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\nBeing a music student myself, I thought a movie taking place in a conservatory might be fun to watch. Little did I know... (I had no idea this movie was based on a book by Britney Spears) This movie was implausible throughout. It's obvious that whoever wrote the script never set foot in a conservatory and doesn't know a thing about classical music. Let me give you just a few examples: 1) There is NO WAY anyone would be admitted to a classical conservatory with no classical training whatsoever! Just having a nice pop voice isn't enough, besides, that's a different thing altogether - another genre, different technique. It's like playing the violin when applying for a viola class. 2) How come the lady teaching music theory was in the singing jury? If she wasn't a singing professor herself, she would have no say in a situation like that, and if she was a singing professor, why weren't we told so? 3) Being able to read music is a necessity if you're to major in music. 4) How did Angela get a hold of that video tape? That would have been kept confidential, for the jury's eyes only. Now either she got the tape from one of the professors or the script writers just didn't have a clue. I wonder which... 5) The singing professor gave Holly the Carmen song saying she \"had the range\", which she clearly did NOT. Yes, she was able to sing the notes, but Carmen is a mezzo-soprano, while Holly's voice seemed to be much lighter in timbre, not at all compatible with that song. 6) Worst of all: Not only does the movie show a shocking ignorance when it comes to classical music, but it doesn't even try to hide it. The aria that Angela sings is mutilated beyond recognition, a fact which is painfully blatant at the recital, where it is cut short in a disgraceful way - Mozart would roll over in his grave. The Habanera from Carmen sounded a bit weird at times, too, and the way it was rearranged at the end just shows how little the producers really think of classical music - it's stiff and boring but hey, add some drums and electric guitars and it's almost as good as Britney Spears! I know these are all minor details, but it would have been so easy to avoid them with just a little research. Anyhow, I might have chosen to suspend my disbelief had the characters and the plot been well elaborated. But without that, I really can't find any redeeming qualities in this movie except for one: it's good for a laugh.
\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 actually liked this movie until the end. Sure, it was cheesy and pretty unlikely but still it kept my attention on a rainy afternoon. Until the end, that is. For her final performance at the prestigious classical conservatory where she has struggled to catch-up to the other classically trained students, what does the main character do? Wow them with her grasp and execution of this time honored musical tradition? No. She tortures and butchers the great sensuous Habanera from Carmen and turns it into an utterly forgettable Brittany Spears-wannabe pop song. My ears bled! And, in the supreme moment of horror, her teachers gave her a standing ovation! Any teacher not in a Spears-induced fantasy would have failed her on the spot. Save your time, save your ears - skip this movie!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\ncan any movie become more naive than this? you cant believe a piece of this script. and its ssooooo predictable that you can tell the plot and the ending from the first 10 minutes. the leading actress seems like she wants to be Barbie (but she doesn't make it, the doll has MORE acting skills).
the easiness that the character passes and remains in a a music school makes the phantom of the opera novel seem like a historical biography. i wont even comment on the shallowness of the characters but the ONE good thing of the film is Madsen's performance which manages to bring life to a melo-like one-dimensional character.
The movie is so cheesy that it sticks to your teeth. i can think some 13 year old Britney-obsessed girls shouting \"O, do give us a break! If we want fairy tales there is always the Brothers Grimm book hidden somewhere in the attic\". I gave it 2 instead of one only for Virginia Madsen.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt was a decent movie, I actually kind of enjoyed it. But the ending is so abrupt!! There is absolutely no closure and it leaves tons of loose ends. What happens after the concert? What happens with her boyfriend? Does she hook up with Grant? Does she come beck in the next semester? And what about Angela? Obviously Holly's performance would knock Angela down a few pegs, but nothing is shown to indicate how she reacts. There is so much left up in the air and it's very unsatisfying. I don't know if it is trying to leave room for a sequel or something, but it is a terrible ending and I think that it really makes the movie a joke. I was very disappointed.
