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\nIf you like to watch movies because they are pretty, you should be okay with this one. If you like to watch movies that start out with a good guy trying to catch a bad guy, then reveal clues to the motives of each throughout the movie, skip it. At the end of the movie i still didn't know why Stargher killed the women the way he did. When you set up such a ritualistic serial killer it would be nice to know where the rituals originated from. In Dreams was a similar pretty movie with a serial killer which also wasn't the best, but at least the whys of how he killed the girls was explained. They also hinted at a dark background for Vaughn's character but didn't explain, didn't really say why Lopez's child psychologist was so much better suited for this task than the rest of the people they interviewed, didn't give much of an explanation for the little kid's problem, etc. If the rest of the story is compelling, I don't care about details like how Stargher afforded all the fancy electronic equipment and underground chambers or why the FBI wasn't checking to see if he owned any other property or had access to out of the way places while they were waiting to see if the whole entering the killer's mind thing would work, but I do like to have a sense of what motivates the serial killer in a serial killer movie when he kills in such a complex manner.
\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 love exotic science fiction/fantasy movies but this one was very unpleasant to watch. Suggestions and images of child abuse, mutilated bodies (live or dead), other gruesome scenes, plot holes, boring acting made this a regretable experience, The basic idea of entering another person's mind is not even new to the movies or TV (An Outer Limits episode was better at exploring this idea). i gave it 4/10 since some special effects were nice.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhy do the powers that be continue to cast Jennifer Lopez in unbelievable roles? She was excellent in Selena, and pretty good in Money Train, which both cast her in roles where she could basically be herself. However, roles like this just draw the line. I could never see Lopez as an FBI agent (see Out of Sight for that unremarkable performance), but as a psychotherapist? Give me a break!
Basically, Lopez plays the aforementioned psychotherapist, who is involved in virtual reality experiments in which she enters the minds of her patients in order to help them sort out their issues. When she enters the mind of a comatose serial killer to help save one of his victims, she breaks all the rules to try and crack the insanity of his inner mind.
Lopez's acting here is typically below average. I can't get over that high-pitched squeak of a voice she has. She's no Julia Roberts, but yet she comes across on screen as though she believes herself to be on the same playing field. Well, she's not even in the same stadium. Sure, she is a very sexy lady; however, that isn't going to carry a film, and it certainly doesn't carry this one. With anybody else cast in her role for this film it would have been excellent, especially if it was cast with someone who could lend more credibility to the character.
Having said all that, this film is visually stunning. The colors are fabulous, and the story line isn't half bad in a B-movie kind of way. The audio here is superb as well. This movie gains some points for the fairly original storyline, and major points for how it looks and sounds. Unfortunately, the acting and poor casting bring it down a few notches.
My Rating: 6/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n*POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD*
I'll only say what hasn't already been said here (and I'll continue this for the rest of my WWF/WWE comments).
If you're going to have a Women's title match, at least make it interesting, rather than just a squash to put over the current champion. I guess Moolah couldn't handle an intense match but they wanted to have the legend in a WrestleMania.
I thought the Killer Bees were wasted in WrestleManias, especially here. I became a fan in 1989, about a year after the B. Brian Blair was gone and Jim Brunzell became a canvas back. So I didn't realize for a while that they were a top tag team, even top contenders.
But I loved seeing Bill Fralic in the battle royal. He really came into his own here, creating a cocky heel character in a pre-match interview and even making an elimination in the battle royal. Besides Steve McMichael and Kevin Greene, he is the only professional athlete from my generation with any respect for wrestling (anyone remember Dennis Rodman?). And what was with the Hart Foundation's ridiculous green tights?
\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 the worst Wrestlemania in history. The only good matches were Ricky Steamboat vs. Hercules Hernandez, and the tag title match between the British Bulldogs and the Dream Team (this one bordered on classic). Everything else was either poor or awful. The idea of having three host cities was unnecessary, confusing and messed up the fluidity of the show. The celebrity guests were terrible on commentary, especially Susan Saint James.
If you're interested in the mid 80's WWF, you're better renting or buying Wrestlemania 3, or just about any other PPV for that matter.
\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\nAlthough Humphrey Bogart got star billing in King Of The Underworld, I'm willing to bet he didn't thank Jack Warner for it. In fact this film was one hollow crown.
King of the Underworld was supposedly a remake of the Paul Muni film, Dr. Socrates, but given Humphrey Bogart was in the cast, the character is written more like Duke Mantee in The Petrified Forest. He even has an English writer along in the person of James Stephenson.
