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\nit really is terrible, from start to finish you'll sit and watch this ridiculous idiot, thinking hes cool when he's really not, rubbish plot line, terrible acting and complete waste of time and money, do NOT bother.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAfter seeing this piece of crap you will know why the limeys drive on the left side of the street...this movie is an absolute NO-BRAINER! The jokes (if this is the right word for it...) are mostly sub-standard (about 98%) and do miss any punch-line at all. Save the money and get drunk. You might enjoy this movie being totally wasted, perhaps!
\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 say this. If you want to see art, you go to an art gallery. If you want to see a movie, you go to a theater. Trying to intertwine art and film proves disastrous in \"Where the Heart Is\". An interesting cast is totally wasted in this embarrassment. You like Dabney Coleman, see \"Short Time\". You like Crispin Glover, see \"Bartleby\". You like Uma Thurman, see \"Kill Bill\". Above all, if you like Christopher Plummer, see \"The Silent Partner\", because his character here, is a terrible embarrassment. In fact this entire production is an embarrassment. Sure the human artwork is intriguing for a few minutes, so make a short, but do not subject an audience to pointless nonsense, masquerading as filmed entertainment. - 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'm a Boorman fan, but this is arguably his least successful film. Comedy has never been his strong suit, and here his attempts at screwball farce are clumsily done. Still, it's almost worth seeing for Boorman's eye for talent: this is one of Uma Thurman's first starring roles, and as always she is ravishing to watch. (On a sad side note, Boorman wrote the script with his daughter, Telsche, who died a couple years ago.)
\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\nHard to imagine what they were thinking of when they made this movie (i.e., the writers, directors, producers, actors, editors, etc.). Christopher Plummer, veteran of 129 movies, frolics along among scores of other actors with apparently no more motivation than to collect a paycheck. I guess there is nothing wrong with that, but once they are paid that doesn't mean anyone has to watch it.
It bugs me that there are actually good reviews for this movie here at imdb. Art? If you want to see art go to an art gallery, don't watch this movie. Comedy? Watch a re-run of the Flintstones, about the same plot with less time wasted.
Dabney Coleman gives his usual performance, for better or worse. And some of the young actors may have gotten some good experience from doing this movie. But Plummer???? It was embarrassing to watch his performance, in fact I was positively transfixed on him throughout the movie, knowing this was Plummer of Sound of Music fame! I see from his bio that he called Sound of Music \"sound of mucus\", so guess he didn't like it as much as the 100's of millions who liked him in it.
I wonder if today he was asked, how do you rate Sound of Music compared to Where the Heart Is, what would he say.....?
Probably something like \"Where the Money 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\n\"Jaded\" offers a premise with potential as it looks at the rape of a woman by two other women and ask the question \"when is rape not rape?\". Unfortunately the flick seems to suffer from bad direction as it slogs through legal minutia while trying to weave some kind of story with a handful of foul mouthed and poorly portrayed characters only to end abruptly. \"Jaded\" is lame stuff only for the bleary-eyed couch potato in the mood for some dark drama.
\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 this movie given to me, and have to admit, I am glad that I did not pay money for it.
The back of the box makes it seem like some kind of sex triangle, with 2 women trying to seduce her. But the reality in this movie is far from that.
In reality, the main subject is the victim of a vicious and sadistic rape by the two other characters. There was absolutely nothing in this that I found interesting at all.
Even movies like Silence Of The Lambs and Wild Things (which the box tries to compare this movie to) were riveting, because of the unexpected turns and suspense.
But Jaded has none of this. It concentrates on the rapeists and the sick relationship with the boyfriend of one of them. And the persuit of a videotape that may prove the victims story is true.
While it does show that same sex rape is possible, it is not a movie worth watching.
If at all possible, pass this movie up at all costs.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOutside Sweden you are not expected have seen this movie. Happy you. The cast includes several actors that are important part of modern the Swedish movie history. And still..
Seems like Peter Dalle only had a an idea lasting for about 20 minutes. Robert Gustafson is totally misused in this movie, trying to copy a younger Gösta Ekman. Ekman, by the way, is the only actor fulfilling the expectations.
Credit that can be given is for the photo, splendid idea using black and white. Music is OK.
But over-all it's a waste of god actors and the time of the audience.
