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\nWell as the headline suggests this is not the particularly good movie i was hoping it would be. i thought it would be great with mr fully monty man himself but tragically not. From the beginning i literally lost interest immediately when 2 women are just making tea and then suddenly she points out there is random water coming from under the door, then bam a full on flood through the route of the house its hard to believe they didn't notice the rising water level outside or at least heard it. Sorry for this to sound like a rant but it really grinds my gears and has affected me. Most acting was poor and the story tried to copy nearly every cliché to each disaster movie ever but just failed in that sense. CGI was poor i could do a better job using ms paint, directing poor too, and at the end i didn't care about 1 character at all!!! don't waste your time people no wonder it was released straight to DVD. Well thanks for reading xxx
\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 follows in the tracks of The Riddle for an all star British cast in a downright awful movie! Poor cgi effects, poor editing, poor direction, a cast that i hope were well paid as this will be a nail in many a careers coffin.
Nigel Planer should've donned his Neil wig once more & gone out with a laugh at least!
It was like a particularly long & drawn out episode of \"Torchwood\" but without the camp fake Canadian doctor fella...it had the same overly dramatic music though, perpetually repeated, in a vain attempt to drum up some tension.
Oh the 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\nThe digital effects were done on the cheap and the action sequences lack suspense. This was essentially made for TV and it shows. David Suchet looks bored and Nigel Planer looks down right embarrassed! and as for Robert Carlyle's Dick Van Dyke London accent, no comment! If you want to pass away an hour or two when you've nothing on then it will do. If your going to buy the DVD wait a few weeks and pick it up in the bargain bin at Asda, cos thats where its heading! If the budget was bigger and Richard Doyle's book followed more closely, then it could have been something special, but as it stands its a bit poor. Watch the trailer instead! Or read the book and see what could have been.
\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'll put it straight to you, this movie is dead boring. It's about a flood, that's it. Blah blah a little about family, blah blah blah politics, blah blah blah boring.
Blame it all on the weatherman, poor sod. The Deputy Prime Minister Campbell is a hard-ass that expects everyone to be clairvoyant, a most irritating character.
If you are from the United Kingdom, or anywhere that it may flood, then you might like this film. It's sort of like earthquake movies are most appreciated where earthquakes happen.
This is not really an action film, where the weather is the enemy and you must conquer, or outrun it literally, it is more like a time-bomb that must be disabled.
Looking at this movie, it is understandable why the UK thinks the world is overpopulated, it isn't, but for them it is.
Really, the movie is about as exciting as picking scabs and I can't recommend it. It's over 100 minutes, far far too long.
The problems with the film; I won't get into them beyond this because the film doesn't deserve such dissection. Hint to you Londoner's - buy more boats. If you bring children to this movie they'll either fall asleep or become uncontrolled bored screaming demons.
\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 addition to all the negative reviews: I was amazed to see that at the drop of a hat somewhere, somehow a CCTV-camera was summoned at a most unlikely location, to show the 'crisis'-team (''Look Maaaaa-aaam'') what was going on, notably near the Thames-barrier, where the professor is hit at full (wind)force against the head by a heavy object and subsequently lives to tell the story. Otherwise I was unable to shake off the image of some actors as portrayed in other films/programs: I said to my wife: 'Hey, that's Neil, from the Young Ones' (Nigel Planer) and 'Did they summon Hercule Poirot for help?' (David Suchet). To add to the disgrace of this film (shown in two parts on ITV UK recently), ITV showed the telephone number of the Environment Agency after each episode for worried viewers, living in areas 'at risk of flooding'. How low can you as a broadcaster go to treat your audience like that? What must the Environment Agency have thought?? (''Oh no, it's Mrs Jones from Hull again. She says she was right all along, she saw it on ITV'').
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film was just on two nights running on ITV1.. dear oh dear. Someone actually bought this on the strength of Robert Carlylse.. OK, I missed the start.. but what I did see was so bad I thought, no... I watched in embarrassment for the stars who were in it. Nothing was based on reality, I doubt things would progress as they did in this film. Everything was poor about this film. OK, cgi.. but no reality. The write up gave the impression of a cliff hanger end..sorry, I wasn't impressed. Yes, formulaic. Couldn't guess the end. From what I saw the military had the upper hand, people doing the heroic stuff were given next to no time to do their thing, it just wouldn't have happened that way? It was worse than leave your brain at the door. It was annoying.. as someone else said.. yeah, right.. of course that would have happened... not!! The credits mentioned Quebec and Canada.. so it was a co production, missed the third party concerned.. I'll have to check back on this site. I'm not usually this critical, but this annoyed me.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt was inferred by a previous poster that the military would not be subordinate to the police in a disaster as depicted in the film. In fact the military role would be to supply aid to the civil authorities when requested to do so. The civil authorities would retain primacy. In practise the Army would need 48 hours or so to mobilise themselves, there not being much Army presence in London, especially with current overseas commitments. Even then they would be dependent on calling in the TA.
