by the whole town...but he's alone. He is friends with two children (Cindy and Paul played astonishingly bad) but their father won't let them have a dog. Then Benji meets Tiffany--ANOTHER adorable dog. They (instantly) fall in love and it leads to a hysterical montage of the two of them frolicking in the grass, drinking from a fountain...in slow motion no less! Also Benji lives in the cleanest abandoned house I've ever seen. Then the two kids are kidnapped by the most inept, unfunniest kidnappers I've ever seen and--wouldn't you know it--they hide the brats in the exact house Benji lives in!
WOW was this bad! A huge hit (for some reason) in 1974 which led to many sequels (which I will NOT see). The film is just terribly acted with \"humor\" so unfunny and badly done that you just stare at the TV in amazement. The film also has a song that is played NONSTOP during the movie--so much that you want to scream. It was inexplicably nominated for Best Song at the Oscars--it didn't win. Yeah--the dogs are adorable and much better than the human actors--but I need more than cute dogs to keep me interested.
You might think I'm being a little hard on a kids film but I saw it with my 5 year old nephew. Within 20 minutes he was bored silly and basically stopped watching. I kept watching in hope that it would get better--it didn't. Really lousy--but VERY patient kids or dog lovers might like it.
Note to parents: It's G rated but a dog is viciously kicked a few times. You don't see it--you just hear it and the dog survives but this might bother real young kids.
\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 word honor should be erased from the vocabularies of all nations. It aggravates male dumbness and is responsible for the death of millions of innocent people. Anybody who does not agree should not care to continue reading this comment.
As can be expected with these screenwriters, Yakuza is an engaging crime thriller with quite a lot of respect for the ethnical background against which it is acted out. Friends of gore and violence will not be disappointed either, but especially towards the end violence becomes somewhat pointless, redundant and downright silly. Contrary to other reviewers I found Robert Mitchum's performance not very good. This is an actor who definitely did not improve with age. He looks like a tired janitor (it does not go too well with the part), and his air of detachment which made him such an impressive screen presence in earlier years comes through as either confusion or lack of interest. Ken Takakura and Richard Jordan are very good as man of honor and young, intelligent, feeling thug respectively.
The best way to stand this movie is seeing it as a tragic comedy. Things are set in motion by the Mitchum character's asking the Takakura character a favor based on wrong assumptions. The error quickly becomes evident, but the sense of honor demands they must not back off. So they start sneaking around, shooting in all directions, wielding swords and wrecking their friend's arty apartment (although the guy pleads with them stop it, please\" all through the corresponding fight). Bodies start piling up and the story ends with Mitchum's character making his point: If YOU give HIM YOUR little finger, I will give YOU MINE. Well, it's the least he can do, can't he? So he pulls out a knife, takes a resigned breath and starts sawing off said extremity (outside the frame, luckily). It was a moment which probably should have been solemn. It just made me laugh.
The use of locations is very good in this movie. I particularly liked the scenes filmed in and around the International Conference Hall on Lake Takaragaike, an interesting futuristic building by architect Sachio Otani (the Kyoto protocol was signed there). To me the presentation of architecture seems better here than in Sydney Pollack's more recent documentary Sketches of Frank O. Gehry which is about architecture and nothing 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\nThis was probably intended as an \"arty\" crime thriller, but it fails on both counts - there are few thrills and not enough substance. The plodding pacing makes it hard to sit through, and the occasional action scenes are too sloppily edited and confusingly staged to offer much compensation. At least the level of acting is high. (**)
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA group of teenagers discover a bootleg video game, but once they start playing it, they each start dying just like they do in the video game. As they become addicted to the game, they need to find a way to beat the game's central villain, The Blood Countess, before she kills them all.
The premise does sound a little stupid and familiar but this film could have still been mildly entertaining. However, this \"horror\" movie is not scary at all. It's actually more of a comedy than anything else. The film takes itself way too seriously and the movie is not a lot of fun to watch. Sure, there is the occasional laugh but for the most part, the film is very dull. PG-13 horror films can still be good like The Ring or Cry Wolf. The Ring and Stay Alive aren't really the same type of horror film though. Stay Alive is more of a slasher movie and since its rated PG-13, the death scenes are very tame. It should have been the movie's main sell and since it had an interesting concept the deaths could have been really good. Unfortunately, the studio wanted a bigger audience and the film had to be altered.