\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\nSet in 1945, Skenbart follows a failed Swedish book editor who decides to take a non-stop train to Berlin. Unfortunately for everyone around him, he's a walking disaster, causing mayhem everywhere he goes. The train also holds a man and his mistress scheming to murder the man's wife (who's also on the train), a soldier on his way home, two gay elderly gentlemen, an angry train conductor, two nuns, a bunch of refugees, and even more people.
Meant as a mix of noir-ish thriller (which it does quite well - at least to begin with), and comedy, the film fails with both. It doesn't sit right as the film changes tone with every new scene. And as the train races towards its final destination, the film turns more and more bizarre, ending on a truly surreal note.
The good bits are wasted in a myriad of pointless plots and characters. Skenbart is packed with famous Swedish actors, no matter how small the part is. It feels like the filmmakers rang everyone they've ever worked with and offered them a part in the film. Too bad that the performances are just as bad as the script (act your lines - don't read them!).
The comedy is more or less slapstick, with the same jokes repeated over and over. The pace is incredibly slow at times (quite often, actually) with on scene in particular dragging on for about ten minutes for no good reason. The screenwriter also seems to think that swearing is a good way to replace decent dialogue. The film looks great though, in moody B&W, but it's wasted on such inept film-making in every other department. [1/10]
\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\nIf I could give this movie a negative rating I would. The humor is the cruelest I have ever seen in a film. Horrible things happen to good people and people who have already suffered horribly through no fault of their own. There are 2 plots, neither of which supports half of a film. Where is the \"depth\" others see in this movie? That no good deed goes unpunished? That only the heartless can succeed? The film does start well and the black and white is very moody and well done. The acting is very good and convincing witch makes the cruel humor even more horrifying. If you think that the 3 Stooges are too nice to each other, if watching the beheading of a kidnap victim with a Bowie knife is a real thigh slapper, if you thought \"Schindler's List\" was hilarious, then this movie is 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\nDon't see this movie! It's... repulsive! The start is indeed very good, but in the middle everything falls and I really regret spending 80 crowns (about 11 dollars) on the ticket! Peter Dalle should consider this as his last chance to gain peoples interest. AWFUL picture! The only bright spot is the splendid work of Robert Gustavsson, Lena Nyman and Gösta Ekman.
Hope you take my advise... The picture is rubbish.
\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\nAs a South African, living in South Africa again after a 32 year stay in the UK, I am sorry to say that this movie is a huge disappointment. The three main problems I had with the movie was a) why Swank and Ejiofor - an American and a Nigerian - to play the leads. This country is bursting with talent and has no need of imports... b) Gillian Slovo has been trading off her Struggle credentials for years now. She's a very mediocre writer and even her novel doesn't stand up the flaccid direction of Mr Hooper... and c) Hilary Swank again, such a great actor, as proved in Million Dollar Baby (but that's Eastwood too), here dressed in the contemporary New York style whilst roaming freely around the poverty of the Karoo. Where was the consideration and sensitivity needed by the costumer and director? Yes, the film is ultimately moving - how could it not be? - but the overall mood at the conclusion is one of tremendous letdown. Heart's in the right place but needs a pace maker.
\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\nArthur Hunnicutt plays a very stereotypical role as a mountain man (probably the Ozarks) who goes hunting with his favorite coon dog. However, the dog appears to be drowning when Hunnicutt jumps in after him. It becomes obvious pretty soon that despite Hunnicutt and his dog roaming about after leaving the water that they both died in the water--as no one responds when he talks to them and sees and hears people talking about his and the dog's death. Yet, oddly, Hunnicutt is REALLY slow on the uptake and it takes him a while to understand they are talking about him! I think this was actually done as padding, as there really wasn't enough material to fill the half hour time slot.
Later, in the \"surprise twist\", he comes upon Heaven--or at least his concept of the place. He's invited in, but since they won't allow dogs, he has other ideas! Overall, reasonably well acted but of dubious spiritual value! With no twists or irony, this episode is a bit dull--not \"Twilight Zone-y\" enough for my tastes.
\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\nwho's responsible for these \"behind the scenes\" things? who are these actors? did they crawl out from beneath rocks? 'yuks, lots of yuks!' no. no yuks for me. only loathing and shame that i am a human being. i have to avert my eyes from the set, it's so embarrassing. in fact, i changed the channel.
i've always had a problem with robin williams' non-stop 'i forgot my lithium today' rantings, but at least he's funny once in a blue moon. watching someone who isn't funny at all impersonating robin williams is like having each tooth in your head pulled slowly and sadistically, without novocaine, for all eternity.
please stop making these absolutely horrifying TV movies. please.