As for COBRA, we were given the impression that it was a full governmental emergency department in its own right - even reference to a Met Police Cobra Division. In fact COBRA stands for Cabinet Office Briefing Room \"A\". It's just the room where the PM or DPM meet their advisers to discuss the current emergency!
\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\nOh dear, Oh dear! What were they thinking of? Terrible script, terrible acting. I don't even feel sorry for the actors... they took their cheques to the bank and smiled happily.
Since when did an air shaft from Charing Cross pop out at Bank? Why are vehicles crossing Tower Bridge going in towards the City when the surge hit? Why is Tower Bridge not crowded when the city is being evacuated? How does Carlyle dive into a raging torrent.... and survive? I could go on... and on.
There is no real sense of urgency in the command room. They might just as well be waiting for the England eleven to come back onto the pitch after the tea interval at Lords.
It says something when I await the adsbreaks to learn more about diarrahoea treatment with eager anticipation.
Totally abominable trash!
\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 possibly the worst film I have ever seen; I gave it one star simply because it is the lowest score possible. Whoever thought Flood would ever be a good film? The director and cast should be ashamed and then it dawned on me this could all be part of a shambolic scare tactic. Only propaganda could be this bad.
The redeeming feature of Flood is that it's ghastliness and shameless formulaic storyline make it funny. If only the characters had the same depth as created by the flood itself, yet they galumph from sound bite to sound bite without any emotional response whatsoever.
The sad thing about this film is that it could have been so much better, informative, imaginative and tense. Flood has the amateur streak to found in many recent British films where a more focused use of funds would have made for a better entertainment.
Where was Smithee?
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film was total rubbish. I was sitting watching this absolutely furious that this was funded. They most definitely spent all their budget on the special FX rather than the script writer and director AND some of the actors.
First the acting was bland and rubbish. The story was not relatable to the audience enough. Rather than being from the peoples perspective of the storm, the narrative was told more from government figures and the army, which really isn't a way to connect to them as most of us hate politicians anyway. The writer attempted to add a human element to the unrealistic characters by adding the little subplot about the father and son, which failed completely.
As for the directing...oh god, his techniques to try and create tension and unease are repetitive and over the top. The sped up camera movements and then the sudden flash bolt pauses on a characters face when something horrendous has happened was pathetic.
The only reason I watched it till the end was to see the special FX. Which is a bad thing as special FX shouldn't make the film it should only amplify the story and experience. There was no story.
I really wouldn't bother watching this, total trash and an embarrassment to the British 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\nI was struck by the awful acting and script for this movie. All the characters seem rendered immobile by personal issues - rather like deer in headlights. They dither around whining and moaning about their emotions when decisive actions need to be taken. I found myself yelling at the TV screen trying to wake them up to their situation and DO SOMETHING! The plot line is implausible. Every time there is a key decision to be taken by a lead character, one of the other characters has to bring up all the problems with the obvious decision as though to further render the decision more difficult - it is a tried melodramatic ploy and just wants to make you groan. Clearly the import of the decision is obvious - you don't need to treat the audience as idiots. Overall - there is just too much emotional melodrama in the whole 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\nAvoid this movie. If you are expecting \"The Poseidon Adventure\" (1972), you may experience nothing more than a case of the 'bends'. This film offers nothing more than two extremely-long, and drawn-out, hours of complete boredom.
The cast members act as if they are angered by the irritation of a bathtub of water overflowing on a bed of an insignificant's petunias. The script is totally unrealistic, and the film does not even have the feel of a disaster movie. In fact, everything about this movie is bad, with the exception of Tom Courtenay. It is unfortunate that such a fine actor got swept away, by a flood of misrepresentation, to appear in such a washout. When this movie was being made, the Poseidon must have turned over, in its watery grave, in a sea of shame. And, Shelley Winters will rise again, from the dead (direct from the Poseidon), to haunt anyone who dares to see this pathetic movie. I rate this film a 1 out of 10, but it really deserves a zero. This movie will make you want to avoid, or completely turn against, water. And, it will leave a bad taste in your mouth. It may even make you want to see \"Jaws\" (1975), and befriend a great white.
