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\nThe selection of the bloated, boring, and racist \"Cimarron\" ranks as the worst choice for Best Picture in Oscar history. Poorly acted (particularly by the justly forgotten Richard Dix, whose performance as the self-centered and irresponsible Yancey Cravat ranks as one of the most narcissistic characterizations in screen history) and leadenly paced, the film is truly shocking today because of the racist slant towards its one black character, who is introduced by being shown sleeping in a chandelier.
Other comments by IMDb reviewers have dismissed the attitude towards this character as being merely dated, but many films that appeared during this period did NOT depict blacks as shuffling, lazy mental deficients in the manner that this behemoth takes great delight in; so that argument seems weak to say the least. But whether you regard this demeaning characterization as in shockingly bad taste for anyone at any time or merely the forgivable ignorance of a less-educated era, it is very painful to watch with 21st century eyes.
But even this might not matter if the film weren't the overlong bore that it is. Voted the Best Picture Oscar at the 1930/31 Academy Awards when such enduring classics as \"City Lights,\" \"The Public Enemy,\" \"Dracula,\" \"The Dawn Patrol\" and \"The Blue Angel\" failed to be nominated, \"Cimarron\" is by far the worst selection to join the Oscar pantheon.
\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, of the 67 of 71 best pictures I have seen, by far the worst. First of all, I found the plot line somewhat absurd - the absent husband for 25 years/ still in love/ not even a letter! Give me a break. And why was the guy who was absent for so long coincidentally working on an oil rig next door to the congress-woman's party? This film also exhibited some of the worst stereotyping of African-Americans that I have ever seen. It makes Gone With the Wind (see Prissy) look downright progressive! I have scarcely seen a movie that I disliked this much. UGH!
\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 must have been in a good mood to give this shameful, predictable, embarrassing movie even a 3. What's wrong with it? Let's start with the gratuitous sex although I admit the rotational style of bonking was something I had not seen (nor experienced) before. And I guess they also saved a few bucks by showing the same sex scene three times. Then there are the inconsistencies. The \"Oakville Tribune\" seems to be in a green part of whatever town it was supposed to be. (Hamilton Ontario???) Yet in the scenes on the roof, it appears to be in an industrial area with a steel mill belching smoke and flames. Also, the inside of the building --- the newsroom --- the stairways --- seem much bigger than the outside. SPOILERS HERE Then, when our intrepid reporter finally gets fired, she comes back to the building several times, once after hours. Hardly likely. The ending is also pitifully predictable...the classic bait and switch caper in which the good guy turns out to be the bad guy. But my major objection is the fact this is yet another movie financed with Canadian and Ontario tax credits which is ashamed to set itself in Canada, yet again proving that the Canadian film industry is craven and opportunistic. A country's movies must do more than just provide jobs. They should reflect the culture. It's bad enough that the American studios use Toronto as a stand in for New York. But it is embarrassing and infuriating when Canadian producers (in this case, CanWest Global) do it with help from the federal and provincial governments. In a word... BAH!
\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 subject matter was good, direction was OK. Mohanlal was efficient in his role as a Major. The acting of the supporting actors was amateurish at best. The casting director and director should be held responsible for this debacle. Hawaldar Jai was terrible, he stood out like a sore thumb with his poor histrionics. He did not look the part nor did he move like a soldier. There was a scene where a satellite feed was required of the skirmish with the militants and they were showing it from a camera angle. Satellite is located hundred of miles in the sky so the only angle is from above.It was quite an embarrassing moment. Audience these days are matured and they recognize when one is trying to pull wool over their eyes. The Director is a Major so the story could be out of his personal experiences. No problem there, but the movie is only as good as its actors and Director. So if Major Ravi is going for any other projects he should pay more attention to the 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\nI've seen this movie n I can say that this is really a bad movie. The director's gone nuts... of course.. he does know a lot about the army, but then he certainly is a cheap guy. There are a lotta technical flaws in the movies as well...
Okay... here's my doubt- in the end when they rescue the family (including a girl who was just raped)... why do they leave them there outside their place? I didn't see any ambulance around! There are a lot of aspects in the movie that are real... but then I just wish the Major had narrated/helped/assisted some other good director n made the movie.