\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 entertaining enough due to an excellent performance by Virginia Madsen and the fact that Lindsey Haun is lovely. However the reason the movie is so predictable is that we've seen it all before. I've haven't read the book A Mother's Gift but I hope for Britney and Lynne Spears sake it is completely different than this movie. Unless you consider ending a movie with what is essentially a music video an original idea, the entire movie brings to mind the word plagiarized.
\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 read the book a couple of times and this movie doesn't follow exactly as it should. I could let this slide, it is after all a movie. However I have serious issues with the setting of the movie. Nobody has seemed to mention that this movie and the book it is based on are based in actual events that happened in Nebraska. I live in Nebraska. I grew up in the town that this movie is supposed to be based on. First of all, the \"small\" town that is talked about as the setting, is the third largest city in the state. With a population of around 50,000. Grand Island is the largest city between Lincoln and Denver. Second the scenery for the movie is wrong. Grand Island is in the Platte river valley. Which is very flat with very few trees. I tried watching this movie, but it made me mad to see my hometown being treated so bad. This was a real event. Large sections of the city were wiped out. In the book they talk about riding bikes from Mormon Island to Fonner Park. I guess you could if you don't mind a 15 mile ride each way. For anyone who wants to know what really happened go here http://www.theindependent.com/twisters/
\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\nTV version of \"Twister\" springs a few leaks but manages to remain watchable. My sister bought this at a Wal-Mart a few years back when it was released, I saw it back then and thought it was okay. Later \"Twister\" with Bill Pullman and Helen Hunt comes out (or was it before? I think it was '97) and did a better job overall. But \"Twister\" was more silly fun; this is realistic with a message. It all depends on what you want from a movie with twisters: Twisters, or a low-budget character study?
John Schneider and Devon Sawa (he's the reason my sister bought it) star, and Devon Sawa, who went on to \"Wild America,\" \"Final Destination\" and \"Slackers\" got his big break here. So in a way, I was one of the first people to see him really take off. I don't know if it's an honor or a shame, I haven't seen how he acts in recent films.
\"Night of the Twisters\" all depends on personal taste, like I said, it all depends on what you want from a movie with twisters: Twisters, or a low-budget character study. \"Night of the Twister\" has the latter. So you decide.
I give it a 2.5/5...
- John Ulmer
\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, although not totally bad, should have been filmed where the actual events took place. Grand Island, Nebraska was devastated by no less than seven tornados on the night of June 3, 1980. Grand Island is situated in the nearly treeless, flat Platte River Valley in Hall county. The makers of this movie filmed in the tree covered hills of Ontario and moved the whole event to a non-existant town called Blainsworth. The people of Grand Island bravely survived this awful night only to be forgotten because of a poorly made 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 film is totally garbage. Some imbecilic intellectual comforting himself by making all his best to claim superiority of aristocrat over working class. Nothing more than a piece of self-complacence catharsis. Disgusting.
If this kind of a movie is set in US, it will sure make itself a big joke. And simply because it comes out from 'the other side', it makes itself a masterpiece, a wonderful amusement for certain brain-washed and/or brain-washing westerns (some George W. maybe:). A typical cold-war sequelae, some kind of joke anyway.
I would say, if this -- like expressed in this film -- is all what Soviet intellectuals had been thinking about all those years, then maybe they deserve all the miseries they claim they had gone through. BUT NO! 'cause like many others, I've read and watched real masterpieces made by real outstanding Soviet intellectuals. For example, something also relevant with dog, \"White Bim Black Ear\" -- both Gavriil Troyepolsky's book and Stanislav Rostotsky's movie -- is a real masterpiece. Real life, real tragedy, real sad, real pride and dignity, one of the real best of the Soviet era.