Kay Francis and John Eldredge are a pair of married doctors and Eldredge pulls off a tricky bit of surgery on one of Bogart's henchmen. Bogey's a man who appreciates good work done on his behalf and gives Eldredge $500.00 and there's more where that came from if he plays his cards right. Eldredge who has a gambling problem sees a good way to get some undeclared income.
But when he's killed in a raid on the gang's hideout, Francis is also thought to be involved by the law and the American Medical Association no matter how much she protests her innocence. It's no good and she and her aunt Jessie Busley move to a small town to get away from the notoriety.
Of course the notoriety and Bogart and an itinerant Leslie Howard like writer in Stephenson all meet up with her again. But Kay is plucky and resourceful to say the least.
Bogart's character was ridiculous, no wonder the poor guy was screaming for better parts. He's a gangster who both shoots down people without mercy and gives his henchmen hotfoots just for laughs. He's concerned about his image and therefore kidnaps writer Stephenson to ghost write his autobiography and of course confesses enough to burn him in all 48 states. And then let's Kay Francis completely outsmart him, hard to believe he was king of anything.
Definitely one of the lesser works for either of the stars.
\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 a cinematic collage of gangster clichés. The writing is grade z and the plot and story are constructed without care or logic. It a messy pastiche of stereotypical gangsters (think of Bugs Bunny cartoons) and silly supporting characters (the lady doctor and the writer). There are much better Bogart films out there. In fact, Bogart looks like he slept through this performance. He puts very little effort into this character. I think the directorial advice he received was something like \"He's a bad guy. Act bad\". This guy is the era's equivalent of Darth Vader; obvious, evil and the anti-hero. Don't waste your time with this one.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFollowing his role in the fine caper SEVEN THIEVES (1960) – which I’ve watched several years back – Edward G. Robinson seemed to be stuck playing elderly criminal mastermind types (apart from the odd juicy role as in THE CINCINNATI KID [1965]). I’d previously watched the pretty good “Euro-Cult” effort GRAND SLAM (1967) and, apart from this, I’ve yet two more similar titles from Italy to check – one of which was directed by future goremeister Lucio Fulci! Anyway, this is the kind of international production – featuring American and Italian actors and a British director – which was prevalent during the 1960s; it’s harmless and easy-going in itself but hardly memorable and definitely overlong – especially since to procure finance for the heavy-duty equipment required for the heist (such as an army tank and an airplane!), the gang involved have to pull a variety of minor thefts first.
The gang, of course, is an incompetent lot led by an American (Robert Wagner) and his bimbo girlfriend (Raquel Welch) – the others are a ‘pacifist’ black man, a perennially hungry Italian and a diminutive Englishman. They try to induce an ex-gangster (Vittorio De Sica) to turn over his fortune to them, except he’s destitute…but, under the auspices of “Professor” Robinson, he proposes instead a caper of 5 million dollars’ worth of platinum! Needless to say, the gang members don’t trust one another (Wagner instructs Welch to seduce De Sica so as to get the name of their fence in Morocco – where they are to retreat after the robbery), or else bungle the job (commissioned to hold up a restaurant, the Italian can’t resist sitting at table and order a multi-course meal for himself!). Amusingly, in the face of similar failures, De Sica tries to show them how they used to do it in the old days – however, ostensibly holding up a petrol station, it transpires that the owner is a nephew of his and he merely asked to borrow some cash!
The central heist sequence is typically elaborate: while the gang, including Welch, ‘take’ the train transporting the platinum, Wagner kidnaps pilot Victor Spinetti and his airplane. When the job is done, he fully intends to double-cross De Sica – but neither his partners nor Welch herself are willing to go along with this, so he’s forced to relent. Coming from the time when crime didn’t pay, the gang contrives to lose all their stash in mid-air when the plane’s bomb-bay doors are accidentally opened…
\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've got as much testosterone as the next bloke, and Raquel Welch at her finest is certainly worth a look; but the fact is that a cardboard cut-out could act better, and an hour and half of Ms. W showing off her considerable assets does not a movie make.
Considering the cast, it's surprising that it's as bad as it is. I've never been a big fan of Wagner, and his tough guy Harry is about as convincing as a 9-dollar bill. Godfrey Cambridge and Vittorio de Sica, both of whom I usually enjoy, seem to be sleeping through their lines; and as for Edward G...well, I can only assume he was there for the paycheck.