Mohanlal surely does deserve a better director!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAaran is one of the movies where you find the loop holes in Indian Cinema. Here is one good example to show how excellent writers, directors and actors succumb to the producers. Here is one of the most wonderful actors, Mohanlal, acting in a movie about a real story in Kashmir. The seriousness of the film is slaughtered with sub standard comic scenes and songs. There is this character, Havaldar Jaykumar, who in reality, is the son of the producer of the film. Hence, he doesn't have a hair cut despite his officer asking him to do so. This kid doesn't know what is acting and he is the \"hero\" of the movie. God Help Indian Cinema with such producers.
This movie is a pathetic display of what happens in Kashmir. A sensible viewer can intuitively understand the constraints of such wonderful writers, actors and directors who want to share their real life experiences. But the unfortunate part is that a movie about the highest ranks in Indian Militia turns out to be a pathetic display that only makes one think that the movie was stupid.
We should oust such producers in the film industry and pave way for good cinema.
\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 really left me thinking ... but not about the plot, the direction, the characters, an underlying message, or a clever script. Far from it. I was left wondering what in Sam Hill went wrong behind the scenes. Clearly, something was badly amiss from the beginning.
I'm amazed at the positive comments for the movie and for Jodie Foster's performance. From the get-go it was clear that Foster had phoned this one in. One earlier comment even made a favorable mention of her facial expressions. I must have been watching a different movie since Ms Foster (usually a personal favorite) seemed to be totally disinterested.
In one of his first scenes with Foster, Fred Ward looks as though he, also, is distracted by her lack of energy and he struggles to deliver his own lines with any enthusiasm. By the time he's called upon to take part in a supposedly desperate search for runaway Foster, Ward also seems to have become embarrassingly half-hearted about the project.
In my opinion, Dennis Hopper has always been a uni-dimensional performer, so I wasn't expecting much from him ... and he delivered.
Yes, this one left me thinking long after it ended. The fact that Joe Pesci and Charlie Sheen refused to have their names attached to the project suggests that this was a real stinker for everyone involved. But to then learn that the Director preferred to hide behind a pseudonym speaks volumes.
But why listen to me? I always think Foster looks ridiculous in a dress, yet she's sensational in lacy underwear.
\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 young woman, Jodie Foster, is witnessing a mafia murder, reports the killing to the local police, and becomes herself a hit target by the mob operatives. A professional killer, Dennis Hopper, hired by mafia, is stalking her to prepare for the hit, but eventually he falls for her. Then, as a parody of the Stockholm Syndrome that defines a case when an abducted hostage begins to like and cooperate with the kidnapper, Jodie Foster falls for her abductor too, make love, and both prepare for a getaway.
Denis Hopper, the actor, tries to align himself with the creative ambitions of Dennis Hopper, the director. The result is disappointing, and fails to keep pace with the artistic level of a great performer as Dennis Hopper is. There is no real thrill and the script is sometimes naive and predictable. The film is saved to some extent by the performance of Jodie Foster who is not at her best, but still shines with her talent, beauty and gift. Of historical interest is the short appearance of Vincent Price, and, in a small act, of Charlie Sawn known from his great part in \"Wall Street\".
If you decide to spend the 116 minutes to see the film, it is not a complete loss; this movie offers easy entertainment, but we would expect much more from the director of \"Easy Rider\", and the actress who gave us the character of Sarah Tobias in \"The Accused\".
\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 has it all: it is a thriller, a chase movie, a romance story, a mob tale, a comedy, a road movie... well, in fact it's none of this at all.
All the time you are waiting for something interesting to happen, but no, you are still watching the same dull, uninspiring and superficial cliché of a movie with a very bad soundtrack. Even the star cast acting is lacking in credibility. A hit man with his quirks, a girl who's playing hard to get, mob guys acting tough and incapable cops, yawn...
I'd recommend not to watch Backtrack. If you want to see a good movie directed by a famous actor, go and see 'The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada' by Tommy Lee Jones. Now, that's what I call worth watching.
\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 movie recently mainly because I am a Huge fan of Jodie Foster's. I saw this movie was made right between her 2 Oscar award winning performances, so my expectations were fairly high. Unfortunately, I thought the movie was terrible and I'm still left wondering how she was ever persuaded to make this movie. The script is really weak. The story itself may have been somewhat believable if someone like Mel Gibson had played the role of the hit-man. The idea of Jodie running off with Dennis Hopper and his irritating accent was impossible for me to buy into. I did think that Jodie looked great throughout the movie, which was probably the only reason I watched the entire thing. Maybe parading Jodie around with as few clothes on as possible was the only reason the movie was made. I saw a TV biography of Jodie where basically all of her movies were commented on in chronological order, and this movie was the only one never mentioned. After seeing it, I can now see 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\n\"Catchfire\" or \"Backtrack\" as it is sometimes called, is not very good. That is, it's bad. Jodie Foster had already won an Oscar at this point. Why did she agree to do this? I don't know.
