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\nAs I post this comment, IMDb currently rates Alfred Hitchcock's subpar Saboteur a 7.3/10. Personally, I rated it less than half that. Honestly, I can't tell how a movie this bad could've come from what is probably the most consistently good director I know of. I've seen about 10 other Hitch movies from the 30's-60's. Vertigo is thus far my hands down favorite while Saboteur is easily the worst. It's hard to believe that 7 years earlier Hitch used the very same formula in The 39 Steps far more competently. My recommendation would be to see that instead and avoid this like the plague. It's the only Hitchcock movie that I turned off before before the end and have no desire to go back and see the rest. If you must watch it, then rent or borrow. Don't make the mistake I did and buy the DVD on good faith earned through Notorious, Rebecca, Vertigo, Rear Window, etc. Even a master screws up sometimes, I guess.
EDIT: Maybe I was a bit harder on this film than I should've been. It's certainly nowhere near Ed Wood or Manos or anything like that, but there's three reasons I feel I must rate it so low:
1) The name \"Hitchcock\" brings with it certain expectations of quality. This film delivers on a few of them, but they're way overshadowed by the darn near non-sensical plotting.
2) I want to compensate a bit for all the 8+ ratings this film is getting. Hitchcock is like the John Coltrane of directors. True fans will find reasons to consider anything by him a work of art, but the high rating on IMDb gives more casual movie enthusiasts like myself the impression that this movie is far better than it actually is.
3) I spent $18 on this. Maybe if it'd cost me $5 or even $10 I'd probably be a bit less bitter. ;)
\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\nHitchcock is a great director. Ironically I mostly find his films a total waste of time to watch. I admire Hitchcok on a purely visual and technical level.
First the positives. Hitchcock invented the notion of the probing camera. The curious eye that is able to withhold or search for information. It isn't exactly a new visual grammar but it was revolutionary then.
Secondly, Hitchcock pretty much perfected the thriller and chase movie. He has an economical style and is always thinking of the audience. He gives them regular thrills, regular jolts of humour and regular shocks. In short, he anticipates the audience's base needs and plays them like a fiddle.
Unfortunately, the base needs of a human being are mostly stupid. Food, sex, the thrill of danger and a little comedy. Hithcock caters for all these needs on screen, with the exception of food, which, judging from his size, he catered to off screen.
It's this pandering to the audience that sabotages most of his films. A second downside is that most of Hitchcock's camera work and visual grammar are now common place. What keeps his films watchable are the simple economy of his tales, the intelligence of his camera work, and his skill at crafting tense action set pieces.
So on to \"Saboteur\". This is a light-hearted romp in the vein of \"The 39 Steps\". It jumps from sequence to sequence, until it concludes at the typical Hitchcock final act set piece.
On an emotional level, the relationship between the leads is not up to par with Robert Donat and Madeleine Caroll in \"The 39 steps\". Hence the whole story lacks a certain energy. The plot simply rumbles on like a machine, desperately depending on the addition of new scenes. And new scenes only bring us nearer the end, since it's not clear if the hook is the hero's escape from the police, from the villains or his action to stop the plotted sabotages.
There are the usual Hitchcock logic flaws. For example, a guy with handcuffs frees himself using a car fan belt etc. (Why doesn't he just drive away in the car? Surely handcuffs aren't that restrictive? He's able to swim in them, after all!)
If you want a better Hitchcock wartime propaganda flick from the 40's, I would advise you watch \"Foreign Correspondant\". They are both silly chase movies with a catchy finale, but \"Foreign Correspondant\" makes great use of umbrellas and tulips, something Spielberg rips off nicely in \"Minority Report\".
7.5/10 - Some good set pieces. Beyond that, however, there's nothing much to sink your teeth into.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie was one of a handful that actually caused me pain. It might be enjoyed by anybody who thinks that it would be funny to see his/her mother in a crowded discotheque full of people half her age \"inventing\" some totally ridiculous dance in a completely misguided effort to be \"hip\" (in the parlance of that age). To see Ingrid Bergman stoop to such a pitiful performance on the disco dance floor was hard to watch. I was embarrassed.
To make matters worse, the music in the disco was not realistic at all - it is the bogus idea of some Hollywood director about what pop music was like at the time. That is always a total embarrassment in most films of that era - the ersatz music is canned and bears only a painful, passing resemblance to the music that was actually popular in the 60's.