\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 huge budget disaster films set in America like The Day After Tomorrow and Deep Impact, it was refreshing to see something on a smaller scale like Flood.
Using mainly unknown actors and actresses and actually focusing on England it was a welcome change of pace to seeing The Empire State Building being demolished.
However, this is not a strong film on any basis. Whilst being fairly shocking seeing all your favourite London landmarks being demolished by a very fake CGI storm surge, Flood doesn't really deliver on anything else.
The performances are bland, being saved from the pit of hell by David Suchet and his refreshingly calm performance as the Deputy Priminister. He is perhaps a little too calm for what is going on in the film, all that fake water gushing around London must have made him pretty annoyed.
It is understandable that the effects weren't going to be as good as TDAT and DI, but the CGI was at best, average.
Bland, disappointing and sometimes even tiresome. Watch it if you must, but watch something else straight afterwards.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI really tried to give this film a chance but when I realized that most of the film was being told by a bunch of boring officials walking around and talking on phones, I knew it was over. A lot of this film also looked like stock footage. That's just lame.
The camera person kept like doing these quick short zooms for NO REASON! It bothered me so much but I was just wondering why in the heck did they think it was a good idea. It doesn't add anything to a static scene of two people talking. This isn't NYPD Blue or some cop show or something.
How could they have not realized that telling this type a story from conversations of people in conference rooms and what not, is BORING?!! Did they not watch this mess? Anyway, this was just a really boring movie and it does make it seem like whoever made it doesn't understand good storytelling in film.
Darn stock footage... that's just wrong.
\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 sorry, but this movie is just way to shallow for me. In it, Perez is a taxi dancer with boyfriend Keitel trying to make it as an actress. First of all, what the hell is a taxi dancer? Even after sitting through this, I still don't know. Oh yeah, Perez also inspires DeLorenzo to follow her like a lovesick puppy. There's no reason behind the love, it just kind of happens. There are times when the characters and events really try to pull at your heartstrings, but it rarely works. The only character you really do feel anything for or with is Keitel's character, and that's only because he does such a good job with it. Any other actor and the character would have been just like the others.
The script is basically an uninspired rehashing about how hard it is to make it as an actor/actress. It's been done and said before, the language and dialog sounds like it was written by a street pimp. The ending is...well, I don't want to spoil it. Let's just say it feels unsatisfying. I'd be more upset if the story was any good to begin with. The directing is average with nothing truly wonderful, but nothing that is really painful to watch either. To reiterate the acting, the only one that does anything worth watching is Keitel. Though I could have lived on without seeing him in tiger print bikini underwear.
Oh yeah, Eddie Bunker shows up. As random as that mention is, that's how random it is in the film. And Tarantino does his director buddy a favor by showing up for about 20 seconds.
\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 registered at IMDb solely for the purpose of warning others about this movie. Hwo does anyone ever get funding for projects like this? That's the mystery. Farewell to Harry might be the worst movie ever, except that I tried to erase the others that rival this blathering idiocy. Bad plot, not-credible logic runs throughout. I can't spoil this movie for you by revealing anything that would make your experience less enjoyable. There is nothing enjoyable about this movie. I have the CD and will send it to you for free, it is that bad. First come, only served. If I know you, this offer is void, because I wouldn't inflict this movie on anyone, not on purpose. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhile the dog was cute, the film was not. It wasn't the premise, or the theme that was a problem. The premise had great possibilities for humor and pathos both. The theme is a worthy one. Helping other people is more important than amassing a fortune.
Sadly, the adorable dog, the unique premise, and the theme were undercut by poor acting, stilted dialogue, and amateurish filming.
Even my youngest child who will sit through almost anything gave up before we had gotten halfway through. How many times can that dog run up and down the same hallway? I can't spoil it for you, as I never saw the end. It just was not worth watching all the way to the end.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf you ever plan on renting (hopefully not buying) this movie, think again. It was as if Gary Busey had a gun to his head and was forced to act or die. I only wonder if Busey was arrested for something and was sentenced to play in this movie because I just don't see the guy that acted so much better with Keanu Reeves in Point Break play in this disaster. It was a feel-good movie, but there are thousands of other feel-good movies that make you laugh without wanting you to get your money back.