The hostage/kidnapper relationship is not believable, even if it is a common psychological phenomenon in real life.
Worst of all, this film features a scene where Hopper and Foster ride a boat under the Fremont Bridge (a bridge in Seattle) which means that traffic had to stop so that the bridge could open. I've had to wait for that bridge to go down many times, almost all of them on the bus. It's not a pleasant wait. This film caused unnecessary bridge-waiting and the world is a worse place for it.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nNot as bad as 1992's \"Nails\" (where Hopper plays an \"unstable\" cop) but pretty bad. How can a movie with such a great cast go so wrong? This film manages to find a way. The story was pretty stupid and Hopper's direction seemed like he had never directed before. All of the long shots in the beginning were bothersome. Lots of meaningless scenes with a lot of meaningless dialogue.
\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, I'd hate to sound opinionated, but anyone that rated this movie any higher than I just have must have an I.Q. that reaches unimaginably low depths which reach out beyond time and space and connect at planet \"Hopper-is-a-retard-for-making-this-movie\". WOW this movie STANK. Fred Ward's haircut looks SSSSSSSTTTTTTTTTTUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUPPPPPIIIDDD! I actually considered mailing Fred Ward some money in compensation for that miserable haircut he owned in this awful film. Jodie Foster, of course didn't have much to work with but still manages a terrible performance throughout. Joe Pesci, oh my...Joe Pesci (who mysteriously is not cast) plays THE ULTIMATE stereotypical Joe Pesci movie character, complete with mob killing and constant use of the F word. You won't believe your eyes. Dean Stockwell, watching him in this mess made me feel bad for him because I actually thought he was either intoxicated or temporarily retarded throughout the course of the film. Jon Turturro must have been intoxicated himself when he agreed to be in this, along with Vincent Price, Bob Dylan, and Charlie Sheen. I know what you're thinking, GREAT CAST! I know, and it was the WORST great cast film I've ever seen. Dennis Hopper directs and stars, and does equally bad in both areas. How the man could have directed EASY RIDER and then this is FAR beyond my excellent imagination. His OUTRAGEOUSLY bad hit-man character accent is beyond the realms of horrendous, and only is equaled by the hilariously bad ending. They (Hopper and Foster) are the most uninteresting couple I believe that I have ever come across in my exposure to the world of cinema, and you will be cheering for them to lose and then be grandly maddened by the ending. What exactly are the two of them WEARING at that action filled conclusion? I don't know, but I do know that if I ever meet Dennis Hopper, I will make immensely make fun of him for being responsible for this waste of celluloid. Join me! IAN
\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 rather mild horror movie; if not for a couple of sex scenes, it could easily have been a TV movie. Plot holes abound (one example: why would there be a secret passage from the 18th century leading from the upper floor of a house that was burned to the ground and a new building put ther 200 years later?), cardboard acting, characters doing things that anyone with an IQ bigger than their shoe size wouldn't do...
It's got a few fun moments, but overall it's a sub-par film that managed to get Roy Scheider because his bills were due. If you're looking for an extremely formulaic, predictable film that might provide a few laughs, it might be worth watching. If not, then this one's not for you.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie was bad and the movies about how some college students stay at a house to get money by renovating it and then they find out that the house has a woman Deamon in it and that there is a portal to hell.In this movie there are heaps of stupid scenes like at the start of the movie how they are cleaning the house and they start to dancing to a cheesy song and some of the Demons at the end of the movie are just some guys in bad costumes trying to make scary sounds and there are some good gore scenes like when the Professor gets his face ripped of.I only hired this movie because i am a big fan of horror movies and its only worth watching if u are a fan of horror movies.The acting in this movie is really bad the only good actor is Roy Scheider from the great movie Jaws and over all this movie has heaps of flaws and my rating is 4 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\nThis is the lamest, crappiest, idiotic, stupid movies i ever saw in my entire life... I can't believe there are directors who make these kinds of movies... this movie is a disgrace to horror genre... acting ??? Oh! no !!! i couldn't bear... it's full of anguish... don't ever watch this movie... you'll feel like u are being tortured to eternity... please, save yourself from the horrible fate of watching this movie... if you really want to live, don't watch it... there are very good horror movies...
this movie doesn't deserve tat single vote too... but, i hate to vote if I want to post my comments...
