empathielabs/imdb_v0 huggingface dataset:
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nTHE EXPERT, starring Jeff Speakman, is the definition of DULL!!!
Dull, characters, dull situations, dull direction, dull actors, dull cinematography, dull music.
I don't really understand this movie. Is it supposed to be an action movie? It's almost as if Speakman wanted to be in a serious movie but the level of acting and writing found in THE EXPERT is below your average TV drama. And there are some typical \"Speakman pummeling bad guys\" scenes here and there but the main aspect of the movie relies on some sort of believable drama, which is totally wrong for Speakman or is so badly directed that it just doesn't work with the action star. In the end, this confused movie looks and feels very nondescript and bland. The worst aspect of THE EXPERT is the music. The composer is a Jerry Goldsmith wannabe, with his pompous and melodramatic score, which simply doesn't belong in this kind of (dull) movie. It's as if the producers knew they had a very dull product on their hands and they asked the composer to make the film feel more compelling and dramatic with his score, which makes the entire movie look even more confused, goofier and dull.
Don't waste your time watching this, even if you're a Jeff Speakman fan.
\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 think I would probably not hate this movie if I spoke Polish. I selected the English version at the first menu, but it gave me Polish dialogue with English subtitles, just as the Polish version did. Maybe the dialogue was so disjointed because the person that did the subtitles could not translate it into English very well. To exacerbate the issue, some of the dialogue had no subtitles at all. The acting was pretty bad, especially the female lead, who was melodramatic about everything! One scene that bothered me was when a German woman was caught stealing and as the mob was jostling her around, her shirt opened and the director showed close-ups of her naked breast for the next 15-20 seconds. I couldn't see how her breast added to the drama of the scene or the film. Maybe the director was trying to increase the numbers of teenage boys in the audience. Much of the film takes place in an extermination camp liberated by the Americans. First, the \"American\" uniforms did not look anything like U.S. Army uniforms. Second, none of the extermination camps in Poland were liberated by the Americans. I would think that a Polish film director who turned 19 in 1945 would know better than an American born in 1966 that all six extermination camps were liberated by the Russians. All in all, it's just not a very good film if you don't speak Polish.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'm not in favor of death penalties but in this movie, it couldn't happen fast enough. Just to end the movie. I don't understand why this movie is rated as high as it is. It fooled me into a bad night.
\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 difficult to imagine how the engaging Dan Brown novel \"Angels and Demons\" could misfire as badly as this film version. Here are ten reasons why the film was a failure. Due to the spoilers, please do no read on unless you have already seen the film.
(1) In the film, there was no love relationship between Robert Langdon and Vittoria Vetra. Worse still, there was not even any chemistry between the two leading actors.
(2) The breathtaking locations in Rome, as described in the novel, were not realized visually in the film. I am aware that director Ron Howard encountered difficulties in filming on location. But there are superior photographed depictions of Rome on The History Channel than in this film where the Eternal City was presented in eternal stock film footage. The great art works described in the novel were only briefly depicted in the film. The magnificent Bernini sculpture of the \"Ecstasy of St. Teresa\" was only momentarily glimpsed, and the West Ponente relief in Vatican Square was not visible at all.
(3) The most tasteless choice made by the film-maker was in the depiction of the deceased pope who actually resembled the beloved John Paul II. In the novel, the pope is clearly fictional with no resemblance to any real pope.
(4) One of the most colorful (and important) characters of the novel, Maximilian Kohler, Director of CERN, was cut out of the screenplay.
(5) There were numerous instances when the lines of dialog were inaudible due to extraneous background noise.
(6) There were moments when the faces of characters were not visible due to the shadows and chiaroscuro film lighting. This technique worked in \"The Godfather\" films, but Ron Howard is no Gordon Willis.
(7) The College of Cardinals was quite a motley crew with one of the electors speaking in a Southern drawl. This dude would have been more at home on a Texas ranch than in the Sistine Chapel.
(8) The crucial relationship of the Camerlengo and the deceased Pope was not defined in the film. This relationship was central to the theme of science vs. religion and the relevance of the Illuminati to the plot against the church.
(9) In the novel, the character of Hassassin was an unforgettable villain. In the film, that assassin character's role was a cardboard cutout villain.
(10) As a whole, the filmmakers did not trust the workings of the successful novel.
In the novel, Langdon makes an impossible fall out of the sky and into the Tiber River. In Ron Howard's film, it was the movie itself that landed in the Tiber.
