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\nThere is something about Doug McLure's appearance in a movie that is a warranty of wretchedness. His DG initials are like a special cinema-certification, that comes somewhere before 'U'.
Cushing, on the other hand, seemed to suffer from both a dilatory agent and poor judgement of his own. He did excellent work in the Hammer movies as Dr Van Helsing. I'v seen him do a very passable Sherlock Holmes in 'Hound Of The Baskervilles'. And his magnum opus was probably Grand Moff Tarkin in the first 'Star Wars'. The only man but the emperor who could tell Darth Vadar to 'stop bickering' and get away with it. But - crikey! - he's done some turkeys. There was that lamentable 'Daleks' movie for one. And here's another.
There's a machine that's been hijacked from Tracy Island. It's a cylinder with a screw at the front and traction devices at the sides. I'm surprised Jerry Anderson didn't sue for plagiarism. Maybe he was bought-off. Yet if the movie is any guide, they can't have paid him much.
It's 1976 and we're still playing about in latex romper-suits.
That's about it really. Some movies have an entertainment value in the 'so bad it's good' category. This one doesn't even manage that. It wouldn't even entertain kids. 'Crash Corrigan's' stuff from the 1930's has got more going 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\nThis is just about one of the dumbest things I've ever seen. Maybe not a worst movie ever contender, but if you haven't seen that many bad ones, this could easily make your Top Ten Worst List. When you consider what was achieved in 1933 with the original \"King Kong\", you've got to ask yourself why anyone would stoop so low as to produce this debacle. Then, taking it one step further and realizing that the quantum leap to \"Star Wars\" the following year achieved a new level in sci-fi entertainment, this offering will make you laugh and cry at the same time.
Now let me ask you, what would possess the Professor (Peter Cushing) to bring along an umbrella as a prime piece of subterranean research equipment for the ride to the earth's core? OK, so it was useful in fending off the parrot/tyrannosaur (parrotosaurus?) in the early going, but come on. Somehow I don't think this is what Edgar Rice Burrough's had in mind when he wrote his tales of Pellucidar. He probably didn't have Caroline Munro in mind either as Princess Dia, probably the only redeeming factor to this whole escapade.
At least there was one bit of pseudo-scientific explanation that I got a kick out of; I'm always looking for one in films like this. That would have to be how the sky at the earth's core was really the underside of the earth's crust, explaining that ethereal pinkish glow. But try as it might, the story just couldn't hook me in a way to find anything at all interesting about Hoojah the Sly One or Jubal the Ugly One, much less those goofy half man, half pterodactyl creatures. To paraphrase the good professor - \"You cannot mesmerize me, I'm paying attention!\"
\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 amazing to think that this movie came out only one year before Star Wars but seems a million years behind it in sophistication and special effects. Actually, the art direction and set design (nice Victorian space ship) aren't bad; it's the monster costumes that are the most laughable, resembling the \"guy in a rubber suit\" monsters from the LOST IN SPACE TV show. The evil cave-man makeup reminded me of some of the aliens from ancient TWILIGHT ZONE reruns.
The script is stilted, and outside of Peter Cushing's comic relief the acting is pretty miserable too. This movie is only recommended if you really enjoy bad kitschy SF. And the music...yikes! A horrible 70s experiment with synthesizers that doesn't fit the time period of the film and which sounds like someone rambling with a Minimoog and a 2-track tape machine.
\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\nYeah it may not be for adults, and some adults may find it stupid, but if you don't think about it it's really not that bad.
The story has Alvin and his gang, going across the world, in search of jewels for a bad person, and the misadventures that they come in contact with.
So the animation is good, and the story is cute, and the songs are forgettable but it's a good movie.
I give it a 6 out of 10 or *** out of 4 stars.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie is total dumbness incarnate. Yet, i've seen this movie several times already and plan to watch several more times because, despite its sheer dumbness, it's very entertaining. And it has one of my favorite hokey-movie actors, Casper van Dien, who is here in his full hokey-movie glory. Here, Casper van Dien is fully Casper van Dien, and ya gotta love him for it. If he hadn't been in this movie, it would have been totally unwatchable dreck, or at least far dreckier than it already is.