\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 can't figure out what Jon Voight could POSSIBLY have been thinking when he got involved in this tenth-rate, incoherent, pretentious, mind-numbing slop. He helped to write the alleged \"script\" himself, and he should be damn well ashamed of it. The film (I can't call it a \"movie\" because it barely moves at all) is rambling, embarrassingly pretentious drivel--sort of like a really bad Oprah Winfrey show, but worse. It meanders senselessly back and forth from medieval times to modern-day Los Angeles, with Voight as a television producer who thinks he is the reincarnation of a medieval prince who must save the kingdom from the machinations of his evil brother, and somehow this gets transferred to modern times where Voight has to save the country from the evil machinations of an oil company executive. If the bizarre casting (Wilfrid Brimley, Frankie Valli (!), Kaye Ballard and Armand Assante, among others) isn't enough to kill it, the stupefyingly inept direction, the washed-out photography (it looks like it was shot with a really cheap 16mm camera), the almost complete lack of editing (scenes either go on and on endlessly or are chopped off in the middle of a sentence), and Voight's embarrassing, apparently stream-of-consciousness \"acting\" are enough to bury it, which is exactly what should have been done with it. A jaw-dropping experience. Avoid this dog at all costs.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI was told Jon was for awhile on spiritual experiences. I guessed the film will be interesting.In fact isn't at all. Not so much profound for a such subject. \"eternity\" never-ending life. Experiences after death and \"dejavu\". The film is not as a comedy but isn't funny at all, at least not express yet. It's so naive. Charming film but naive film. A must to avoid. The Middle ages sequences seems coming directly from fairy tales and it's not the matter at all. Eileen Davidson is so charming and Voight is doing his best. Normal is a co producer and screenwriter of this movie. The film was launched straight on video so i discovered it on a video store. It's a pity 'cause I well know Voight was seriously involved with spirituality and the film isn't so much profound about it.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie is so bad it's almost good. Bad story, bad acting, bad music, you name it. O.K., who are the jokers that gave this flick a '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\nIn my opinion, a good documentary - especially one dealing with controversial political issues - should be informative and as unbiased as possible. The point should be revealing the truth. This means, in particular, having among the interviewees experts on the subject and representatives of all sides. This film is a failure in this regard. Most of the interviews included in this film consist of \"men off the street\" expounding on the question of peace in the Holy Land. The wall itself, the supposed subject of the film, is given no serious treatment at all. For most of the interviews, the interviewer simply waits to be approached and asks general questions such as \"what do you think of the wall?\" - she does not approach random people near the wall and ask them how they have been directly affected by it. Outside of one interviewee, the Israeli general in charge of the wall's construction, we have no \"experts\" on the subject to provide us with the wall's context (e.g. how and when the project began, whether it has been successful, which groups are for and which against the project, etc.)
Outside of the interviews, a very large portion of the film consists of extended shots of uneventful scenes, such as head-on shots of the wall, construction of the wall, and people getting off a bus. These shots take up far too much time, in my opinion. It's nice to see what the wall looks like, but the 20-30 minutes of head-on filming of the wall (and only the wall) are excessive. Clearly, these shots (accompanied by Arabic music that conveys a sense of mourning) are included for the sole purpose of arousing in viewers feelings of loathing for the wall.
\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 film-makers went well out of their way to find ONLY the following demographics: Palestinians that have the appearance of peace-loving, solution-seeking good will, Palestinians (particularly older women and families with children) who are especially inconvenienced by the security fence, and Israelis that don't believe in the security fence, sympathize heavily with its alleged effect on Palestinians, and consider it unnecessarily divisive and/or a waste of money. Oh yes, they do put in one member of the Israeli government that does support the fence, but they do what they can to portray him as inhumane and uncaring, and ask him very leading questions that are really statements (e.g. \"The wall is bad for the environment...it is destroying everything\").
I have no problem with any (well, most) of this being presented in the movie. However much I may disagree with the people they interview, their opinions are valid enough for a documentary. HOWEVER: there are at least two sides to the issue of Israel's security fence, and despite the fact that an overwhelming majority of Israelis (and many others) support the construction of the fence and believe it is having an overall positive influence, this \"documentary\" does not present the opinion of even ONE such person. They even go so far as to interview an Israeli Jew who claims that \"all Israelis support the fence\" and are thus insane, and then stubbornly refuse to interview even one such \"crazy\" Israeli. Oh, and to top all this off, they set the tone for the film by interviewing a couple of young Israeli children (truly exceptions to the rule -- I've been there) that are laughing at/about their Arab neighbors from across the fence.