This film is a mess: from non-existent plot, through stop-start action and unfunny script to puerile slapstick and annoying 60's 'caper' music. If it weren't for Miss Welch, I'd have given it a 0.
That said, she is a treat to the eyes - even better than her delicious cameo in 'Bedazzled' - and for that reason alone I gave it a 3.
\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 this movie were in production today it would probably have the christian right-wingers screaming 'child porn'. It is far from a great film, in fact it is rather pedestrian. However, if you have an imagination and a fond remembrance of youth and first love I recommend it.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is movie is really bad. I like to flip on the TV while napping and this movie looked like it would be something good to sleep through, and boy was I wrong. My body literally woke me up from sleeping and said \"Hey... this movie is awful... you gotta watch it\". I love bad movies with bad actors and stupid plots. Something about unintentional comedy gets me going. This movie is impressively crappy. I really don't know how to properly express it aside from recommending you watch it just to see how bad it is. I mean, seriously, you should watch it with people. I was making the best jokes outloud during this movie and no one was there to hear them.
Worse than Swimfan. It's that 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\nExcellent example of the disaster that happens when you combine a challenging script with two actors chosen for physical appeal. It is rare for me to be consciously aware of the acting during the first viewing of a movie because I try to just go with the story and save the analysis for the second viewing. In the case of \"Full Ride\", the acting was so weak that the movie was impossible to appreciate as a story; I was too busy (during first and only viewing) alternating between laughter and nausea.
Fortunately for most individual members of the cast, pretty much everyone in the ensemble is weak, the individual talent limitations do not contrast with any actual competent acting. Riley Smith and Meredith Monroe are at least well matched physically, finding common ground in looking far too old for the credible age of their characters.
Unfortunately the script requires especially intense and convincing performances to portray their characters which just exposes Smith and Monroe's staggering lack of talent. On the positive side, they know enough to not look directly into the camera and they do not stutter.
Better to have used a less attractive pair who could physically pass for the proper age. The basic story is not particularly original, just another variation on \"An Officer and a Gentleman\", but it would have provided a nice showcase for a talented pair of \"teenage\" actors.
Then again, what do I know? I'm just 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\nAfter seeing the movie, I feel the father and the mother are both reasonable person, although not perfect at all. On the contrary, I don't like the author, and his two sisters.
Is a person's journal an accurate portrait of herself? No. Most of time people only write problems in her journal because she want to solve the problem. So a journal is always a more negative side of a person. In this movie, the author judge his mother's life by her journal. Not a wise choice.
The author's elder sister is so ugly, external and internal. First, she said her father's second marriage is \"not fair\" for her mother. Then, she said she doesn't love her mother. So, she don't love both father and mother. I doubt she love anybody in the world. Her face is so ugly, just a reflection of her heart. Through out the movie, I feel the author and his sisters are lack of love and respect to their parents. However, I feel the father are mother are very loving to their children, even the author try to portrait them as cold, deceitful person.
\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 documentary is rife with problems.
How arrogant is it to make a documentary about your own family? I understand you think the subject is interesting. I was bored with it. This isn't a fascinating story to me, and I don't know why you would think it was.
I don't want to come off as mean, but I have to say: Most of the people in this film are just not attractive. And that's OK, not everyone is pretty. But your camera technique, to stick the lens in their face so you can't help but be overwhelmed by their unpleasant appearance because it is filling your 47\" TV, is not enjoyable. I had to put my hand up half the time to shield myself from the warts, wrinkles, bags under eyes and yellow teeth. Really, I'm trying not to sound inhuman, but pull the camera back so its not like total strangers are breathing in my face.
The camera work in this \"film\" is rank amateur level. It's the kind of camera work you see from everyone with a camcorder at a family picnic. Uninteresting framing, unsteady, even static shots are done carelessly. Put a little effort into it, if you're going to do this for a living.
I honestly can't see what the big deal is about this thing.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe director seems like a good, solid man. His parents struggle with the same issues we all cope with. They strayed from each other. They loved each other. They misunderstood each other. And the poor audience has to sit through ninety minutes of what is possibly the trials and tribulations of one of the most boring families ever to come out of Long Island.
There are few interesting choices in this documentary--the music is banal, the filming uninspired, and the story is the same story that has played out on every Birch Street in every town in America. I don't mean to sound too harsh--seldom has a sweeter, more well-intentioned documentary been made. The director is the kind of man with whom you'd want to be friends. You just wish he had struggled as much presenting the material as his parents did keeping their marriage alive.