The (cough cough) \"science\" used here makes absolutely no sense at all. No one else in the world noticed that big asteroid approaching the Earth besides that small group? Not even with thousands and thousands and thousands of professional and amateur astronomers constantly searching the skies for just such a thing? An asteroid that big would have made itself completely obvious to anyone who has a pair of eyes even vaguely capable of sight. And a chunk of the asteroid bounced off the atmosphere and no one even noticed it? A rock that big hitting the atmosphere would have caused enormous shockwaves that would have in turned caused an enormous amount of damage to the planet's surface. Surely, someone would have noticed such a thing. Bwahahaha! The \"science\" used in this movie is so completely ridiculous, that, somehow it works for making this movie as entertaining as it is.
One thing i noticed is that despite the uber heat, all the characters weren't dripping with sweat and their clothes completely soaked with it. At the most, the characters looked like they had been lightly spritzed on occasion by someone off-camera with a water bottle to give a \"sweat sheen\". Authenticity was *not* a goal that this movie assiduously and constantly strived for. Which, in a weird and hilarious sort of way, gives this movie its entertainment charm.
Is this movie actually worth watching? Definitely! Assuming, of course, you have absolutely *no* expectations of anything that even remotely approaches reality. And, it's your desire to wallow and luxuriate in total hokeyness at the moment.
\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\nMELTDOWN is pretty interesting SCI-FI. No major budget, very few special effects; but decent acting and a storyline of global doom is enough to sustain viewing. An asteroid grazes the atmosphere and thrust the Earth into an orbit closer to the sun. Global warming rapidly becomes unbearable. A determined LAPD cop(Casper Van Dien)goes all out to save the world from certain annihilation as the rising temps are devastating. The pressure is on to save mankind from this solar catastrophe; as well as protect his daughter, nurse ex-wife and TV reporter girlfriend. The cast includes: Stefanie Von Pfetten, Venus Terzo, Amanda Crew and Vincent Gale.
\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\nPoor Casper Van Dien, his career has slid a long way from Tarzan and Starship Troopers.
In Meltdown he's a policeman who just happens to be dating TV reporter Stefanie Von Pfeten and her brother is a scientist who's trying to deal with a speeding comment headed for Earth. But in the runaway comet business, even a near miss causes some real problems as the Earth's orbit goes out of kilter.
From the survival of the Earth we go to the survival of Van Dien and his immediate family. His daughter's gangbanger boyfriend, Ryan McDonell actually proves to be of some use especially when he suspects a guy he knows as a crooked cop might mean the Van Dien group a lot of harm.
My only question here is, why didn't they have Bruce Willis, Billy Bob Thornton and the rest of that crew to deal with the nasty comet?
Pass this one up folks.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI would rather have someone cut out my eyeballs with a razor blade than have to watch this movie again. I watched it from start to end thinking it couldn't get any worse....BUT IT DID. The writers and producers should be slapped for putting this kind of crap on television. The actors are ALL terrible. Get out of Hollywood you fools and go work at McDonalds sweeping the floors and emptying the trash. Anyone that thinks this movie is even remotely decent should be hung. They are an embarrassment to humanity. To think we have soldiers putting their lives on the line for anyone that produces this kind of inane garbage. Makes me embarrassed to say I'm an American.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis was a modest attempt at a film, though it appeared more like a TV pilot extended.
Some may find this unfair, but it looks like someone saw \"The Brothers\" and \"Save the Last Dance\", and thought \"Hey, I could do that too.\" Well, not quite.
While I personally found the movie predictable, somewhat poorly acted, and contrived (watch for the cookies), Carl Payne shows that he can carry off a lead role, and should be back on television. The leading lady (can't remember her name, sorry) was plausible too, but you keep thinking of Julia Stiles (she was the one in \"Save the Last Dance\", right?) because this one was really stuck in \"white girl\" mode.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI am a huge Randolph Scott fan, so I was surprised and disappointed to find he is barely in this film! The movie really belongs to Robert Ryan, who is the hero in the jam, and the one embroiled in the love triangle. Good grief, Gabby Hayes gets more screen time than Mr. Scott in this movie!! For many viewers, that is not a problem, but I am from the Walter Brennan school of sidekicks, not Gabby Hayes...although I will say that his lines were a bit more humorous than annoying in this film than in many of his films with Randolph Scott and John Wayne.