The acting is a complete joke and most of the cast give awful performances. Jon Foster is not a very good leading man. He lacks charisma to really engage the audience or for the audience to care about him. His character isn't unlikable just very bland. Samaire Armstrong actually gives an okay performance though a little too bland to truly stick out. Frankie Muniz probably gives the best performance in Stay Alive. That's an honor on the level of being the best player on the Houston Texans. Sophia Bush is absolutely terrible as October. Her performance feels so rushed and so fake. The most annoying character in the movie is Phineas played by Jimmi Simpson. His character is so unlikable you will be rooting for him to die.
In fact, most of the characters are pretty unlikable so that makes it even harder to become interested in the film. It's just hard to feel sorry for some of these annoying kids and it's a lot more fun to watch if you want the characters to actually survive. The only real good thing about the movie is the atmosphere. It's a little old but it still kind of works. The film is also really short so it's not too much of a pain to sit through. I wouldn't really blame the cast though because they were working with an inexperience director and writer. The direction is not very good and the screenplay isn't much better. Stay Alive is actually not the worst horror film of 2006. That honor would go to When a Stranger Calls. Stay Alive is still a missed opportunity though. In the end, this cheesy and lame horror film is better left on the shelf. 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\nI haven't laughed so much in a theater in years. The only problem is that it was not the intent of the movie to make my throat raw from laughter.
This movie is absolutely overflowing with bad CGI, absolutely terrible duologue, absolutely terrible *acting*, and enough geek references to make the whole thing come off as nothing but complete cheese.
As a gamer and a geek-type girl myself, I did recognize all of the obvious game references in this movie as well as the geek STUFF that was just thrown into the background as eye candy (the Steamboy poster, the t-shirts from thinkgeek.com and j-list.com), and that didn't redeem the movie at all.
The only thing that might have been good at ALL were the ghost children type characters that were purposefully badly done in CGI to make it look like they were from a game, and who were OBVIOUSLY stolen from Japanese horror movies.
To be honest, it was hilariously bad, and something I'd expect from a midnight showing of a made-for-TV b grade Sci-Fi channel movie. Don't expect more than that and you'll have a great time. Just don't get a soda or you'll spit it everywhere when you get great lines like: \"Why did you bring that game into our lives?! WHY?!\"
\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\nAside from Frankie Muniz chattering too fast to understand (Malcolm in the Middle flashbacks?) this film still cannot conjure up a scare. The idea with the \"Countess\" and the history surrounding her placed into the story was fun but the plot, and many side plots, just don't tie together. Plot synopsis: murdering ghost lures victims through video game. Toss in some blood spatters and a special effects and you've got yourself another bombed out would be horror flick. The ghost cronies resemble the ghost in \"The Ring Two\" far too much. The acting and constant and dramatic change in everyone's emotions is unbelievable. Save 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\nBad, bad movie. When I saw the synopsis I was expecting something like Ring only with video game instead of tape. Nothing of the sorts happened. I'll admit idea is interesting and could be turned into a good movie but this is not it.
First of all choosing real life person, countess Bathory, is stupid move that adds absolutely nothing to the story. Anybody even vaguely familiar with her story would begin to wonder why and how did this Hungarian noblewoman end up in this movie. Choosing a generic vengeful spirit would be much, much better.
Then there is whole you-die-in-real-life-as-you-die-in-the-game concept. As I said before interesting, Ring-like story. But instead of developing it into good story line it sort of just flows along with no explanation given why did this game became such as it is, why it was created and so on. Waste of good idea.
And finally this movie doesn't even have gory of funny parts that can if not save at least make crappy horror movies watchable. Death scenes are too quick and acting is too wooden to be funny.
Avoid if possible.