\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 a pretty good cast, but the film has nowhere near the grace of the original Italian comedy \"Big Deal on Madonna Street\" Anyone looking for an entertaining caper film should visit the original. William Macy may be one of our greatest living actors, but here he's put to little use. And his role in the original was played by Marcello Mastroianni, so I sort of feel sorry for him trying to fill those shoes. Might as well try to imitate Bogart or a young De Niro. The art direction is rich and textured but brings nothing to the story, the extra bits they add to the story feel completely unnecessary and the things they take away are missed. Even starting the way they do seems bizarrely gratuitous and takes away from the surprise of the original. Sam Rockwell has his odd and genial charm and Luis Guzman has that odd charisma, but the love story part of the movie just seems clunky and flat. It's too bad nobody has figured out how to make this movie as well as it was first made, but then again it's too bad we live in a culture where we feel like we need to remake amazing things instead of simply learning to savor the originals.
\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 aint bad, but it aint good. it is just entertaining.
as a comedy which it is supposed to be, it's dreadful. not many laughs at all as every joke in the movie has been done a million times before.
it's a shame as all the actors in the film are great usually, but none of them really do much. and the ending 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\n\"Welcome to Collinwood\" is kind of a disaster. Considering the people involved, it should've been multiple times better.
Watching it, if you're at least somewhat attached to the faith that it'll get better, will probably make you cry. It's one of those movies that had potential, but was robbed of this potential thanks to a terrible script and some bad acting, not to mention the strangely annoying and unnecessary George Clooney character and the guy who reminds me of Richard Dreyfuss but about whom I care so little that I don't even want to know his name.
The film's only saving grace is the weird con vocabulary it introduces. I found myself thinking of it time and time again as I watched more crime capers. This is the only reason I gave the film a 3. The plot is boring, the characters are neurotic, needlessly offensive, and highly unlikable. They are in a constant state of agonizing stress and they're all so irritating that I celebrated their obstacles. They yell at each other and swear crassly. The dialogue is insipid at best and insultingly stupid at its low points.
I find that Steven \"Traffic\" Soderbergherabracadabrablahblah and George Clooney are to blame for this. They should be tried for war crimes, if anyone actually remembers this crap long enough to care.
\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's nothing new here. All the standard romantic-comedy scenes, even down to the taxi sprinting to the airport to stop the woman flying away. The only thing that saves this is the acting of Alison Eastwood & some of the minor characters (blink and you'll miss Gabrielle Anwar), who obviously had some fun.
Turn it off when the pair are in bliss, and you won't have to go through the inevitable plot pain.
\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\nFormula flick of guy who wants girl, guy who will lie to get next to girl, guy who will get best friend to help in outrageous way (comedus reliefus, no?) to help deceive girl, etc. This one's been done to death, and with rare exception of a few z-rated outings, it's been done better.
Stale plot aside, the leads are attractive and there's a couple of good moments. Jonathon Schaech has done better, and his acting here came close to being phoned in. Not a complete loss, but nothing new here in this tepid affair.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI've tried to watch this so-called comedy, but it's very hard to bear. This is a bad, narrow-minded, cliché-ridden movie. Definitively not funny, but very much boring and annoying, indeed. Bad script, bad acting. It's a complete waste of time - and there remains nothing more to say, I'm afraid.
1 out of 10 points.
\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 the worst romantic comedies (nay, worst movies) I've ever seen. Boy (who works as a phone psychic!) must pretend to be gay to move into apartment with woman of his dreams. Hilarity does not ensue. Boredom, light gay-bashing, and horrible dialogue do. If you read Brad Meltzer and like his crappy dialogue, you'll like this movie.
Be smart. Avoid this. if you see it, destroy the copy.
\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\nYet another insult and slap in the face to gay men everywhere. This lame attempt at a comedy has nothing to recommend it. Once again we have an attractive 'straight' hero who supposedly can't get any woman to be interested in him. Yeah, right! And we're also presented with the 'sympathetic, attractive' gay friend who is actually a fat, balding, ugly old man whom the lead is supposed to find attractive. Even I didn't find him appealing and I'm a fat, ugly old gay man (but thankfully not balding)! Whatever acting talent there may be here has been thrown away on a bad script, and truly awful direction. Mr. Sneedeker should be banned from filmdom, but then he's no different than the countless other hacks working in Hollyweed.