Mathau is hopelessly miscast as some kind of ladies' man; he just looks lecherously grotesque. Hawn's wide-eyed innocence is just too silly. The handsome neighbor in her apartment is portrayed way too earnestly and seriously. He seems like a Brady kid who got lost in this farce. Painful, pitiful mess.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFirst of all, let me make it clear. This movie is a real piece of garbage, but although it is a real piece of garbage, it is an better piece of garbage than it could have been. It could have sucked big-time, but it doesn't...
What this movie didn't have, was for example scary moments, good acting and a good script. It wasn't very entertaining either. But the movie had cool music, fancy locations and hot girls. It also works great as a Dracula spoof. (hope it was meant that way, although I really don't think so)
The story focuses on three girls in Transylvania, awaking an ancient vampire, which then terrorizes and kills the girls, one by one. Sounds familiar? Yes, so it does!
After reading through this, you may think that I should have given it a better vote. The reason I don't, is because I almost felt asleep at some points...
\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\nregardless of what anyone says, its a b-movie, and the effects are poorly done.. if you're a vampire fanatic, I suppose it would be OK, not 10 out of 10, you others here cant sincerely mean that?. we are to view this as a movie, not read it as a book, so the effects and characters are important, as well as the story. The story are good, but it doesn't carry the film, no wonder it has a low rating over all. I write this because I chose to see this movie when I saw some good reviews here on IMDb, but got severely disappointed. don't get me wrong, I thought the blade movies was awesome, and loved the underworld movies, but this characters aren't close. the make up on the vampires is poorly done, and the effects are worse. this sucks. I might not have gotten so disappointed if I had not read reviews here that told me how great it was. the reviewers must have had something to do with the production company or something, seriously, if you think this is awesome, you don't care about acting or make up. this is better as a book. 3 out of 10 for an OK story..
\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
A few years ago I bought a movie called The Cellar. I had heard that it was supposed to be a great movie, but it turned out that it was a flop and a B-Movie.
The story is good, but there are no good effects in the movie. (Maybe they didn't have enough money for that on the budget???).
If you choose to watch this movie be sure to watch it three times. The first, only and last time!!!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n\"The Cellar\" is an intolerably dull and overly child-friendly 80's cheese parade, directed by Kevin Tenney (creator of the much better films \"Witchboard\" and \"Night of the Demons\") and starring the incredibly untalented Patrick Kilpatrick, supposedly depicting a guy with feelings. The pacing is really slow, the plot feels far too familiar, the monster-effects are all but petrifying and the film opens and ends with tedious narrative ranting that somehow feels unrelated to the actual subject matter of the film. The voice-over keeps on nagging about wind and creatures riding on wind, but what the hell, there's no wind in the plot? Like so many 80's horror movies, \"The Cellar\" handles about cursed Indian landscapes and all-too-real mythical monsters hidden in basements and quagmires. Mance Cashen and his family move into a house build on what once was the home of Native Americans, but then white people came and turned the land into oil fields. Half of the script is wasted on explaining the origin of the monster, but I can easily summarize it for you: an ancient Indian witchdoctor summoned the creature (which looks like an over-sized paper-mâché rat) to annihilate the white people overflowing his land but he buried it again because, and I quote, the SOB kills Indians as well. Mance's hugely irritating son accidentally awakens the beast and naturally can't convince his parents about the big hungry rat in the cellar. The allegedly emotional family situation (daddy constantly wants his son to love him) is very pathetic and redundant and the film badly needed more bloodshed; kids' movie or not. The youthful hero (Chris Miller) is quite annoying, but we've definitely seen worse kid actors in the 80's. \"The Cellar\" is very much not recommended, unless of course you're a fan of cheesy and typically 80's monster designs. The big dodgy rat-thing is a real hoot to see.
\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 can get past the slow start and bad acting it's worth watching. The story line was pretty decent. The father had a wicked temper because he was unemployed and he hardly got to see his kid except in the summer because his ex-wife had custody of him. The father was very angry and frustrated the majority of the time. The monster in the story wasn't too scary. The movie breaks consistency of the monster being so incredibly strong. The one scene that the moviemakers do this in is one of the times when the kid is down in the cellar and the monster goes to attack him. When the monster goes to attack the kid his arm gets caught in a steel trap attached to a chain. The monster is about a foot away from the kid's face. Every other time throughout the movie the monster is strong enough to break through or tear down anything. Yet the steel trap and chain holds him back from getting the kid! More than likely the moviemakers did this for shock factor because no one wants to see one of the main characters die. Moviemakers just wanted to scare us into thinking it may be a possibility that the kid could die. Instead of breaking consistency, the moviemakers should have replaced the kid with someone who they could dispose of!