\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 Ring, it was a videotape; a website was the problem in Feardotcom; the danger in Pulse came from computers; and Phone and One Missed Call featuredyou guessed itdeadly phones. In Stay Alive, the piece of technology that causes all manner of problems is an online game: those who play it wind up dead soon afterwards. How clever!
Directed by William Brent Bell (who?), and featuring an unimpressive cast of twenty-somethings that you might have seen before, but probably can't remember where or what the hell their names are, this is an extremely derivative piece of film-making aimed squarely at the PG-13 horror set; seasoned scary film watchers will no doubt find Stay Alive extremely tedious, highly predictable and not in the least bit frightening.
The poorly developed plot follows a group of gamers with extremely daft names (October, Loomis, Phineus, Hutch, and Swink!?!) who attempt to unravel the mystery behind the deadly game before they too become victims. Eventually, they discover that it is the evil spirit of the legendary Countess Elizabeth Bathory who is killing anyone who dares to play, and that their only hope of survival is to continue with the game to the end.
With a story as dumb as this, viewers should expect a film with loose ends aplenty, not one iota of logic (who made the game, how, and why is never explained), very little in the way of scares or gore, and a dumb closing scene to leave the door open forGod forbida sequel.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA group of young adults open a plain of escape for the spirit of Elizabeth Bathory when they recite her poem from a video game supposedly representing a séance. The only one who dies in the game is Miller(Adam Goldberg)who also is found dead the same way he perished in said video game. While the others' characters didn't die in the video game, their reciting her poem has instead unleashed the video game into reality with walking CGI characters stalking and killing each of them, one by one. They must follow certain methods using a mirror and nails to defeat Bathory and save their skin.
If this premise sound stupid, that's because it is. The characters are ho-hum rejects from bad WB television shows, this time allowed to spout profanity. This flick follows the slasher rules, but doesn't show much violence or gore. It stays PG-13 safe with most of the death taking place off-screen. There's a scene where the true hero and heroine are running from video game characters pursuing them. Yes, it's that bad. Nothing at all to recommend. Good-looking cast including Sophia Bush as the appropriately named October.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAfter the mysterious death of an old friend,a group of teenagers find themselves in the possession of Stay Alive,a horror survival video game based on the gruesome story of Erzebet Bathory known as The Blood Countess.The group begins to play the grisly game and soon they are murdered one by one in the same method as the character they played in the game.As the line between the game world and the reality disappears,our heroes must find a way to defeat vicious Blood Countess. \"Stay Alive\" is an incredibly poor teen slasher flick without any iota of suspense.Writer-director William Brent Bell doesn't have the damn clue how to make a watchable horror movie.The jump scares are irritating,the blood/gore level is almost non-existent and the story doesn't make sense.The dialogue is utterly bad and the acting of all involved is embarrassing.\"Stay Alive\" is easily one of the worst mainstream horror flicks of 2006.Stay away from this stinking turd.
\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\nTalk about false advertising! I wasted an hour and twenty five minutes watching this piece of crap and there was not one leisure suit, not one platform shoe, no pointy-finger dancing, and not a single disco ball. I watched it on a Saturday night, and ended up with an awful fever, but it had nothing to do with the music.
Seriously, with or without John Travolta, this movie sucked.
From the opening scene, you will be asking yourself the question, \"Where did that rope come from, and will it please hang me, too?\" From its unabashed bias against the driving abilities of the Pennsylvania Dutch, to the shameless promotion of the apparently everlasting capacities of Alienware laptop batteries, to the cheap horror effects lifted directly from Japanese cinema, this is the worst film to hit theaters since The Grudge.
\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 not very excited to see this movie in the first place but a group of us decided to go see it on opening night. I felt like getting up and walking out and attempting to get my money back 20 minutes into this film. I felt that the movie was very boring, uninteresting, and not true in many aspects including \"gaming\". I tried my best not to fall asleep during the movie as i watched one of the worst horror films i have ever seen. The scary movie series was scarier than this movie. The sad attempt to pull in a Gothic girl, an overworked business man, and 15 year old geek, and some random guy into a video game that kills you is a bad plot to begin with. Then they try to throw in a very horrible love scene where the main character kisses another girl after saving her 10 minutes after his girlfriend was murdered. The theater was packed when the movie started by then end a little over half of the people had left before it was over. If you feel the need to waste only 1 hour and 16 minutes of your time seeing this movie ... prepare to feel cheated.