Personally, I found the movie very slow going, with a convoluted plot that was muddied even more by the unnecessary romance subplot. By convoluted, I don't mean impossible to understand or figure out, I just mean too messy for its own good.
The direction is uninspired, and the two main bad guys have the most unsatisfying come-uppance at the end. The whole movie comes across as fake, unrealistic, and poorly filmed.
Just so you don't think I can't find anything good here...
On the plus side, Anne Jeffreys is very sexy in her all-too-brief parts of this film. Not sure if it is actually her singing, or someone else, but whoever it was had a very pretty voice. Ms. Jeffreys also had a couple of nice acting moments. The script needed either a lot more of her, or to remove her character altogether. As it was, her nice few moments weren't enough to help the film.
Lastly, there is Mr. Scott. He looks fantastic in this film and is the no-nonsense lawman out to set things right. Some folks complain that his characters prior to 1950 were too goody-goody perfect, but that's never bothered me at all. I'll take him goody-goody pre-1950, or gritty and violent post-1950...either way, Randolph Scott was a real Western hero.
It saddens me to have to say it, but I would have to recommend passing this film by, unless you are a die-hard fan...there are so many better Scott films out there that this one won't be missed.
\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\nMade and released at the time when the internet was just becoming huge, this is a storyline Hitchcock would have loved.
Sadly, Hitchcock wasn't around to make it, and we're left with an occasionally suspenseful but mostly silly thriller, that is held (barely) together by Bullock's intelligence.
It was released in 1995 but is already dated, and the amount of mistakes and inaccuaracies regarding computers must be seen to be believed, and you don't even have to be a dot.com person to spot them!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOkay... she's on the boat with this guy, realizes he's out to kill her, knocks him out, and then finds the reason he's out to off her is this disk that got her coworker killed. So what would any rational person do? Maybe conk him over the head again to make sure he's really out?? Tie him up?? Look, Sandra honey, you've got the chance to escape while the guy is out for only so long. Until you know how long it will take you take you to escape, make sure he's not able to come after you. I HATE these stupid female victim roles. The rest of the movie was just a series of twists and turns that were completely convoluted and too unbelievable to remain interesting.
\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\nSPOILER ALERT!!!!
I don't go into 'high tech' movies expecting them to be 100% accurate on all things computer related. But somehow, even the average 'I have a computer' user is supposed to believe that:
1) A computer professional with a top secret, special data
2) is going to keep the primary copy of said data on a 1.44 floppy
3) and make absolutely NO BACKUP of this special secret data
Even high school students back up their homework for goodness sake.
Also this is the worst represntation of a computer nerd ever. Even though she is super cute we are supposed to believe that she has no friends, neighbors, extended family, or coworkers who can identify her. Even the unabomber had a family that could turn him in.
END SPOILER
These aren't just minor mistakes that had no bearing on the movie - These are the major plot points that fueled the storyline. The characterization was awful, the plot wholly unbeleivable, and if you haven't seen this, don't bother.
\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 basically just a dumb chase story, nearly identical to zillions of other chase stories in terms of acting, suspense, plot, dialogue, characterization (or lack thereof), and pacing.
The one area in which 'The Net' diverges from traditional chase movies is in its subject material: Computers. Unfortunately, the scriptwriters clearly didn't understand the differences between a pocket calculator and a Cray!
Computer-newbies shouldn't watch this movie, because it will make them paranoid about computers. No matter what Hollywood tries to tell us, it's just not that easy to erase someone's identity by hacking. There's still too much paper documentation in the world, and there was even more of it in 1995.
Computer-pros shouldn't watch this movie, either. I mean, a magical virus that can melt your entire PC when you press \"Escape\"? Please. And the whole virus, including the cool multimedia effects of your screen dissolving (what's THAT all about?) can fit on a single 1.44mb diskette? Yeah ... whatever.
\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\nRating: *1/2 out of ****
\"The Net\" is one of those films that won't remain in your mind till the next one hour. Well... Just if you keep thinking how bad it is. It's a mediocre, miserable, hollow, laughable and predictable piece of garbage. One of those adjectives I've just used above is the reason which made me add 1/2 a star to the one I would have given. So is it a case of 'so bad it is good'? No. It's a case of 'so bad it is laughable'.
