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 are two kinds of characters on THE SHIELD: people who try to do the best they can and do the right thing, and people who relentlessly pursue their own self interest and commit every mortal sin they can while telling themselves and everyone else that they are heroes, and everyone's only hope. More than any other show, THE SHIELD is about hypocrisy and self-delusion. Unfortunately, the hypocrites and self-deluders are the shows heroes, and as such have the typical genre-fiction heroes' improbable immunity to getting defeated or caught and they come out on top over and over again, making fools out of all of their peers.
The show boasts excellent camera-work. The lead ins and the fade outs are always superb. It really is a work of art to see. Unfortunately the story is a cartoony, overwrought wish fulfillment scenario of gratuitous violence, rape, and lies.
The hero, who drags everyone down with him in failed scheme after failed scheme, is wiley like a warner bros cartoon character, always escaping and making fun of all the elmer fudds (anyone who does not support him in his lies and crimes), automatically attracting any good looking woman supporting character to come on the show, always surviving any attempt to bring him to justice, and ALWAYS scraping your ears with his excruciating self justifications. If another cop detects something wrong with something he's doing, and someone gets hurt because of his actions, he always blames the suspicious cop, regardless of the fact that his schemes and elaborate lies and doomed plans are always the cause. Every time.
Like 24, this show relies on contrivances and innumerable delays to drag its story out for season after season. Boring, unbelievable long term stories are injected into the storyline every season to provide a skeleton on which to hang the bloody, perverted chunks of meat that are the characters' corrupt acts and the inevitable cover-ups.
Most disappointing though, is the writers' hubris as they try to change the viewers' sympathies back and forth, to and away form the characters on whims. Sometimes, they want us to see Shane as the enemy. Sometimes they want us to see him as a poor misunderstood soul. Sometimes they want us to see Vic as a dangerous, sexual dynamo. Sometimes they want us to see him as a poor guy with a heart of gold. Sometimes they want us to see Mara as a low down vile Jezebel. Then they think that if they show her sitting and talking over her dreams with Shane, that we will find her to be sympathetic and tragic.
None of this manipulation is adequate to obtain the kinds of sympathies they want. Once they've shown these characters ruin other people's lives for their own ends, that's it. It is nonsense to keep trying to flip back and forth. But then, it is also nonsense to produce seven seasons of these bumbling clowns drawing every super model in existence to their beds and running a crime syndicate right out of the police station, right under everyone's noses.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nTo sat how awful The Shield is, you'd have to write pages and pages, so suffice it to say that it is a monument to bad directing.
\"When Directors Go Awry\" should have been the title of this production. Indeed, directors are supposed to infuse their work with a sense of visual style and story-telling that propels the story forward.
How is constantly shaking the camera and playing with the zoom lens a \"style\"? How is it propelling the story forward? Of course there's also the \"editing by random numbers\" nonsense. Apparently it's become hip to just cut randomly.
I guess it's too much work to do good editing.
Well, that made it too much work for most people to watch The Shield which languished as one of the most over-hyped and unwatched shows of all time.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI have no idea what the producers of The Shield were trying to do, but the result speaks for itself: The Shield is practically unwatchable.
Supposedly the performances on The Shield are great...
In reality, the show is so badly put together that you can't even really see the performances. For instance, the editing cuts away from reaction shots before they've had their full impact.
I don't know what intellectual rationale there is for that, but it robs the show of all emotional impact.
I'll give The Shield one point for ambition in its subject matter, but that's pretty much all I can give it.
It's a shame to see a number of talented performer waste their gift on something so strangely badly filmed.
\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\nAlmost from the word go this film is poor and lacking conviction but then again most people would struggle to show commitment to a script as uninspiring as this. The dialogue really does not flow and sometimes as in this case more is less (or should have been). This is also backed-up by odd scenes (e.g. the Cemetry slow-motion walk) that you think might lead somewhere but only seem to waste a few more seconds of your life.
The plot is a strange combination of gangster / situation comedy which I am sure seemed a good idea at the time but if ever there was a case for someone needing to be honest with the scriptwriter then here was it.
Martin Freeman is okay but then he seems to have one character which always plays so I am beginning to wonder if he was given a script or just filmed and told to react as normal.
Finally - humour. This reminds me of the 'Python (I think) quote about Shakespere, of his 'comedies' - If he had meant it to be humorous he would have put a joke in it. Well I didn't see one.
Don't waste your time - I did because I was watching it with a friend and kept hoping that it was going to get better.