\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\nPersonally, the book was a very well written, amazing, thrilling piece that was not brought to justice to the movie. Watching the movie at 12.01 in the morning to see that major parts of the book were left out frustrated me, seeing that it affected the \"different\" outcome of the movie. There was something to be desired out of this movie, but all in all, it lacked in plot.
For someone who has NOT read the book, I could see how this movie would be seen as inviting and entertaining with its controversy and suspense. However to a dedicated reader who has read it seven times, I did not see the strong connection between the two: both the movie and the novel.
With major characters missing (such as Maximilian Kohler) and the abrupt turn in plot with the survival of the last cardinal in the preferiti, the plot of the movie was slightly strewn thus leading to a different take in the conclusion of the story. The Hassassin too was portrayed as a common white man, compared to that of in the novel where he was portrayed as a Muslim; his motives in the book are predominately based his ties with the Illuminati, however, in the movie, his motives are based on money and seemed more like work than some personal tie to the task at hand.
\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 went to see this movie tonight, trying to keep an open mind. I had hoped to enjoy a movie that I expected to be different from the book. There were considerable differences from the book, much like the changes made in the DiVinci Code. I went to see the DiVinci Code with the same thought process and managed to enjoy the film, in spite of, the changes from the book. It was still enjoyable, filled with action, and the process of deciphering the symbols was interesting and mentally stimulating. Unfortunately, Angels and Demons disappointed on almost every level. Throughout the movie, symbols are found and figured out quickly, without any interest for the viewer. They blow past the various Immuminati symbols so quickly that we had no chance to get a look at them and appreciate how they work. The final Illuminati symbol, which was the most interesting and creative one in the book, was replaced with the crossed keys symbol. In my opinion, that was a missed opportunity to focus on and spend a little more time on the symbols, which is what the Langdon character is all about. Overall, this movie is a very poor interpretation of the book, and fails at the attempt to be an action movie / thriller. 4 out of 10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhy did they not follow the book ... I am really sad and disappointed. I was so looking forward to seeing this movie, however, if you have read the book (maybe recently) it might be very difficult to remain objective. My wife had not read the book, and she loved the movie.
Reasons for the disappointment are: 1) Cern's involvement ... gone with the wind, such a shame, there is a very small part at the start, where the antimatter is created, but even that does not stick to the facts (why not, the fact that Vittoria's father was burned with the first Illuminati brand, which is how Langdon got involved would have been a perfect start to the Movie_ 2) Story-line between the (deceased) pope and Camerlegno completely gone ... this completely screws up the motive for the stealing of the antimatter 3) Story-line between Langdon and Vittoria Vetra completely non-existent
All-in-all, too flaky storyline, and cannot understand that Dan Brown allowed them to put his name against it. Maybe I should revisit this film in 10 years time, when I cannot remember the excellent book anymore (fat chance on forgetting the book I am afraid)
Really sorry for the negative review, which was spoilt by expectations
\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 implausibility of the plot has been noted by several commentators, particularly the immense amount of trouble Fr McKenna would have had to have gone to, and the sheer impossibility of some of the calculations he would have had to have made, including that Langdon was going to decipher each clue in minutes. McKenna is branded; a few seconds later he is giving orders, and a few minutes later, he is running (literally) around in charge of operations -- in real life, he would be in shock. And, as usual in thrillers, the assassin doesn't kill the heroes, giving as his only lame explanation that they were not on the list of those to be killed, as though every other innocent bystander he shot was. I have always used Independence Day as the hallmark of a truly awful film (US President commandeers jet plane and beats off aliens, ha ha), and this effort runs it close. For such an implausible film, Angels and Demons contains a remarkable number of predictable incidents. Who didn't laugh knowingly when the assassin went to get his reward in the Volkswagen? I felt like shouting, \"You are going to be blown up\". Who didn't know that the heroine was going to find a body in the lab? Who didn't spot the baddie? Technically also, the film was awful. The dialogue was more often indecipherable than clear, while the races across Rome to the next church were accompanied by deafening music. Moreover, many scenes looked like mud. The one redeeming feature was the shots of Rome and what looked like the Vatican -- an achievement, because I am sure that the Vatican officials would not have wanted this dross shot in and around St Peter's -- and the interiors were convincing. Rome is a magic place, and I enjoyed seeing it fleetingly.
