empathielabs/imdb_v0 huggingface dataset:
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt was praised to be a fast paced screwball comedy and the best German movie of the year, so I gave it a try, even though I've already seen some films by Dani Levy - or at least parts of them.
I got what I had expected: no comedy at all, unless you think that heart attacks are funny. It's a fine example of sloppy screen writing, with an implausible plot and characters, loaded with clichés that might be true, but surely are not funny either.
The most annoying character is that of Zucker's wife, played by Hannelore Elsner. She has to behave incredibly strange to keep the plot moving. For example: She doesn't know a single thing about Judaism, but by reasons most likely unknown to even herself she gets the idea to play the charade that she and her family are Jewish laws obeying Jews for her husband's family, who really are, and of the very orthodox and self-righteous variety. To make it a bit more complicated, she invites the four of them to stay at her city flat, because they arrive from Frankfurt in Berlin without having booked their hotels in advance, something no 60 years old business man, actually no grown-up German would ever do. This gives the viewer a lot to swallow, but still fails to produce any jokes.
Zucker and his brother Samuel haven't seen each other for forty years, but it turns out that his daughter - now a lesbian - and Samuel's son - now a militant orthodox - were once lovers, and he's HER daughter's father. Samuel's daughter - a nympho - goes after Zucker's gay son. Is this supposed to be a somehow humorous parody of Jewish incestuous tendencies? Probably it's just a thoughtless way to add some \"love action turbulence\" every screwball comedy needs. And of course is also fails to produce any jokes.
The praise for this movie is purely political. Therefore only people who enjoy watching movies that are supposed to be \"politically important\" will enjoy this one - even though \"Alles auf Zucker!\" quite clearly has no importance of any kind.
For all the rest: Don't watch it without a \"Fast forward\"-option. I really missed 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 starts with the main character lying in a coma in a hospital ward, attended by two orderlies. The unconscious main character is heard in a voice over, saying that the orderlies are gay. The orderlies kiss. I watched this in a DVD version and I have the suspicion that this is supposed to be funny  it said comedy\" on the DVD case, after all and it goes on like that. Had I seen this in a movie theater I probably would have heard part of the audience roar with laughter, because it is so funny  and because they are supposed to sit in a comedy. While it is fascinating to think about what it is funny and what isn't, this movie unfortunately only delivers arguments about what isn't.
Brilliant brains can MAKE anything funny, people like Ernst Lubitsch, Billy Wilder or Mel Brooks have proved that fact. But you have to know the mechanics\", I suppose. Director and co-scriptwriter Dani Levy does not bother about those mechanics, he thinks that certain things simply ARE funny, the fact that two orderlies are gay and kiss over a man in a coma, for example. Do not get me wrong, some people can MAKE that funny, Dani Levy can't, not for me, anyway.
The main problem I have with this movie is that I can't see a reason behind the way the main characters behave. I could not understand why the two brothers, one an orthodox Jew from West Germany one a third class carbon copy of Fast Eddie Felson from former East Germany so strongly disliked each other. They are both rather bland characters. Their children are boring apart from the fact that they are sexually attracted to each other (well, one is a lesbian now but raises the daughter she has with her cousin). But even these incestuous relationships  if anything they are embarrassing - just come through as an excuse because the scriptwriters could not come up with anything better.
The acting is not bad, Udo Semel I actually came to like quite a lot although he reminded me more of ex chancellor Helmut Kohl (a lighter version) than of a venerable Orthodox Jew. The direction in itself is not really bad either, but maybe Levy should stick to directing movies, leaving the scriptwriting to someone else. Now I heard he did a comedy about Hitler. Oi, Vai!
\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\nRobin Williams is excellent in this movie and it is a pity the material is not enough of a match for him. This may work if you buy into the \"U-S-A! Number One!\" mentality but story wise nothing much happens. Quite a shame really since the movie is really trying to say something, and says it sincerely. It just doesn't pack enough emotional punch.
\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 could have been oh so much better. It is a beautiful story set in very trying times, and yet it was so poorly executed. The leading actors have in the past done excellent jobs, and for the most part they do an adequate job in this film. Although at times their dialogue seems stilted and forced. The directing could have been more concise. The bulk of the criticism should go to the writers, who took a good story and made it tedious. In short, there are thousands of MUCH better ways to spend 2 hours.
\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 is not generally my practice to review movies that I dislike to any great degree. However, one or two times a year, I temporarily set aside my rule to only comment on things I like to give a word of warning. I find it more enjoyable to comment on something I like and boost it than I do shooting at bad movies. But some \"movies\" cry out for the razor.