\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\nMediocre at best. Slow, but probably more entertaining to the younger viewers. A young boy(Chris Miller) is haunted by an Indian spirit and horrid monster in the cellar of his father's new home. Also in the cast are Patrick Kilpatrick, Suzanne Savoy and Ford Rainey.
\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 watched this film on Telly the other night and little did I know what a cringe-fest it would be...I knew it would be stupid but not this bad! This film exemplifies everything that is awful in Australian comedy. Apart from the most tedious, uninspired scenarios and characters I have ever come across (aside from those dubious French produced American tax break comedies!), most of the situations were boring, unbelievable, stereotypical and SO not funny just...terrible!
One such scenario that really annoyed me was the nerds on the bus scene. From a screen writing perspective the writers used the most uninteresting - not to mention unbelievable - scenario to get these three stranded without their luggage...They are on the holiday of their lives and they're going to risk it all (including a $300 deposit, luggage and room) to exert their rights to dance on a bus? I mean, they're about half an hour away from their destination! At least they could have had the bus driver kick them off but, no they leave willingly cos 'they can't take it anymore!'and wreck their holiday...Anyway, I can't believe the writers didn't workshop this appalling scenario out. I think a ten year old could come up with 5 set-ups more clever, funny and believable.
I can go on with many others - the really unimaginative stereotypical psychopath, the whole relationship with the angry jilted girlfriend and tag along virgin, the 'Wow Man! Out there goth girl' inhaling stuff on the train - EVERYTHING was just woeful! I cannot think of one redeeming feature of the this film except that maybe the third wheel nerd was kind of cute. Spoilt his career by appearing in this trash though!
\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\nSchoolies is a pointless exercise... Go to Gold Coast, get drunk and have sex. Worthwhile ambitions maybe but not highly intellectual. The plot is a simple as a few sentences assigned to each character and nobody is helped by the cliches doled out here.
Something that would help is the casting. Everybody looks too old. These characters are supposedly innocents embarking out on their own in faltering steps to adulthood yet they all look way too old to be believable in the role.

\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\nTo me this film is just a very very lame teen party movie with all the normal clichés and boring stereotyped characters (Nerds, Jocks, Popular girls, Sleezy guys, etc) but with an underlying anti drug/drinking theme.
If you ever have the unfortunate chance of seeing this film, keep an eye out for all the references to responsibility and keeping it real (dunno how else to word it) I guess the only thing that'd make this film cool, would be if they TV playing it was on fire. That, or DVD it was on exploded...
1 out of 10000 - Watch Animal House instead.
\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\nLike most, I rented this after I heard the universal praise. And despite COUNTLESS bizarre, unexplainable moments along the way, I was very interested and entertained through 100 minutes of the film. Then the two women went to the \"performance\" late at night. The rest of movie (which is another 40 minutes by the way) is even WEIRDER than the first part AND completely contradict and dump on what I had already seen. Then the movie abruptly ends.
Baffled, I wandered over to my computer to see if I could buy a clue as to what just happened. Nothing made sense, and I'm a pretty clever guy. None of these other user comments made sense, even when they say \"SPOILERS.\" I still have no idea what they're saying. Someone's dream? Not real? Then what's the point of a 2 hour 30 minute movie if it's \"not real?\" Or is it real? I'm forced to make a choice. Either:
[a] The movie is a work of genius on a MENSA level and I'm simply too stupid to understand it.
[b] The movie is weird for weird's sake and just doesn't make sense. Everyone who loves it is trying to save face and pretend like they \"get\" it.
I choose [b]. Screw you guys, I'm going home...
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf you are a pretentious person, it would sound like a good idea to brag about your intellectuality saying that you really like this movie.
Otherwise, don't bother and better watch something good.
This is the stereotypical movie for snobs. The plot line would be very silly if you could see it from beginning to end. It is just presented in a messed up way as an attempt to make it hard to understand and make the movie look intellectual.
Mullholland Drive is not enjoyable to watch. You would very rarely understand anything the first time you see it. And if you do, you would most likely be disappointed because it is not a big deal.
\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´s a joke, right?! Lynch could not get produced this as a TV show. He was out of money, so what to do? Well, he received somehow some Dollars and \"completed\" the pilot and created this mess by just mixing everything together... How can anybody see a failed pilot for TV as an cinematic masterpiece?!