The only reason I would ever tell someone to rent this movie is to watch this movie is to see Gary Busey jump up and down like a monkey. If you want a good funny movie, pass up Quigley and go rent Spongebob or something.
\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\nMy wife rented this movie and then conveniently never got to see it. If I ever want to torture her I will make her watch this movie. I've watched many movies with my 4 year old and I can take almost anything. Barney is refreshing after a shot of Quigley.
The plot, dialog, cinematography, & acting were one step above (or equal to) a cheap porn film. I feel cheated out of $3.69 that we paid to rent it and then 90 minutes of my life I will never get back. I will say my 4 year old liked it, luckily it was a rental we had to return right away.
I just hope that the younger actor's careers are not ruined from being in this movie.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is a really bad waste of your time. I would probably rather go watch some documentary than this; it's really that bad.
The acting is really terrible, and you can tell that the producers had a low budget because of the terrible picture quality. It's by far on the low end of the scale; don't waste your money on it.
I have a really hard time believing the person who made this movie that it would fare well. I had to watch it with the kids when my mother rented it because she thought it would be good for the kids. Even the kids (3, 4, 6, and 8) all thought it was pretty boring.
I agree with the other commenter, Spongebob would be a lot better to watch than this.
Overall: Just don't watch it. Don't. Don't.
\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 comes down like a square peg in a square hole. A poorly made peg. A peg so cheap it couldn't even be produced in a sweatshop assembly line in Chinatown, Mexico. In fact, when you try to press the peg into the hole for which it is obviously designed, it crumbles into sticky, disgusting pieces that smell like rotting fruit and won't wash off. Quigly is such a peg.
This movie is so mind-bendingly awful, it couldn't have even been created. A movie like this must have been the result of some accident of nature; some freakish entity that congealed in the corner of a dank office somewhere and festered and grew until it was too big and terrifying to look at. Only science would be interested in such a thing; anyone not bent on studying it would exhume it from this world.
What it comes down to is this: if you're the kind to enjoy first year violin recitals, racism, or Coke Zero, it might just be your birthday.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhat a waste of precious time! My 5-year-old daughter brought this home from my mother's house, and we watched it as a family. None of us liked it. This wretched little film, rife with glaring inconsistencies, overt Christian themes and horrible film quality, is not worth watching even on a dare. It felt a bit like a bad high-school drama class attempt at film making. How sad to see talented actors (Chris Atkins, Gary Busey, and company) flounder their way through this trite and insipid storyline. The only good thing I can say about this movie is that the dog is cute. The film can should have gone straight to the pound. Avoid this film - your time is better spent watching paint dry.
\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 to watch this movie with my 5-year-old. He didn't laugh once during the entire movie...and he loves dogs and will laugh at nearly anything! This movie was horrible from all aspects: poor script (even accounting for a children's G-rated movie), poor production (the jittery camera shots made me feel nauseous for the first ten minutes), poor acting (perhaps they were \"directed\" to act cartoonish), and even poor sound quality (there are parts where the audio level seems fine, then you can't hear what the next actor is saying). I'm willing to put up with quite a lot when it comes to watching a child's movie, but this was worse than having a stick in my eye. I also didn't like being battered over the head with the god-heaven-belief thing. In all, it was the biggest waste of 90 minutes in my life...and I've done some serious time-wasting in my day!
\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 should go down in the annals of fiefdom as one of the worst of all time. I will stop short of saying it's the worst movie ever, only because I have yet to see every movie ever made. I cannot make such lofty claims until then. The story is stale, the acting is horrible, at best, the \"special\" effects are no more than a couple of lbs. of dry ice and a fan. Somebody must have been related to someone to get this movie made. Mr. Busey mailed this one in! The dog is well trained and cute, making it the only redeeming quality in this never-should-have-made-it movie. Two hours and $3 of my life I will never get 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\nAll Grown up had a lot to live up to and there was much hype when this show was anounced. Now it's easy to explain why it didn't live up to expectations: Firstly, this show failed to create a realistic world of pre-teens in the way that Rugrats captured the world and the imagination of toddlers. Secondly, the show's character's are stereo-types (Angelica: white spoilt blond as opposed to Suzie: colored girl from modest family,...) or boring (Tommy, Chuckie) and annoying (Dil). Finally, there is not one ounce of innovation or an original plot-line. To sum up, All Grown Up is a waste of time and a bad idea for a sequel series to a show such as Rugrats. It's boring, lacks imagination and it seems that the producers don't even know how 10 to 13 year olds behave. To be accurate, shouldn't Angelica and Suzie be comparing bra sizes rather than fight over who's better at doing chores?