Bilitis is one of them. The cinematography isn't the only aspect that is blurry and out of focus here. An almost indiscernible plot (certainly incoherent, if there even is one) bad acting, cheesy script and awful pacing. Those are its major problems.
Understand, I firmly believe that not all movies are created equal and films should be judged according to their category. It is not reasonable to judge, say, Beach Blanket Bingo against Gone With the Wind. I judge Bilitis against other movies in its weight class. Measured against movies like Emmanuelle or Secrets of a Chambermaid, it comes off very badly indeed. Even eye-candy has to be entertaining and Bilitis most definitely is 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\nWhen it was released this film caused a sensation. I watched it and was thrilled. Beautiful, usually young, naked women filmed in the classy style we knew so well from director Hamiltons photography. His photographs never become porn and the same is true for this movie. Today I saw it again and was bitterly disappointed. The soft core in extremely slow paced scenes, all filmed with some Vaseline on the lenses, actually is all there is. There is no real story, the characters remain beautiful and beautifully filmed bodies, but they are not real creatures with a soul. Actually nothing happens. It is like Hamilton is photographing using moving pictures rather than stills. And this gets so boring after a while. I even didn't watch the whole thing the second time, for I fell vast asleep. That is all that remains of this masterpiece: it is a very good sleeping pill. And you will never become addicted to it!
Back then 7 out of 10, now 3 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\nIt's dreadful, but ...
Cat Stevens fans are given the opportunity to see the woman who inspired the lovely song \"Lady D'Arbanville\" on his album \"Mona Bone Jakon\", before Cat turned into a fatwa-supporting religious zealot.
\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 so let down by this film. The tag line was something like 'The story of a girls sexual awakening'. You can only imagine how disappointed I was. I was seventeen at the time and I took my girlfriend to see it. I thought we were going to see a sexy movie that would leave my girlfriend gagging for it. Sadly that was not the case. I guess we just weren't ready for a deep and meaningful movie that required an element of sophistication that we just didn't possess at the time. I'm not so sure I possess it now, and I have long since parted company with that particular girlfriend (pity really... my first love). We left the cinema half way through the film, my friend, who should have known better, stayed for the whole thing. I still got the required result with my girlfriend, the film just didn't help much. It would be interesting to see it again so that I can make a more informed critique, though I feel the experience has left me scarred for life.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI rented the DVD in a video store, as an alternative to reading the report. But it's pretty much just more terror-tainment.
While the film may present some info from the report in the drama, you're taking the word of the producers - there's no reference to the commission report anywhere in the film. Not one.
The acting, all around, is pretty bad - pretty much all of the stereotypes of 'hot shot' bitchy foul mouthed government agents, each thinking they know more than everyone else. There may be some truth to it, but it really has a bad Hollywood stereotype smell to it.
IMDb's user community ratings & comments tend to be more right than wrong, and I have started to glance at the ratings before renting whenever I can.
I wish I had on 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\nI tried. Lord help me, how I tried. But there are just some people almost incapable of creating quality. Brett Ratner, Uwe Boll, Britney Spears, and Asylum. To their credit \"The 9/11 Commission Report\" seems like an honest attempt by the company to advance into a more sophisticated state of storytelling and movie making. But for all intents and purposes, it comes off as another truly film in their gallery. At the opening, the disclaimer notifies audiences that all the names have been changed, but the names of the terrorists remain relatively the same. A man named Mussaui attempts to learn how to fly a plane. With a stone cold grimace that would instantly make anyone uneasy, this \"undercover\" agent is able to learn how to fly on a small computer. And you have to wonder, not how he was able to get into this program so easily, but on how these people didn't even ask questions; because this scene is so far-fetched in its presentation, and the actor playing this man is extremely over the top. And you can see that director Scott attempts to mimic Paul Greengrass with a bright grainy photography that's followed by an awfully dizzying and irritating hand-held direction that, throughout the entire film, attempts to take off from Greengrass's gung-ho guerrilla film-making techniques.
You can sense Scott emulating Greengrass's technique for realism, but it becomes rather lame-brained halfway in. Meanwhile the film comes off less a \"Traffic\" take off, and more a take off on \"Law & Order\" in which we'll have the disclaimer notifying us the names have been changed, the logo almost reminiscent of the \"Law & Order\" logo, and then ninety minutes of the actors pumping their chests and discussing politics.