A \"documentary\" is a film that explores an issue and presents a full array of facts, opinions, and perspectives. Unfortunately, this is not a documentary. This is an unabashed PROPAGANDA FILM that very clearly, very pointedly offers a battery of support for only one side of a heavily disputed, emotionally and politically charged issue. It is no more of a documentary than, say, Fahrenheit 9/11.
\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\nWith a humor that would appeal to an exclusive, small audience, the average viewer will find it pointless and monotonous. When Cartoon Network advertised this show, it was made to look as if it was a major drama or event, complete with a real rain scene and government officials trying to catch the Sheep.
When it came out on the air, I was disappointed at how all the characters were so one-dimensional and a totally bland animation. The only thing that put it to anything close to humor were the names of the characters like \"Private Public\" and \"General Specific\", a few vague references to cultural aspects, and how Lady Richington pummeled Sheep with her steel wig.
Slightly off topic, but I don't see why would Sheep fall in love with that ball of dirty cotton balls called \"Swanky.\" It was hideous!
\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\nIrvine Welsh's follow up to Trainspotting hits the screen as three short stories set in Edinburgh, all with a few of Welsh's trade marks, drug culture, depression, the working class and Hibernian football club. Uneasy to watch in places, it is no less than very well written, 2 of the stories having a darkly comic twist to them while the 2nd story a serious (and shockingly realistic) plot to it. Will not appeal to most, including myself to a point, but will no doubt adopt a cult following.
\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\nAh, here it is! A movie, which is said by people to remind me of the epic \"Trainspotting\". OUCH, was I a fool to believe that, and OUCH, how my buttocks hurt after having forced myself to watch this c**p from beginning to end. After the first 10-15 minutes I just wanted it all to end, or at least they could've put some nudity or action or cool acid house music into it to make it worth the time... But no, when I was through with it, i put it into my CD shelf and I hope I will never have to pick it out again just to show it to some friend who is so anxious to see it that he/she don't want to listen to my warnings.
\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 stories were pretty weird, not really funny and not really cunning. I'm not sure what the point of the stories was .. The first story was actually mostly sick, the second was just really really pathetic and the third was only weird (the fake baby was actually quite badly made).
\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 really one of the worst movies i have seen in a while. It's not funny at all. It simply portrays a lower class Northern British setting. I find it a very sad film at parts, at others cuts are where they shouldn't be. One thing that really annoyed me was the close ups of pointless objects it really slowed down the pace of the movie. I only made it through the movie because i fast forwarded certain sequences towards the end.
This movie completely loses the attention of the audience. It's main problem is that it makes multiple reasons for one action, which in turn tends to weaken that action. However if there is one reason for one action it makes it more passionate. All in all this movie is all over the place. I didn't learn enough about the characters to care about them because of the shifting plot lines and stories where as i would have maybe enjoyed exploring the life of one character.
For example at the beginning when the guy meets God in the bar, God seems like a cool guy. The movie could've elaborated on that moment and I think it would've been a lot funnier.
Anyway, enough if's. Watch it if you want, but I'm warning you this film is crap. I respect the makers for trying to pull it off with such a low budget but they could've done a much better job. I guess it all lies in the camera movement and editing, the acting was decent. But then again, that's just my opinion.