It didn't.
\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 hate to be the one to rain on a parade (even a small one like this) but from the very first scene, you could tell this film was going to be absolute shite. Its a shame really, as I quite like Martin Freeman and Danny dyer. I was intrigued as to how they would mix in a film together, but to my dismay, they did not even have a scene together!! I think I need to repeat this - The two lead actors (who stand side by side on the advertisement posters and DVD covers) did not have one scene together!!!! They did not speak to each other and never appeared on screen at the same time. Just about sums up this poor excuse for a movie. False advertisement.
The dialogue was painful, every single character in the movie was unrealistic, and un-human like. The scenarios were far fetched, the plot was crap, the jokes were thin, Freeman tried too hard to be funny (and played a poor mans Tim from The office), nobody was likable, and worst of all, some of the characters were so annoying that it almost drove me to switch off, as I couldn't bear to watch, or listen to them any longer.
This low budget stinker was an epic fail. Even Danny Dyer couldn't inject some humour and charm into this, but bless, he tried. What a waste of time.
How anybody could rate this movie as 'ten stars' is beyond me. Ten Stars? Seriously? Come on....I won't even give some of the greats ten stars, as ten stars implies that a movie was perfect. This film was far from perfect, almost the opposite, meaning that it was almost completely dire throughout.
Watch it if you like, but if you've seen a lot of movies, and watched a lot of great movies, your review will probably similar to mine.
1/10
\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\nOh dear. good cast, but to write and direct is an art and to write wit and direct wit is a bit of a task. Even doing good comedy you have to get the timing and moment right. Im not putting it all down there were parts where i laughed loud but that was at very few times. The main focus to me was on the fast free flowing dialogue, that made some people in the film annoying. It may sound great while reading the script in your head but getting that out and to the camera is a different task. And the hand held camera work does give energy to few parts of the film. Overall direction was good but the script was not all that to me, but I'm sure you was reading the script in your head it would sound good. Sorry.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt pains me to write such a scathing review but by not doing so I'm simply encouraging these people. First off, just because a film is made on a small budget does not automatically make it good nor endearing. In fact in this case, the small budget is probably the films sole achievement in that it prevented large sums of money from being squandered on a one legged race horse with the shits. Have you ever seen a comedy at the theatre? Ever heard people laugh and thought \"what the dickens are you on\"? Well even these twats weren't laughing. Things got so bad by mid way my cat took his first ever bath. This is not film, this is children....no monkeys making images that leave you feeling like moving to France. Got to go, there's a clown at my door.............
\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 never heard of this one before it turned up on Cable TV. It's very typical of late 50s sci-fi: sober, depressing and not a little paranoid! Despite the equally typical inclusion of a romantic couple, the film is pretty much put across in a documentary style - which is perhaps a cheap way of leaving a lot of the exposition to narration and an excuse to insert as much stock footage as is humanly possibly for what is unmistakably an extremely low-budget venture! While not uninteresting in itself (the-apocalypse-via-renegade-missile angle later utilized, with far greater aplomb, for both DR. STRANGELOVE [1964] and FAIL-SAFE [1964]) and mercifully short, the film's single-minded approach to its subject matter results in a good deal of unintentional laughter - particularly in the scenes involving an imminent childbirth and a gang of clueless juvenile delinquents!
\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 remember watching \"Lost Missile\" (actually throwing a fit until my brother and several cousins at whose home I was an overnight guest agreed to watch it with me - I was, from time to time, the Eric Cartman of the 1960s - sorry, guys) and being somewhat embarrassed when the sustained wave of million-degree heat emerged as a plot device - even as a second-grader I knew that a mere missile just couldn't carry the energy around for that much heat or devastation over more than the duration and limited radius of a nuclear detonation.
My inflicting that turkey on loving relatives was a self-punishing crime.
The film's production values were very good. The acting isn't bad (apart from the Shatnerism of the actor who played governor's aide that someone else here mentioned).
But the idea of a missile Easy-Baking the surface of the Earth by means of the heat of its exhaust... no.
How'd the people at \"Mystery Science Theater 3000\" miss \"The Lost Missile,\" anyway?
It's a great classic of unintentional comedy - watch it if you want something to drink beer to some weekend.
\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 story idea behind THE LOST MISSILE isn't bad at all, but unfortunately the story does get a bit dull towards the middle and the overuse of stock footage as well as poor special effects sink this film to the sub-par level.