\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\nTamara Anderson and her family are moving once again, as her itinerant painter father chases his next landscape. Fifteen years old, she is in her rebellious stage. Already angry at her father for their frequent relocations, her anger is exacerbated when her mother is suddenly confined to a sanatorium for tuberculosis. Her mother's absence causes Tamara to lash out at her father and seek comfort in religion, the boy next door, Rusty, as well as the spirit of the dead teenager who used to live in her rented house.
The story is modest to a fault. It's oddly paced, and even during its emotional scenes there isn't any tension. The actors portraying the parents are fine. Alberta Watson is incredibly charismatic as the sick mother, and Maria Ricossa is particularly effective as the guilt-ridden mother of the dead teenager. But Katie Boland, as Tamara, is too amateurish to carry the movie. The dialog is very natural and Boland can't quite pull it off. She has her moments and when she hits them she can be good but there were too many times when she came off awkward. One can see her thinking 'ok this is what my line is and this is the face i'm supposed to make' rather than actually reacting to the other actors. She's not the only one, Kevin Zegers as Rusty and Megan Park as his sister Brenda also suffer from stilted delivery but at least they're in fewer scenes.
If done right, the screenplay could have made her an affecting movie. And it has it moments but much of it is bogged down with an amateurish lead performance and flat directing.
\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 wondering what possessed the organizers of the Victoria Film Festival to include this film in their program. I guess they must have agreed with the others who have reviewed this film. I, on the other hand, consider it the worst film I have ever seen. It starts with a bad script, full of holes, and dialog so unlikely it's embarrassing. Ideas are introduced, then dropped with no development. The acting left me totally cold and uninvolved. The set decoration was appropriate for the time, but a decorator's nightmare. The only way the characters could love this house is if their previous homes had been ghastly. The attic looked as if the items had been thrown in for the scene with no attempt to create the look of a real attic that has been filling with junk over the years. The photography was leaden and lacking in variety. Save your money for something worthwhile.
\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 by far the most vapid, idiotic, insanely stupid show that has EVER been on the air, and this is coming from someone who remembers \"San Pedro Beach Bums\".
My wife loves watching reality shows--and there was one episode of this drivel where the wannabes had to develop a \"walk\". The end result was straight out of Monty Python's \"Ministry of Silly Walks\" sketch. I couldn't laugh hard enough.
And then there's the ubiquitous Ms. Banks (as in laughing all the way to the...). She has to be the most annoying self-important woman on TV since Rosie O'Donnell left \"The View\". As if modeling was doing great things for mankind. Please. I've never found her attractive, and I don't find her intelligent now that she has the temerity to open her mouth.
Someone needs to tell these human clothes hangers to eat a healthy diet and actually look like real women.
\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\nTyra Banks needs to teach these girls that it's not all about being beautiful on the outside. The inside counts for something too. A lot of the past winners have looked semi decent but are horribly cruel and starting trouble for the other girls. I see Tyra less involved with the girls in every season. About the only thing worth watching Top Model for is Mr. Jay Manuel. Recently, Tyra had a contestant who was a pre-op transsexual. I felt that she should have done more to encourage her. It was obvious that she had insecurities about her original anatomy showing through her feminine look. Tyra should have given her tips or perhaps she could have sent resident Trannie Ms. Jay to help the girl out. Instead, the contestant was met with harsh criticism and not enough positive criticism. It's a shame because I truly enjoyed the first 3 seasons. There's a reason why Project Runway has all 4 seasons out on DVD and Top Model only has 1 season on DVD. It's called taste. Top Model seriously needs a lot of revamping an some more humanity.
\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 watching this off and on for a few seasons, two things come to mind: One - wondering what kind of girl wants to be a \"model\" and two - run to the nearest ice cream store and have a low fat sundae.
I tried to be a fan because I liked the idea of this reality show competition. No other \"famous\" model thought of this, and it is very admirable for Tyra Banks to do so. But as the series goes on and on I've come to the conclusion that this is a sorry lot of folks trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. Women shouldn't watch this, teens should stay clear of it unless they're doing book reports on the subject.
Many women try out for slots to compete for \"Americas Next Top Model\". They live together, cat fight together, cry together, get put through pointless modeling shoots with pointless modeling people and fashionatas and get eliminated and almost all of them claim, \"You will see me again\". Heck, I'm trying to see what happened to the ones that DID win, actually.