\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 horrendously bad piece of trash manages to be racist, sexist and homophobic all at once, while pretending to be terribly chic and sophisticated. Atrocious performances, a cliche ridden screenplay, and boring direction make this movie one to steer clear of. Two scenes were especially offensive - the one in which Schaech scrubs his tongue after being kissed by another man (could it really have been that gross), and the scene where Eastwood is kissed by Schaech's best friend, who is pretending to be Russian. After he leaves the room she exclaims \"f**king foreigners\"! So much for her being a cultured artist who dreams of living in Paris!?!
Jonathon Schaech can be a likeable actor on screen, and is astonishingly good-looking. It's a shame he didn't learn more from working with cutting edge gay director Gregg Araki on an earlier film, and try to salvage this film from descending into a string of gay stereotypes and a mire of homophobia.
\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\nThey played this on the July 4th Twilight Zone marathon and this is, hands down, the worst Twilight Zone episode I've ever seen. It's completely out of sync with the rest of the series in its tone. Even though Twilight Zone is a pretty uneven series and many episodes end up being groaningly predictable, this one was completely out of place. Compare this to legendary episodes like \"A Stop at Willoughby\" or \"Midnight Sun\", and you realize there is no comparison.
Buster Keaton did what he could with such terrible material, and frankly it surprises me that someone of his historic comedy stature would stoop to the level of this episode. Even though he seemed to be giving it some effort, he MUST have needed the money... there's no other explanation.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI am one of the biggest fans of silent comedians and have probably reviewed more Buster Keaton films for IMDb than any other person. Every film he made from the beginning of his career to the early 30s with only two exceptions have I reviewed, so you can tell I am a major fan. It's because of this that I found this episode so painful and hard to watch. I loved this man's films and kept thinking \"Buster, how could you?!\". Well, now that I think about it, I guess I can see why Buster Keaton starred in this god-awful episode of THE TWILIGHT ZONE. He'd lost much of his fortune after a messy divorce in the early 1930s and his film career as a leading man was long passed as well. Now, in the 1960s, Keaton needed the money and loved his resurgence in popularity so he whored himself out to anyone willing to pay--appearing in Beach films and this mess of an episode of a great series.
The biggest problem with the episode is that it is just terribly written and Buster deserved much better. The show is supposed to be funny but isn't and instead of a homage to silent films is just painful to watch--particularly with Keaton putting that stupid time travel helmet on as well as all the poorly executed slapstick. Do yourself a favor, SKIP THIS ONE--it's a pale imitation of the greatness that once was Keaton's career!!!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n===minor spoilers===
I am, like many others, a huge Jerry Bruckheimer fan. So when I saw all the beautiful posters hanging out front, and the trailer coming by before MI:2, expectations were rising. A Jerry Bruckheimer production. Big cars. Nic Cage and fresh from an Oscar- Angelina Jolie. What can possibly go wrong? A lot.
The script is neither funny (which it tries really hard to be) nor exciting. You put in a black person who is constantly making racist jokes about himself and Wooh-haa!! you've got comedy? I don't think so. Excitement is totally out of the picture. First of all (and this is probably said many times) there are no sympathetic characters so who cares who gets killed? IF you can stomach the premise that a psycho is gonna kill Nic's brother unless he steals 50 cars in 4 days, next thing you know is that Kip (the brother) is walking with Nic in the streets again. Is this excitement? Think not. Then comes the best bit- the romance between Nic and Angelina. She actually looks bored having to utter all these stupid lines to Nic. 'Do you have a girlfriend?' 'Are you seeing anybody?' 'What went wrong?' etc.