\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\nRon Howard and his \"editors\" only had one job to do... Follow the guidelines of the book which was \"rich\", \"mysterious\", \"moving\" and highly cinematic in its approach!
What they did? They changed EVERYTHING and I mean EVERYTHING! What is left is something that has no right being called \"Angels & Daemons\"!
I really love the book and find it very hard to see it being treated this way!
I wonder what was the opinion of Dan Brown himself for \"this\" film.
I really have no patience to sit down and right the 1.000.000 changes they made, it is pointless.......
\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\nFirstly I loved the book, more so than the more popular Da Vinci Code and although the DVC film was not well received, I liked it and bought the DVD. However, there is no chance that I will ever want to watch Angles and Demons ever again.
The film barely resembles the book, in fact only the general premise of the story is there.
From the very start of the film I was disappointed, in the book Robert Langdon receives a call and fax from Maximilian Kohler, Director of CERN. Who finds the body of Father (can't remember the name) and then requests Langdon to come, using the super fast plane... In the book the only people who knew about this technology that the Father and Daughter team had created were themselves and the camerlingo... In the film however, there was a massive team involved... so the tension was never there... how did they find out etc.
Leaving out or rather changing this whole part of the story was a massive mistake and was in my mind what made it a poor movie... it changed everything that happened from then on, when the Camerlingo was confronted in the pope's locked room, it should have been Maximilian Kohler who shot the video from his wheel chair, the commander rushed in to get the camerlingo but was shot by Olivetti, in the film it was the commander in the room and Olivetti was shot... (err I think I got this right, but I was bored and can't really remember the events in the film)...
There was no love interest between Vittoria and Robert and in the book she wasn't at CERN when he arrived and was indeed was flown in from her research work. In the book all four of the preferratti were killed, but in the film the last one of the four survived the fountain. In the book Vittoria was kidnapped and Robert had to rescue her and it was they that killed the Assassin at the Church of the Illuminati, not blown up like he was in the film by the Camerlingo. The bit where Robert was confined under a stone coffin was not there, saved by his Mickey mouse watch alarm. OK in the book we are led to believe that Langdon bailed out of the helicopter, fair enough to say that this was a bit far stretched, but it was important in the film, because he had to race back with the film... There was no mention of how Vittoria and her adopted father became involved, this was also important in getting to know the character of Vittoria.
In all one of the worse films I have seen, I would have left early, but my brain went numb and I lost the use of my legs temporarily. A really really reeeeeeaaaaaaalllly poor attempt and not one of Ron Howards finest, in fact, how he will get work again is beyond me!!! I want my money back!!!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'm a historian. This movie is so wrong it hurts. Tried to watch with an open mind, but if you're going to delve into a movie or anything for that matter of this nature at least do some homework regarding history, locations, church protocol, et cetera. Stop playing to the dumb audience, please. There are those of us out there that actually put on our shoes and venture out to the theatre when something of this nature, worthy of a theatrical release comes to town. A little research, all I'm asking. But then again, the book it's based on is somewhat of a joke in itself. So basically, they took a novel with many errors and decided to make it into a screenplay, pour millions and millions and millions of dollars into it and make an incredibly promoted world distributed theatrical release and at no time have anyone take the time to do a little research on the lot of it. I know several of my colleagues who would have done it for just the credit alone or at least given it to a body of students as an assignment for several weeks to research various aspects or just pay someone knowledgeable a couple of bucks just to run through it because trust me, there are plenty of starving historians out there who would have jumped on the opportunity if it had presented itself.
\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\nRecension: Angels & Demons
The movie is directed by Ron Howard. He has had also made famous movies like The Da Vinci Code & Cinderella Men. He directed also the famous TV-series 24. The most famous actors are Tom Hanks(The Da Vinci Code,The Green Mile, Forrest Gump,) & Ewan McGregor(Cassandra's Dream, Moulin Rouge, Star Wars: The Phantom Menace,).
In the begin I was shocked because they changed the beginning from the movie so big. Because they changed the father of Vittoria Vettra(Ayelet Zurer) in someone else, Silvano Bentivoglio(Camren Argenziano). Another Change is that Robert Langdon(Tom Hanks) never goes to the CERN. It was nice that they could film on location in the CERN.