The film begins with a missile heading towards the Earth. In a panic because it's about to strike the Earth, the Soviets manage to deflect the object. This isn't necessarily good, however, as this seemingly unmanned craft has a vapor trail that destroys everything in its path AND the ship is now in a low orbit over the planet. In other words, with each pass it makes, a swath of death follows--one that could potentially kill us all!! So, it's up to the good scientists of the US (led by a very young and hardly recognizable Robert Loggia) to formulate and plan to save us--and especially save New York that is in its immediate flight path! Unfortunately, they aren't able to save Ottawa (I've never been there, so I can't say whether or not this is a big loss) but thanks to good old American know-how, they are able to eventually destroy this harbinger of destruction!!
So, as you can see, the story idea isn't bad and rather original. But, so many old clips of fighter planes and guys manning radar scopes gets a bit old and it seemed like padding. Overall, a decent but hardly inspired film that extreme fans of the genre may like--all others, see it at your own risk.
\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 must be one of the most overrated Spanish films in history. Its lack of subtlety and complexity and its total political correction make it really childish, with only good/bad characters. The world is just not like this, and good movies show complex characters with opposite impulses, dilemmas, etc. However, what I HATE most about this film is Bola's friend's father. The director tries to teach us a good lesson: tattoo artists with shaved heads are not always bad guys, in fact they can be better than the average looking dad (wow, this is like... philosophy, or something). Thank you, Achero. I'll propose you for the Nobel prize of literature.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf there was a God, he would have made sure this movie stayed in the toilet were it was crapped up. This is BY FAR the worst vampire movie I have ever seen. I may never watch a vampire film again because of this movie. It makes Zombie Lake look like The Sound of Music.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAbsolutely unwatchable, lowest quality film making. This film makes \"Show Girls\" look good. The acting is insufferable. The cinematography gives a bad name to amateurism. No wonder it went right to video and bypassed the theaters. This film wasn't released...it escaped.
\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 just plain terrible. Poor John Savage had to stoop this low in order to be in another movie. He stars as a rare type of vampire that is to help a lady that looks like a washed out and thrown in the streets hooker that is a dancer at a local strip club. She acidently tastes a drop of blood from another dancer who happens to be one of those rare vampires as they get carried away making out on the floor of the dressing room. Savage is then assigned by a short leader of this rare vampire breed that looks like a cross between 80's punk rock and one of the Olsen twins with purple hair. This movie just gets all to crazy with Savage rapping and dancing with a midget with a tattooed spider on his head, also one of the rare. He quotes the Elephant Man and Jimmy Durante and I just had to laugh. This just gets rediculas. And then the most gross special effects that they could come up with is Corri throwing up her organs and pulling them out of her mouth. And you can tell that that is all to fake. Her son doesn't know what to do with his moms new identity and becomes more of a pest than an object of serenity. I enjoy a good vampire film, believe me I do but I just HATED this one. Even the photography stinks, in and out blurs with the camera switching this way and that trying to make it look like the vampires move to fast for the camera to keep up and then the camera turns all to bright in the scene of Savage chasing the son of Corri around till he blinds himself. Avoid this one!!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI was watching this with one of my friends, who is a vampire freak, and I was extremely disgusted at the fact that this film exists. This film should be shown to prisoners of war, yes, it's that bad. Even John McCain wouldn't be able to sit through this. So why the 3/10 rating? Because it had a vampire midget. Come on, what's more entertaining than a vampire midget? There's one scene in this film where John Savage gets laid by saying \"I want to feel human again,\" and the chick, being the brainless stripper slut she is, lets him \"feel human\". I wish I could \"feel human\" with Jessica Alba or Megan Fox. This is a movie for stoners. There is bright flashy objects and random movements. All in all, don't waste your money on this garbage. I got it for free when I was walking down the street with my friend and we saw a garbage barrel full of video tapes and a sign that said \"free\". So, in a way, I didn't get ripped off, but still...
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie was horrible. I watched it three times, and not even the whole thing. It's just impossible to watch, the story line sucks, it's depressing, and utterly disgusting. I don't write spoilers for anything, so if you want to know why it's so disgusting, see it for yourself. The only good thing about this movie was John Savage, his dialogue at the beginning, and some funny parts in the movie. The little kid in this movie is annoying, and the whole situation is bullshit. I saw this movie at movie stores around America, so I assumed it would be a good movie. Jesus Christ, was I wrong!!!! The acting is all horrible, and the nudity itself is lame and nasty. Another thing is, Starr Andreef, the other main character, hasn't been in such bad movies in the past, in fact, she was in some pretty good ones. Same with John Savage. This movie SUCKS!