Then there's only one sparkle of hope left: the car chases. They're disappointing to say the least, because the trailer made it look like it was full of them, and there's only one. A very long one, caught in irritatingly hectic camera movement. I really had trouble following the action.
So is it an action movie? a thriller? a romantic comedy? - there's no need to decide, just avoid this horrible mess. I'll give 3 out of 10 stars, and I feel like I'm being generous.
\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 should be shown to film school students as an example of what NOT to do. The original kicked some major tire squealing butt, this horrible disaster breaks the cardinal rule of Bruckheimer films, which is: we all know they suck, but they have great action. This film has NO ACTION. This film is BORING. Where are the cars? Where are the chases? Where's the tension? Where's the suspense? Where's the rush? Where!!?? This isn't really a movie at all, it's a bad commercial. 50 cars in 24 hours? That is wrong. They have 3 days to steal them, the ad is wrong. How bad is that? The leads acting is stiff, wooden and forced. The villain, the cop, the others...who cares. They utter their pointless lines, they serve the illogical plot. They slog through it the best they can as the music video director says \"don't worry we'll make a lot of fast cuts and no one will notice how bad the film is\" or \"we'll fix it with lots of loud music\" The \"script\" isn't really a script at all, it's more like a list of cliches with an ending that is a total ripoff of: -------Warning - possible spoiler------ 5------4-----3-----2-----1------ The Fugitive. The biggest crime of all is the underuse of Vinnie Jones, man....this is the baddest, coolest mofo since Jules in Pulp Fiction. And what do they do!? They make him a mute who's hardly in the film! Make Vinnie the main villain and he could have saved the film. How could they have been so dumb? How? How? Why? The original film is very entertaining with a cool trick at the end that gets the driver away. The original has a great 40 minute chase that delivers! Go find the original. Or if you're craving some real car chase action go rent RONIN. The chases in Ronin raised the bar by which all other car chases will now be judged. Bruckheimer and Cage had all that money, all those resources, all that experience, and they can't even come close to matching a film made 25 years ago for $250,000? How can that be? You feel like you got ripped off after seeing this movie. Where I was once excited to see Coyote Ugly, Remember the Titans and Pearl Harbor, now I say: God help us all.

\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 review may contain some spoilers.
The remake of the classic 1974 car chase movie Gone in 60 Seconds begins well. Actually it is well acted and the plot moves quite well. But even a big Hollywood budget doesn't change the fact that the original plot was more believable. For those who don't know, the original plot had the thieves working as insurance inspectors. Who would suspect them. But even with a change to nearly every aspect of H.B. Halicki's original, the remake is a very good movie, until we get to the final chase scene, the part of the 74 version that made it great. The one in this version is watered down, only 10 minutes, and it culminates in a monster special effect that takes all believability out of the chase. Where the original chase was very believable, the star was a stunt driver who did all his own stunt, the remake falls flat in the last 15 minutes. My advice, if you want to watch a classic car chase film, fine the original in the bargain bin at your local rental joint and stay clear of the new remake.
\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\nRandall \"Memphis\" Raines is a retired master car thief who is forced back into the \"game\" when his younger brother faces death for not filling an order for British crime boss Raymond Calitri. The job involves \"lifting\" 50 cars in 24 hours or Calitri will enact his punishment. So Raines quickly assembles a crew he can trust and sets about the task to hand. But the police are on to him and some of the cars on the list are not easy takes. It would seem a near impossible job to complete.
It's got quite a cast has Gone In 60 Seconds, Nicolas Cage, Angelina Jolie, Robert Duvall, Will Patton, Delroy Lindo, Vinnie Jones, Giovanni Ribisi, Christopher Ecclestone, Scott Caan & Timothy Olyphant. All of whom deserve better. Enough acting horsepower there to propel a Porsche 998 Turbo. Trouble is, is that this is very much a case of too many cars overstocking the car park, mucho characters, not enough zest. From the off we are in no doubt that this is a Bruckheimer/Simpson production, bonkers script laced with loud noises and lashings of cheese, scattergun editing, and directed with sledgehammer subtly by Dominic Sena. It's essentially a big budget remake of H.B. Halicki's 1974 indie movie of the same name, with the premise offering up the potential for an adrenalin fuelled car based movie. Potential that sadly is never realised. There's one or two high impact moments, daft for sure, but enjoyable none the less. But if you pardon the pun, the film never gets out of first gear, it's more content to labour with its ream of characters who mope about trying to make the boorish screenplay {Scott Rosenberg} work.