Bullock in a (surprise!) very bad performance plays Angela Bennett, a computer expert who is at home all the time. She works at home, doesn't have any friends and her neighbors don't know her. Suddenly, she sees herself involved in dangerous situations, after her colleague dies and the same thing almost happens to her. Her identity, bank accounts, etc, etc, etc, are all deleted, and she is now Ruth Marx. The conspiracy involves even the government and... Wait! Haven't we seen this before? Yes, thousands of times. \"The Net\" tries to be modern, to be the portrait of the '90s, showing the computer as a villain. Big deal! It is a film about nothing, just a pretext to show ridiculous action scenes. Take the scene of the boat accident. I just laughed when the camera started to get slow...
What makes everything even worse here is Sandra Bullock. How awful she is! Has she already made a decent film? \"A Time to Kill\", okay. But she is still a bad actress, repeating her robotic face moves in each of her pictures.
The vantages and disadvantages of the computer were already shown in \"2001: A Space Odyssey\", the best, most intelligent and most complex film ever made. It's not needed to compare \"The Net\" with it, is it...?
The only reason to see \"The Net\" is to laugh, as I've said, and to see what it tried to be. The results, well, are a shame.
DELETE this film from your mind!
\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\nComputing . Can there be anything more boring ? Sitting in front of a computer all day typing away at some keys all day every day , tap tap tapping . That's much of the problem with this movie , the heroine sits in front of a computer VDU tapping the keys and no matter how many looks of agitation she gives , or how much suspenseful notes the composer strikes or how many extreme close ups the director uses there's not much excitement down to the fact that there's few things less exciting than watching somebody on a computer
There's a few other problems too much of them factual errors regarding how computers work . Is it possible to hack into a computer that is both turned off and not connected to the internet ? I guess that when THE NET was made 10 years ago very few people would understand how computers worked so the screenwriters would have been able to BS at length but since we now live in a global village where nearly every household in the western world has their own computer the audience are certainly very clued up on the factual errors of this movie . And of course there's too many instances where someone acts stupid or out of character at crucial times in order to progress the plot which makes THE NET a very mediocre movie
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWe can conclude that there are 10 types of people in this world.
Those who understand binary and those who do not. Those who understand binary put this movie to its grave along with hackers, while those who do enjoy this movie for the sake that none of this crap could happen. Ever.
For a movie to attempt to be a modern movie with fiction applied to it. It has failed. Horribly. Only a 11yr old and below can enjoy and only 30yr and up could be scared to have their identity taken. It losses out on the main market for a resale value(i watch it now it is more boring than when it was first released).
\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[ as a new resolution for this year 2005, i decide to write a comment for each movie I saw in theater (10%) or in DVD (90%).
I must admit that DVD have revolutionized this habit. For instance, i can hear the true voice of the cast, which is an essential trait of the personality. In my country, non french movies are dubbed and we end up with aberrations: french voice is terrible, very far away of its original tone ! the same voice for different people or a same people with different voices !!!!
And well, if everybody found my comments unuseful, well, in 2006, I will stop my reviews... Ah,AH.... So, enjoy them now !!!! ]
My summary means that the story, locations, cast is not very enjoyable...
Only....
Sandra bullock is there.. She is a talented actress, able to get the viewer to catch on the movie....
It reminds of a feminine \"the fugitive\".... So if you look for a moment of escaping your life, watching this movie makes it worse because Sandra's life is a mess....
She got nothing left to hold on to, only her poor mother (Who is Alzheimer ill: again the touch for depression)....
In fact, she has a sad life in the beginning of the movie, has a sadder life throughout it, to finally get back to it at the end.... what a happy ending !!!!
maybe the writers wanted to make a point about a nerd's life....
very far away from the best computer movie of all time: *WARGAMES*
\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, oh when, will Hollyweird write a decent movie based around computers? I cannot believe people actually consider this movie to be a credible story.
No computer operating system could ever survive wit that sort of annoying scrolling interface. It may look good on a movie screen but if you actually tried using it for any length of time you would go nuts.
As for \"tracing\" people the way she did it simply cannot be done that way. Network security alone would prevent that from happening. The key stroke logging was laughable to say the least.
Regarding the software that was supposedly being installed, no system administrator would allow such a critical piece of software to be installed on a production system until it has been tested, retested and tested again on a sandbagged system.