Neither of which are ever as compelling as it tries to be. And then when the film seems as if its attempting to be an adult drama, Scott relies on his old failsafe, the sex scene. Scott's new film looks like it really wants to be thought of as a low budget \"Munich\" but it's not, and it manages to be underwhelming on every such occasion possible. \"The 9/11 Commission Report\" falls flat, and that's because its limited in its attempts to imitate other films.
While I appreciate the ambition inherent behind the camera, this new perspective of the events leading up to 9/11 is flat, and dull. Hard as it may try to be a low-budget \"Munich\" it's only really as entertaining as a normal Dolph Lundgren film you'd find on Cinemax.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis documentary was very amateurish. It could have been made by college students. Assuming that it was, my grading is as follows. Content : C, Sound Quality : F ,Cinematography : F ,Acting : D, Soundtrack : F, Casting : C, Boobshot : A ......Overall Grade :D
I found myself getting seasick as we walked down the streets with the characters,bobbing up and down with each move of the cameraman'step.My mother-in-law even changed the batteries in her miracle ear and she could not hear the muffled dialog. Extensive post production editing and CGI would not help this bomb. These students would \"barely\" pass my course.My advise...don't waste your time or money for the one \"A\".
\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\nAm I the only one who thought the point of this film was the graphic violence? I knew nothing about Leigh Scott when I rented it, and would not have done so if I had known that most of his previous films were horror films. I am not into that at all, I was just expecting an informative docudrama of the 9/11 report.
Instead, I got an almost incomprehensible, violent movie. The only good thing about it for me, was that it made me want to read the report, to figure out what the heck this movie was about.
I wrote this because I am shocked that we have become so immune to violence in films and on TV, that it was not even worth commenting on by the bloggers whose reviews that I read.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt was full of plot holes, inaccuracies (doesn't the time-clock stop for injured players or loss of helmets in Texas football games?) and not so much redemption (So Your Dad Beats the Crap out of You? Well, do something right for once and then he will Love You and make it all worthwhile).
Either make the movie about a team and its quest for a championship OR make a movie about a player within a team and his personal struggle but instead, this movie tried to do it all and came up more than a couple yards short. The book probably showed the whole story much better; the movie should have picked one element of the story and stuck with that.
Instead, the movie jumped from one character dialogue to flashes of game play and then another character dialogue months later without actually telling you who people were or why they were important--the QB calling his sibling to take care of the mother--whatever happened with that? Because the mother was coherent by the end of the final game, does that mean she's not crazy anymore? Its one redeeming quality was the soundtrack. Buy that and then watch SportsCenter highlights while Iggy Pop plays in the background.
\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 very disappointing in that several elements of the book were wrongly done. The main story is the same but there are several flaws that hurt the movie.
1) Boobie Miles gets injured in the beginning of the story in a preseason game at Texas Tech. This means he won't get anything done during the season at all and Chris Comer comes up sooner on the team.
2) The game against Marshall was lost at Marshall. The team depicted as Marshall was actually Midland High one of Permian's main rivals and here is the proof- Marshall High is the Mavericks colored Scarlet and Silver, Midland High is the Bulldogs colored Purple and Gold. Look at the jerseys and you will see who it is. Also the real Marshall High's football roster is overwhelmingly Black, the team shown was racially mixed like Midland High.
3) Permian only loses to Midland Lee by one point in district play. Midland Lee loses to Midland High and Midland High loses to Permian. These are the teams that set up the coin toss as such.
4) Boobie comes back on the team as a reserve to Chris Comer and after not getting any playing time in the Midland Lee game, he quits the team completely at half time and never stands on the sideline or goes to any games again.
5) Brian Chavez was a Tight End and Defensive End who wore #85 not a Tight End and Strong Safety. In addition, Boobie wore #35 and Ivory Christian wore #62.
6) The coaches end up liking Chris Comer as a player more than Boobie because he has a better lifting ethic and runs more straight up plays the way the staff prefers him too, this is in part why Boobie quits the team.
7) Dallas Carter is played in Austin at Darrell K. Royal Memorial stadium where UT plays in the state semi-finals not the state finals. Carter wins the state title but is forced to forfeit due to an ineligible player.
The acting is done pretty well but if you read the book, you will see these flaws are pretty true. I am also tired of hearing all the PC hypocrites out there complain about the depiction of Dallas Carter's football team. The team according to the book is as large, monstrous, talented, and black as the movie shows. People say it is a racist depiction but reading the book, you see a true depiction of the team. The story is very altered giving this movie a score of 3.5/10.