This is the dream of some girls, and good for them. In watching this I hope the other girls that see this and run like Hades the other way - like to college.
I just happened to watch more of this recent season because of the \"ploy\" of full figured models joining the group. That even made me think more of this as a sorry lot of folks. The \"full figured models\" were no more than average sized ladies competing with what I think is the thinnest group of models they ever chose - so of course that would make them look even fatter - a \"ploy\" fashionatas use all the time. Bad, bad, Tyra and crew.
But to be fair, \"Americas Next Top Model\" is not about \"full figured\" models, it's about projecting an imagined image a beauty that can be mass marketed and sold as the ultimate in beauty - and this show is just looking for the next fresh piece of meat to add to the mix. Hence the name of the show. Hence the sorry lot of judges, photographers, associations. Hence Tyra and her consistent \"this was me\" plugs every camera angle you can get. But then again, that IS the one thing I like about this show - the ex-model giving others who wouldn't have the chance -- a chance to enter the doors. But after that...everything else is status quo for that industry which is why there are no surprises or week to week interest in the program.
\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\nTyra & the rest of the modeling world needs to know that real women like myself and my daughter don't care to see all the ridiculous modeling to sell something. Weird locations, too much makeup & too much skin is not necessary. Sex does not always sell when you are selling to women. The same goes for the horse stomping runway walk that looks unnatural. People come in all shapes & sizes & they need to have that on the show. My daughter has a 36\" inseam, is tall & slender & a size 5, I am more average at a size 12. We would like to see both- I can not picture how something would look on me when a size 2 is wearing it, it will not fit the same way on me. I do not buy magazines anymore because they are one sided on this matter. We would really love the show to consider women of all sizes. Thank you.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI would like to comment on how the girls are chosen. why is that their are always more white women chosen then their are black women. every episode their is always more white women then black one's. as if to say white women are better looking then black women. I would like for once see more black women then white. and it not just your show it's like that in a lot of shows always more white's. but i would have thought since you as the head honcho of the show you would see this yourself and have more black women on your show. but you are just like the rest trying to act like you are so fair and nice. you are just a big fony hypocrite.
\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 CinemaScope color cinematography of Leon Shamroy is quite remarkable here,including his use of colored filters for
various scenes. The Alfred Newmann Score has to be the most sensual and seductive score Hollywood ever produced. It's a shame it is no longer available on CD. The actors, however, never rise to the occasion. The accents are so varied, from the subdued British of Ustinov and Purdom to the Hollywood of Baxter and Mature that it seems a true hodgepodge with no central vision. Tommy Rettig is jarringly American. Acting styles span the range from zombie-like to stilted. Only Ustinov as a conniving one-eyed servant steals the show - what there is of it to steal. The premise - the story of a young Egyptian doctor, seduced and abandoned by the rich - and the parallel theme of the cult of the single God, Ra - persecuted by the authorities, has its interesting points. But when the film's plot fades, it is the haunting music and visuals that remain.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI am surprised that so many comments about this film are positive. Having read the book several times (and all the other historical novels by Mika Waltari) there is no way to say much good in this film. If I forget the origins of the story I might consider it a reasonably good epic. Of course to bring such a brick of a book to the big screen is a task not to be envied, but it could be done with class. I can't understand why even the name of Nefernefernefer had to be shortened to just Nefer. I love Peter Ustinov as Kaptah and Marlon Brando probably would have made a better Sinuhe but the overall attitude is too Hollywood to ever make justice to the book. Mind you Mika Waltari left the Premier of this film in the middle of the showing. That's how much he liked 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\nIn comparison to other \"sand and sandal\" fare, The Egyptian leaves much to be desired. The film is very LOOSELY based upon Mika Waltari's well researched novel, which centers around the Egyptian physician Sinhue's adventures at the court of Akhnaton as well as his travels throughout Canaan, Minoan Crete and Africa. Unfortunately, due to the moral strictures of the time, much of Sinhue's story (which is rife with romantic and sexual exploits) remains on the cutting room floor and instead, the audience is treated to reels and reels of Victor Mature's wooden acting. Even Gene Tierney  a leading lady \"staple\" of the time  can not manage to look nor act her best in this flick and gives a rather somnambulistic performance which can only be justified by the fact that the actress was having some serious psychiatric problems at the time. There is a great deal of rhetoric and theological machinations over the idea of monotheism vs. polytheism, but Michael Wilding is so tiring as the revolutionary Akhnaton, that one is surely cheering for someone to off him and restore the old religion before the second reel. My advice: buy the book from E-Bay, rent something more entertaining like Solomon and Sheba and then call it a night!