\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: A group of young people with ridiculous names (Hutch, Swink, Phineaus, and October)are brought together by the death of their equally ridiculously named friend Loomis. After the funeral, they decide to divide up their late friend's belongings. Among them is a video game called Stay Alive. The group decides there's no better way to show their grief than to all partake in a little virtual bloodshed. But the more they play, the more they realize the connection between the game and the death of poor ol' Loomis.
The Production: This film is just another entry into the latest Hollywood craze of low-budget PG-13 horror aimed at cashing in on the junior high school crowd. The direction is sloppy to say the least with quick, music video style cuts that make the action difficult to follow. The dialog is so bad that it actually kills brain cells. The plot itself is so full of holes that we never even learn where the game came from or why those who play it die.
The idea behind this film, although not entirely original, had some promise. But the poor execution on both sides of the camera make this one big dud.
If you've ever got a craving for a \"killing someone in a video game makes them dead in real life\" horror film take my advice and skip Stay Alive for the superior Brainscan.
\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 tried. God knows I tried to like this Swiss Cheese of a movie, but the story was too full of holes, some big enough to drive a horse drawn carriage through. The acting overall was even and the characters endearing enough that you regretted they died off like recently sprayed roaches, scattering off to die their own gruesome deaths. Overall, however, it was not really very scary. Afterall we have seen spooky quickly moving figures in the background since \"The Brood\" why back when / and it was scary then just briefly. This film just never resolved the basic plot points and thats the writer's job. Naturally you would expect the director to pick up on the fact that the story did not make sense. Like who's was the secret room behind the wardrobe, why did the blood hungry ghost not die when she received the nails as prescribed by the book they read earlier? Why did the computer say \"game over\" for Frankie's character even though he lived? The list goes on and on. I don't really feel comfortable recommending this film as its makes you feel like you wasted your time and there was not enough payoff in truly scary moments.
\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 not very good in my opinion. While not a complete waste of an hour and a half (luckily I didn't have to pay $ for it), it just wasn't very scary. There were parts where I jumped and a few minimally violent/gory scenes, but overall only someone easily frightened would consider this movie scary.
The overall writing and acting were very weak. The characters never evolved or grew as people. Even at the end, the lead guy, whatever his name was, didn't man up and had to be rescued from the fire at the last minute. The plot also had inconsistencies. The police officer who was killed was NOT murdered in the same way he died in the game. The girl October mentioned that in order to kill the evil demon lady you had to read something from the correct text. Funny how they never bothered to do that and still managed to escape. The Malcolm-in-the-Middle kid died in the game but didn't die \"in real life.\" Also, making the game play by itself was very weak writing. It would have been okay for the brother's death, just to get them playing again. But you are supposed to play a video game and stay alive and 3 people die before you play again...why do you even need the game? If you like movies like the Ring and thing its scary and fun, watch this movie. If you know someone like that you can watch it with at laugh at, do it. If you like \"horror\" movies that make you laugh out loud and you have the opportunity to watch this movie for free, do it. Otherwise, stay far far away.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nStay Alive has a very similar story to some Asian horror films which include technology on the story.Some of this Asian horror films are One Missed Call,Ringu and Pulse.So,the idea of Stay Alive is very clichéd and obvious but the filmmakers behind it did not know how to put something new or interesting to the clichés in Stay Alive.This film is totally crap.But a very big crap.All the elements of Stay Alive belong to the worst class of ''horror'' films:shallow characters,nothing of suspense,stupid ''horror'' which makes laugh and light violence.It's easy to note that the ''director'' is incapable to create something original or disturbing.I do not wanna loose more time writing about this pathetic film.I just give you an advice:do not see this film.I really hated 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 could tell this would be a bad one from the trailer, but the lure of the DVD box got me to rent it anyway. Boy was I right..