\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\nDrab, dreary and a total waste of my time. The plot is incomprehensible (so don't think about it too much). The acting is odd and wooden - I would have sworn that they were all professional body builders trying their luck at acting, but that might be an insult to body builders. There are no interesting special effects to redeem this disaster, but lots of fires, explosions, a gratuitous sex scene, etc. The only thing that caught my attention was that it takes place after a war between the US and Iraq that somehow goes nuclear...hmmm. Is Roger Corman psychic? Let's hope that \"Iraq\" was just a lucky choice for Corman and that the rest of his scenario doesn't come true.

\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\nWhere do I begin? The story was so bad, it must have been written in a high school film club! The acting was so wooden I felt sorry for the actors! One actor even reminded me of what a deer must look like when staring into a car's headlights! Another actor has this constant look of being constipated! But it was the dialog that takes the cake!
Our hero says to his captors - all holding submachine guns - if you lay a finger on a female prisoner you will be dead. Moments later, the strongest guard, built like a truck, and the only women prisoner go at it. When our fearless leader, who has this very annoying raspy gangster voice catches wind of this transgression, he calmly walks up to the guard, while machine guns are trained on him, and in a split-second snaps this giant guy's neck like he was breaking a tooth pick! He then gets back in line while all the villains with their machine guns do absolutely nothing, but essentially yell at him!
I could go on and on! This movie is camp gem; and if you have any sense of humor, it's guaranteed to make you laugh so hard your eyes will tear!
\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\nWithout being really the worst science fiction film ever made, or the worst I have seen, 'Time Under Fire' is still much under average. The premises and the first 10-15 minutes are not that bad, it starts as a X-Files story, combining Bermuda triangle mysteries with time travel. Pretty soon elements of other genres (too many) mix together, but the story never takes off beyond the level of interest of a TV series. Soon, 'Time Under Fire' quickly degenerates into a series of clichés, not only mixing altogether too many genres but also being unable to create anything memorable in suspense or special effects that would help viewers remember the movie until tomorrow. Acting is bad, and the rhetoric lines in the script do not help at all.
\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 must be the first movie I've rented and not seen to the end. Complete garbage! The acting, the plot, set and wardrobe looked like it came from a porno movie with a plot. Not even a B move.
\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 box with a button provides a couple with the opportunity to be financially free, but the cost is the life of someone they've never met. This is a very tedious film to watch. Richard Kelly, who wrote and directed it, decided to make a film without any payoff. You are taken on a ride of slow build ups, one after the other with minor revelations at best. At certain moments, I thought to myself, this will have major significance at the end, but nothing does. The film just leaves one thinking, \"This story could have been told in 30 minutes, without all the stretched out nonsense.\" I will hope you avoid this god-awful film and maintain your sanity by doing so.
\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 know that so many reviews on IMDb are extreme, with reviewers either praising a film to the hilt or inarticulately tearing it to pieces. I find neither of these kind of reviews helpful, and so I do not give this film the awful review I am about to, lightly. The film is art-house science-fiction of the worst kind dressed up as a Hollywood blockbuster. The trailers draw you in by showing you what appears to be a cohesive plot, but is actually just a tiny part of a wilfully baffling series of events which are never properly resolved. I like films which challenge the viewer and I do not need to be spoon-fed a plot, and so my complaint against this film is not that it is too highbrow. No - the film is just terrible. As the credits roll you will feel genuine anger at having wasted your time on Cameron Diaz's wooden acting and a faltering plot-line. Avoid.
\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\nBe warned, the next time you see \"Richard Kelly\" involved in any production, run away. Fast.
Kelly proved to the world after his last movie, \"Southland Tales\", that he is one pretentious director. It was indulgent and convoluted. In \"The Box\", not much has changed.
I can picture what his pitch to Warner Bros must have been, and I bet the executives at the studio ate it right up: a full-feature film based on one of Richard \"Twilight Zone\" Matheson's old short stories.
Big mistake! Do not read any further unless you want this movie COMPLETELY spoiled for you:
Norma (Cameron Diaz) pushes the button.
Turns out that Arlington Steward (Frank Langella) has an Alien using his body as a vessel to conduct \"experiments\" in which the fate of mankind rests. His face is scarred because he was struck by Alien lightening, which killed him, but then brought him back to life to do all of this red button testing. Obviously since Norma pushes the button, knowing full well that someone may die, she must suffer the consequences for failing to consider someone else's life instead of her own. In the end she and her husband (James Marsden) choose to kill Norma instead of having their son grow up deaf and blind.