Then movie goes on, They are spectacular car races in Rome. An I also like the part in Chirstian Archives very much when they destroy the work of Galileo, it was funny. It was also funny that they where locked in the archives the second time they get in, Robert Langdon destroyed half of the archives and when they bust out, the electricity get on
I found It very stupid that Robert Langdon not went in the helicopter, but that the Camerlengo(Ewan McGregor) gets in alone, another detail is that in the movie the Camerlengo is an adopted son from the pope. In the book He is the real Son of the pope.
When I should give the best acting performance then I should say Pierfrancesco Favino who plays inspector Olivetti. The worst acting was from the assassin, who was played by Nikolaj Lie Kaas, I think he was underachieving, because in Adams Apples he played Faboulous.
I think the whole movie is underachieving because director Ron Howard made some many stupid changes. I would rate the movie by 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\nI went into the movie expecting a little action mixed with a strong story line. I understand that changes between written works and movies must be made...for many reasons.
The changing of the relationship between the scientists ( they were father - daughter in the book) The Director of CERN was eliminated thus causing the scene between the Carmelengo and the Director to be changed to the Carmelengo and the head of the Swiss Guard in the Pope's office.
Ron Howard made sure to get his dad inserted as a Cardinal with a hayseed accent but missed all the symbolism. Both Lagdon and the Carmelengo ascended to the heavens in the helicopter with Hanks character landing in the river and the priest landing upon the chapel in what was described as a Christ-like image.
At some point this film needs to be remade by a director who is up to the job
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAn EXTREMELY fast paced,exhilarating, interesting, detail rich book. Its a huge shame that the film had none of these qualities. not only was Tom Hanks' mild mannered portrayal or Robert Langdon Laughable, but the name changes to key characters, huge deviances from the original story line, and poor Irish/Italian accent from Carmalengo Played by Ewan Mcgregor, made for the worst book to film EVER.
As a huge fan of A&D the book, i had high hopes for a more lavish, true to book detailed movie, where it would start and finish just as the book did - leaving me wanting more.
All the film really did was depress me within the 1st 10 minutes.
what was impressive was how the... sorry! i couldn't even finish that sentence without laughing.
in short - Vittoria was the token hottie, a very second to Audrey Tatou and there were some very nice Alfa Romeos.
i would recommend reading the book to understand that, if Ron Howard must insist on making ANOTHER book to film, i would be happy saving my £6.40 for a KFC zinger meal and some chicken wings - far more entertaining and deeply more satisfying!
\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 critique tells the story of 4 little friends who went to watch Angels and Demons the movie on the first night it came out, even though it was a school night, because \"Angels and Demons is worth it.\" Two of the four had read the book. Of those that didn't, a guy, was wearing pink skinny jeans. This was the least eventful part of the evening after watching the abhorrent Angels and Demons.
The movie starts out in a lab where the antimatter is being created while another process is going on. And apparently someone knows about it or something. Notice how very confused I am.. I don't get what happened: they were just making the antimatter. Vittoria finds her own father dead... WHAT? The Illuminati symbol sent to Langdon is a PRINTOUT, not a burn on someone's chest. They take out the X-33 scene. They take out Maxmillian Kohler. They, pretty much, take out CERN and the symbology connected to it. They take out the Hassasin and replace him with some religious, British dude. They take out the Illuminati Diamond. They take out Vittoria's near-rape scene. They take out Langond's fight with the Hassasin (now British dude on crack). They take out the press dude following them around. They take out the death of the fourth cardinal. They take out the fact that the Camerlengo becomes pope. They take out the Camerlengo's grand scheme. They take out Langdon's being in the helicopter and landing on that island toward the end. They take out the fact that Vittoria's father was a scientific priest. They take out Langdon's fun and most unfortunately, they take out Vittoria's sexual appeal.
Other than the movie COMPLETELY losing focus of the details, the movie is acted HORRIBLY. One must admit, though, there were some good things. For example, the Sistine Chapel recreation must have been extremely difficult and it was extremely well done. The explosion scene was MIND-BLOWING. Other than that, SCREW THIS MOVIE FOR RUINING THE BOOK FOR THE PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T READ IT.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI had neither read any of the books nor seen the first movie so after receiving passes to a preview show, I had no expectations.
'Angels and Demons' was a muddled, convoluted film lacking direction or any believability. There was very little character development and I never found myself caring about the plight of the protagonists; the reverse was true, I was more interested in seeing how the antagonists would succeed as the first half of the film was almost exclusively focused on why the Illuminati are who they are.