\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 probably the worst movie ever made it is just to bad the name of Roger Corman is associated with it. I could've understand it in his early years when he had lower budgets but nowadays there is no excuses for giving birth to this! I'm a \"B\" movie pervert and from certain people point of view all the flicks I love are put aside by \"regular viewers\" but take my word on this one, Vampire club makes the top of my list of the best of worst.It's hard to Imagine, vampires with no fangs, the music score is totally out of place,the sound effects are just not effective and finally Mr.Savage doesn't seem to know he is in a vampire movie at all witch is too bad 'cause he had a \"not to bad\" career over all. Let me know i'f I'm to hard on this one cause when I don't like a movie I tend to forget about it's good side.
\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 will never be a member of any club that would have me,
especially this one.
Starr Andreeff is a single mom/stripper who gets attacked by a
female vampire and left for dead. She begins to get a hankering for
blood, and meets up with John Savage, looking like he's
wondering where he left Michael Cimino's phone number. Savage
is also a vampire and wants to let Andreef join his little vampire
family, which consists of a British vamp, the blonde vamp who
attacked Starr, and a green haired midget (I am not making this
up).
The family does not want Starr, so they try to kill Savage and Starr
and Starr's kid.
Someone forgot to tell John Savage that this was a drama. He
spends most of his screen time exhibiting more facial tics than
Hugh Grant on a Jolt Cola bender, and he reads all of his lines like
he is making a Farrelly Brothers film. Andreeff tries to make the
most of a badly written role, but screenwriter/director Ruben goes
for all the vampire cliches, like Starr eating her son's pet hamster
and buying a lot of raw meat to fight the craving for blood. The kid
also gets knocked around a lot, for those who think watching
violence against children is really entertaining.
The film is extra gory, but not in a wild, over the top way like \"Killer
Tongue.\" Here, the gore is gross and never justified, it just occurs.
It is just in the budget. Most of the R rating goes to Andreeff's
coworkers, who are put through embarassing strip routines in the
background of conversation scenes. The budget does not include
vampire fangs! All the vampires here must stab their prey to eat.
Nifty idea, unless you have already seen George Romero's
\"Martin.\"
Even at 77 minutes, and once you throw in Ruben's attempts at
arty direction (skewed frames, blurred scenes), this is one
tiresome, dull, and dirty ride. Leave this club and take a shower,
you will need it.
This is rated (R) for strong physical violence, gun violence, sexual
violence, strong gore, strong profanity, female nudity, sexual
references, drug abuse, and adult situations.

\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\nDakota (1988) was another early Lou Diamond Phillips starring vehicle. This film is similar to the later released film Harley. There are a few differences but they're both the same. I don't know which one came first. I guess it'll remain one of the mysteries of life. But they both are troubled \"kids\" who are trying to turn there lives around. Instead of bikes this one involves horses. They're basically the same movie and they're both cheesy as hell. If you're a serious L.D.P. fan then I recommend that you watch them both. You get some extreme mugging and posturing from L.D.P. if you're game then go for it.
Not recommended, except for L.D.P. fans!!!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film is too skeletal. It's a fairly low-budget film (I hope!) which excuses it somewhat, but the lack of a decent cast and a fleshed out plot hurts it too much. Phillips is quite believable in his role as a torn-apart son of a well-off family who's searching for himself (though his family is...er...well, a little too white...), but the rest of the cast is grasping at straws. Every moment that has potential is ruined by excessive melodrama, and there are *way* too many sub-plots (which is an obvious sign of plot-deficiency. They needed filler...) I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone who isn't either a hard-core Phillips fan, or who has absolutely *nothing* to do. 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\nYes, this film gets a lot of attention and is considered a classic in the adult film genre. Still, I did not like this one at all. About a woman who commits suicide in a scene more fitting a horror movie, she is given the opportunity to return to earth briefly to live the life of lust she never did before in her mundane life. Crappy sex scenes to follow. Why are they crappy, for one they try so hard to be artistic that they take away from the actual sex act. I mean we watch porn for the sex do we not. Little Girls Blue also does things in an artistic way, but it is still very erotic and nice to look at. Of course the girls in that one are very cute. Here we have a rather unattractive lead actress and that does not help things. If you find the lead in your adult film unappealing there is no amount of artistic vision that is going to make me enjoy the film. The sex scenes range from yuck to bizarre...I mean there is a snake in one of them people. So for me this movie just fails as it does not excite me at all, but rather turns me off.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThere is a DVD published in the UK in 2002 Code HRGD002 on the cover, no ASIN, VFC 19796 on the disk, no IFPI code in the inner rim.