\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 I would have never ever seen this movie through to the end. Although there are some, but not many, funny moments in this movie I couldn't understand more than about 15%(the fancy English couple in the 3rd story included) of what people were saying. Three short stories, none with a real point, with just some of the most miserable and lifeless people I could have imagined and a load of foul language. Didn't find it funny, didn't find it amusing, didn't find any sense in it. 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\nFairly appalling enterprise suggests Welsh to be an infantile artist, helplessly drawn to the violent milieu he knows best, but unable to resist vacuous elaborations rooted in banal fantasy. The first story is a ham-fisted, meaningless trudge with a B-movie sci-fi premise. The second achieves some poignancy, but only via the outrage-inducing surplus of humiliation visited on its central character. The third and most risible seems to aspire to being a dislocated sequel to Child's Play. The direction is consistently clueless - all whirling sound and fury, a slave to the extreme unpleasantness of the environment; suffocating in an ill-chosen music score and in indifferently flashy acting. This is sheer stupidity masquerading as a guerilla sensibility - as arbitrary and hollow as the abstract images that link the three sections.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI, like many this evening braved the frigid winter and long lines to see what I had anticipated to be one of the best movies of this year. However, I was left sadly wanting in many ways after the credits rolled. But to be fair, there were redeemable qualities (although very few). Let's start with what worked. First, the Lycans: on point in every way  from their terrifying physicality to their sheer ferocity. The action: sublimely visceral  when it did occur. Nighy/Victor and Sheen/Lucian: Perfect. Now, what did not (and there is plenty). This was less a movie and more a collage of sequences (and do not expect to see any supporting characters from the other movies except Raze and Tannis). Profoundly missing was a well written storyline and anything of real substance to bring these pieces of film together. The story seemed to start right in the middle  at the cusp where Lucian had made up his mind to rebel. Therefore, there was no context; no tension; no sense of betrayal  the devices needed to make everything else work. Moreover, it ended at where the climax should have begun (which needed to be after the feud had simmered for a bit). Oh and it was way too short. Purist will also find offense in some liberties taken to certain facts previously revealed in the first two moviesbut judge that for yourself. In the end, this movie lingered to long on what should have been brief \"background\" scenes (e.g. various council scenes), and as a consequence we never really got to know or care about the principal players...or the movie (ouch). -D
\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 I must say that I enjoyed the first Underworld movie. I was intrigued and curious to learn about Vampires and Lycans and so forth. In this last part (hopefully) of the series I just feel sorry for how pathetic the vampires are. At least in the first part you had the tight leather clothes... now vampires seem like besieged victims of bad pest control problem. They look and act like haughty white pasty humans.
Some ideas were neat... the whole thing with human nobles was interesting. Pity the acting was abysmal. The slave thingy too was feasible.
Other things just hit me as pathetic. Spoilers now. Castle walls that can be jumped over in a few steps ? Enemies that don't attack during the day ? Big bad ancient vampires that take ages to join combat and then run away from a fledgling lycan leader after a minute or so ? Werewolves that den close to their enemies ? Lycans that raid armouries... for what ? They don't use axes and swords or armor ! A vampire leader so inept he manages to have just about everyone against him ? The romance is so unconvincing its sad.
So I don't recommend this film unless you get it online or buy a very cheap movie ticket. Some of the action is good to OK. Certainly the vampires armor and weapons are interesting. Otherwise a very weak script that was badly put together and uses all sorts of inane plot twists.
\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 can't believe this movie is getting the rating that it is here on IMDb. Of course, I've come to conclude that IMDb is somewhat worthless for actually finding out if a movie is good or not as 99% of films are rated from 6 to 7. It's the conclusion and failure of crowd-sourcing on the internet. For this purpose an average is taken of most people, and unfortunately, most people are simple minded easily entertained fast food lifestyle morons. But I digress. The movie. I really don't want to waste my time writing about it. Let's just say I found it to be tailor made for seemingly two groups of people, young teens, at the age where violent action movies of any sort just hit the spot, and goth types that just love to choke down whatever Gothic vampire fantasy they can get their hands on. If you aren't in one of those categories, you will find this movie absurd. I did enjoy the first Underworld. It was fresh at the time and held a sort of edgy quality. The second was a bit trying in plot, but I did enjoy the direction and cinematography at times. But this whole movie felt like a sci-fi channel production or even a TV series. I found the actors to be over-directed. Their body language stiffened into un-natural idealistic poses that seemed contrived. Lines were spit out like young actors would spit out lines of Shakespeare, reveling in their own egoistic glory at being in such a role, but in doing so, crudely bludgeoning the role. The plot was dry and predictable right from the start. I found myself wishing things to just \"move along\" as it was so easy to tell what was going to happen. I tried to care at first, but my brain was forced to shut off. By the end climax, I actually caught myself falling asleep. There were so many parts that were inconsistent and didn't make sense that it's not even worth listing them all. If you're a pimple faced teen or a chronic goth, sure, have at it. For the rest of us, forget it, like I'm about to do right now.
\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 wasn't much thought put into the story line on many fronts. This is a good action movie but that's about it.