And now everybody is guessing about the deeper meaning!? Well, wake up, there is none! Like in that other TV series by Lynch, what was the name again? Same procedure there. Build up a mystery and then come up with nothing. I guess Lynch will repeat this concept until people will realise, the emperor has no clothes.
In Germany there is a comedian called Harpe Kerkerling. He dressed up as an opera singer and \"performed\" some new \"art songs\". Singing complete nonsense like this:
\"The wolf. The lamb. On the meadow. Hurrz!\"
It´s a classic now.
Anyway, afterwards he discussed it with the audience. And they were talking seriously about the deeper meaning of the wolf / lamb relationship.
You people giving this movie a rating of 8.0 in imdb.com, you people could be one of them.
So let´s say it all together: \"Hurrz!\"
0/10 Macaulay J. Connor
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI get the feeling a lot of people liked this movie (not all people, but a lot of them) because they don't want to admit they don't understand it. People of middling intelligence, if you will, who pretend to be ever so avant garde and trendy who think Lynch is a genius.
Lynch, to me, is like Tarantino. They're both great, but neither one is the messiah as so many fanboys want to believe. No director can change the world, so chill out. And both make sucky flicks sometimes, it just happens. Everyone has a bad day. And clearly, since this movie was actually designed as a pilot first and then hack-jobbed into a feature film, it wasn't made with all the passion and forethought one should put into a movie. Face it, much of the movie is gibbering unintelligibility which cannot be understood. We can all make up meanings, Lynch may have his own view, but none of that matters. It was strewn about the screen incoherently. Admittedly, the first portion had the semblance of an intentionally convoluted passingly interesting story, but then it falters.
The cowboy, the mysterious organization of men with their phonecalls, the lawyers... come on. I can almost picture David Lynch yelling cut, forcing the crew to gather around him and explaining to them all \"Look how crazy and weird I am! Isn't it great?? It's so weird and crazy!\" Weird and crazy works if it's a by-product of your style. However, it's pretentious and tired when you go out of your way to do nothing but that. It's like all those half assed Pulp Fiction throw backs that came out after Pulp Fiction. It's just not cool.
\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\nSome directors take 2 and a half hours to tell a story, David Lynch takes 2 and a half hours to piece together scenes with \"clues\" and his trademark oddity, but there's never a story. No plot. No progression of the characters (unless you find revealed delusion a \"progression\"). It amazes me how anyone can call Lynch's garbage \"art\", but if beauty rests in the eye of the beholder, so be it. Lynch's movie and TV work in the 1980's came off as \"avant garde\" and \"alternative\", fine. 20 years later, work like \"Mulholland Drive\" comes off as a 2.5 hour David Lynch masturbation piece. It's embarrasing. I've finally seen the movie that takes my top spot as the worst ever. At least the people churning out \"Godzilla\" and \"Rodan\" weren't passing them off as \"art\".
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nHow does David Lynch do it? Unlike the legions of thick-black-framed-glasses-wearing types and pretentious movie critics who praise his name, I just don't see how this guy keeps getting paid to make such tripe. How can Lynch sloppily cobble together leftover footage from a failed TV pilot into a nonsensical, poorly-acted mess & have critics rave about it & actually include it on Year's Best lists?
I'm baffled. If you're looking for a good film noir, rent \"Bound\" instead. If you're looking for a good \"puzzle\" movie try \"Memento.\" But beware of this over-hyped stinker unless your idea of a fun night is throwing away 2 1/2 hours of your life & $3.50 of your hard-earned cash.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nseriously, if i wanted to make a movie that makes zero sense, never will, and features lesbian scenes as its only high-point, i could have.
david lynch is the worst, as is this movie. anyone could have made a better movie in which at least some answers were given and the story wasn't so slow and long-winded. the story means nothing without something at the end besides the credits. what a waste of time. i will never get those 147 minutes of my life back and hope that others can learn from my mistake.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nHow much longer are we to persist with this flawed belief that once a director produces great, ground-breaking work, all future work \"can't be all that bad, after all, he made such-and-such\".
Mulholland Drive is a case in point, and is in fact unmitigated rubbish. The performances are excellent, particularly from Watts and Theroux, but a good film they do not necessarily make. What Lynch has clearly forgotten is that just making a film unnecessarily wierd only works when it takes the audience by surprise. When the audience is expecting the film to not make sense, then the film has to have some substance to keep the audience interested. Lynch succeeds in the first half of the film, with the murder-mystery set up with lots of twists and red herrings, and then ... plop! The story decends into a quagmire of bizarre halucinations and pointless segues. Methinks Lynch realised how muddled the film was becoming, and threw in the lesbian and mastobatory scenes to the audience awake, and to stop the male viewers from standing up and leaving.