Also for some reason the DVD version is VERY fuzzy and unclear at times (in terms of video quality). It appears as if they shot the whole movie with a 20 year old camcorder, it looks so bad. I really did not like the plot, and after watching the movie I was very let down. I will NOT tell any spoilers, but let it be said that the end was so bad that I laughed, it has been done so many times before.
The whole story seems like something that came out of a middle schooler's English paper. If I had to peg one movie as the worst horror movie I've ever seen, this one may just be it. I can't believe they actually released this film. It really isn't worth the rent, or a penny of anyone's money unless you want a good laugh at the movie's expense.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA mediocre at best horror flick that deals with dumb, not so horny teens who discover an evil video game (GASP) is killing those who die in the game (DOUBLE GASP). This movie is the sustained mystery of the Mystery Gang in \"Scooby Doo\". I was waiting for them to pull off a mask of one of the villains. I could deal with this for 40 minutes even as a movie on sci-fi but going all the way to the theaters, come on people. The effects were very mediocre, this whole scenario is something of crummy two-but director Uwe Boll, since this would be his cast. As always the great thing about video game systems is the glorious power button. I'd suggest using that mid-viewing. *1/2
\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\nStay Alive, Stay Alive, Stay Alive, I am called the attention it was the trailer and not the cartel.
The topic of the movie centred on a video I play that was created by a countess to kill the people and to live eternally is acceptable.
First that quite, bad movie of horror, the blood sees more or less sparked(spread gossip), these scenes is bled they are the more bad.
But actually(indeed) that bad is this movie, very, very, bad, but bad in all the aspects.
I do not recommend this movie to anybody, trailer well, movie bad.
I do not deal since(as,like) they spend(consume) money and time doing these senseless movies and too bad.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nHonestly, I was a big fan on 'Stay Alive' trailer when it got released even some months before. I kept on telling my friend how this movie has a great story plot - and perhaps a good one. Anyway - this movie is somewhat below my expectations.
The plot has a great potential, but how the story unfolds, along with the acting , directing and bad CGI - this film is a disaster. The ghost doesn't make any sense, and including the killings - its all just too hurried, creating a sense of 'unrealistic' in the audience's mind.
This film could be scary for some audiences - but fear in a sense of shock (Due to the sound effect, etc) rather than enduring fear due to certain valid factors in the movie.
You should re-consider watching this movie.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nStay Alive is a bland horror movie about a video game that kills people the same way they die inside the game. The friends that play this game soon figure this out, and then realise they must defeat the Blood Countess from the video game or accept their fates. We've had video tapes in The Ring, a deadly website in FearDotCom. Now it's onto video games. Stay Alive does some things well; the character development is quite a bit deeper than it usually would be in a horror movie. We really see into some of the characters feelings and past and get to know them all quite well, so the audience may gain some emotions for them. The film is also very suspenseful. Tense, unnerving moments are frequently played through the film, accompanied by unsettling, creepy music. There are plenty of jumps and jolts for the viewer. This can be ideal once or twice, but these false scares that Hollywood seems to enjoy overplaying in horror films nowadays, wears thin in Stay Alive. The camera will tend to provide sharp angles or quick flashes in order to give viewers a very quick glimpse of a demon or witch, and try to scare them with this sudden burst on the screen. Why? The gore is obviously very weak because of the film's certificate. The script to Stay Alive is very cheesy and quite laughable, and the characters tend to play it too melodramatically and confusingly. Also, clichés come in from every direction, for instance people wandering around on their own in search of a strange noise or if they have spotted a figure in the dark, they will go and investigate it. However the computer graphics used for the video game segments are rather impressive and look colourful and sharp, working well with the other parts of the film. But overall, there is just not enough to hold out on with this film. Stretching at just over a hundred minutes, it won't be a battle to Stay Alive, but rather, Stay Awake.