- The movie states that the lycans were kept to protect the vampires during the day. Yet they are kept in cages and have collars on their necks. So they can't turn into their wolf form or do anything any other slave can't do. How does this protect the vampires during the day? Who are they protecting the vampires from? The uncontrollable lycans? The slaves in human form are nothing more than peasants.
- My understanding is that vampires are immortals and don't age. Yet Sonya ages from child to adult. Do they just stop aging at a certain age? I understand that Viktor is old because he was turned (as explained in the second movie). But vampire babies age? Strange.
- I didn't realize that vampires needed torches to see at night. Yet we see them carrying torches throughout the movie.
- Silver was the only thing that was supposedly able to harm lycan. Yet wooden steaks fired from the huge crossbows kill the lycan too.
These are just some of the things that show just a lack of thought put into the story telling.
\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 are rumours that a fourth Underworld is going to happen. If so, than the third part, which is also a prequel, would be in the middle of the franchise. With prequels that succeed the original movies, you always ask yourself in what order should you watch the movies, so that it makes sense ...
In this case, I guess it doesn't matter that much. The third Underworld movie isn't up to par with the other two. They had their obvious flaws too, but this one lacks a few things and it feels like a cash in. It seems like it's not going full throttle, which is a shame, because the actors sure could've used better material to work with.
The story is OK, but it's nothing special. A nice movie, but Rhona Mitra couldn't fill the shoes of Beckinsale (yes she plays another character, I mean the void, that Kate B. left) ...
\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\nOther than it reassembled the characters from the first film and gave them more backstory. Essentially, Lucian the Lycan (werewolf) fell in love with Sonia the Vampire, a Romeo and Juliet scenario you know is going to end badly if you've seen the first movie. So with absolutely no suspense, we blunder forward with two hours of unremitting CGI and actors with little or no screen presence. All shot in that monotone color that the first movie had because nothing was shot in daylight.
Worth your time.. probably not. In fact, the quality has gone down, even the CGI looks like it was done on the cheap, you don't buy for a minute that these are real werewolves.
\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 mother forced me to watch this movie with her. She apparently will watch anything with a vampire counsel in it. I was bored throughout.
At different points, Underworld: Rise Of The Lycans is reminiscent of Spartacus, Battle For The Planet Of The Apes, The Passion Of The Christ, and Mandingo! What it reminds me most of are those Italian sword and sandal pictures of the nineteen-sixties (not the good ones) that spend an inordinate amount of time showing Greek or Roman despots in robes talking and plotting incessantly while you wait impatiently for the muscle man hero and his lover, usually the despots daughter, to do something.
This film was in desperate need of some color and suspense. The characters were pretty two-dimensional.
The sets looked as if they were constructed entirely of pewter! I wonder how many Civil War Chess Sets were melted down to make this movie.
All those wearing fishnet stockings on your arms and black lipstick, feel free to click NO.
\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 put it simply, this was a pompous piece of canine poopie. Overly stagey and everyone being the total melodramatic drama queen at every single moment. After a while, i was starting to wish that every character in the movie wasn't such a stuffed-up anal retentive.
And, this movie has another one of those truly annoying things that has recently come into vogue and shouldn't have: all the scenes are in a sort of washed-out, blue-steel-greyishness. Hmmm, the last time i checked, candles and torches are quite capable of putting a fairly wide spectrum of colors. In fact, the light they put out tends to be more in the warmish, yellowish-orange range of the spectrum. So where's all the blue-steel-grey light coming from?
This movie has fancy sets and glitzy cgi fx, but it's still dreck. It's pathetic junk put out for today's movie-goers who are easily placated by pathetic junk.
I very much enjoy vampires and werewolves as movie plot devices, but this was a total hack job.
Universal Studios' 1941 \"The Wolfman\" is infinitely superior to this even though its fx is pretty primitive compared to what could be done nowadays.
I'm done with this franchise. The first movie was reasonably decent. The second still somewhat entertaining. But this one i couldn't even finish all the way to the end because it was so boring.
\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\"Quit while your ahead\" is a phrase they never learn. Typical Hollywood sequel scenario: if the first film was only shocking, the second wasn't, expect the third to be the worst thing to hit the screen this year. Even worse are the prequels, events of which were already explained in detail. If you haven't seen to first two films you will not like this one. It's like starting to watch Lord of the rings or Star Wars with the last trilogy movie. So \"stand alone\" this film is not.