\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 did they change the cute, Rugrats television show we all know and love into a lame attempt to target teens? They don't have to do that. All ages watch the regular Rugrats. When I heard about this, I thought, \"Hey. They made a TV series about the movie. Except, they're really grown up as a teenager! This is going to be better.\" When I saw it, it was just as if I was watching As Told By Ginger, except they made it suck. Great job.
When in the Rugrats series has tommy been a director? Never. Basically all the episodes in this attempted series is about Tommy's love of directing. I don't like that. I rather watch plots that change every episode. Not the same thing over and over. Also, when did in the old series have each character have their own sides of the story? Never. This series did that. I didn't like that everyone separated. I don't want to see Angelica's side of the story. I hate her.
I do not recommend this show if you like As Told By Ginger and the Rugrats.
\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\nALL GROWN UP is basically a spin off and not much else of the original Nickalodeon RUGRATS cartoon that featured the babies Tommy Pickles, Chucky Finster, Lil and Phil DeVille, Angelica, Susie and (later) Kimi (Chuckies sister) and Dill (Tommy's brother). I grew up with RUGRATS and thought it was a great cartoon. It had excellent humor, nice stories and the show's creators, Klasky & Csupo, were obviously very original and creative with the concept of the adventures of babies. The new show ALL GROWN UP tries to recapture the magic of the original cartoon. I was disappointed when I saw it. I found the \"all-grown-up\" Chuckie just annoying and the whole \"pre-teen-acting-mature/trying-to-be-popular\" that applied to (unfortunately) *all* of the characters dull and washed out. There still are some funny scenes and jokes in the new series and it was interesting how the artists would make the whole baby gang of RUGRATS look ten years from their age in the original show. Overall, this show is 'fair' and only watchable if a) you're a die-hard fan of the RUGRATS, b) have never seen the original show, c) you're a pre-teen that has nothing to do, or d) your so bored that your somehow forced to see this show. This show is not that good. It doesn't compare to the older RUGRATS episodes in quality, humor, and everything else.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is a typical \"perfect crime\" thriller. A perfect crime is executed and the investigating police officer, ignoring all the clues, immediately knows who guilty is. The audience has to wait around the whole movie for the guilty to be caught. The result is like every single episode of \"Columbo\" or \"murder she wrote\". The director himself refers to the hackney story by showing the police officer watching an episode of Matlock! This story barely fills up 90 minutes but the director insists on using all 120 minutes filling with every cliche in the book. Skip this one, you are not missing 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\nAn updated version of a theme which has been done before. While that in and of itself is not bad, this movie doesn't reach the ring like the other \"inherent and pure\" evil ones do.
Predictable, ambitious attempt that falls short of the mark. Not worth sitting through for the tired contrived ending.
\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\nPeople, please don't bother to watch this movie! This movie is bad! It's totally waste of time. I don't see any point here. It's a Stupid film with lousy plot and the acting is poor. I rather get myself beaten than watch this movie ever again.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhen I first saw this film it was not an impressive one. Now that I have seen it again with some friends on DVD ( they had not viewed it on the silver screen ), my opinion remains the same. The subject matter is puerile and the performances are weak.
\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\nBecause it came from HBO and based on the IMDb rating, I watched the first season of this series, what a waste. The characters are occasionally interesting but mostly cartoon-like. The acting ranges from good to mediocre talent with a S T R O N G emphasis on the latter. Not only prisoners, also viewers should leave all hope at the cell door that this story is believable, it's such a load of dung that you will need unusually strong testicular fortitude to keep watching. The violence, as with most of the developments in the story, is titillating and whatever morality is supposedly served up, it's of the lite variety. If your idea of excellent television includes the the writing, acting and overall production quality seen in THE SOPRANOS, DEADWOOD or SIX FEET UNDER, avoid OZ. If you want to see a Disneyland for Illiterate Jerks, watch OZ. Stuff like this gives edgy a bad name.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nNot for the first time, I'm out of kilter with the majority view. Oz is a dreadful, pretentious, voyeuristic series. The makers have their cake and eat it. Oz, Em City, etc are used as ultra- crude signals that the apparent grittiness is complete fantasy. This allows viewers the feeblest of intellectual excuses to watch soap operatic nonsense spiced with everything that is bad about human beings.