But probably the worst possible part of the movie was the \"virus\". There is no way that a virus that works on one operating system will work on any other system. And as for a virus that could take out a mainframe is a couple of seconds, that just beggars belief. There is no way that an open remote connection would have the required superuser access that would allow deletion of system files.
I could go on but I can't be bothered.
A porno has a better thought out plot that this pile of garbage.
\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\nNow i have seen two movies by the director Chen Kaige, a very good one (Farewell my concubine), and this bad one, The Assassin. Both movies depict crucial events in chinese history, FMC in the 20th century and TA the first unification of the whole chinese nation in the 3rd century bc. FMC succeds with memorable characters, gorgeous cinematography, convincing sets, good acting and an interesting story. The Assassin fails on nearly every level (okay, the sets are great, the cinematography is good, and the few battle scenes are quite exciting). But...the pathos. Call me a cynic, but too much is too much. If you felt that Saving Private Ryan was too pathetic, be aware, this here will make you sick. The dialogue is lifeless, many lines seem like political statements, subtle or entertaining is this pic not. The film is overpowered by its own pompousness. I am really surprised that The Assassin gets such high votes here on imdb. 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\nLots of flames, thousands of extras in battle scenes, lots of beautiful sets. I don't think the plot supported such a vast expenditure. The story could have been told far more effectively and have been more valid, psychologically if there weren't so much macho bombast in the production. Chinese movies tend to be this way, in my experience. and I think this detracts from the film.
\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 read all of the other comments which made this movie out to be an excellent movie. I saw nothing of the excellence that was stated. I thought it was long and boring. I tried twice to watch it. The first time I fell asleep and the second time I made it to within six minutes of the end and gave up. I suppose that it was mainly my fault going in with great expectation, but I don't think that this would have completely ruined the movie for me. The movie was just bland. It had nothing that was spectacular or unique to it. The plot was not half bad, the action sequences were non-existent, the dialogue forced and the movie just went on forever. I would not recommend seeing this movie.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt starts off pretty well, with the accident and the decision not to return to LA. But everything falls into place too quickly. There is a decent plot twist towards the end, but so many scenes that don't make sense. Randy (played by Brian Austin Green) comes home angry and ready to confront people and he takes the time to put on the club, when he parks his car in front of his house in the middle of nowhere? I don't want to spoil it, for anyone who does decide to see it, but the last 45 minutes are ridiculous. Even the acting, which wasn't bad early on, turns bad towards the end. Don't bother unless you want to see how bad it is.
\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 Movie is okay. Meaning that I don't regret watching it! I found the acting purely and the most of the dialog stupid (\"oh no, this was my grandmothers bible!\"). It's sort of bad remake of U-turn. A man arrives to a desert town out in nowhere, meets the wrong people and falls in love with the wrong woman. And off cause get's involved in something, he thought he could leave behind him. The movie is quite predictable and there is really nothing new in it. When it's finish, you didn't really care. Most of the characters are stereotypes, specially Brian Austin Green!! All in all just another movie from the states, but okay entertaining on boring Wednesday night. IMDb vote: 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\nit's the best film that takes the first place at the sickest and an useful films ever made in this poor country. really u people even don't know what the word cinema means and u cast votes for movies, i'm really curious to know how many movies of P.P.P. or L.Bunuel have u seen. The score of this \"faield experiment\" it reflects a lot of u're way of understanding things and to recognize a good/quality movie when u see it. We the Romanian people have only ONE movie and until this day the status hasn't change & that movie is \"Padurea Spanzuratilor\". But I don't lose my time thinking how many of you have seen it. That is a movie that respects all the required quality's's of an MOVIE. From the script to the frames and even to the quality/clarity of the picture even are past over him 41 years. I recommend to the voters to search for better movies and then vote. KuDos will See u later .
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOK, so this film is well acted. It has good direction but the simple fact is that it undermines what all gay and lesbian people have been fighting for all these years. The straight man \"deciding to be gay\" and the gay man \"Deciding to be straight\" I did enjoy it up until the last 20 minutes, after that i got really offended. As what usually happens in these films the straight actors play the main parts and the out gay actors play the secondary straight roles. The leads are played by handsome men but don't let that distract you from the fact that this is a a film that leaves you feeling unfulfilled. All the romance and relationships you hope would happen do not. Unless you are a priest that is in which case god bless straight woman who cure our homos.