Probably a straight transfer from VHS.
There is no much point is commenting an adult film. But this one contains a minimal plot, and the characters are believable. It was shown in the United States in normal cinemas.
I've seen it In Pensylvannia way back in 1975.
As such it deserves a place in an Encyclopedia of Movies. The DVD has no special features and no subtitles, and was probably made using a VHS tape as source
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\na friend gave it to me saying it was another classic like \"Debbie does Dallas\". Nowhere close. I think my main complaint is about the most unattractive lead actress in porn industry ever. Even more terrible is that she is on screen virtually all the time. But I read somewhere that back in those days, porn had to have some \"artistic\" value. I was unable to find it though. See it only if you are interested in history of development of porn into mainstream, or can appreciate art in porn movies. I know I am not. But the director of the movie appears to be a talented person. He even tried to get Simon & Garfunkel to give him permissions to use his songs. Of course, they rejected.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOne of those classics, held up next to \"Deep Throat\" and \"Behind the Green Door.\"
Sure, it was clever, but the female lead isn't that attractive and sex isn't that hot. But if not for this film, porn would not have blossomed into what it is today.
Harry Reems was the Ron Jeremy of his day. Worth a look if you're a 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\nAfter watching some of HBO's great stuff - Band of Brothers, Rome, etc. - I must say I had pretty high expectations before watching the first episode of \"True Blood\". Jeez. Often the script seemed to be written by an 8-year-old, some parts are just horribly filmed, (The scene in which she \"saves\" Bill, I mean come on. She throws a chain at the guy and ow! it goes around his neck and it magically chokes him! That was pretty embarrassing if you want my opinion. Or a few moments before that scene, when she finds out that the couple is gone with Bill, ridiculous. She hears them plan their stuff, and like 5 seconds later, magic! The 3 of them are gone, and without any struggle or noise or anything!
I mean the idea of the show seemed interesting, mysterious, intriguing, vampires co-existing with human in our modern society... but honestly I don't think they really wanted to make more of this than a petty soap show, that the average teen girl watches all the time but that nobody else cares about... Unfortunately, the script is written poorly, mediocre at best. It's shallow and extremely predictable. Often I thought that this was some kind of a joke or something.
The actors deliver really unconvincing performances, if you want my opinion. They seem to take the show very lightly, as if it were some kind of a regular, low budget family TV show (well maybe thats what it is, if you take away the family part). The only actor that seemed somewhat good to me was Stephen Moyer in the role of Bill, considering the poorly written, extremely short replies he had to say \"What are you...\" \"Can I give you a call sometime...\", I think he did good in bringing out the somewhat mysteriously scary part of a vampire that anyone with a vampire role must have, actually. Anna Paquin was okay as well, but not more. But the guy, playing her brother though, jeez, he's horrible. The scene in which he gets arrested is just simply a shame to modern television. The acting is bad, the construction site looks fake to the bone, and the two other guys \"Why is he getting arrested? Uh.. I dunno...\" That was pretty embarrassing.
Another thing that I think was completely missed was the way they presented Sookie's psychic powers. They make us hear what people think AND speak both at the same time and thats just wrong. Often it just seems unnecessarily chaotic, as if people's thought were some sort of an annoying radio channel, and that when she comes close to em she hits the right frequency level and has to hear everything that they think.
And finally, the sex scenes are just plainly unnecessary and that vampire sex tape thing was just totally disgusting.
Don't get me wrong - I wrote all these comments not because I thought the show was BAD, but because I was very disappointed. I expected quality stuff. I didn't think it was going to be like that. It's definitely not a GOOD show though. Mediocre at best.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFor every series that makes it to television, a 100 ideas are formed, 50 scripts are written, 15 pilots are made, and one, just one, actually makes it to production. From such a selection process, we are lead to believe that the final product must be the cream of the crop, for what other reason could so many ideas be rejected to give us a single television series.
And so it goes with True Blood; all the stars were in alignment and what started as a series of novels was transformed into an idea, a screen play, a pilot, and finally a series. Unfortunately, it can sometimes be a long journey and along the way there are many turns that ultimately change what was good and pure into and show that production people feel would be best for ratings. Oh how wrong they so often are...