\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\nHo humm - - - More of nothing. If you are a long-time Rush fan you know what this video contains: loathsome songs from the past, the \"BIG 3\" hits from the 80's and their \"last-ditch\" efforts to remain contemporary. They do succeed in making fun of themselves by beating the critics to the punch by portraying themselves as \"dinosaurs.\" Unfortunately, they FAIL at protecting themselves from embarrassment. Close-ups of their faces only add to the fact that these guys HAVE BEEN.
If you are have been following (as much as you can stomach) the band for a couple of decades from the 70's, then you know there is no new material here. Same old, same OLD: 1) Neil avoids the press, 2) no real behind-the-scenes (Geddy looses his SHOES?! Give me a break! Even HE thinks it's absurd!) 3) no new insights.
A better video would have been to show the CREW setting up for 3 or 4 hours  just let the camera run. And stop changing camera angles every 2 seconds! I understand the director wants to try to do something artsy. But then offer a full concert version of 2 or 3 shots the VIEWER can choose. We know what the band looks like  let us see what WE REALLY want to see.
Do yourself a BIG favor: RENT this movie first.
\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\nEight teen convicts are brought to the abandoned Blackwell Hotel to clean it out as community service. They soon discover that it's the residence of a hulking psychopath (Kane) who has a thing for pulling out and collecting eyeballs. It doesn't help that the guard watching over them (Steven Vidler) has had a previous run-in with the beast four years earlier.
A guilty pleasure of mine are slasher films. Most of them are poorly directed and acted but they still hold some appeal and entertainment value. See No Evil is a good example of this. It features atrocious writing and acting but the death scenes are pretty good and the movie proves to be entertaining. The premise sounds like a mixture between Friday the 13th, Saw 2 and Halloween: Resurrection. I really liked the idea but it didn't work out too well. It was really just a bunch of clichés and everything was predictable. Screenwriter Dan Madigan just focused on the death scenes and nothing else apparently. The death scenes themselves are pretty good and gruesome. Director Gregory Dark did a good job with them and he came up with some creative kills.
The acting is pretty bland and unremarkable. This is because all of the characters are one dimensional and we don't know much about them. It was hard to feel for these people because they were pretty unlikable. Kane is surprisingly mediocre. I was expecting his on screen presence to be scarier but he didn't do that good of a job. A second rate Jason Voorhees, if you will. The rest of the actors are relatively unknown and this film will probably neither help nor hurt their careers.
While the death scenes are gory, they aren't necessary scary. There's really no suspense just some gory death scenes. Because of this, the movie doesn't hold much of a repeat value. Also, if you don't like slasher films then don't waste your time with this one. It will do little to change your opinion. In the end, See No Evil is a decent slasher film but it is generic and forgettable so it's not exactly worth watching. Rating 6/10
\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\nAfter watching this movie, I have nothing but contempt for any of those who were involved in the making of this abysmal film. For one, as a general comment, the storyline was literally unbelievable and filled with incredible clichés all around. The same obviously goes for the dialogue which panders to the lowest common denominator and manages to offer absolutely zero unpredictable original lines. The acting was terrible as well with Kane showing, throughout the entire movie, at the very most 3 separate and distinct emotions. Even the use of modern special effects failed, as each prop was easily distinguishable from its real life counterpart. Overall, I would not recommend for anyone to even think about viewing this feature, as it will most surely waste 83(not even 90!) minutes of 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\nAnother movie with a star of a wrestling. So far I have noticed....wrestlers can't act on the movie screen. This movie is no exception.
The action is dreadful. It makes you laugh at what they say, and they can't be serious, they try to act scared but they fail and look stupid. The acting is horrible, possibly from the bad director.
The plot was stupid....Just some people get placed in a hotel because they're criminals, and they get randomly killed off. The movie is stupid all the way through, making it one of the worst I have ever seen.
The only think and this is why I give it a 3 and not a 1 is because of the way Jacob Goodnight dies. The pole through the head and the stories of him plunging was awesome.