\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 at A and never quite reaches B. Its title promises far more than the film delivers. It's superficial and filled with the usual cliches of a story in which a guy questions his sexuality. The people are agreeable, even the obligatory flamboyant type. The lead (Kevin McKidd) overacts insofar as there's a reason for him to act at all. Simon Callow, playing a horny straight, is always worth watching, and he's by far the only reason to stay with the movie. However, the rubbish about his men's group \"meditations\" or whatever they are grows extremely tiresome in short order. They seem to have been thrown into the movie's mild mix in a misguided effort to vary the setting and non-stop inaction. The same comment applies to a really odd and unconvincing camping trip. Don't worry about pausing the tape so you can get a snack. Let the thing run; you won't miss anything. Hugo Weaving's character is superfluous. He appears in a sequence with one of the lesser leads and doesn't even meet the rest at all. The outcome of that sequence isn't explained, and Hugo's real estate dealings have nothing to do with the story. The movie is a total disappointment at the end, because there is no resolution. The thing simply fades out and we're sent to the closing credits. This is an interlude with no structure.
\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 found it hard to care about these characters, who were either annoying or insipid, all living their fabulously hilariously urban lives.
The dialogue was excruiciating at times, and at other times the narrative seemed hard to follow - was it me or were entire scenes deleted?
It felt like a poor sitcom somehow turned into a film. The stereotypes and jokes about \"men's groups\" would perhaps have been funny in the early 90s. As it is, this is where much of the humour of the film comes from - and boy, does it get old fast.
Apart from the attractive Irish man - this film was a dud. And not even in a \"so bad it's good way\". The last 20 minutes were particularly painful. Perhaps if you've never met any gay people or never thought about homosexuality before, then this film might have something meaningful to say. Otherwise - darlings, you'd still be better off renting The Boys in The Band or Beautiful Thing.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n\"Go Fish\" garnered Rose Troche rightly or wrongly the reputation of a film maker with much promise.
Its then hard to understand how she could turn out a movie made up of stereotypes that one associates with inferior sitcoms. The entire film rings hollow. I cringed the whole way through.
Its supposed to be a look into nineties human sexuality. Well not much more here to be learned than from \"In and Out\". By now most of us actually do know, that there are men who are sexually attracted to women and there men who are sexually attracted to men and there are even men sexually attracted to both sexes.
Seldom has this revelation been portrayed on the screen with so little wit and style.
Pathetic.
\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 daytime TV of films. Seldom have I felt so little attachment to characters. Seldom have I been made to cringe by such dire dialogue. Nauseous London thirty-somethings mincing round lurid BBC sets spouting platitudinous mulch. Avoid this film as if it were your grandmother's clunge.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI bought this video on a throw-out table at the video store expecting a good cast in what was touted as an award-winning Brit sex comedy. I guess I should have read the finer print. I rarely write a panning review, but here goes.
These actors in gay roles really play games with your memories of a lot of far more worthy films. This comedy was a very cruel joke at the expense of the actors, the theatre-going public and of all the nice films that have contributed to their reputations.
I repeat: is the joke about trashing the actors' other highly respectable on-screen personae with this scurrilously trashy flick? Can the reference to the Austen classics 'Pride and Prejudice' and 'Sense and Sensibility' be anything else? How much of a political statement was it to produce this melodrama using these stars? Are we meant to simply take it as a lay-down misere that all actors are gay and thus letting their on-screen roleplay affect our lifestyles is accepting their private homosexual dealings in our faces, too? I'm sorry, but I don't think so. I say NO to 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\nThis is supposed to be Charlie's masterpiece, but I will contend that it is actually one of his weaker films. First of all, it's not funny. Not one thing in this movie made me laugh. Okay, there's a quick jump into a box that was a giggle, but that was one of desperation. The Tramp's first - and only - talkie where he speaks (he sings in an earlier film), but his flat dialogue shows us exactly why he was such a joy to watch in \"Modern Times\" and \"Gold Rush\" - two films that are at least ten times better than this film. There's literally only one good scene in this film, the one where Hitler plays with the globe like a beach ball. That's it.