\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 honestly expected more from this movie. That may have been the problem. There was not one time when the camera was still - ever. On close ups, the camera shakes, the subjects move, and I get a headache. The cuts are so often and so fast, that the viewer often finds himself/herself wondering what just happened. (LOOK OUT, SPOILER ALERT) And at the end of the movie, when you expect to have a happy ending after being put through so much useless thought to comprehend what is going on, they end up losing. To me, this was a basically terrible movie, wrecked by a camera man with ADHD, and lack of a meaningful meaningful plot.
\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 just saw this movie last night, and after reading all the reviews I expected a good, emotional sports film. What I got was something clichéd and boring. Yes, I thought it was boring. I saw the all-star getting hurt long before the game. I figured maybe they'd wait for him to collapse until, ya know, the game before the \"big one\" but I guess the first game is good enough.
The parental relationships were also very clichéd, with the dominating drunk father (I will say McGraw impressed me, however), and the boy who wants to stay and help his (ailing?) mother.
I especially liked the random girls (Melissa and Maria) who were in the movie for all of 5 minutes, and placed there simply to get the football boys some action off the field. I thought \"ok, now how does this work into the plot again?\" Maybe I missed the point, beyond \"Well they play football in a town that loves it so the girls throw themselves at their feet\" point.
The sports action had some good points, but most of it was so rushed! I think the first game lasted longer than the montage of the entire playoffs! And I wasn't so sure about the continuity of the winding-down clock in the final game.
I guess I could see this movie winning the ESPY for best sports film if it was the only one released. Honestly though, I found it to be a boring movie full of people sickeningly-obsessed with the pigskin. For a better football film, see Remember the Titans.
\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\nHaving been born and raised in Odessa, and having graduated from the \"other\" high school in the late 70's, Odessa High School, I had mixed emotions about this movie. I no longer live in Odessa, but will always be a Texan at heart. I didn't like the way that this town of 80,000 plus was portrayed as a dirt poor small town. If I'm wrong about this, please feel free to correct me, but I believe OHS also plays in the town stadium, and the \"Home of the Permian Panthers\" sign that was shown at the stadium used to be at the practice field at Permian. I would have liked to have seen a little acknowledgment about the cross town rivalry of the big game in town every year, OHS vs Permian. I am curious why the outcome of the game was altered though, I think it would have been just as dramatic if the real outcome was portrayed. Overall, the movie was okay, made me a little homesick, remembering the \"good old days\" of MOJO.
\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 at a loss. This entire movie made absolutely no sense. It was like watching a Soderburg film for football. The camera cutting, the pace, all so copied. I thought the subject was too not serious for them to treat it like it was. Yes, we all know Southerners like football and beauty pageants. Must we be inundated with it as an audience? I watched because of Lee and Jay. I was expecting young talent assembled in the style of Dead Poet's Society or similar to Remember the Titans. I was completely put off by the film. You didn't get the characters. It was character driven, but you didn't understand anyone's motivations or their actions for the most part. The one kid who's mom is obsessed with him being a football player. Why is he so silent? What's his deal? Did we really need the scene with him \"proving\" his heterosexuality? Why should we care? The movie gave us insights into these kids lives, and offered no pay-off for caring. It just made no sense.
And why show a movie about a team that lost? I know it's real life, but who makes movies about losers? Give us some pay-off for these guys working as hard as they did with all their \"conceivable\" problems, darnit. We got nothing. We got a little blip at the end of the film telling us that Mojo won the next year with the 3rd stringer (Lee). Why didn't you follow that story? What were we to get out of this one? The movie led you along, but didn't lead you anywhere. I just felt like something was missing. It felt like a bad genetic cross between Varsity Blues and Remember the Titans. At least those two movies led you somewhere. Friday Night Lights was about a loser team that lost their star player early in the movie. The actor who played him was great. You were completely annoyed by him, which was the point, but at least you understood why. They made sure you understood him, but he couldn't play, so why make sure we get his issues?
And the other team in the play-offs...are we to believe those are high school teens? Those men looked like college seniors or professional player in their 30s. Who were they trying to kid? I know the other team was to look intimidating, but that was crossing the line a little. I liked the gritty element of them negotiating with the black team, but again, how did this fit into the overall theme of the film. Nothing pieced together. The characters knew more about each other than we did, and that settles weird with me. Jay's characters had absolutely nothing to add, but he was showcased. It was all just a mess. Not worth a movie ticket or a rental fee.