Kelly dances around his film's \"message\", trying to make the audience figure out what the moral of the story is. Obviously, any person with a brain is saying at the beginning, \"What if I was the person who dies?\". Richard Kelly doesn't even let his character's have this normal, HUMAN conversation. In fact, they avoid it all together. They appear to both be educated, working at a prestigious school and also for NASA, so why wouldn't they both have a better ability to LOOK OUTSIDE OF THE BOX???
If he had the main characters actually have this conversation, the entire movie could have ended right there! Instead, we have to watch weddings go on forever, NASA and the NSA be complacent to Arlington Stewart taking over these government programs, teleportation to show Marsden life beyond our world so it will be \"easier\" to kill his wife, and drone's controlled by Steward which can be anywhere and nowhere, at any time.
The most painful part of this movie is the pacing. Nothing really happens. Its a muddled mish-mash of ideas that are laughable.
It is insufferable how this film is being marketed. The commercials make it look like \"Saw\" and even use the music from those films to sell it. In reality what you get is a slow, dull, laughable (yes, half the theater was laughing at the acting and visual effects), and messy film which is neither imaginative, interesting, nor cohesive. At one point, Cameron Diaz and her son are abducted and then suddenly, she is back in the NSA's big black car with her husband on the way home. Where did she go? Why did they take her? Do we really care? Not anymore you won't.
By the end you really won't care what happens to any of the characters. You will be rooting for all of them to die so the film will just end. Go see anything else that's playing. Don't waste your time, or 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\nHa ha. - oh no - what to say about this film? Yes - green eggs and ham makes more sense than this movie. Where does one start? A lot of the good stuff has already been said - so I won't divulge into the same territory. I believe you already have the movie summary - so I won't paraphrase the movie.
First - let's start the with good.
1). If you like psychological thrillers that make you think (as I do) the first 29 minutes of this film will be for you - this is one of those films that illustrates the question that you always talked about on long car drives when you were kids like (what if you had to chose one family member live, another to die, or, what if you had to die by drowning or fire) This movie is a great concept - bottom line.
2) The wardrobe group did a fine job with bringing us back to the 70's. Realistically though, how difficult is that to accomplish? .....Okay, that's about all for the good. Let's talk about the bad.
1). This movie feels like a 2 hour \"Twilight Zone\" episode. This could easily be 90 minutes. That might have made the movie tolerable.
2). Do you remember in the movie \"From Dusk til Dawn?\". The movie started out interesting, then halfway through the movie it just took a degrading turn? Yep - same thing here. I would venture to say that the writers started with a concept, then had no idea what to do with it. I've gotten deeper thought provocation out of Transformers 2.
3). Yes - we get the dilemma in the film. We understand the philosophical undertones and Utilitarian approach - but the story jumped around way too much, didn't elaborate on the current story arc, and took a(forgive me)completely insulting direction.
4). The ending didn't make sense. Not at all. None.
This movie would make a great term paper in college philosophy 101. If you're board out of your mind, in bed sick, or have ever enjoyed being hit in the face with a pie, and can view this free on-line - by all means, go for it.
If you need to pay anything to view this movie, don't waste your time - you're better off watching old Howie Mandel stand-up on You Tube. You will get more philosophical stimulation reorganizing your sock drawer.
\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 BOX (2009) * Cameron Diaz, James Marsden, Frank Langella, James Rebhorn, Holmes Osborne, Sam Oz Stone, Celia Weston. Truly disappointing adaptation of genre legend Richard Matheson's sci-fi chiller \"Button, Button\" by on the wane wunderkind filmmaker Richard Kelly who truly stretches a small, well-crafted piece into a grab-bag 'WTF'-a-thon! Mysterious (and ridiculously maimed!) man, Langella, posits a million dollar offer to 'struggling' couple Diaz and Marsden (both surprisingly vanilla bland to the hilt!): a box with a red-button, that when pushed, will kill some stranger in the world (!) Sure strings are attached but does that really matter here? What does is why in the name of God does Kelly trowel on so much oddness (i.e. nose-bleeds; watery transport systems  that's right  Watery.Transport.Systems) when the tension should be strung as tautly as possible (oh the possibilities). If this sounds like a bad TWILIGHT ZONE episode you are half right (the '80s TV re-boot actually did a decent small-screen adaptation; in fact rent that instead!) One of the year's worst films.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFirst time I ever felt I needed to write a review.