Overall this is a really horrible movie, and you definitely shouldn't waste your time with 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 got stuck in traffic (I live in Sicily) on the way to the theater (at a military base) to see Superman Returns, was 15 minutes late, and the only other movie playing was \"See No Evil\", there was no poster up for it, and just a short description of the movie on the schedule...but my girlfriend and I decided to check it out...As soon as I saw it was produced by WWE I just knew it was gonna be awful. The few people in the theater were laughing most of the time, and it was the first movie that I honestly considered walking out on, and I've seen \"The Ringer\"...okay, I would have walked out of that one, but I was too busy sleeping. The death of the bad guy at the end was pretty good, but other than that, it was just stupid.
\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 no idea this movie was produced by \"WWE\". Wrestling is lame enough. Why did they have to soil their name further by making a movie as crappy as this one was?? I found it to be a complete disappointment. If i had of known this movie was going to be as stupid as it was, I would have stayed home and done something more entertaining. Sure, I'll give them the credit of the cool effects; but the killer didn't seem as scary as he could have been. He lacked a number of things. But I'll let you point them out for yourselves. The plot was a great idea, just could have been done in a much better way. Maybe in the future, WWE will stick to its moronic wrestling and stay out of the film industry..
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOK, lets start with the best. the building. although hard to believe it had electricity and running water after 35 years and a fire, the gruesome walls and odd items found throughout were interesting. other than that, its not worth it.
as far as the bad, its done by WWE films. WTF? is that supposed to make you want to see it? if anything, stay away. horrible, horrible idea for them to make movies and allow Gregory Dark to direct it. bad choice. the previews beforehand were more interesting and entertaining.
i cant even begin to discuss how bad this film is. untalented actors & a disappointing, vague storyline. apparently many of the actors are from that show \"all saints\". its a wonder why i haven't ever heard of them or their show. other than that, the bus driver, which you never even see, just him closing the door, has had more action that just about everyone together. at least he handles stunts for some decent films.
i like to see scary movies, i really do. but this one blew so much, the entire audience was laughing at it and cheering the characters on halfway through. very annoying. the child behind me was yelping more during the previews of other horror films.
this is not a film to see, even less if you have to pay for 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\nPorn legend Gregory Dark directs this cheesy horror flick that has Glen Jacobs (Kane from WWF/WWE/ whatever it calls itself nowadays) in his cinematic debut. He plays Jacob Goodknight, a blind serial killer who's forte is taking people's eyes out. The plot, be it as it may, has a group of troubled youths cleaning up the historical hotel that GoodKnight resides in and subsequently being offed by him. Hemmingway it's not. Starts of as fun dopey B-movie, but soon gets too tedious to be enjoyable. Glad I went in with pretty low expectations, but even those weren't met. How can you have a porn king directing and still suffer from a lack of nudity??? for shame.
My Grade: D-
Eye Candy: Samantha Noble bares her ass briefly
\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 Cheesiest movie I've ever seen, Not scary, just bad. 1st movie made by the WWE, and trust me,the only person this movie might appeal to is wrestling fans. It has terrible acting and The worst directing I've seen yet.I Found myself laughing at the storyline, and bad actors. I saw that the WWE people tried really hard to Put a lot of the wrestling moves in the kills, and Several camera effects. I think they copied a lot from silent Hill. This movie's not engaging either, so If you do see it, you're gonna find yourself tuning out because of it's lack of Suspense. The ending's the worst, No matter what, you'll come out wanting your money back
\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\nCompared to the recent gore flick HOSTEL, which this movie reminded me a lot of-- I would say that See No Evil is slightly better but not by much. The very complex plot involves a handful of delinquents who are sent to clean up a rundown hotel for a shorter jail sentence. The kids soon end up being killed off by a lumbering religious psychopath who is cleansing them of their sins (I guess). The one thing I dreaded most prior to seeing this was the fact that it stared a WWE wrestler, Kane. He ended up doing a decent job considering he only had 2 one-word lines in the movie. There are a couple fairly gory moments, mainly involving eye-gouging and a quite memorable scene in which a girl gets a cellphone shoved down her throat-- probably the most effective demise in the movie.