Car fans will get something from it {the cars are ace on the eye}, as will fans of unintentional comedy movies {check out Ecclestone's carpenter grief moment}. But no, it's really rather poor all told. 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 watched this because I thought there were going to be a lot of car chases and cool cars to gawk at. Guess I was lied to. This movie is very boring.
The movie starts out Kip Raines(Giovanni Ribisi) sitting outside a Porsche dealership checking to see if they have the right car. When they confirm it's the right one, Kip gets a brick out of the trunk and chucks it at the window, shattering it. He gets the Porsche while his friend gets the keys. They start up the car and take off into the night. They deliver it to a warehouse only to have been followed by the police. So, the whole crew ditches all the cars and go their separate ways. Then, we get a glimpse of Memphis Raines. He is giving a little speech to a bunch of kids at a go-kart track. Then, he is confronted by Atlee Jackson(Will Patton). Atlee tells Memphis that his brother Kip is in deep *bleep*. Memphis is known as one of the most notorious car thieves in Los Angeles. Memphis heads to a junkyard and meets Raymond Calitri(Christopher Ecclesten). This guy threatens to kill Kip if Memphis doesn't deliver 50 cars within 72 hours.
There are a few problems with this film:
1.Story: The first 48 in-movie hours take place when Cage and Duvall are looking for a crew and planning everything out. The last 12 in-movie hours are a waste!
2. The Cars: You see maybe 10 cars out of the 50 as the movie advertises. So, where are the other 40 cars? Why don't we get to see them?
3. The Chase: The chase at the end of the movie was a joke. It was not suspenseful at all.
4. The Dog: Somewhere in the movie, the dog eats the burgers and swallows three keys as well. This is impossible. The keys were flipped open. The keys would have severely damaged the dog's esophagus, stomach, and large intestines. The guys suggest giving the dog laxatives to help him poop it out. This won't work. The dog will get a lot of diarrhea but no keys. It was stated in Jackass after Ryan Dunne stuck a toy car up his rectum. Take laxatives, lots of diarrhea, but no car. Same case with the dog.
5. The Cop During The Chase: When Eleanor breaks down for a few minutes, Nicholas Cage tries desperately to start up the car. You see a police cruiser behind him who isn't looking at his car at all. But, right when Nicholas Cage starts the engine up again, the police officer jerks his head to the right, sees the car, and immediately begins to chase after him. It is stupid. So, right when he heard the engine start, and saw the car, he knew that was the car he was looking for. How does he know it's the right car? He only sees the back of it.
Overall, the movie is boring. There is no action. There are very few cars. The movie is stupid. I have never seen the original but I plan to.
I give this movie 1 star out of 10. Get The Fast and Furious instead.
\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 remake of H.B. Halicki's classic seventies chase film is simply horrible. Along with Vanishing Point, Gone in 60 Seconds represent the quintessential car chase films. The remake takes the original and stands it on its head. Whereas Halicki gave us 75% car chase and 25% supporting drama, in GISS 2000 we get 25% car chase and 75% supporting drama. Cage as super man, saves his brother, kisses the girl. MTV edits, tits and ass. Save your money, rent the original. At least Halicki didn't live to see his baby (he wrote, produced, directed, and starred in the '74' film) degraded in this manner.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis was a horrible film! I gave it 2 Points, one for Angelina Jolie and a second one for the beautiful Porsche in the beginning... Other than that the story just plain sucked and cars racing through cities wasn't so new in 1970. The Happyend was probably what annoyed me the most, seldomly seen anything so constructed!