I have seen thousands of movies in my life and I like a wide range of movies. I am reasonably opened minded, and can easily say I enjoyed a movie while still saying \"yeah it was not good but I enjoyed it\". I can appreciate the mastery of great movies like The Shaw shank redemption, the godfather, and American history X. I can like good movies in a genre like horror, or comedy, even if the movie might not be that great. I can even enjoy a bad movie that just happens to entertain me (Bloodsport). I also will try to rate movie fairly even if I did not like it. City lights by Charlie Chapin was not a movie I enjoyed, but I can appreciate the acting and story lines for the time.
I think some people when they go on this site instead of randomly click a rating, should take a few ideas into account. Try to rate the movie based on how good it actually was. Do not let your personal bias affect the rating. Also look at other moves you rated and compare the movie you are going to rate.
This \"movie\" was the worst piece of trash I have ever seen. 2 hours of my life where just stolen. The acting was awful, across the board. The scenes where choppy at best. However the real disgrace was the story. The first 20 minutes we actually had a story that tried to make sense and take the viewer from point A to B. However after that it was a nightmare. They kept trying to add new elements but nothing was every explained. Nothing really ever made sense, was steward dead, is he alive, did he hit by lighting, was it really lighting, was it aliens, is he an alien, etc. The ending tied nothing together and really did not answer any questions. The only positive was nobody cared we where just happy to leave the theater.
6.5/10??? What is wrong with some of you? I will admit that the 8 of us where so mad about seeing this, we did think \"what would make it better?\", and we decide to tell a few of our friends that this movie was good so they would have to suffer and see this movie. What can I say misery loves company. That is really the only reason I can see for a 6.5 rating.
Do not waste 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\ni thought id check this film out as I'm currently making a film about a mysterious box, therefore it would be great to see how this film took and developed the idea of a mysterious and unexpected box.
before going to the cinema i had a high expectation of this film. with actresses, like Cameron diaz you would expect the acting especially hers to be great. the acting was a sort of let down for the film, the characters accents changed throughout the film it made it unbelievable.
the whole idea of a weird box that can make your dreams come true but destroy others is such a brilliant story but i feel the director let it down, this film had potential it could of been a lot lot better than it was.
this film had no middle to it. it was too confusing and needed a steady storyline. nobody wants to go into the cinema and come out thinking what have i just watched 'i didn't get it at all,' sometimes it can be exciting and make people want to watch it again, but this film made people want to never ever want to hear of the film again. throughout watching i noticed that half the audience had left before the ending. i feel every single person had been let down watching this film because of the high expectations and how slow parts of the film was.
lets put the bad points to one side... i did like however the scene where the son is in the bathroom at the end. it was unexpected, it reminded me of a horror movie and the way it was put together made me imagine it and how devastating and scary it would of been to be in that position. the lighting and the effects made it look excellent, this scene looked slightly more 1990's than the 1970's that this film is supposed to be.
this film was confusing because it had so many different bits to it. parts that you would expect to be sumned up at the end where everything comes clear but it didn't, it totally went against an audiences expectations, even though leaving the film on a cliff hanger, not giving the audience a reason why things happen could work and do really well, but this one didn't, it was a creative, different unusual film i thought, it had potential could of been better, disappointed didn't enjoy it, wouldn't buy it on DVD to be honest.
\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\nCouple having financial trouble gets a box delivered to their door. If they push the button they get a million dollars but someone they don't know will die. Do they push the button?