\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\nOne: your screen will be filled with beautiful effects and colours. These do nothing for the story, but they will keep your lazy eyes occupied for some 50 minutes. A good example is the eternal use of a computer screen that shows each fingerprint from the database as that print is compared with the one they want to find out about. Yeah, right.
Two: these guys being like real professional Pros, they will engage each other in intriguing Pro talk: \"Look, Grissom, these are what we call fingerprints. Everybody has them, and they are different on each person. So, with these fingerprints we can actually find...\".
Yup! Exactly like real pros would talk to each other if there wasn't a completely uninformed and stupid audience around.
However, not everything about this show is bad. Some stories work to some degree, and the colours _are_ really beautiful. They use red, blue, green, yellow... all of them colours I've loved since kindergarten.
\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 ratings: Acting - 3/10 Suspense - 2/10 Character Attachment - 1/10 Plot - 2/10 Character Development - 2/10 Overall - 2/10
This show sucks very much officially. For me, CSI Miami is the best, CSI NY 2nd and CSI 100th. I don't know, in the other CSIs you get into the episode you're watching. But in this one, you just can't get into the episode, no matter how much you try, so in my opinion, this show is not worth watching. I know people have different opinions, and I respect that, but for me, this CSI ain't good enough. So if you like suspense, real acting/performance, good plot, direction, character development/attachment and you an overall good show, I suggest you to watch CSI Miami.
\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 the concept of CSI, but the show is spoiled by some seriously wooden acting. The Medical Examiner has the best lines and delivers them in an arch, offhand manner that livens up the story. Unfortunately he has little screen time.
Also, why does Jorja Fox always look and act so utterly unhappy? I know that forensic investigation is a very serious business, but the characters, for the most part, seem to confuse seriousness with humorlessness and a complete lack of personality. I can't imagine dating either Sarah Sidle or Catherine Willows; what would you talk to either one about? I'm waiting for the episode when, at the end of a shift, Catherine picks up a remote control, points it at Grissom, shuts him down, and wheels him into a closet until the next day.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI had the privilege of seeing this powerful play on Broadway with Kathy Bates in the lead. I only saw one other play in the 1970's-1990's that had an emotional impact like this play did. I really looked forward to the play being made into a movie but was very disappointed when I learned that Kathy Bates wouldn't reprise her role in the film--she wasn't well known off Broadway at the time and the producers must have wanted star power I suppose and cast Sissy Spacek instead. Sissy did an adequate job in the lead role but did not measure up to Kathy Bates in any way. I love Anne Bancroft but she seemed too young for this role. The movie plot was true to the play. Anyone who ever contemplates suicide should have to watch this movie to realize the devastation on those who are left behind.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film is likely to be a real letdown unless you understand the circumstances under which it was made. The Marxes were chosen to be cast in the film version of a play that was not originally written for them. They are sort of force-fitted into the roles. Ironically it might have been funnier if it had used different actors who did not have such high expectations placed upon them. Instead, it has been forever enshrined as part of a canon to which it really doesn't deserve to belong.
\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\nPicking this up along with the rest of the Marx Brothers box set, I found myself disappointed by most everything beyond A Night at the Opera. This stinker is prolly the worst I've seen of them so far, with the clever lines left out and the characterization is woeful. The playwright is so obscenely stupid in this play it's hard not to tackle the television and try and strangle him.
As it is, the Marxes seem to do better as outsiders brought in to wreak havoc, and are much much better when they have a good gag or two at least. The material here is all obviously written for anyone, and it really wastes the Marx's talent. Avoid.
Rating: 3/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nJumpin' Butterballs, this movie stinks! It's a dull and listless drag that never lets up. It's a wonder anyone even bothered to make Groucho up in his bizarre trademark eyebrows and mustache, as he has nothing witty or outrageous to do or say throughout this bore. Chico must have been so disinterested that he forgot to use his Italian accent.
Only Harpo provides a grin or two, and there's precious little of that to go around here anyway. Figure in a loudmouthed hotel manager and another obnoxious co-comic in Frank Albertson, and the road gets even bumpier.
A real misfire.