The film jumps from location to location with little explanation or reason and expects the viewer to believe that everybody in the movie is an ally when they first meet. Any analytical mind will realize this is highly improbable.
The climax is extremely cliché and leaves you asking what happened and wondering why nobody considered some of these points, it feels very tacked on and unnecessary.
The actors are not particularly believable in their roles, mostly because I found it difficult to believe that scientists, professors, and men of the church would act in the manner that they do without regard to the consequences of their actions. Events that happen are not plausible in the slightest and the pace of the movie is questionable with the characters jumping around while on a tight schedule and I had to question how the protagonists manage to get from location to location on time, every time.
The most pleasing part of the film is the cinematography, I found it a beautiful film to watch but it was such a mess, that I found it would not be worth paying to view in theatres.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIn a way, you have to respect Arachnia. It's clearly meant as a tribute to the big bug movies of the fifties, and while the special effects look terrible; at least the film doesn't feature CGI. However, on the other hand; you can't respect the film too much because it's a load of rubbish. The acting is terrible, the special effects (as mentioned) are impossible to take seriously, and once you've seen one giant spider being blown up; you've seen them all, so it gets boring rather quickly. The plot follows a bunch of people who are unlucky enough to be in a plane crash after a meteor shower. They go to the only house in the area; which just happens to be a house where a man has a huge spider he used to use as a circus attraction. Coincidently around the same time, the meteor shower has caused more giant spiders to rise from underground. All the characters in this film are poor caricatures; none of them have anything even resembling a third dimension and they will soon begin to thoroughly bore you. You've got to feel for director Brett Piper as he clearly didn't have much to work with for this film; but that doesn't make Arachnia worth a damn, and overall there are better giant bug films than this, and therefore Arachnia doesn't get the seal of approval from me.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI picked this up because, having spent time in the Albany region of New York, I knew a couple of people in the movie and I happened upon it by chance. The attempts at comedy are lame, the compulsory girl-on-girl scene is sickening, the plot is nonexistent, the acting is among the worst I've ever seen, and don't even get me started on special effects. I realize this is a very low budget film made by a small independent company, but if you're going to do a sci-fi horror flick with giant bugs, don't make the giant bugs completely unbelievable. People want to see giant bugs. That's half the fun right there. And if you're going to make the giant bugs completely unbelievable, at least get the actors to make some sort of tongue-in-cheek allusion to that fact (\"You idiots! These aren't them! You've captured their stunt doubles!\"). Be prepared to waste two hours of your life that you'll never be able to get back.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n36/100. This is not to be confused with the decent Arachnophobia, this film is a very low budget and cheap rip-off of that movie. This one is so bad, it actually does have some entertainment value on that level. There are numerous unintended (I think) laugh out loud scenes. I wasn't expecting much from the film, and it was actually worse than I had imagined it would be.
It's a cliché ridden and predictable direct to video mess. Fortunately, it doesn't take itself too seriously. The acting, as expected, is not quite Oscar caliber. The special effects are poor, worse than I would have thought they would be. Poorly edited and the score is intrusive.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI watched this movie based on the comments of a few that said that is was bad but funny. But you need to be warned that this movie has the worst special effects ever produced. They make 1950s science fiction movies look like works of art. This is funny at times, but annoying for the most part. And to compound the problem with the seriously pathetic special effects is the total lack of logic that characterized a majority of the events depicted. One of my favorites is where three of the characters drop hundreds of feet into a tunnel created by the arachnia and arrive to find it fully lit. Apparantely the arachnia have also managed to hook into the power grid. Very impressive. But this is just one example. And for what its worth, the music sucks, the acting sucks, the two cute girls are annoying, the obnoxious guy is annoying, the so-called handsome lead man is a geek, and the black girl who fall for him is a fool. Her father is the worst actor I have ever seen. I am not sure the brief moments of humor can possibly make up for the experience.
\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 one of those movies that you watch because it's bad. Such a movie that you watch just to see it's shitty craftsmanship. Supposedly a horror, I cannot imagine how anyone can be afraid of a claymation bug, especially one that is translucent in nature where you can see the actor's legs behind it.
Even with no budget, a little bit of attention to detail and even an attempt at making this movie believable would have sucked the fun right out of it, as they would have had to replace all of the actors and the entire story with it. If I had nothing to make fun of while it was playing, I would have stopped it after 10 minutes, and put on some quality show like Spunge Bob Square Pants (HAR HAR HAR).