This is an odd film based on a Richard Matheson short story has a few chills but mostly is a messy affair. The trouble is that there is so much going on it feels as though writer director Richard Kelly didn't know what sort of movie he was making. Is this a straight out horror film with supernatural overtones? At times it seems like it with talk of moral choices, damnation and the afterlife. Is it a science fiction film? Possibly, there are lots of questions about that Mars project. And what are the strange looks that people seem to have as if in some grand conspiracy? Is this Invasion of the Body Snatchers or a demonic take over film? Don't know, maybe. And that's the problem there are lots of questions, most of them intriguing, but there are too many. Little seems to have been explained and when we get to the end of the film things seem more to stop then to conclude (even in an open ended way). I'm all for making a film rich with themes and points but writer Kelly fills his script with simply too many that director Kelly can't handle, or does so in such away that each theme or plot thread gets its ten minutes of screen time and for those minutes it hold court before its cast off the next bit. It made me crazy. (I won't get into the two leads, Cameron Diaz and James Marsden, who aren't very good or more likely don't know what to make of the material which is so ever shifting )
It's a heady mix that doesn't work (there are ultimately too many holes). I got to the end and suddenly realized I had no idea what I just saw. I really didn't like it, but its more in a this isn't good because it just misses sort of a way rather. I'd take a pass or wait for cable where its not going to cost you anything
\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\nNow, this movie is the worst i have ever seen!! It is simply a disaster. I think it's really a sick movie, i just wasted my time watching this cheap crap. I can't believe anyone would produce such a disaster. Such a waste of money and time. Nothing to learn from this movie, it's just a hollow sick evil flick. I don't think they could've make it worse, this movie just earned it's title as the king of lowest crap. The acting is a disaster, the meaning...oh well there is no meaning just a sick pain and sorrow introduced by the suffering child in the end of the movie, and the killing of the wife which again was another dumb blow to this movie. Do yourself a favor, if you actually have some self respect, keep away from this awfulness!!!
\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 like to like movies, but I found nothing to like about The Box. I was interested in the 'hook' of the plot, but unfortunately it never went anywhere and was impossible to follow. Anyone who states that they understand this movie is probably faking it so that they can feel like they are a part of something, well I have news for them, the emperor has no clothes.
The only undertone in this movie is that women are to blame for original sin, and corrupting mankind. I've heard that story before, and it makes less and less sense every time. It's true that this movie is different than a lot of films currently showing in theatres, but that doesn't make it worth the ticket price.
\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\nquite possibly one of (if not the) worst film ever conceived, cast and acted in the history of cinema. Who on God's green earth would ever think to cast Cameron Diaz and James Mardsen as a couple? She looked like his mother. God forgive me but I am just being honest. And that was the least of the many problems plaguing this horrible excuse for a film. It was a horrible statement against women but at least if you're gonna blame women for the problems of the world, tell a decent story not one with so many annoying loop holes and pathetic excuses for suspense and thrills. Everybody should get their money back who went to see it in theaters or bought the DVD.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is my first review on IMDb.com and probably first ever written review of a film I've done of my own accord - not for some class assignment. I think that fact alone says something about this movie... not a good thing! I am no seasoned journalist or critic (though I have seen my fair share of movies), but I found this particular film so terribly painful to watch, it was necessary for my own peace of mind to vent about the experience. Where better to do it than IMDb? As I forced myself to sit through the movie, physically writhing from the inability to connect-the-dots, I was sure there would be some \"light at the end of the tunnel\" - a revelation to explain what in samhe.-.ll was going on. The movie ended and I was as enlightened as dog****. After several rewinds to review certain scenes I still could conclude nothing sensible. I found myself wanting to yell \"Does this make sense to anybody?\" I would recommend to not waste your time, but then again if I were you I'd probably want to experience it myself. If that's the case, bring a crossword puzzle or something so you don't get bored.
\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\nCameron Diaz, James Marsden, Frank Langella: that's an all-star power cast but \"The Box\" proves once again that it is not a guarantee for a solid movie. The premise sounds promising: a couple gets a visit from a mysterious person who offers them a million dollar. The downside is that someone will die, a person they probably will not know. So What Do You Do ? This gives us an interesting story for about 30 minutes. After that, the story derails completely. Vague an uninspired plot lines about an alien conspiracy involving the NASA, nothing really is explained here.
\"The Box\" is a disappointment, could have been so much better. But since it is based on an ultra short story, that explains the continuity errors.
\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\"Don't be greedy\" sums up the depth of this movie. All the rest of the baloney is big budget window dressing. The movie rotates through hiding the ball annoyingly and revealing too much. None of the potentially interesting plot tangents are developed yet the trite ones are hashed and rehashed to excess.
The charm of DD, as others have pointed out, was in the schizophrenia device,the humor woven into the fabric of the movie, and most importantly, the acting. There is enough wooden acting in The Box to attract a giant mound of martian termites.
The biggest problem with suspending disbelief during this mess is the glaring question, \"why would a technologically superior power capable of taking over the government need to do any testing at all?\" Awful failure of a 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\nFirst of all. Should Cameron Diaz ever be allowed to act again? To call that a bad performance would be an insult to bad performances. That was a historically horrific performance. Any small chance that Diaz had at being a serious actress is now completely done after that. Laughably horrible.