\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\nArmy private Gene Kelly, who's also a talented trapeze aerialist, comes under fire for doing daring stunts without a net and alienating his high-wire cohorts; meanwhile, there's an elaborate 'camp show' to put on for Army soldiers and personnel, and the whole studio of M-G-M has shown up to join in the fun. Mickey Rooney plays M.C. (unctuously), introducing acts like Kay Kyser and His Orchestra, Bob Crosby, Benny Carter, and the M-G-M Dancing Girls (who appear to be dressed as vegetables). Red Skelton does a cute bit with Donna Reed and Margaret O'Brien, but the other comedic bits suffer from an apparent vacuum between the performers and the allegedly-live audience (they're awfully silent until the editor cuts to them for exaggerated reaction shots). Judy Garland sings an inappropriate song about a jumpin' night at Carnegie Hall (improbably accompanied by classical pianist José Iturbi, whom Judy calls 'hep'). The production is glossy, but the manic energy feels false, fabricated. ** from ****
\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 spotted the DVD on a store near my home, and since I'm a \"cheesy horror movie/alien flicks\" addict, I wondered how good it was. It even had two award mentions on the cover (I don't remember what festival it won) so I figured \"Hey this might be good\". So I bought it (for five euros) and I came here to IMDb to check out some reviews. Here, either people bashed the movie to say it was bad, or people said the movie was a wonderful feat in indie movies bla, bla. I then played the DVD, not thinking about any review I had read, with an open mind, and not expecting anything at all.
Man... I don't' like being this critical, but the movie was genuinely bad... OK, I'm just going to give out some pointers of what I thought:
1-Acting/dialog: The acting was so confusing... sometimes the actors did a decent job, but there were scenes were I could spot no effort at all from them! The dialog was even worst... I think it was probably the aspect I most disliked in the whole movie. The talking in between characters seemed... off. Not just bad, but far away from the actual happenings in the movie. The monologues of the female character, although well delivered, became boring and annoying in a little while... But of course the most ridiculous aspect was the... \"aliens\" or the \"infected\"... I wont even comment on that one, just going to say that it was absolutely ridiculous and took the entire mood away from the picture; 2-Visuals: the strongest aspect in the movie... if you forget the awful FX and light flashes they used to simulate explosions or what the hell they were supposed to be. The \"camera in car\" aspect was quite cool actually, but they didn't even used the environment to inspire fear or dread. They left that to cheap sound and video FX and the three \"infected\" characters. The movie becomes boring in so many scenes...; 3-Sound: Talk about editing... this movie has no problems in showing how weakly edited it was. From computer sounds imitating the forest animals to the \"alien dialog\"... ah...
So what did I like in the movie... (SPOILERS) the only thing I really liked and it was actually quite scary was the succession of two scenes where the car is still and you spot something/someone walking in a distant. At first I really thought it was me seeing things, but when the character realizes that the \"figures\" coming towards her were her own reflection, I was surprised! Pretty creepy idea done well! Apart from that... I had an awful time.
And I don't recommend this to anyone... not even \"teen get together\" because you can't even laugh at this...
I give it a solid 2. Only some technical achievements worked here... apart from that... yeah... nothing
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOkay, first I should say that I assume this was just made by a group of friends with a limited budget. With that in mind, it really shouldn't be compared to blockbuster features and my rating would be higher. But still...
After giving it a chance, it still violated some basic film-making rules to such an extent that both the viewer and the amateur director in me cringed. A LOT.
Think: Blair Witch in a car but REALLY boring.
Think: You left your camcorder on the dashboard and recorded yourself getting lost in the park at night for an hour, then making your friends watch it.
The scariest part (POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT... IF SPOILING HERE IS POSSIBLE) was at one point the picture rewinds and you might think you will have to watch it all over again. SCARY.
Silliness aside, this is a pretty good idea for a low-budget lets-go-make-a-movie-tonight film. But the concept walks a fine line between being really good and really bad, and let's just say it wasn't really good. There were just too many parts where nothing happened. At first I thought that was the director's plan -- you were supposed to be lulled into a sense of security and then really scary things would start happening. But...no.
I kept trying to find good things to say about it (and I had plenty of time to think), and I'll say the music was kinda cool. And I have to give the female lead credit for standing around by herself looking scared for a really, really long time. But that's it. The actors playing \"infected\" people looked as if they were making fun of zombie movies. Or they got their motivation from the Bug wearing his Edgar suit from \"MIB.\" Chances are, if for some strange reason you're going to watch this movie, it's on DVD or Tivo, so you can fast forward it whenever waiting for something to happen gets too difficult.
I hate to be so critical of something, but at the same time I've watched a lot of similar movies and nothing has ever been this painful. If they just chopped a half an hour out of it and added some scary stuff, it might be decent. Maybe that'll be the director's cut...