When you watch an episode, please remember that while the foul-mouthed, violent, absurdly convoluted, unconvincing, sick, imaginary drama unfolds before your approving eyes, several hundred infants in poorer parts of the world have died from bad food or water.
Oz is exploitative drama at its worst. It appeals to the basest instincts but pretends to be serious and meaningful. It blows hot and cold and changes from fortissimo to pianissimo more often than a Mahler symphony.
Dialogue is unrelentingly ugly and utilitarian. The liberties taken with realities are stupid. Here's a nightclub owning dandy, arriving at Oz in his foppish finery, complete with a ridiculously cloudy contact lens in one eye, brandishing a stash of drugs that nobody detected. Here's a murderous wimp bleating about the heat death of the universe, begging to be killed, but of course being refused by the brute he approaches and doing a bit of improbable throat cutting himself.
The action races on at a pace fast enough for the voyeuristic, dim-witted viewer to be thinking always about what happens next rather than the rubbish that has just been shown. Don't worry, a betrayal, a murder, a sex scene will be along within a minute or two.
Finally, Oz is obviously pretentious. You don't have to feel embarrassed about being carried along by its flow. You can watch it and tell yourself that the producers, writers and actors are doing everything with a huge wink (or same word but for a change of vowel) to the audience.
Yes, you can be a nasty-minded viewer and excuse yourself on the grounds of the cleverness, post-modernistic, etc skills of the Oz production team. They appeal to the lowest common denominator while pretending to operate on a higher plane.
Truly, a despicable series. And every hour it shows, rewarding its makers and actors, and generating advertising revenue for the channels that show it to people who have nothing better to do than watch something so ugly and unnecessary, another few hundred children die whose lives could have been saved by the dollars spent by this horrible, successful, widely-praised series.
\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 topics presented are very interesting; suburban culture, suburban sprawl, public transportation, oil & gas depletion, energy dependence, alternative energy sources, etc.
The problem is that this is a pure and shameless propaganda piece. One viewpoint is presented, then hammered upon the viewer over and over. You see the same handful of 'experts' repeatedly making their case. The supposed 'narrator' starts off sounding like a news reporter, but by the end even he is preaching the film's dogma.
The dark side of the film is not so much the gloom and doom message about oil depletion, but the sense that the folks in the film are actually wishful for a post-oil society and all that it entails. They paint this picture of a utopian society where we all return to the self-contained local village model; walk to work, shop locally, grow our own food, and generally live an idyllic 19th century lifestyle. For them, the post-oil society would seem a grand vision of a better world. It would certainly spell the end of globalization, and better still, the end of Walmart. I will give them some credit for applying actual math in exposing the weaknesses of several over-touted alternative energy sources, including ethanol and hydrogen.
I gave it 3 stars because I appreciated the old footage and the premise.
\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 modern scare film? Yep it is..
The hippies, peaceniks and environmentalists got together to deliver us a fear film.. I didn't recognize it when watching it only 2 years ago that it was a fear film but that's exactly what it is..
There's no difference between this film and films the nazi made about us in ww2 and the same films we made about them.. this is pure propaganda and speaks only to those.. that believe in aliens, 9/11 conspiracy plots, faked moon landings, peak oil and major environmentalism What I can say is this film does push buttons, make you ask questions and ultimately just forget about it.. It's a scare film.. so if your scarred get in your houses, lock your doors and stock up for that nuclear winter we all know is coming when bush provokes the Chinese into nuclear war..
\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\nDoesn't anyone bother to check where this kind of sludge comes from before blathering on about its supposed revelations? Ask yourself a question: Is my skull an open bucket that I allow anyone to dump their propaganda into? Do yourself a favor and take a look at the bomb-shelter mentality of pathtofreedom.com before you waste your time with this screed.
These sorts of Mother Earth/People's Republic of Berkeley urbanite fruitcakes that openly despise a way of life only because it doesn't match theirs must believe their case fails miserably on facts and objectivity. Else why resort to willful distortion and blatant one-sidedness? Pathetic.