I Strongly recommend that Brett Piper get with Quintin Terrantino and Really pump out some feces.
:)
\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 usually love these movies. Give me a good old B movie any day but this one was simply awful. The acting(?) was terrible almost to the point of my turning the movie off completely. I thought I saw the all time worst but this one is right up there with Attack of the Killer Tomatoes! In all honesty - it was the acting that did this film in for me.
I found the actor's to be clumsy and the lead male/female were extremely dull. This movie had absolutely nothing going for it. I may be asking a ridiculous question here but why the nudity and sex scene? Did the producers think nobody would watch if they left them out? I think they were probably right! Oh where is Price and The Tingler when you need 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\nMy wife and I watched this after DVR'ing it off of Encore action this past week. It has to be the worst horror flick either of us had ever seen. Predictable dialogue ( my wife and I were guessing the lines before they were spoken), hokey special effects, a screenplay that drifted all over the place. I think the part that was the most annoying was the stereotyping of the various characters in the plot, not to mention the gratuitous sex scene between two of the young heroines in the movie, neither of which had any real purpose other than to bare certain parts of their anatomy for the cameras. This movie should be categorized as comedy, not horror as the villains of the movie (spiders) were stop motion animated and not believable in the least. I can't say that I would have done a better job making a film myself, but it was very amateurish and wasn't even a \"B\" movie, somewhere closer to a \"d\" movie, or \"f\" if that is possible. I think even Science Fiction 3000 would have to pass 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\nThis...... Movie.... Is..... Horrible!!!!!! You won't believe this hunk of junk is even a movie!!!! Critters4 was better then this!!! And Critters4 was pretty frigging bad too!!! A bunch of stupid teens crash in a desert, find an old run down bungalow, and end up fending off horrifically badly stop motion animated spiders. Pardon my french, but the acting was bad as hell!!! The person who wrote this probably didn't even know what a spider is, because he had the spiders living in a colony serving an alien-queen-ripoff queen spider! SPIDERS DO NOT LIVE IN COLONIES!!!!!!!!! THIS \"MOVIE\" IS A PIECE OF CRUD!!! At the end, the marines suddenly pop out of no where and kill all the spider without even being called!!!! If you see a copy of this movie at a video store, douse it in gasoline and throw a match at it!!!!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI was entertained to see that some of the reviews here were topped with **SPOILERS** the joke in my family is that the only part of this movie that isn't given away on the back of the box, is given away in the title. Perhaps I am just a dense American 17-year-old who wouldn't know art if it bit me in the leg, but I prefer movies that have at least some words. This movie makes the second half of 2001: A Space Odyssey down right chatty. This movie is just so slow it isn't even art, it is merely boring. We follow this creepy guy who is following this boy around Venice. The end was incomprehensible until I read the end of book. A movie shouldn't make you refer back to the book, it should be able to stand alone. This movie has no way to stand. It doesn't even have the bones of a plot to lean on.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe opening of MORTE A VENEZIA resembles a Duran Duran music video with classical music and this is the highlight of the movie
\" In terms of what Theo ? \"
In terms of everything , but especially excitement . I doubt if there's ever been a more sluggish slower moving movie than this one . Yeah okay it's a European art house movie so I wasn't expecting Charles Bronson to massacre hordes of bad guys but even so I did expect some substance if not an actual plot
The film revolves around Professor Gustav Von Aschenbach visiting Venice . Gustav visits Venice and goes on a gondola , Gustav eats in an expensive restaurant , Gustav looks out of his hotel window and if it's excitement you want Gustav has a flashback
Bad enough if this was the entire movie but it gets worse because Gustav notices a pretty boy teenager . So you've got a middle aged academic lusting after some teenage boy he has seen , some old queen is becoming obsessed with a stranger . Great idea for a movie ? I don't think so either and thank gawd it remained a yawn fest instead of some sleazy precursor to gay porn
I notice a lot of people who praise this movie have tried to intellectualise it . I can only be monosyllabic and unpretentious in my view and say that the only subtext I could relate to was the physical and emotional disintegration of Gustav but it wasn't caused by the effete beauty of the teenage boy - It was caused by watching such a boring and ostentatious movie
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis program was shown in an early morning time slot on SPACE, a cable sci-fi station. I am amazed that anyone would pay for this or broadcast it; it is incredibly amateurish.