\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\nHere is a fantastic concept for a film - a series of meteors crash into a small town and the resulting alien infection is caught on a deputy's single camera dash cam as the town slowly taken over. Leave it to Albert Pyun to screw that up! Don't get within 100 feet of this flick! Holy crap, what a bomb...it might be Pyun's worst yet! The crazy thing is there is the germ of a creative idea in here - an entire of an outbreak told from the POV of a dashcam. When I heard that a while back, I imagined the car smashing into stuff, people getting run over, and infected types breaking the windshield and surrounding the car in chaos. That would be cool right? Instead, we have the lead driving around in circles for the entire time in a wooded area, occasionally running into the three infected types who just stand there. The last bit is literally a 15 minute shot where nothing happens in front of the camera, just noises are heard offscreen. Stay away!!! On a somewhat relieving note, I think I am officially calling an end to my Pyun watching...only took me 20 crappy movies to realize I have better things to do.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nJesus Christ, what the hell happened here?. This is one of the most boring movies I have ever seen, how is it possible that they screwed up such a nice idea for a movie. To tell you the truth I was so hyped for this, I though it was like Blair Witch but with actual alien creatures chasing the camera guy. Goddamn it, I have been reduced to fast forwarding this pile of sh*t, and I never do that while seeing movies. The high rating here on IMDb makes me believe that actual aliens are giving 10's for this piece of crap.
Invasion is about well, an invasion. The movie starts by saying that everything you're about to see is real, blahblahblah. Then they go and tell me about a special camera system used in cars, as if I need to believe their bullsh*t to enjoy this movie. Next thing you know I'm seeing the most boring car driving ever filmed, in a forest at night mind you. Is this a movie, or a Disney theme park ride? The first 20 minutes is all boring dialog between cops while seeing grass and one straight road with a flashlight. Where the hell were the aliens?! They were sleeping of course! Then we learn that bad acting is not only reduced to high school plays, as the cop behind the camera goes out of his car to look for a missing man who was 'nightfishing' and had stumbled upon a mysterious meteorite. I wonder what happens to him? Out of nowhere, we see the 'nightfishing' guy walking like a zombie. The cop is apparently too dumb to notice that something is wrong with this man. Apparently he was indeed dumb, as the zombie/alien guy injects in the cop's ear some sort of alien parasite, thus changing him into an alien. Then the cop/alien goes back into his car, looks for a young couple that were having sex a while back in the forest, gets to them, changes the guy into an alien, and then the girl runs to the cop's car and escapes. If this quick plot introduction didn't get it in your head that this movie was bad, then the following 40 minutes will. Watching this movie is as painful as stabbing yourself repeatedly with a plastic fork. The script, while it may sound interesting on the back of the DVD box, is badly directed and sadly, we are left with another boring straight to DVD atrocity.
The only thing that kept me awake were the constant flashing and loud sound effects (lamentably). If seeing the same forest trail for 63 minutes is not enough, we must endure crappy flashing techniques to \"scare\" the viewer and constant wailing of a bad actress that gets old and annoying pretty quick.
If you feel you must rent this, I say to you, why? There are better SciFi/Horror films out there. Even the dreaded remake of the Invasion of the Body Snatchers is more entertaining than this. For the love of all things good, don't bother with his crap. My eyes bled, and for the first time, I wanted suicide. A 1/10, avoid this like a disease.
\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\nBefore going any further, I have to admit that I only saw the first episode of this show. If I had the time, I might have considered watching it every week, if only to see how the season played out. However, it was very clear to me from the beginning that Martha Stewart's version of \"The Apprentice\" just doesn't \"fit in.\" Martha Stewart made a career of being a happy homemaker, a domestic diva of the likes of Oprah Winfrey and Julia Child. It was only since her scandalous legal troubles and subsequent incarceration that her public image began to reflect the true roughness of her character. Sure, she was compelling for a while, and this entire series poses the interesting question of what it means to be a woman in business. Does she have to come off as cold and tough? Shouldn't she?
But the truth was, by the time Stewart came out of prison, her attempts for a public comeback, though certainly warranted, were never going to seize viewers' interest for very long. Perhaps a true comeback would have worked had she returned home peacefully and waited a year or so after her often mocked ankle bracelet was removed. Instead, she frantically dove into overkill with 2 series at once, the other being her syndicated daytime series Martha, much like her old show, but more mainstream, with famous guests like Bette Midler. Of course, even at her peak Stewart was never mainstream, so it's too much to ask that American audiences immediately accept her foray into reality TV. Maybe America wants Stewart to make a comeback on her own rather than be the basis for it.