Remember in the first movie about Lucians revenge? Remember the second about the long lost savage brother? Well if you saw those two 5 min moments and paste them together you would get a 5 min prequel. But the creators ether thought these 5 min were vital historical events or just wanted to give a job to some actors, cast and crew and maybe make some money in the process. \"I have a loot of money, I make movies for a living and I'm bored. What will I do? I know! I'll make a movie.\" So anyway you get this 5 min prequel and you stretch it for 90 min  that's this movie. And you know what will happen to the main \"immortal\" characters, so there is little suspense. By the way, all the drama of the movie is in those 5 min. The only thing that made my eyebrow rise was mom killing in the begging of the movie. Sick. The rest was Braveheart remix. If you want a comedy, see Braveheart first then this movie.
Now I'm going to rant a bit  the movie put me in the mood. Who invented the concept of \"vampire vs. werewolf\" in the first place? It's older than I am and got old just as fast. And why do vampires look like Goth girls in heat, while werewolves look like psycho bears? Hiding bad films behind cleavage fails. Isn't it about time we got some sane slimmer werewolves with an upright posture? How can their unchangeable werewolves even breed if they rip everybody into shreds? And why with all their powers the vampires didn't rule the world? Blaa, blaa, blaa What a waste.
\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 key scene in Rodrigo Garcia's \"Nine Lives\" comes when Sissy Spacek, hidden away in a hotel room where she is carrying on an affair with Aiden Quinn, find a nature documentary on television, at which point Quinn notes the contrivance of such things--disparate footage is edited into one scene, predators and preys are thrown together in order to capture the moment--all to force connections where none actually exist. Characters in the nine shorts that make up this film occasionally spill over into each others stories, but none of them ever seem to really connect. A woman preparing for a violent confrontation with her abusive father is later seen working in a hospital room where another woman is preparing for a mastectomy. A man who runs into an old girlfriend in a supermarket and sees how his life should have been later hosts, with his current wife, a dinner party for an unhappy couple. Garcia arranges some of his characters in front of each other, but none of the subsequent stories ever really build on what came before.
Garcia's first film, the wonderful, overlooked \"Things You Can Tell Just By Looking At Her,\" also had a short-story structure and overlapping characters, but there were fewer of them and they had a lot more room to breathe and grow. The gimmicky premise of \"Nine Lives,\" that each of its nine stories is told in a single, unbroken take in real time, never allows the film to build up any real dramatic tension or momentum. It's also a fairly visually ugly movie. Interior shots are often murky and hard to watch, while other scenes--particularly one where a girl walks back and forth between rooms to talk to her uncommunicative parents--are rendered annoying by the camera-work. Given that this is Garcia's third film and that he has a respectable history of directing for television, the direction in this film is rather surprisingly amateurish. Like fellow filmmaker-child-of-a-great-writer Rebecca Miller, Garcia (son of Gabriel Garcia Marquez) is focused on the writing and character aspects of his films often to the detriment of the film-making ones.
Individual scenes are touching and even affecting. I did like Jason Issacs kissing Robin Wright Penn's pregnant belly. And Joe Mantegna whispering lovingly to his wife as she slips into pre-surgery sedation. And Sissy Spacek stealing a few happy moments away from her life with Aiden Quinn before brought back to it with a phone call from her daughter. But the film (unlike \"Things You Can Tell Just By Looking At Her\") feels more like an exercise than actual drama. We are just watching people act.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAs embarrassing as it is to admit, I was listed as production manager on this film... my very first! As a matter of fact, it was the first feature film for almost everyone who participated. Watch carefully, and you even get to see me in one of the opening scenes, as a soon-to-be-murdered asylum attendant named... \"Cely\" (my own last name).
Originally titled \"Hostages\" this picture was changed to \"Another Son of Sam\" by the Producer-Director who wanted to cash in on the serial killer in the news at the time. Nothing could have helped. I don't even think this picture was good enough to be shown on \"MST 3K!\"
The film was shot primarily with a collection of old Mitchell cameras and early Arriflex hand held cameras. Matter of fact, the shot of the helicopter during the hostage siege was filmed with my own WWII era Arri. The picture was filmed entirely in Charlotte and Belmont, North Carolina in the mid seventies. Most of the \"Stars\" were local TV newscasters, and the rest of the crew were just inexperienced enough or gullible enough to believe former stuntman and Producer-Director, Dave A, Adams' delusions of adequacy.
If you enjoy watching this kind of picture, you might love the work of another North Carolinian, the legendary Earl Owensby.

\n
assistant\n0
\n"