Okay, so it gets a lot of praise for being the first film to wage war, even long before we entered the war. Nope. Not true. Simply not true, so that praise can be turned down a bit. The Three Stooges did it on January 19, 1940 with \"You Natzy Spy\" - ten months earlier than the October release of Chaplin's film - and that movie was actually funny! If you want to watch Chaplin's greatest film, watch this only for reference. And then pop in \"Modern Times\", \"Gold Rush\", \"City Lights\", \"Limelight\", \"The Kid\", or even \"Tillie's Punctured Romance\".
\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\nMaybe this was *An Important Movie* and that's why people rank it so highly, but honestly it isn't very good. In hindsight it's easy to see that Chaplin (probably all of Hollywood) was incredibly naive about the magnitude of what was really going on in the ghettos, so you can't fault him TOO much for the disconnect that affects a modern viewer, but the disconnect remains.
More disappointingly, the movie is just clunky; it's as if Chaplin had no idea that movies had progressed in sophistication since the silent era. The set pieces, those involving both the Jewish Barber and the Dictator, don't flow into each other; they just sit there like discrete lumps of storyline that progress in fits and starts, moving SOMEWHERE but never arriving at resolution. Some are funny, some less so.
What charm the movie has is strictly in the person of Chaplin himself. His parodies of Hitler's speeches were the best part of the whole thing, and there's no denying that he had a physical grace that was delightful to watch. But virtually everything he surrounded himself with was ANNOYING. Hannah was TOO DAMN American. The Storm Troopers were TOO DAMN American.
Oooh! Oooh! One more thing! I don't know what purpose was served by having Garbage be the source of evil behind the throne. It almost seems like the film is saying that, if it weren't for malign influences like Garbage, Hynckle wouldn't have been that bad a guy.
\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*MILD SPOILERS*
In this would-be satire, Chaplin set his sights on the evils of German fascism, playing the twin roles of Tomanian dictator Adenoid Hynkel and one of his subjects, an inadvertent World War I hero and Jewish barber. Through events inspired by both Adolf Hitler and the Marx Brothers, Hynkel negotiates contracts and declares war on neighbouring Osterlich whilst finding time for numerous, oddly flat set-pieces. The dictator's much-celebrated waltz with an inflatable globe is actually entirely heavyhanded, underwhelming and unfunny.
Chaplin should certainly be commended for looking to lampoon Hitler and for speaking out strongly on celluloid - his much-maligned final speech is actually the bold, memorable highlight of the piece - but the film simply isn't sharp or funny enough to merit the praise frequently heaped upon it, nor to demand repeated viewings. The best gags are away from Hynkel's tiresome posturing and involve The Barber attempting to avoid a large spinning bomb (a sequence which steals from the gun tussle in The Gold Rush) and later, with a pot on his head, accidentally walking the plank off the roof of his shop.
Compared to the director's silent classics, The Great Dictator is slow, wildly inconsistent and altogether somewhat unsatisfactory, whilst the barren spells between laughs are often long and difficult to endure. There is no doubt that Chaplin was a genius, but even geniuses make disappointing pictures and The Great Dictator certainly ranks as such.
\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\nChaplin was great a silent comedian, but many silent era stars fell when the public heard their voices in the first talkies. In my opinion, Chaplin's voice simply did not fit his silent characters that made him rich and famous. His career never recovered when sound came to film. Contrary to most of the reviews I have read, Chaplin's lifestyle and politics did not help his popularity with the average viewer who expected to be entertained by Chaplin the comedian, and not spend their entertainment dollar watching Chaplin's political commentary.
Despite Chaplin's awards and knighthood, I would take exception to his \"contributions\" to humanity. The Great Dictator was made at the same time Stalin's brutal dictatorship was having it's show trials, and both Dictators signed the agreement that lead to invasion of Poland by both Dictators. WWII started in an attempt to save Poland. The Nazi's were defeated in 6 years, but Poland disappeared as a sovereign country. This happened during the time this film was made and the investigations of Hollywood by the Federal government. Had Chaplin included Joe Stalin in this satire,in addition to including the Italian dictator, perhaps he would have had less criticism about his politics by the politicians. The Soviet's mistreatment of Jews and dissidents exceeded the Nazi's in time and numbers.
Judged simply as a film, many of the gags were too topical to be understood by younger viewers, who wouldn't know who Goebbels, Goring or Mussolini were. A classic piece of art must stand the test of time. Classic Greek Tragedy, the Mona Lisa and Beethoven's 9th are still enjoyed centuries after their creation because they are timeless. Films which rely on topical political commentary or currently popular social views usually do not outlast the generation in which they are made. But those that address issues that are common to all generations will probably live forever and receive a high rating from me.