I can't say that this movie really shows us anything new and is definitely far from great. Can't recommend it.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nBy the standards of Hollywood this movie was filmed and edited as Hollywood movies are and therefore looked like a movie you would get out of a big-time production studio within Hollywood. Thats where anything remotely close to having Hollywood standards ends. This was THE WORST MOVIE I have EVER seen in MY LIFE! I am not joking. The story was so unbelievably stupid and unrealistic that I could not contain my laughter in the movie theater through the course of watching this film. I know what you're saying, \"its a horror film its not supposed to have a good story it's supposed to scare you.\" Well let me tell you something, the movie is not even scary in the least bit. Its too full of stupid bits that cancels out the little suspense there may have been. The acting was awful as well, along with the scariness of the murderer, who you constantly see through flashbacks locked in a cage jacking off. Throughout the movie I kept getting a sense I was watching something that was thought up, written, produced, and directed by a high-schooler who watches too much pornography. Please, don't see this movie, spend your $8.50 on other things, like a snow cone, which would be much more worth your while.
\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 wildly uneven film where the major problem is the uneasy mix of comedy and thriller. To me, the unusual premise is clearly a comedic one, and they should have gone for an all-out comedy. For example, Rock has some funny lines but occasionally he is too unlikable for a comedy. The scene where Betty's husband gets scalped is too nasty for what should have been a less violent comedy. An even better example is the Hollywood leftist writer preaching to us tritely through Freeman's character, early on, about the plight of the Indians; I mean - yawn! They should have given Freeman something funny to say in that segment, but that is of course much more difficult than to simply write him a boring PC speech.
There is yet more New Age PC-ness in the form of the ending: the girl not only doesn't get the boy - she gets no boy at all; in fact, the message is that the girl needs no boy at all! Bit of a feminist statement there. The first half-hour is weak, but the movie gets better - ironically - once Zellweger gets to Kinnear. I say \"ironically\" because I'm not much of a fan of Kinnear's, though he's solid here. Zellweger is very cute, as usual; she has the sort of all-American cute looks which should appeal to almost every guy, and I have to wonder why more of such women aren't \"represented\" nowadays, instead of the dogs who inexplicably became stars, such as Diaz, Roberts, Aniston, Lopez, or Barrymore.
Since the movie tries to be very serious at times, I have no choice but to criticize Freeman's character which is the gangster's equivalent of the movie world's hooker-with-the-heart-of-gold. There is also absolutely nothing in the relationship between Freeman and Rock to suggest even remotely that they were father and son.
\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 pretty enthusiastic about seeing this movie when it came out. Commercials for it made it look quirky and I generally like Morgan Freeman and Chris Rock, and the combination of the two seemed like an interesting idea. Sadly, I was terribly disappointed with Nurse Betty.
Personally, I've usually found that graphic violence and comedy don't go all that well together, and the only directors that have ever combined the two successfully, in my opinion, are Tarantino and the Coens. There isn't that much violence in Nurse Betty, but what violence is in it made me feel kind of weird when I was supposed to laugh. Of course, for me, part of the problem was also that there didn't seem to be many places where I was being asked to.
The film doesn't much work as a drama, either. Renee Zellweger's Betty, the story's protagonist, is clinically insane and impossible to relate to in any real way. I will say Zellweger acts the role quite well, and Freeman, Rock, and Greg Kinnear all do good jobs too. The problem is in the writing; Freeman is the only person that gets to play an interesting character. It's really too bad. 3/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOkay, this movie starts out and it *looks* like it's going to be a cute comedy about a completely obsessed soap opera fan. She has no touch with reality whatsoever outside of the soap (sort of the inverse of the main characters in \"Pleasantville\") and runs away to Los Angeles to meet a fictional character. Well it is a cute movie... but at the same time, it is ALSO a dark, very violent movie about two hitmen who are out to kill Betty for reasons way to complex to recount here. Either plotline would have been enough on it's own, but \"Nurse Betty\" contains both stories at once, and the effect is very jarring. I didn't much enjoy 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\nRenee Zellweger is radiant, but the rest of this movie just does not work. It's like a hamburger-jello-mold salad--interesting idea, but who ever thought it would actually work on film? I like director LaBute's two previous films--they were mercilessly honest and chillingly funny. This film manages only to be merciless and chilling--with jumbo dollops of the cutes. (As high concept, think: the Doris Day-Rock Hudson movie Sam Peckinpah might have made--now reduce your expectations to match the present, mass-produced state of Hollywood.) That actors as talented as Freeman, Kinnear, Eckhart, Vince, and Janney ALMOST make their scenes come alive is a testament to the immensity of their talents to rise above material that just does not cohere. I would have found Freeman's corny, feel-good-about-yourself speech at the end of the movie funny (in a Lynchean way) if it weren't for the nagging suspicion that this unconvincingly tacked-on moral is meant to be accepted seriously.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"