\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\nSeriously, if you want to see a cliché horror movie you have to see this one I guess. It contains all the \" scary parts where nothing happens \", \" the nerd type who actually isn't killed\", \" boy and girl coming together and surviving\", \"facing an old child-fear\" etc... I can go on. I wanted to see this movie cause i tought the mix of a video game and a movie would work out. Guess i was wrong. Which makes the movie more bearable? It is only 1hour17min so if you are bored it might be a good idea although i rather stay bored. Why absolutely not see it? Frankie Munitz aka Malcolm is just irritating as the nerd-type. I could smack the guy and it is so sad he didn't die earlier and in the end he even comes back. See something 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\nGood idea....shame about the actual movie. Would of liked it to be a bit more scary, and explain more about the characters and who exactly the evil woman was? If she was torturing those kids why were they helping her kill and not helping others kill her?? Its a bit of a come down from Malcolm in the Middle!
I think it would of benefited from being slightly longer and going into more detail with the characters, although after about an hour I was wondering when it would end!!
Would of been better too if the actual characters that killed them were not computerise in reality, it sort of made them crap looking. And what happened to the Frankie Munitz character? He fell into a bed of wild roses so should of been safe, however the computer game showed him as game over, ie dead. Next thing he appears with that irritating blonde lass to rescue the guy afraid of fire who, I noticed, had no qualms about flipping the lighter when demon lady was after him!!
Too many inconsistencies in this movie to really enjoy it, however, might make you think twice about playing that new computer game!!
\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\nDaniel Auteuil's Bruno in Petites Couperes is a middle-aged model of his Pierre in Christian Vincent's La Separation of 10 years ago. In both films, youthful confidence in left-wing ideology and love (mutual metaphors) crumbles into paranoia - manifesting itself as trapped aggression in Pierre and desperately comic womanizing in the more recent Bruno.
Unfortunately for Auteuil fans, the actor has become reliant on a uniform world-weariness (not unlike compatriot Johnny Hallyday in Leconte's recent l'Homme du Train). Acting it ain't, and becomes rather frustrating as the film progresses. Pascal Bonitzer doesn't help as the writer/director of the project. His sequencing of episodes overlaid with connecting symbolism fail to mask the film's lack of rhythm. I was particularly furious that the imposingly dramatic/romantic backdrops of Grenoble were made virtually redundant by a cameraman who was obviously shivering in the cold.
Krisitn Scott Thomas almost rescues the show with her female counterpart to Bruno, Beatrice. She dramatizes the dizzying contradictions intended as Bruno in a character of increasing complexity to the point of becoming surreal. Bonitzer cannot sustain this though, and the flagging plot demands Beatrice to even out into another bourgeois mannequin. In doing so Bonitzer shows then denies Scott Thomas the Oscar cabinet.
All the characters' submersion into the bourgeoisie may be a viable and indeed tragic outcome, but in this case it's a cop-out of a cadence (unlike the brutal, painful denouement of La Separation). A serious disappointment, 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\nI happened to see this film on a flight from Paris to Boston and it reminded me of the food on the plane: generic, tasteless and obscure. The French cinema seems to have lost its footing these days and this is a good example of how a motley script can waste brilliant actors. While some may find the 'playfulness' of the script to be in line with the dictates of Euro post modernism, the whole project seems more like a post-mortem on the death of Euro-cinema's golden years and truly fabulous talents --- one is vaguely reminded here of Bunuel but without the charm or wit.
\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 obsession of 'signifie' and 'signifiant' is not enough to make a good film. Pascal Bonitzer should have remained in our memory as a brilliant film theorist back in the '60´s. It was not necessary to take the camera. The result is quite frustrating. It´s a pity for his excellent leading actors.
\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 distribution was good, the subject could have been interessant and comic. whereas, he described the wandering of an old non credible communist looking for loving sensations. Instead of this, the atmosphere is nor lively nor heavy.
\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 in Petites Coupures certainly left this viewer dumbfounded.
***spoiler***
In the space of 48hrs or so, Auteuil's character has an affair with a teenager, loses his wife's affections, attempts to seduce Scott Thomas, is rejected by her goes on to grope yet another female character in the back of a car and then is finally shot for his trouble.