Two, the movie was extremely boring, and not very thought provoking at all. I can sit around and ponder human nature without having to watch terrible actors, play out a terrible story.
Third, there was not a single likable character, and even worse, it seemed like that was done by design. You were not supposed to like, or feel sympathy for any character. It was quite effective. I wanted them all to just die to be honest. Aliens included. Kid included. Everyone was just one big mope in this movie. Everyone literally just moped around, and they called it a movie. You could barely distinguish the zombie \"employees,\" with regular people, because they all seemed like zombies.
Lastly, nothing really makes sense. From the characters reactions and emotions, to the literal story line, it all just seems random. This is just a really bad movie, disguised and couched as a \"thinking mans movie,\" which is meant to be confusing. Give me a break. A bad movie is a bad movie. And this movie was 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\nHow truly sad that this sprung from the same mind as Donnie Darko, possibly one of the best films in this genre. Where do I even begin? I think one of the must infuriating aspects of the film is that we are supposed to be critiquing humanity, and yet we see no humanity in the film. No more than 5 minutes of the film is spend agonizing about the possible death of another human. These are horrible one dimensional cardboard cutouts of human beings. Sadly, that's how they are played with what can only be described as dreadful acting. Is this truly how Kelly sees humanity? Judging from the reaction of viewers, this is a horrible encapsulation of humanity. Why don't the characters in the film ask the questions that all the viewers have? This is not an indictment of humanity. It's an indictment of the straw men that Kelly sets up who bare almost no resemblance to real humans in this situation.
To those who say this was a wonderful thought-provoking film, to what are you comparing it? Armageddon? I even saw someone compare this to the works of Kurosawa. How truly deprived must you be to think that this would promote good existential discussion? For the love of all that's good in film! Even Indecent Proposal is ten times the indictment of humanity that this is. There we see people truly agonizing about greed and the human condition. Yes, even Indecent Proposal puts this film to shame for philosophical discussion and yet it gets 5.3 vs 6.0 for this mindless tripe.
Rarely have I seen a more pretentious, pontificating, and self aggrandizing, film fall so flatly on its face. This has the depth of a high school film project, and a poor one at that. Truly, that's about the level of the discussion promoted by this film. If you want to see GOOD psychological film making, do yourself a favor and check out Das Experiment. If The Box had lived up even to this one goal, I would have been willing to forgive some of the atrocious acting, gaping plot holes, and sheer nonsensical storyline. Sadly, it can't even do that.
The true indictment of humanity is that there are people out there who think this film is a deeply delving introspective look into the human condition. This is not Sartre! This is not even the Cliff Notes version of Sartre! This is a hastily conceived and hack-written 9th grade term paper on Sartre based on some internet message board ramblings. If Sartre were alive, he would sue Kelly for defamation.
\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 Box is a film with great potential, but the makers totally misused that potential. The film seemed to take for ever, because of the boring family dinners and scenes about school and job-dialogs between the action. Those scenes could and must be deleted in my opinion to keep up the tensity and thrill. The philosophy of human free will has potential and seems to referring to the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), but we find ourselves regretfully struck with magic and nosebleeds, were even Harry Potter would flunked his class with!
Probably the best part was that moment when Norma Lewis (Cameron Diaz)has been shot to death, by her loving and caring husband as an act of human free will. I wonder how Hobbes would react if he could...
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is a flic that you can safely avoid. childish plot and poor acting from Cameron (she really shouldn't take on these serious roles - they don't suit her)Besides she looks most unglamorous, Lets face it, shes' great in Charlies Angels and She was superb in There's Something about Mary... The Pope wouldn't be a good President of the USA and vice versa, my point being that there are some actors/actresses who are suited to a particular type of character and Cameron is most unsuited for this serious housewife type - there are a dozen other actress' would have done a far better job. The movie itself is rather unbelievable and juvenile in its plot (did I spell Juvinile right??) I noticed a comment from another reviewer who has given The Box a 10 rating, who was derisive in his comments on other reviewers who gave the movie a 1 or 2 rating and couldn't spell. I mean whats spelling got to do with a movie review? Does he mean that persons who spell perfectly could appreciate this movie more that the ones who couldn't? C'mon 'professor.