Watching the film at the preview, I was surrounded by Lynchophiles who had no more idea of what was going on than I did, but left the theatre commenting on the \"layers and layers\" of Lynch's film-making. Excuse me but these people are the same nitwits who stand in art galleries staring at canvasses that have been painted white commenting on the \"courage of the artist at painting such a brave work\".
Films like these are made because (a) Lynch is trading on his previous work; and (b) because people convince themselves that unintelligeable film is art, and therefore, must be good. I queried a number of the Lynchophiles about what they ACTUALLY liked in the film and only response I recieved that wasn't a broad \"layers\" type of answer was that they liked it when the \"chicks got their kit off\".
Nuff said.
\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 we have a film that some are calling one of the best movies ever..but i'm sitting here thinking hell the f!, the storys sux{ which there is no story], the diolouge is quite plain, artisticly nothing great!, and the acting is nothing real out standing, so if you want to pretend to be arty say you like it, but if you have a real view say you don't like it or if you did explain why!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThere is an inherent problem with commenting or reviewing a film such as this. I remember feeling the same way after disliking Dogma. If you do not like a film that is odd and controversial like Mulholland Dr., you are seen as \"not getting it.\" Of course for those who have already seen this film you know that the entire point is not getting it anyway.
I have heard from several different sources that the unique and likable aspect of this film is a dream-like quality it has. In other words, the plot isn't structured like other films. With the case of Mulholland Dr., it seems more like an unfocused collage made by a third grade boy who procrastinated until the last second to do his art project. It doesn't make sense, it isn't supposed to, but I know it was to be a TV series at first. It appears Lynch had a stack of unused film and decided to mash it in with a bunch of new stuff. You will notice that toward the end the nudity, sex and foul language increase. All things he would not have filmed for television.
For a better film not told in a traditional, linear fashion, rent The Thin Red Line from 1998. That was a great film, this is not.
Rating: 2 out of ten
\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 thrive on cinema....but there is a limit. A NAME isn't enough to make A MOVIE!. The beginning of the movie puts us in a mood to expect the unseen yet. But we remain hungry ( or angry..) till the end . Things are getting so confused that I admit that I DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE END or was there an end to this nonesense. The opportunity to make an outstanding movie was there but the target was totally missed. Next...
\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 boy ! It was just a dream ! What a great idea ! Mr Lynch is very lucky most people try to tell classical stories. This way he can play with his little plantings and his even more little payoffs. Check out Polanski's \"The lodger\" for far more intelligent mix of fantasy and reality.
\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 colleague from work told me to watch this movie, since he considered this movie to be one of the best movies ever. So I did watch it. First I have to admit that I dislike mainstream movies and prefer to watch movies with a real meaning.
And this is the point, why I dislike this movie. It doesn't have any meaning. It's just a combination of funny, stupid, boring, entertaining, absurd and thrilling pieces.
At first I thought that this movie could be a real mystery thriller (as the German packaging read), but the movie was too mysterious for me.
David Lynch may be able to make a combination of the most different images, but the composition tastes to me as awfull as a combination of milk with beer. Both for themselves are pretty good, but together?
\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 stifled high hopes for this David Lynch, whom I really like, film, but the very poor acting by everybody but Naomi Watts was the first clue that this was a wasted effort. Some Twin Peaks characters are recycled into this film, but it wasn't eerie, it wasn't interesting (except for the topless Watts scenes) and the quirks were poorly executed.
I will probably give Lynch one more chance, but the hype around this film just doesn't pan out, especially for those of us fans who saw Eraserhead when it first came out.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf you don't like bad acting, poor editing, ridiculous dialog and unbelievable characters you will hate this movie. If you like all of the above, that is to say if you are a Lynch fan, then you will love Mulholland Drive. This is quite possibly the worst film to be rated above an 7.0 on IMDB.
Outside of Naomi Watts work, you will be hard pressed to find any competent acting in Mulholland Dr. The other female lead went to the \"hide your face with your hands when you don't have the chops\" school of acting. Given the script they had to work with it's a wonder all of the actors weren't holding their heads in their hands.