The entire show is a sequence of short monologues or scenes performed on a set that looks like a closet with a bunch of circuit boards taped to the wall. There is very little continuity between scenes, and no plot. A typical scene revolves around some lame joke or special effect and is only a minute or so long. The dialog makes little sense and the special effects look like Photoshop filters. The actors are all adults, but I have literally seen high-school plays with better writing and sets. This program is an embarrassment.
Perhaps each scene would work as an interstitial; a filler between shows instead of commercials. Stringing all the scenes together makes the limitations of the material extremely obvious.
\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\nKazuo Komizu, who hasn't made one decent film, directed this \"notorious\" shocker and should be ashamed that it was a hit upon its Japanese release.
Yes, it does feature scenes of rape, gore and dismemberment, but so what? It has the style of a bad American porn film shot and badly photographed by Ed Powers (\"Dirty Debutantes\") and is incredibly slow.
It seems to have earned its notoriety based on its roster of anti-social acts.
There is a huge difference between this and horror that is well produced.
Just because someone likes their cinema a little wet does not mean they'll accept crap like this. On the contrary, that kind of fan (myself, for example) tolerates even less crap than the average punter out there because he's seen so much and has become overly discerning. It's a shame production companies don't realize that.
One reviewer here (ZombieKilla81) commented that the film's \"near obsession with gang rape\" is one of the factors that killed it. I disagree. The subject matter is never the issue. The issue is how that subject matter is treated. In ENTRAILS OF A BEAUTIFUL WOMAN, it is treated so unimaginatively that it is boring.
Personally, I like graphic depictions of psychopathic behavior (with an intriguing context) if the material is well directed, freshly photographed and aesthetically pleasing. This Nikkatsu horror/pink hybrid is woeful.
\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 one of those movies I watched, and wondered, why did I watch it? What did I find so interesting about it? Being a truck driver myself, I didn't find it very realistic. No, I've never used a 'lot lizard', nor have I ever seen, nor heard about one traveling around the country in a brand new seventy thousand dollar RV, either.
Same thing about a pimp whom has never sampled the lady in question (until the end of the movie, and well, he still really didn't...), and only getting 50 bucks 'a cut', when the prostitute gets $200.00 (well, $150.00 after his cut, yeah...).
I still laugh at the lot lizard comment Ivey made (them's Lot Lizards, they'll screw anything with 20 bucks, and some are men dressed as woman... or something equally as weird), meaning, we're better then them, as we may still be prostitutes, but we get paid BETTER.
Other then that, it's just a story of a young woman whom wanted something more from life then a dead end job while living at home (she's 18, remember?) and embarrassed by her mother basically doing the same thing (dead end job). At least she had a roof over her head and a job. She turned FIVE tricks on the road... I wonder if the $750.00 she made was worth it? I'd guess 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\nReally, average is the only word that comes to my mind when you see this.
The acting was average (maybe a bit above average), the camera usage was average (actually below average. The picture was so shaky and the colors were grainy and blurry.) The plot was a good one but moved at such a slow pace and wasn't put to good use.
This could've been so much more if it didn't go at a snail pace and we saw more into the characters backgrounds.
All we see are flashbacks here and there of Alice and how her home life is so \"bad\" (her mother is a working class woman trying to make end meet for her and her daughter.) We see a flashback of her of when she was in high school and her friend says to her \"tell your Mom to make some better food\" and \"everybody says it's your mom.\" Yeah that's embarrassing but why would you run away from it.
I could definitely see if her Mom was a drunk or somebody was abusing her but nothing was wrongwith her home except she was embarrassed by it. How immature!
We're not even given a glimpse of what the couple's lives have been like (except that they've been prostituting for awhile and the woman, forgot her name, gave her baby up when it was 9 months old.) This really could've been so much more. It could've had Alice who was abused by her drunk mom go down to Florida with her friend but then becomes a prostitute. Or something along the lines of that other then the real plot of this movie (that is) Alice, a girl with a home life of probably 90% of America's population (WORKING CLASS) runaways to Florida but then gets sidetracked by turning into a prostitute.
I don't see why it won an award at Sundance (it must've been up against some really weak competition to have won that one award.)
Also to me, Alice's Boston/New England accent seemed forced. It didn't seem genuine. (I should know, I was born and raised in Boston, but now live in Georgia.)
4/10 Not really worth your time in my opinion.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\ni have one word: focus.
well.