\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\nOddly, I have very little to say about \"The Box\" so this will be pretty brief. I have never read the Richard Matheson novella \"Button, Button\" from which the film is based, but considering what I saw in this \"adaptation\", there couldn't have been much semblance to such a legendary author's work. \"The Box\" is about a family who discover a strange contraption on their doorstep that has a button on it. Frank Langella shows up and explains how they will be given one million dollars if they push the button - the only 'catch' is that it will automatically kill someone, somewhere... ??SPOILER?? They push it ??END OF SPOILERS?? That whole concept was interesting on its own, but somehow they managed to extend the movie into some convoluted Stargate knock-off that pads it out until a pretty decent ending with a pretty profound message. While I'm trying to be as 'fair' as possible, I still must say that this was not my cup of tea and it bored me severely. I guess its from the same director as \"Donnie Darko\" which I remember liking when I saw it years ago. \"The Box\" would've worked well as a short film, but since it was so lifelessly adapted this way, I can't come close to recommending 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\nMaybe if you smoked enough weed this would seem funny or would make you nostalgic for how completely unhinged people allowed themselves to be in the early 70's. There's an odd innocence to this movie and the sex is a lot more awkward and playful than the steely pros who do it for the cameras now.
The real curio here - and really the only reason to watch this movie - is the appearance of Kristine Debell as Alice. She was a Ford model and it shows. She's got classic, WASP-ish good looks - like a really cute Ivy League sorority girl. So what the hell is she doing in this cheap, cheesy skin flick? From my vantage point she does not appear to be at all on drugs in this movie (which might explain it) and she actually seems incredibly committed to the part. When she sings her first song she really does act like she thinks she's flippin' Julie Andrews or something. I just get the feeling that this girl truly believed this was gonna be her big break or something, instead of the near career killer that it was. Anyway, she is damn cute and you kind of can't believe she would even get naked on screen, much less do a masturbation scene, a couple of oral sex scenes (with men and women) and then do the real deal as a climax to the film (snark). It is also definitely not a body double at all. That is our little Kristine taking one for the team, or for the greater glory of showbiz or something. It's pretty amazing to watch and it is definitely stimulating (ahem) but in a way I kinda wish she hadn't done it. That was a very pretty, talented young girl getting some really bad advice.
Anyway, my guess is that Kristine Debell, wherever she is, has long, long since wished this movie would go away. She was very cute and appealing in \"Meatballs.\" Almost impossible to believe this is the same girl - but it is.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI don't understand why so many of the comments here seem to indicate that this is acceptable entertainment. The eye-popping horror of this cinematic monstrosity cannot be overstated. Me and my girlfriend just watched it together, and I'm not sure we'll ever be able to have sex again. I'm not sure what was worse, the scrawny, unattractive cast, their supremely unphotogenic genitals, the rancid attempts at humor, the screeching noises that claimed to be songs...
No, I know what was worst of all. The girls in the green leotards, with green facepaint, licking Alice to dry her off, then proposing, in broken childlike speech, that they suckle milk from her breasts. That was the worst.
Also, what was with the nurses, and why do they seem to have so much trouble finding each other's vaginas? Why are all the male actors gay? Why does Humpty Dumpty waggle a dildo in the air and pretend that it's his penis? Why did my eyes have to see this? There are no words.
\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 greatly disappointed by the quality of this documentary. The content is poorly produced, very poor quality video and, especially awful audio. There's extremely little about how Bruce Haack produced his music and virtually no examples of direct connection to later and contemporary electronic music. The interviews of people who knew Bruce Haack are ad-hoc mostly inarticulate mumbo-jumbo. Too much yak and not enough Haack. Although I have a serious personal interest in electronic music and have a higher than average attention span, even for slow and/or difficult subject matter, I fell asleep while watching this documentary and had to review it to see the parts I slept through. If you watch this, make sure that you are set up, before viewing, like Alex in A Clockwork Orange. Bruce Haack deserves much better than this. Shame on the producer and director.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'm Mike Sedlak. I co-wrote the score for this movie. And proud of it.
And I love all of the comments. Some have not gone far enough.
The movie premiered in San Francisco in the summer of 1973. The theater was packed with friends and family. We all clapped.
Five days latter, it was pulled from all of the screens in the Bay Area.
If anyone is interested hearing some of scene by scene details, which might make the movie even more enjoyable, please let me know.
We could start with the shot where Gideon Blake throws the toilet plunger to distract one of the evil henchmen guarding the radio transmitter on the deck of Bud's house.
Or how Gideon diffused the bomb in the original version.
Didn't help. It still bombed.
Bring it on.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"