The show was basically a tired retread of Trump's \"Apprentice,\" which still holds my interest, depending on the tasks, the cast, and Trump's firing decisions (often controversial - likely for that reason). The letter bit was certainly not cliché but obnoxious in the least. The fact that Stewart never says, \"You're fired!\" - mentioned in the message board on this site - is particularly distressing. Producer Mark Burnett should be admired for dealing with Stewart's jail time honestly while trying to make her a hero, but the truth is that anyone watching can tell that she's basically trying to put on a show of being this nice businesswoman. Again never mainstream, Stewart lacks the agreeability and identifiability of Oprah Winfrey and the admirable, charismatic \"toughness\" of Donald Trump. Yes, this can be a gender-biased assessment of her character, but I mean it to be more about the nature of her business.
It comes as no shock that Stewart has been fired, but I wonder if they really always intended it to only last for one season?
\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, oh boy. This movie is something for the lovers of \"real\" cineatique art. It really does not make ANY sense at all. It is totally boring, especially because of the \"anti-climaxes\". All people behave more than strange, and unrealistic. Sometimes it feels like sitting in a theatre, because in dialogues the actors tend to face the camera (and therefore the audience) instead of each other. Like I said before, if you are in to those more artful movies, shown in Cannes - go for it. If you are not, better leave this movie alone, because you will be more than disappointed, and in the end know that you have wasted your time - like I did. Two thumbs down... :-(((
\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 second adaptation of Charlotte Armstrong by Claude Chabrol for the screen:the first was \" la rupture\" (1970)(from novel \"the balloon man\" )and it's really a pity no one cares about it.It's Chabrol's sleeper,and I urge any of his fans to see it.
\"The chocolate\" cobweb was not that strong a detective story to begin with.I read it 20 years ago and forgot all about it.The movie promises some good things at first,though,then finally disappoints to a fault.This is a confusing Chabrol movie,mixing elements of the heyday (circa 1969),and a lotta tongue-in-chick stuff coming from the eighties ,the likes of 'poulet au vinaigre\",not one particularly memorable work.
Part of the disappointment comes from the cast:this is a distressingly poor gathering:Jacques Dutronc plays like a zombie,Isabelle Huppert reveals herself a somewhat limited actress,finally rather vulgar .It worked in \"une affaire de femme\",it does not here.They are not supported by the young couple :both are bland and unremarkable.Actors from the past,say,Stephane Audran or Michel Bouquet(both in \"la rupture\") were brilliant and contributed to Chabrol's then unique atmosphere.
The story itself is undistinguished:beginning as some kind of \"serious\" \"la vie est un long fleuve tranquille \" (besides,a character hints at Etienne Chatilliez's very funny movie),the movie drags on and on as a laughable psychological drama afterwards.We will not congratulate the young female pianist ,who,after all she learned about her wicked hostess,agrees to drive a car along a dangerous road.
Because he makes too many movies,Chabrol frequently releases turkeys.One wonder why people who wants to watch one of his movies should choose this one among all his stuff up for grabs.
It seems that Chabrol's bourgeoise satire has finally given way to leniency.In \"la rupture\" the first Armstrong adaptation-an average detective story which Chabrol completely transcended-,you should hear Audran say \"they have so much money!\".Here ,Chabrol has lost his bite,his strength.
\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 did not like this film at all: The scenario is boring - and after a while, its primitive predictability really gets on your nerves. Even if you give Chabrol a high bonus for not being a beginner, I did not manage to find anything specially interesting on his characterization of Mika neither.
\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 beginning of the film is promising. When Jeanne Pollet(Anna Mouglalis) hear the story of the incident that happen on the day she was born that raise the possibility that she is the daughter of a famous pianist, André Polonski (Jacques Dutrone), she set to find out whether it's true or not, and giving the fact the she plays also the piano that's not such a remote idea. Jeanne meet André and his wife \"Mika\" Muller(Isabelle Huppert) and their son and on the way uncover the fact that there are some secrets in that family as much in her own.
O.K. we have seen this before and it has been done in a more interesting way than here.The character of \"Mika\" Muller is left with out us understanding her motives to her action and she is not interesting enough to care for her. The piano scenes look fake and the whole piano sub-plot doesn't add anything to the character's insight but serve as to make the film longer than it should have been in the first place.
In short a very disappointing outing from Chabrol, who can do better than this
\n
assistant\n0
\n"