***end of spoiler***
wha ???
The only saving grace in this flick is Kristin Scott Thomas. Similar to Charlotte Rampling, she seems a *natural* to star in French cinema. My hope is that one day François Ozon may cast her in a part where she can show her true talent.
There are some fine French films such as the remarkable Le Colonel Chabert begging for a DVD release, yet this is the tripe that gets chosen.
Avoid this one.
zzzz..
\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 not that good at all. Here is the first clue and that it is not gonna be a strong movie, Harrison Ford's name not only appears first but it is also bigger than the title. The music was nominated for an Oscar, What the heck was that? That music was probably the most annoying thing in the movie. The acting was sub par at best, except the Amish boy he did a decent job for being so young. Then you have the story which was weak and a little over the place, and it won for adapted! The music was horrid, I know I already said something but it was really bad. The premises was real good and it should be remade. Well that's all I really have on that.
Your Average Movie Guy,
-Trever
\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\nHarrison Ford playing a playing a cop in a crime thriller. The perfect ingredients it SEEMS for top entertainment with Harrison back to his Indy and Han Solo best, protecting a witness from ruthless and merciless murderers. How easy it is to be fooled. If the film concentrated on the main, supposed, themes of crime and suspense instead of putting up barns and shoving ice creams in peoples faces it possibly could have been more worthwhile. Unbelieveably predictable with the best method of despatching of a foe is with corn.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA cheap and cheerless heist movie with poor characterisation, lots of underbite style stoic emoting (think Chow Yun Fat in A Better Tomorrow) and some cheesy clichés thrown into an abandoned factory ready for a few poorly executed flying judo rolls a la John Woo. Even the squibs look awful. At no point in the proceedings does it look remotely like America. Three wonky old cars do not a country make.The Mustang even has a wobbly right front wheel. The plot, such as it is, is so derivative and predictable that the ending is like a mercy killing. It couldn't come soon enough. Even the jewellery from the robbery looks like the cheapest junk costume jewellery available. The awful dialogue and hopeless overacting by everyone who gets shot top off a real waste of space and time. Worth watching if you want to know how not to make a cliché-ridden low budget 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\nYes Pigeon and Coburn are great, and it's interesting to watch them, although Coburn seems rather restrained and dull here. It's enjoyable to view Seattle, Victoria and Salt Lake City of 1970's, and the period cars and clothing. That's all the good in this boring film. The dialog is incredibly bad, as is most of the acting. Ray and Sandy's motivations seem forced and unlikely. I've seen this \"training to be a pickpocket\" routine several times before. There's a long build up, leading to nothing. Better to catch an episode of \"Streets of San Francisco\", or one of the many great crime/caper movies. To name a few, there are Bedtime Story, remade as Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, The Lavender Hill Mob, The Grifters, Paper Moon, The Sting, and best of all, House of Games.
\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 care what anyone says, this movie was crap. The only thing it had going for it was camera work which was very well done. As for the dialogue I have heard so many people talk about...it sucked too. Yes it was honest and true to life, but so what, I can hear anyone talk like that on the street, or in a fast food joint. What made the dialogue good in movies like Pulp Fiction, and Gosford Park was the fact that it is WRITTEN dialogue, that takes time to think through. Another thing was that the director should not have put himself in the picture. I believe that the male character could have been a lot stronger, but instead it seemed weak. In fact the movie seemed to revolve around the male character, and then he completely disappears in the last twenty minutes. The girl in the film I found completely repulsive, not in appearance, but in her needy needy ways. Saying she is in love with a guy, and actually getting jealous of him the next day, what a crock of crap. Final thing: the sound was terrible, and I hope it was only something that plagued my theater instead of actually being on the final cut of the film. There was a constant buzzing sound during several scenes and it was actually taking away from the talking going on. The one good thing again was Blood's job as the DP, but the actress that played the main guy's ex girlfriend did a very good job as well. These two things couldn't save an ultimately terrible movie, which I refuse to call a film.