True Blood is an example of a creative concept that has developed into one of the poorest story lines, worst acting, and silliest subplots as anything in recent television history. Its international cast of relatively unknown actors struggle to find their voices but keep tripping over their fake southern accents. Alan Ball's not so secret desires for Ryan (Jason Stackhouse) gives us a fresh nude shot each week although it often has nothing to do with the storyline. Tara's angry black woman characterization fails to connect and you find yourself secretly hoping the vamps take her out quickly before she goes into another speech about white suppression while attend a ceremony for the Glorious Dead of the Confedercy. Sam finds suppressed love for Sookie and suddenly we are to believe he needs to watch over her morning, noon, and night despite years of working with her and avoiding any such relationship.
As for Bill the Vampire, his moral high ground is quickly surrendered at the first chance to make love with Sookie and has no issue with make a quick snack of her (although she remains somewhat unharmed). We find the other vampires not so mainstream as Bill but greatly desiring to become accepted by a public as they look at the living as Happy Meals with legs.
Despite my best efforts of suffering through the first six episodes, I have come to the realization that no matter how long you watch a bad show, its still bad. Somethings die for a reason, even vampires. Maybe this show should to.
\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 I first watched the show, the first few episodes seemed promising. Bill Compton introduced himself as the stereotypical \"mysterious\" vampire and Sookie presented herself as an independent woman. However, the show went downhill from here and the once interesting characters are as entertaining as a cardboard box.
As the story progresses the main characters lose their original personalities, along with their acting abilities. By episode 5, Bill's furrowed eyebrows are so low that his face just consists of a forehead. Sookie, or rather the actress, is even more dead than her vampire lover. All these tragic events are surrounding her and she only reacts to how enjoyable it was losing her virginity. Personally, I think they made the main characters sleep with each other too early in the show. The way they teased each other was something that had me hooked and could easily be toyed with a bit more. As soon as Sookie loses it she struts around like a total ditz, only thinking of Bill's libido and the size of his appendage. Bill also loses his debonair attitude and well, he just gets plain silly. His actions are never really explained except he does it for Sookie. Why? Their love for each other is never delved into, if there is any love. So far it just seems to be sex that is the core of their relationship.
Yeah, yeah, vampires usually equal sex but come on. Every five seconds I see some sort of humping going on. It wasn't that much of a surprise, since HBO always tries to pass of a soft core porno as a decent TV show. Bill popping out of the dirt and just getting it on with Sookie with no reason what's so ever? I laughed so hard I almost peed myself.
The plot is just a stream of consciousness. The characters never go into detail about anything. All the events that happen are usually left unexplained. The only thing that is constant is the sex.
The only thing I can say that I do like are the minor characters. Tara and her drunk mother are far more interesting than the major characters. The only reason why I continue to watch the show is for the development of the minor characters.
Minus the sex and the main characters the show would be much more worthwhile.
\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\nMan, I really find it hard to believe that the wonderful Alan Ball had anything to do with this mess. Having seen the first two episodes thus far, I think I can safely say this show isn't going to be on my must see list. It's just got so many things working against it.
None of the actors cast are particularly good. Anna Paquin as the lead character Sookie, is just awful. I remember her being better in a lot of other things I've seen her in so maybe it's just the writing. She's not really much fun to look at either, there are moments where to be honest she looks downright ugly. The actor who plays Bill is marginally better, if only because his character is supposed to be sort of wooden and aloof. The other actors do their best but with the cliché characters with difficult to perform accents they are given it's a tough job. Tara is an absolute misery to watch, Rutina Wesley absolutely murders the accent. It's like nails on a chalkboard bad. Almost as awful is Nelsan Ellis, it's difficult to understand what he's even saying sometimes. Both his character as well as Tara's also seem a bit racist to me. I don't know, having a character say 'whycome' on an HBO show that isn't The Wire just seems a bit odd. Rounding out the cast so far are Sookie's doddering grandmother, her sex addict brother, and the only bit of genius casting I've seen in William Sanderson as the sheriff.
The story seems to be meandering towards it's destination at this point, with no real worry about keeping the viewer interested. The romance stuff is very Dark Shadow-sy. Although this show ups the camp factor from something like those old Dark Shadows episodes times about ten. At times it seemed so campy to me, that I just have to assume it was intended to be. But unlike a show such as Buffy, that pulled camp off masterfully, this show does not. Out of place with the campiness is the extreme gore and graphic sex of the show. I'm not averse to either of these when they are done well, as they have in many other HBO shows but here at least they prolonged rough sex scenes involving Jason Stackhouse seem a bit over the top and pointless.