Characters wander in and out of the film that do nothing to advance the storyline. You have a hitman, a mysterious cowboy, an adulterous wife and her cliche'd poolman lover, a mafioso type figure sitting in a darkened room who speaks through an external voice box and a host of others too numerous and tedious to mention. Suffice it to say that they manage to do little more than fill up screen time.
This isn't so bad however in that it distracts the viewer from the fact that the movie has no discernable plot. You will wait and wait for for all of the loose threads to come together and in the end you will be abysmally disappointed. The hardest thing for a writer to do is to bring everything together in a believable fashion at the end of a movie in a way that leaves everyone feeling fulfilled. The easiest thing for a writer to do is to create a lot of odd characters and put them in scenes that are not connected to the movie as a whole and then to take what few coherent threads there are and jumble them up at the end for the sake of surprise. Guess which way Lynch goes. SURPRISE!!
You know you have a bad script when you have to resort to dream sequences to make any sense out of it. After all, a dream sequence covers all sins. Dreams don't have to make sense. Anything can happen in a dream.
The editing is similarly disjointed. Let's just say good editing does not call attention to itself. Much of the way this film is edited seems to be done for the sole purpose of calling attention to the editing. \"Look at me... You can see my editing... Aren't I a genius?\" Uh, well... NO! This movie has all of the earmarks of the worst and most self-indulgent French films.
So why is this movie so popular? My theory is that it is just another sign of the decay of our culture. Melodies are hard to compose so let's listen to rap. Plots are hard to follow so let's dispense with them. Pictures are difficult to paint so let's pee in a cup and stick a crucifix in it. These are the symptoms of our times and Mulholland Drive is just another part of the affliction.
\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 bought the video for £13 at HMV (we pay more in Britain) as a friend had told me it was highly rated and the reviews on this site were generally impressive.
I have to say that the opening credits were a let down...the dancing/music not very powerful.
The car ride and unexpected crash just as the lady passenger was going to be harmed was a nice touch,..something unexpected...though the way she walked away from the car with hair perfectly groomed and still carrying a handbag looked corny for most Directors ..but for Lynch was something else.
Her dazed walking around after such a shock was enhanced by a regular low noise similar to fingers scraping along a blackboard; I thought another Lynch master touch perhaps portraying the demons gnawing into her shocked and traumatised self conscious. After a while this noise became somewhat annoying and on further investigation I discovered the new video cassette squeaked.
I dont know whether this squeak took away a lot of my enjoyment but this movie became a waste of time.(and money)
The two female characters had some presence and the lesbian scenes were fair enough, though predictable. There were no male characters of any merit and apart from a few vaguely good scenes (the hoover switching on )there were far too many dreadful scenes that were plain weak and ridiculous. Eg, the coffee being spat into the napkin by the menacing loon and the silly monster face at the back of the diner. Oh and what about the paint in the wifes jewels..boring and naff.
This whole film gives you the feel of the failed genius..you know when you listen to the worst Dylan track ever and think my God that was embarrassing....was that really Bob?
The whole feel is that of a failed TV movie , badly put together with a few (not many) extra bits to give it a 15 rating.
I whizzed it on during the last 30 minutes .
Do I give it another chance and watch again. If I want to be puzzled and work hard at understanding a film I will watch Frank Woods Guide to Consolidated Accounting.
Lynch did one classic ..Blue Velvet and Straight Story was nice.
This, like Wild at Heart, was a let down ; his weirdness is now predictable and stale. Anybody want to buy a 2nd hand video?
Make way for some younger original talent, David.
Four out of Ten (and no more). Sorry.
\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\nMost of the comments on this movie are positive so I thought I would try and redress the balance. I came out of this movie wondering what was going on. I now know and still consider it to be a poor movie. I intially discounted a dream sequence as that seemed too obvious. I was glad that I had a free ticket to the movie or I would have asked for my money back. Movie reviewers and critics love this movie, which only confirms to me that most of them would rather sound intelligent than review how an audience may enjoy a film. The 8+ rating this movie has is so misleading. In 20 years time this film will not compare to true greats such as The Godfather. The film does have fine performances from both the leads but that isn't enough to save the film. (nor are the lesbian scenes!)
\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 need of work, straight man Bud Abbott (as Jack) and comic partner Lou Costello (as Dinkel) get the latter a job babysitting self-described \"problem child\" David Stollery (as Donald). Young Stollery winds up reading Mr. Costello's favorite novel (see if you can guess the title), which puts Costello to sleep, dreaming he and Mr. Abbott are reliving the story of \"Jack and the Beanstalk\" (you guessed it).