Don't be a sap. Take two seconds and cast a skeptical eye before falling for yet more 'end of the world' hysteria from it-takes-a-village types with a political agenda that's probably even to the left of your own. Mi. Moore (rather his unthinking followers) have really opened the floodgates with this kind of one-sided political trash passed off as a *cough* documentary. But apparently they understand the sentiment of an ever-gullible public: \"If it's on a movie screen, it must be true.\"
God gave you a brain - act like you know what you're supposed to do 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 loved all the other Don Knotts movies, but I never heard much about \"How To Frame A Fig\" and now I know why: I can't think of anyone who would find it enjoyable. This movie seems to appeal to 9 or 10 year olds, but even most of them would give this a thumbs down. At best there are brief moments of mild amusement, mostly from Don Knotts playing the same nervous, underdog persona that made him famous.
After the movie finally finished I was curious if my teenager could pick up on this movie's fatal flaw. We were in complete agreement: the Prentiss Gates sidekick character was even dumber than the Don Knotts character.
Be happy that Mr. Limpet, Reluctant Astronaut, Shakiest Gun and Mr. Chicken movies are around to enjoy.
\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 first time I had heard of Guest House Paridiso was in the, er... \"washroom\" after having just seen Fight Club. In each urinal was deposited a small, round black circle. When the circle came into contact with moisture (to put it delicately), it caused a colour picture to form, with photographs of the two stars and the tag line \"You'll P*** Yourself Laughing\". When you'd finished washing your hands, the circle had dried and faded to black again, waiting to spring it's surprise on the next \"victim\".
Okay, maybe the punchline wasn't terribly sophisticated, but you have to admit it was innovative. In fact, I think I can honestly say I've never seen anything like it in my life before, and these days of over a century of cinema and marketing, that's a real feat. What a pity the film that went with it failed to live up to the promise.
I hate to pan Guest House Paridiso and I am indebted to Rik Mayall (Richard Twat) and Adrian Edmondson (Eddie Elizabeth Ndingombaba) for many years of laughter through their appealing television series, be it the invention of The Young Ones (1982-1984), the sitting room plays of Bottom (1991-1995), or even solo work, such as Rik in the New Statesman (1988-1993). In fact, this would have made an hilarious 45 minute tv special. Unfortunately, its an 89 minute film.
There's definitely some merit to be had, and I laughed continuously throughout the protracted finale, which spoofed the Exorcist and Raiders of the Lost Ark, and involved... well, you'll have to see that bit for yourself. Yet often the pace is leaden, and a sterile atmosphere is throughout. The two stars (Edmondson taking his usual backseat, this time due to the fact that he adequately directs) never really get into first gear, Mayall only sporadically showing the foul-mouthed mania that makes us love him on the small screen. Indeed, the writers' presumption that we are already familiar with the characters leads to them being underdelivered to the audience. The slight hints of depth seen in the series (Richie's effeminate, failed social-climbing for example) are not present here, and instead we are left with parodies of parodies.
The Fawlty Towers accusation does pass water, complete with drunken chef and unseen, called-for waiter \"Pasquele\", which uncannily rhymes with Manuel. Some of the ideas, such a hotel next to a nuclear reactor with a childrens' swing hanging over a cliff face, are very, very funny, but ultimately the frenetic pace is stolen, the two constantly looking for a studio audience that isn't there, and all the \"dead laugh\" areas patched up with incidental \"comedy\" music that would have been dated in a Carry On film two decades ago.
Paridiso's brand of puerile, sadistic, perverse humour IS funny, and I feel sure it will make you laugh ... just not as often as it should.
\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\nPossibly the worst film within the genre in existence. It was announced as a comedy, but is simply tragically pathetic. I don't think anyone could have achieved anything more terrible and irritating if they were specifically requested to. It is toilet humour at its very poorest, I would avoid even watching the trailer. I only went to see it because it was announced that if you like Monty Python, you are bound to love this. Whoever wrote that was either biased or seriously deranged. I am still bewildered how one can honestly believe such a statement. Rarely do I leave the cinema, really it takes a lot of effort for a film to have that effect on me: this one did it in just 30 minutes.
\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 seen Rik Mayall in Blackadder and the New Statesman, so I thought I'd give this film a try.
At around 4 pm I bought it, at around 8pm I started to watch, at around 8.15pm I fast forwarded the remaining film to see if there was anything left watchable for a human being with a brain... but there wasn't. At around 8.45pm I threw the DVD into the dustbin. And that's where this \"film\" belongs.
What ever happened to British humour? The humour so fine and witty, intelligent and artful that you find in Yes, Minister, Blackadder, Vicar of Dibley, Fawlty Towers or The Fast Show? The black humour Britain is so famous for? I don't want to insult anybody, but I presume even stupid children wouldn't find this funny. They deserve more intelligent fun. And Rik Mayall, you can do better, so please, do!