About the only nice thing I can really think to say about this mess is that I liked the opening title sequence. HBO has had a string of bad luck with their shows lately, I hope they cancel this after the first season and try to get something better on the air.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAs a fan of the Sookie Stackhouse books, I find this series to be a totally crass representation of them. Vampire Bill is not very good looking and looks much older than described in the book. I found that they have made already wonderfully colourful characters seem very course and vulgar. One of the things I loved about the books is that despite all the crap that she is going through Sookie is always a lady, and yet in the TV series she doesn't seem like that at all. Not only that but the prejudices displayed in the TV series are not nearly as wide spread in the books. I didn't expect an exact replica of the books but I at least expected the feel of them to be used for the series.
\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 hope whoever coached these losers on their accents was fired. The only high points are a few of the supporting characters, 3 of 5 of my favourites were killed off by the end of the season (and one of them was a cat, to put that into perspective).
The whole storyline is centered around sex, and nothing else. Sex with vampires, gay sex with gay vampires, gay sex with straight vampires, sex to score vampire blood, sex after drinking vampire blood, sex in front of vampires, vampire sex, non-vampire sex, sex because we're scared of vampires, sex because we're mad at vampires, sex because we just became a vampire, etc.
Nothing against sex, it would just be nice if it were a little more subtle with being peppered into the storyline. Perhaps HAVE a storyline and then shoehorn some sex into it. But they didn't even bother to do that... and Anna Paquin is a dizzy gap-tooth bitch. Either she sucks or her character sucks, I can't figure out which.
Another part of the storyline that I find highly implausible is why 150 year old vampire Bill who seems to have his things together would be interested in someone like Sookie. She's constantly flying off the handle at him for things he can't control. He leaves for two days and she already decides that he's \"not coming back\" and suddenly has feelings for dog-man? Give me a break. She's supposed to be a 25 year old woman, not a 14 year old girl. People close to her are dying all over, and she's got the brightest smile on her face because she just gave away her V-card to some dude because she can't read his mind? As the main character of the story, I would've hoped the show would do a little more to make her understandable and someone to invest your interest in, not someone you keep secretly hoping gets killed off or put into a coma. I can't find anything about her character that I like and even the fact that she can read minds is impressively uninspiring and not the least bit interesting.
I will not be wasting my time with watching Season 2 come June.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAs a huge fan or the Cracker series, I have been waiting 7 years for the next addition. This Episode I'm afraid just does not live up to the legend.
Fitz returns to Manchester after 7 years for his daughters wedding and gets involved in a murder investigation were a soldier, tormented by flash backs from his tour of duty in Northern Irland, goes on a killing spree.
What I did not like about this episode is the extremely convenient way it is all set up and how fitz is led to the murderer. It is all fat to far-fetched.
There are however some good scenes in flash backs from Northern Irland which are filmed great.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA major disappointment. This was one of the best UK crime drama / detective shows from the 90's which developed the fascinating title character played by Scotland's Robbie Coltrane. However this one-off has little to add and perhaps suffers from an inevitable let down due to raised expectations when a favored show returns after a long hiatus. Coltrane isn't really given much to do, much more attention is spent on the uninteresting killer, and in what he has to act in, he seems uninvolved, almost bored. The ex-soldier's story is written by the books and the attempt to update us on Coltrane's family life seems lightweight. Perhaps if the writers had a whole series in front of them instead of just this one two-hour show they would have written this with much more depth. As is, skip this and watch the old Cracker from the 90's which is far far superior.
\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 social commentary was way overblown and the mystery itself is built and solved through a series of implausible coincidences that were entirely unbelievable. Nothing has changed in Fitz's personal life in the past decade that makes it remotely interesting.
I even had trouble understanding why he was complaining about his stay in Australia as compared to the opportunities to solve mysteries that he has in England. Can he not insinuate himself on the Australian police? It seems like a very artificial plot point to get him involved in a crime investigation.
The latter episodes of the original series were pretty melodramatic and implausible, sometimes bordering on silliness, and this one picks up that mantle rather than returning to the focus of series one. Sad.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nHaving heard so much about the 1990s Cracker series without seeing any of them, I looked forward to this eagerly. Surely the combination of Jimmie McGovern and Robbie Coltrane could not go wrong. How wrong I was!