The sepia-tone switches to color for the bulk of the production. Apparently, this was an attempt at something different for the duo, a colorful children's fantasy. It fails, but this is where you get to see Abbott & Costello in color, silent film superstar William Farnum (as the King) make his last performance a bit part, boxer Max Baer's brother Buddy, and Stollery before Disney's \"Spin and Marty\".
** Jack and the Beanstalk (4/4/52) Jean Yarbrough ~ Lou Costello, Bud Abbott, Buddy Baer, William Farnum
\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 watched this last night for the first time in 40 years. It's bad. Really bad. But it has enough hilariously awful moments, that it's worth watching. First of all, was it deliberate to make the boy being babysat completely effeminate? He even says to Costello a la Mae West \"you fascinate me!\" as Costello does a double take. God only knows what would have have happened if the babysitter had been a hunk. THIS kid would have seduced him in a heartbeat! Then there's the principal male dancer. He is totally inept. Roar with laughter as he leaps and prances with no talent whatsoever over the giant's grave during He Never Looked Better in His Life. The two romantic leads are zeros, wastes. Abbott gets to sing one line and that was dubbed in by another singer. Geez, I guess he couldn't even carry a tune! Costello does manage to be charming in his I Fear Nothing number, and I guess very small children might like it, but there's not much to recommend it. But oh that seductive effeminate boy! THAT aspect alone blew me away! Plus the fact the family accepted anyone off the street with no references to babysit a child! Today, little femmy boy would be taken away from them!
\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 not really much of an Abbott & Costello fan (although I do enjoy \"Who's On First\") and, to be honest, there wasn't much in this movie that would inspire me to watch any more of their work. It wasn't really bad. It had some mildly amusing scenes, and actually a very convincing giant played by Buddy Baer, but somehow, given the fame of the duo and the esteem in which they're generally held, I have to say I was expecting more. As the story goes, the pair stumble into a babysitting job, and during the reading of Jack & The Beanstalk as a bedtime story (with the kid reading it to Costello), Costello's Jack falls asleep and dreams himself into the story. There's a \"Wizard Of Oz\" kind of feel to the story, in that the characters in the dream are all the equivalents of real-life acquaintances of Jack, and the movie opens in black & white and shifts to colour during the dream sequence. The fight scenes between Jack and the giant and the dance scene between Jack and Polly (Dorothy Ford) are among the amusing parts of the movie. Polly, of course, also leads to one of the questions of the movie - what happened to her? Jack and gang apparently left her behind in the giant's castle! I know - it was just a dream, so who cares. Still - I wondered. There were also a couple of cute song and dance routines. My 4 year old giggled a bit during this, so she was able to appreciate some of the humour. I found it to be an acceptable timewaster, but certainly not anything that would convince you of Abbott and Costello as comic geniuses. 4/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAbsolutely inane film starring Abbott and Costello. Even our young children would become increasingly annoyed with this complete mess of a film.
Abbott as Dinklepuss. What a look he had on his face. Sure, he had to be part of this dreadful film.
Did anyone notice that Costello's mother in the film sounded and looked like Fay Bainter? Luckily, for Ms. Bainter, that she wasn't in the film.
There is really no excitement hear for children. The jokes, if any, are quite stale. Some of the singing is nicely done but the lyrics are ridiculous.
\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\nFor some reason my father-in-law gave me a copy of this tape. I think because my great uncle, Buddy Baer, was the giant in this movie and my father-in-law thought I'd like to see it. I had, years before as a child, and didn't like it then, either.
My son, then two, watched it and was hooked. Every waking moment in front of the TV, this horrid video played. I went to work with the inane songs stuck in my head. The two \"leads\" were worse than a junior high stage review. The dancers looked like rejects from an Ed Wood horror flick and Abbot and Costello phoned their parts in. Thankfully, I was able to distract my son long enough to lose this videotape. Frankly, I think it was the tape from \"The Ring\".