Chaplin, as the writer, director and lead actor must take the blame for what I judge as a dated and tiresome film.
Chaplin's apologists have excused his decision to leave the country that made him rich and famous. If Chaplin found the US so offensive, why didn't he return to his native land. Great Britian fought the Nazi'with blood and money. What did Switzerland contribute in the fight against the European dictators? Switzerland is like a country club that picks and chooses its members based on race and class, and cares little about people who can't join the club.
\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 show is not in my opinion, good,Then again I have not enjoyed any cartoon from Disney Channel. Except for \"The Proud Family\" because that so is about a normal female teen This show is very similar to the way I feel about Lilo and Stich the Series. It was a mistake turning the movie into a cartoon because the movie was excellent, the cartoon is terrible. Disney Channel was doing just fine before adding all these stupid cartoons such as Dave The Barbarian, Brandy and Mr. Whiskers, Lilo and Stich the Series, American Dragon Jake long,and where it all started: Kim Possible. The shows would have been better had they come to PlayHouse Disney! As for this particular show Kuzko will never get out of school just as Dave The Barbarian's Parents will never return home, and as Brandy And Mr. Whiskers will never get out of the jungle.
\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 pains me to see an awesome movie turn into some lame, repetitive and lazy series. It is filled with plot holes and the plot is confusing, in a BAD way. Whoever the prick writers were that decided to turn such a great movie into this garbage should have done some research, instead of filling it with one-liners and hollow new characters, and the classic jokes from the first movie OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. Sure they get a little creative, but its like seeing the same episode with a small twist. Pretty much like listening to Creed, or Nickleback. Kuzco has to prevent himself from failing, Yzma has a complicated plan, but decides to go the easy way to save time and just use a potion, someone questions the monkey and the bug, Bucky appears in the background, Kuzco flirts with Malina, she disses him without sounding like a bitch, Yzma disguises herself as \"Principal Amzy\" and she calls Kronk, and he forgets that she is Yzma. I admit, this show does have it's moments. Another problem is the fact that Yzma looks younger and Pacha looks....weird. Also, no one can replace David Spade and John Goodman! Their the ones who made Kuzco and Pacha Kuzco and Pacha! Sorry, but i give this show 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\nAwful, awful, awful...
I loved the original film. It was funny, charming, and had heart... this piece of junk has NONE of those things.
Reused jokes from the original film, stupid plots, bad animation, different voices (with the exception of Kronk and Yzma) that sound NOTHING like the ones in the original (especially Pacha... *shudder*).
The characters are off model, the animation is flat and boring, it's just a bad job all around.
And why is Kuzco a jerk again? I thought he had reformed... but since when are these TV spin offs loyal to the original *rolls eyes*.
I'm sorry, but there is nothing redeemable about this... at all.
Avoid 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\nOK from the point of view of an American, who i assume do not know much about rugby this would be an amazing film for them.First of all its got heart, good morals the typical good coach trying to change the bad boy. HOWEVER to us where I come from rugby is the number one sport, it is a way of life it is a game played only by the bravest and the victorious are hailed like heroes as though Americans do for their baseball/basketball stars. Am not really sure if it was the cheap budget or the maybe the director or actors knew very little about rugby and being a rugby fan my whole life i can see than some of the actors didn't even knew rugby existed before acting in this movie. In summing up to me this movie was terrible. If you watch it and thought it was great please make time to go online and maybe Google \"All Blacks\" this is new Zealand's national team and the ones who made the haka famous. Believe me they will make the Highlands boys look like school girls.
\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 horrendous. The acting is cheesy and laughable. If you know anything at all about Rugby the match action is boring. In fact any episode of Power Rangers contains more realism than this movie. The 'action' consists of no more than one pass and a shot of guy landing over the try line or being tackled without the ball and hectic hand held shots of who knows what. It's impossible to tell. There is nothing of the excitement, skill and construction of try scoring that real Rugby contains. As for the haka, this is a bunch of yanks trying to imitate a tradition they know nothing about, much like the white rasta character that should have been left out of the film. Next time there's a Rugby movie made we can only hope that people who know Rugby make it.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"