The polemics, backed by frequent, repetitive and violent flashbacks, were overpowering. The production tried to be super-modern, but the flashing boxes and even the childish font irritated. Robbie Coltrane sleep-walked through the two hours, coming up with unexplained and unlikely \"insights\", and the police were portrayed as one-dimensional bumbling idiots. As a result, the tension never built up and the next-to-final scene (no details for fear of spoilers) was as laughably bad a piece of TV drama as I have seen for a long time.
No, I don't want to see any more of these, but I will go back to the DVDs of the 1990s series to see if they match their reputation.
\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 enjoyed \"American Movie\", so I rented Chris Smith's first film, which I thought was a documentary too. In the first minute I saw that it wasn't, but I gave it a go.
What a dead end film. Being true-to-life hardly serves you if you're merely going to examine tediousness, esp. tediousness that we're already familar with.
I'm sorry, but will it come as a relevation to ANYONE that 1) a lot of jobs suck and 2) most of them are crappy, minimum wage jobs in the service sector??? I knew that before I saw the film. It didn't really provide an examination of that anyway, as while the film struggles to feel \"real\" (handheld camera, no music, etc.), what's going on hardly plays out as it would in the \"real world.\"
Would an employer be so cheerful to Randy when he picks up his check, after Randy quit on him after 3 days when the guy said he expected him to stay 6 months?? Or the day after abandoning his job (and screwing up the machine he was working on), that everyone would be so easy on him??
A big problem is our \"hero\"(?), Randy. This guy is a loser. Not because he's stuck in these jobs, or has a crummy apartment, or looks like one. He's a dope. He doesn't pay attention or even really try at these jobs. He has zero personalty. If I had to hire someone, he wouldn't make it past the interview.
I'm looking forward to what Chris Smith does next, but guys, knock off the \"this-is-an-important-film\" stuff. \"American Job\" doesn't work.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI must say that I was disapointed with this film. I have never been a huge BNL fans, I find their songs kind of childish and obsessively nostalgic (this is me in grade 9, if i had a million dollars, shoe box of life etc). However, I have seen clips of their live show and I really like the improvisational and goofy nature of the show. I was hoping that this movie would highlight this which is, unfortunately, the most interesting part of the show because their music is well played yet somehow bland and not that compelling (there is a standup bass solo in the middle which was completely pointless and boring, despite how much Jim Creegan was digging himself). The film does not and shows only a few minutes of it (and you know they've had better moments, as in the Afgahnistan concert \"Koffee Anan, he's the man in charge, my name's Steve Paige and I'm really large\") .
BNL are kind of like when I went to Europe a few years ago and heard that godawfull \"Blue\" song by Effeil 99 or whatever every 2 minutes, I came back to Canada and then a month later that song was all over the place *again*, I nearly chewed off my own arm. BNL is like that, years ago I remember many a fond memory of sitting around campfires in Canada listening to people play \"If I had a million dollars\". BNL was a cult phenomenon in Canada, and much of their humour has a particular Canadian slant to it (Kraft Dinner is a staple for many students up here, and the name \"Gordon\" is quintessentially Canadian) a few years went by where they slipped into obscurity and I was somewhat gratefull. Then all of a sudden they become huge in States, and everyone down there thinks they are this brand new band (yeah, they're brand new, but they're all in their 30's!) while the rest of Canada is going \"Oh geez, I thought those guys folded years ago, do I have to listen to 'million dollars' again?\"
The concert footage is not bad, but I would have liked to have seen more of their stage routine, the shooting is not that great, and things like clips from their massive free show in Boston are glazed over much too quickly. The interviews are surprisingly dull for such a funny bunch of guys, I think they're all old and they have families and houses and stuff and have settled down a bit. There are times when they go into Spinal Tap type of material, where they deliver deadpan satire, then they break into laughs and giggles that kind of ruins it. The interviews with Moses Znaimer (a Canadian media mogule) and Terry David Mulligan (Music dude) are extremely pretentious and verge into Tap territory unintentionally.
This movie doesn't really document very much either, I mean, it's basically one show and at the start of the film, they are already huge and have a massive touring entourage, it's not like we see them rising from obscurity and \"surprise\" they are popular, it's a methodically planned out event, so in the end it's rather lifeless, kind of half live concert, half documentary, and not much of either.

\n
assistant\n0
\n"