To correct another reviewer, Buddy Baer is the UNCLE of Jethro (Max Baer, Jr) not his father. 0 out of 10.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'll start blasting the movie first. Remove Abbott and Costello from the cast and you've got a badly colored movie, stiff cardboard from the casting department, badly dubbed sound (especially during the singing!) and annoying dialog (ex. listen to the line \"Mr. Dinklepuss\" ad infinitum). Obviously some studio hack thought that they could cash in on Disney's CLASSIC presentation of \"Mickey and the Beanstalk\", but maybe audiences were either more gullible back then (improbable) or stuck in a double feature (more probable). Even children should feel insulted at having this movie shown to them. A total waste of celluloid. Now, about the acting of Abbott and Costello. Bud Abbott always played the straight man, and by all accounts was the nicer person off the set. On radio, his character was usually the smooth fast talker, and was especially funny when his speed caused him to flub his lines and smooth over the mistakes. In the movies, he still plays the straight man, but is more of a con artist. Not that he's bad at it, but that character has been played to perfection by Groucho Marx. The real travesty of the duo on film is Lou Costello. Again, on radio he was funny. He played a character that was a little slower than Abbott, but not too much slower! He was also glib with the lines, and got me laughing when he would ad-lib at Abbott's mistakes. On film, I don't know if it was his decision or not, but in the movies his character becomes a shoddy impersonation of Stan Laurel, which in turn was even more shoddily done by Jerry Lewis. Why the change? he was funny on radio when he was a smarta--, but here he becomes a child-like character that looks like he's mugging for the cameras in every shot. this characterization is shown in every movie they do, and only brings a stain to the reputation they had on radio. What is left to their film career is a poor (very, VERY poor) copy of Laurel and Hardy. The movies would have been much funnier if they had played their radio characters instead of retreads of stock casting.
\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 I am sure the idea looked good on paper, and it appealed to me when I first heard of it, this movie often lumbers along and falls flat, and when I watch it, I just want it to end. The bookend beginning and ending of the film about Lou having to babysit a troublemaker is contrived at best, although I found the tall cop part to be humorous. However, I found little to laugh at with the bottom of the barrel script that was thrown together for these two great comedians. I thought that it was a mistake to put them in a musical, and it reeks of \"Wizard of Oz\" rip-off (with the songs and black and white to color format). I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone but die-hard A&C fanatics. Anyone else will be disappointed, and they have many better films.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis little cheapy is notable only because it is the worst film Abbott and Costello ever made. It is dreadful in every way: crummy music, horrid choreography (check out the awkward lead male dancer), cheesy special effects and sets, wooden actors (the leads are barely at the high school level in their profession and were unheard of later), and a script without a single laugh. Better times were ahead for the comedy duo. Abbott and Costello Meet Captain Kidd is much preferable, as is the television series, which at times was inspired. But skip 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\n\"ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ\"! If IMDb would allow one-word reviews, that's what mine would be. This film was originally intended only for kids and it would seem to be very tough going for adults or older kids to watch the film. The singing, the story, everything is dull and washed out--just like this public domain print. Like other comedy team films with roots in traditional kids stories (such as the awful SNOW WHITE AND THE THREE STOOGES and the overrated BABES IN TOYLAND), this movie has limited appeal and just doesn't age well. Now that I think about it, I seriously doubt that many kids nowadays would even find this film enjoyable! So my advice is DON'T watch this film. If you MUST watch an Abbott and Costello film, almost any other one of their films (except for A&C GO TO MARS) would be an improvement.
\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 only joking. This was potentially the worst film I have ever had the misfortune to sit through. How anybody in the 1950´s could have raised a laugh at this innane rubbish is beyond my comprehension. I jest not.
\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\n1 hour and 40 minutes of talking--boring talking, and more talking and then some. It is hard for me to grasp how an actress like Anne Parillaud, who shone superbly in Femme Fatale, would sign up for such a piece of crap! Unbelievable. If you need a nightcap, this movie might help, although I would prefer some nice classical music. unfortunately, i just found out that i have to write 10 lines for my comment to appear--that's almost as unbelievable! so, short and succinct one or two sentence commentaries expressing one's core take on a movie is not enough. geez, people. i made my point and don't to waste your time with more, unnecessary words--as this movie does. Wolfgang
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI don't recommend watching this movie. It's a movie in which a movie is being filmed, with no attraction between actress and actor being played. The sex scene at the end of the movie which is to explain the reluctance of the actress (being played in the movie) to cooperate with the actor (being played in the movie)in it is a blunt repetition of the same scene in the Breillat movie Fat Girl. Everything there was played with more delicacy, if you can attach delicacy to a sex act like that. A typical French expression for the the thing happening in Sex is comedy is Oh la la! In Breillat's film Brief Crossing there also is sensitivity. In Sex is comedy I don't see real sensitivity and also a clear plot for the movie is not being developed so that there is a rather loose story with the disillusion of the end.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"