2/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI preface by stating I am a big fan of JJL and NOT one of Patrick. Therefore I watched this to see her performance and of course, it was excellent. I do not feel the director was adequate for the film as several very bad choices were made re: shot angles, blocking, etc. If the director was trying to give it a \"realistic\" feel, they failed and lost some good performances because of it. Nearly always felt that the camera was way too static, too far from intense facial reactions -- and so many times when the action depended on the intimacy of lead characters, the dialog was slow and plodding. This easily could have been resolved by cutaways or changes of camera angle. But the impression I got was that the budget was too small and only one camera was used! I also got the impression that perhaps scenes were shot multiple times and the energy coming from the actors was... used up.
\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 performances rate better than the rating I've given this work, simply because I will not support a movie which shows any child or mentally challenged person how to obtain, cook, and inject narcotics into their bodies.
This is a disgusting film, which serves no purpose in the world, but to glamorize and attempt to legitimize the narcotic lifestyle. It bears convincing performances, which add to my disgust. What were these people THINKING?! I could not enjoy a movie such as this. It's enough to make someone who has never done drugs, think about it, and those who have and have redeemed themselves, consider reversion. I'm surprised it doesn't make every clean junkie who sees it, fall off the wagon.
There's nothing good about this \"movie,\" which stands more as a How To Get Strung Out docu-drama. This is the epitome of what's wrong with Hollywood.
Utterly disgusting.
It rates a 1.3/10 from...
the Fiend :.
\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 poorly written, hard-to-follow, and features bad performances and dialog from leads Jason Patric and Jennifer Jason Leigh. The premise, believable but weak (undercover narcotics agent succumbs to the drug underworld) deserved better than this Lili Fini Zanuck flop. The competent supporting cast (Sam Elliott, William Sadler, others) was not enough to save this film.
In addition, this movie also contains the absolute worst \"love\" scene in cinema.
Moreover, the soundtrack is vastly overrated; specifically the revolting, sappy-without-substance \"Tears in Heaven\" by the otherwise legendary Eric Clapton.
\"Rush\" is wholly unenjoyable from beginning to end.
2 of 10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThere's nothing particularly unique or interesting about this run of the mill low budget sci-fi flick. Regardless of its pedigreed origin (the film is loosely based on a novel by Leo Tolstoy), the plot and overall themes of this film are in no way remarkable or original, the science is weak at best, and unfortunately, the film fails to even involve compelling action sequences.
The plot begins with a manned space flight to Mars, and though the main plot doesn't really get rolling until the ship lands, most of the most interesting scenes occur en route. Unfortunately, as soon as our interplanetary travelers touch-down, their previously interesting interpersonal relationships, speculations about cosmology and the meaning of life, and everything interesting about the film all give way to an only remotely coherent plot concerning Martian revolutionaries, environmental problems and not very convincing webs of deceit.
There is nothing very remarkable about the production quality of the film either. It's passable. And most of the acting is, though slow, OK. Cameron Mitchell is actually pretty good and plays a likable character. I guess the best quality of this film, from my perspective, is its fashion sense. The martians have very nice outfits! If this film had a point, it might have been much more interesting. Oh well.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nEarly 1950s Sci-Fi directed by Lesley Selander. Special effects of course are very primitive, but pretty good in comparison to what else was out there then. Drive-in Movie double feature fare; still interesting enough to watch. Two leading men, Arthur Franz the brilliant young scientist Dr. Jim Barker and straight talking and earthy newspaper reporter Steve Abbot(Cameron Mitchell)are joined on a manned flight to Mars by Carol Stafford(Virgina Huston)another scientist and two other space experts(Richard Gaines and John Litel). Upon landing on the Red Planet, the space travelers encounter inhabitants that appear friendly and mentally advanced. In actuality, the Martians are led by Ikron(Morris Ankrum), who has the idea of conquering Earth to vitalize their civilization. There is a beautiful Martian(Maruerite Chapman)that Dr. Barker intends to take back on the return trip. She is the movie's redeemable element.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"