\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\nBeing a HUGE fan of the bottom series i was really looking forward to the release of this film.I was eagerly anticipating a laugh a minute roller-coaster ride......alas.
Where to start on this mess?i think its a good start to say that its hardly richie and eddie on our screens in the first place as none of the jokes and one liners they usually deliver so well are funny.I was still waiting for the first laugh after a good 20 minutes of viewing.Many aspects of the story were pathetic and it was as if the film was full of those bad moments they rehearsed and decided to leave out of the final cut.
The overall sets and atmosphere surrounding the film is dark and dingy which i suppose is good if they want to portray the 'terrible' guest house the 2 buffoons attempt to run,but to me its just puts an even higher dampener on a sorry state of filming that should never have been created.
The acting,at times,is pathetic.Fenella Fielding is wasted as the loony Mrs Foxfur and i've seen Simon Pegg have much better outings.
I'd recommend Guest House Paradiso to anybody who is blind drunk because they might appreciate the terrible puns much more.But to any bottom fan who hasn't seen this film and is expecting true richie and eddie action you have been warned
\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 premise of Bottom crossed with Fawlty Towers sounds great! However, Ade Edmonson & Rik Mayall have managed to create a film that raises barely a titter. Ten years ago, Rik Mayall's mad stare and Ade's idiocy were funny, now they are just annoying.
The film had promise - though the most horrendous hotel in Britain is not a new idea - but failed to deliver. The saving graces were competent performances from Simon (Spaced, Big Train) Pegg and Helene Mathieu, and the film is only 90 minutes long. Sorry, guys, but you really have hit the Bottom
\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 have always been a fan of Bottom, grabbing as many videos as I could find of the series here in the states. The chemistry between Rik and Ade is always genius, and the combination of smart writing and utterly stupid humor seems to work without fail. I thus sat down to watch this movie with great eagerness... and was utterly disappointed by the end.
The first 3/4 of the movie can best be described as uninspired and poorly directed (sorry, Ade!), but with some utterly brilliant moments. Unfortunately, these laugh-out-loud moments make you realize how less-than-brilliant the rest of the movie is. The slapstick starts off funny but eventually becomes a bit boring, with only the perverted sex jokes to keep things humorous.
The end of the movie (the 'green' scenes, for those of you who've seen it) was... perhaps the worst ending I've seen in the past decade. Honestly. It was one joke repeated about thirty times, followed by an abrupt ending that made no sense (which didn't bother me) and wasn't funny (which did).
To sum up, I was sorely disappointed by this movie. I shall cling to the few brilliant moments in it, to retain the fondest memories that I can... but I have to warn you, if you're about to overpay for your NTSC conversion tape from the local importer, don't. There are far better things to spend your money on.
\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\nWow, this film was terrible. It is as simple as that. It is actually the first time that I walked out early, as far as I can remember. This turned out okay, though: I had a very nice chat with two most charming girls while we all waited for the rest to finally give up on that crap they called a \"movie\".
Where to start. Bad acting, bad jokes. Faecal humour, which I simply cannot stand. Sorry, but snot, pee and scat are *not* funny. You have seen the title picture? That scene actually drags on for about 5 minutes, with the two \"heroes\" hitting and mutilating each other, which is supposed to be humorous all by itself. It is not.
Apart from body fluids, violence and cross-dressing, I do not remember much about this. At least not much good. I was really, really disappointed by this piece of garbage. Or let us be honest here: given that I am actually a big fan of \"british\" (i.e., black) humour, I was angry.
So, want my advice? Three words: do not watch.
\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\nYep, this has got to be one of the lamest movies I've ever seen. It's utterly tasteless, has no style whatsoever, the story is so thin that you can watch television through it, and the whole film has so many holes you could drive an oil tanker through it.
Sure, I appreciate a good B-movie as much as most male white homo sapiens do. But this has got to be the worst I've seen. In fact it's so B that it lacks everything that makes a B-movie interesting.
The whole movie is based around such charming artefacts as the characters beating the crap out of each other, various bodily functions and the complete lack of sanity of anything on-screen.
It's not even funny. In fact it's quite the opposite. I found it even boring at times due to it's extreme predictability.
I find nothing good to say about this movie. It was a waste of time watching it, and I hope others don't do the same mistake. If you also pay for it you should get a serious brainscan done.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"