IMDb wants me to use at least ten lines of text. okay. let's discuss the fine points of focus. i don't know about the rest of you, but in my first year of film school they taught us a lot of useless crap, like 'you'll all be famous avant-garde filmmakers someday'--but they also taught us how to do this crazy thing called FOCUSING the lens! it was amazing! you give a little twist and wham! everything is clear as a bell. the person who shot what alice found needs to learn a few things about the finer points of focus. lighting, too. this movie is not only completely out of focus, it's also lit like the corner of someone's basement.
don't even get me started on pacing or plot. they could have trimmed about ten seconds off the beginning and end of every single shot.
but who cares about that anyhow? there is not enough lurid in this movie to make up for the utter lack of regard to film's best friends--FOCUS, and LIGHTING.
words to the wise.
\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 loved \"Lethal Weapon\" and \"Kiss Kiss Bang Bang\", but I cannot believe Shane Black wrote this pile...or that David Morse and John C. McGinley are in it. I screened it for a film festival. Awful. Everyone was laughing. It's preachy and heavy handed...not to mention stupid. Also, it's surprising how little L.A. looks like Cambodia. The entire idea of time traveling through post-traumatic stress disorder is kinda dumb. Imagine \"Born on the Fourth of July\" mixed with \"The Butterfly Effect 2\" (I used to sequel as the example to really show how bad this movie is) but directed by Michael Bay's 2nd unit director. That bad. The 2 stars are purely based on the production value.
\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 been over 30 years now but I still remember that this movie was the worst I've ever seen. I would have thought that in this length of time something worse would have been filmed but I was mistaken. I just finished watching \"STARSHIP TROOPERS\" and it came mighty close but it was still more entertaining than \" POOR COW \".
\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 best scene of \"The People Across The Lake\" is the genuinely creepy, nightly opening-scene featuring a house, a murder & a lake. After that, it's pretty much downhill from there on as far as the horror is concerned. A family (mom, dad, sister & younger brother) is fed up with the (mildly) dangerous environment of suburbia, and decides to go and live near the titular lake. From then on, the film features too much lame happy family-related doo-doo near the lake, with occasionally some corpses popping up here and there. The couple of scenes where they discover the bodies, are pretty convincing (in terms of creepiness), but they are in shrill contrast with the rest of the goings-on (featuring just every-day-life stuff of the family settling in). The truth to the matters (the mystery as to who's doing the killing) is learned too soon, leaving only the family unknowing and the viewer yawning during the unexciting finale (featuring a discovery in a basement and running around the house), like if this made-for-TV thing suddenly remembered it was supposed to be a horror film. It's not really badly made; the content & story is just not interesting enough. The only highlight in the cast is Barry Corbin, though his performance/character is just a bit too goofy to be taken serious. Blond cutie Tammy Lauren (the daughter) might be a recognisable face for avid horror junkies too, as she also starred in \"Wishmaster\" (1997), and made-for-TV outings like \"I Saw What You Did\" (1988) & \"The Stepford Children\" (1987). She hasn't got much to do in this film, though. Skippable, but watchable, if anything.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie includes 2 well known actors I have previously enjoyed watching. There actions are great and each action is heart felt. But it makes me think these 2 were thrown into a speech/drama class at college for the first time and told for one to act dominating and constricting to the other in a room without allowing her to leave and the woman to be truly innocent and treat her with enough mind-humping to drive the audience into tears for her release.
The only good part IS the acting abilities, the plot has the same ruse as Hitlers influence and I started to hate the protagonist for that. But all of this could have been done within 15 minutes in my opinion, so to drag it out for over an hour was just pure punishment for all who watched 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\nCloset Land is a nasty piece of work with superb actors. Nothing more (or less) happens in the movie besides the unending abuse of an attractive woman prisoner by a sadistic police official. The setting is minimalist. This might be considered soft core S&M porn because the drama is devoid of all reference points such as time, place, and political context. Since what happens is cut adrift in a fantasy futuristic environment, the abuse becomes purely personal. The pornographic aspects are justified by being a warning about the evils of totalitarian government, but because there is no real context for the torture of this young woman, we come away disturbed but having learned nothing.
What is the point? That torture exists in the world? That abusing prisoners is bad? That dictatorships abuse innocent people? We know that already. Closet Land has echoes of such works as Darkness At Noon and Ionesco's Rhinoceros, but both those works were made by competent artists whose work had historical context and depth of meaning. This work is amateurish and the dialogue sophomoric. A definite thumbs down.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"