\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 shows us nothing original. Every idea or (action) scene can be found in many previously released movies. Fabulous Nick is completely plain here. Even Will Patton is calm and evil nor good. Mr. Duvall is ok, but has a very small part. So does Angelina, so how can we determine her newly acclaimed stardom? Overall, there are too many characters, so that nobody and nothing is especially detailed. This makes the movie easy to forget. Too bad, don't you think?
\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\n1975's MASTER OF THE FLYING GUILLOTINE is an amazing and wonderful film to watch. This isn't because the fighting is particularly inspired or because the film makes any sense at all. It's because the film is so silly and so over-the-top that it is a camp classic--bad, but enjoyably bad. The film stars a blind guy who has a Frisbee-like device on a chain that chops off people's heads as he expertly throws this at his foes! Who cares that the physics are impossible or that the film features such silly things as fighters with 12 foot long papier-mache arms or that the guy was blind! It's just a ball to watch from start to finish--and one of my favorite \"bad\" films and great to see with friends.
Because of this film, I was eager to see THE FATAL FLYING GUILLOTINES (1977), though sadly it turned out NOT to be a sequel but a bit of a knock-off--taking many of the ideas from the original but neglecting to make the film as coherent or watchable. Sure, it's silly fun, but it never comes close to MASTER OF THE FLYING GUILLOTINE in entertainment value. Like the original film, there are these weird flying devices that sever heads, but they are quite different--with circular saw blades and almost a mind of their own. There also is no blind guy but instead are a bunch of baddies who really have no depth nor does the audience understand exactly what's occurring in this English-dubbed version, as the plot is completely incomprehensible. However, at the same time, some of the martial arts action is very good. While not up to the high standards of most Bruce Lee or Sonny Chiba films, the action is worthwhile despite the ludicrous and often confusing plot.
Overall, this is a film that martial arts fans may like (despite its many, many, many, many shortcomings), but also one that others will probably turn off or laugh hysterically at instead of enjoying the action because the film is just so ludicrous. BUT, most importantly, it never comes close to being as funny or watchable as MASTER OF THE FLYING GUILLOTINE. Too bad.
\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\nAlthough there's Flying Guillotines as part of the title of this movie, it has no connections to the original Flying Guillotines (1975) and its sequel Flying Guillotines II (1978). The two originals are masterpieces of kung-fu movie and still stands out as a classic. This is a much inferior copy of the original, and even as a regular kung-fu movie, it's below average.
First of all, this movie doesn't have much acting. It's one senseless fight scene after another, and flying guillotine doesn't even play a major part in them. Story is about some Shaolin monks who are tracking down some villains who've took off with a sacred book, and an evil prince who owns part of this book is part of the plot. The same evil prince has plans to lure the monks in and use the flying guillotines on them.
There are four movies with Flying Guillotine as part of its title. This in my opinion is of least quality. The design of the flying guillotine in this movie is different from the other three indicating that this movie was produced by a different entity from the other three.
The movie has no chemistry asides from being unintentionally funny due to poor production.
Best skip this and watch the two originals.
\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 got extremely silly when things started to happen. I couldn't care less about any of the characters; Susan Walters was so annoying, and the leading actor (forget his name) also got on my nerves. Can't quite remember how it ended and so forth but the whole idea of aliens possessing human bodies and all just seemed stupid in this film, things didn't quite carry off. My dad told me it's s stupid movie...I should've listened to him.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI read the comment of Chris_m_grant from United States.
He wrote : \" A Fantastic documentary of 1924. This early 20th century geography of today's Iraq was powerful.\"
I would like to thank Chris and people who are interested in Bakhtiari Nomads of Iran, the Zagros mountains and landscapes and have watched the movie Grass, A Nation's battle for life. These traditions you saw in the movie have endured for centuries and will go on as long as life endures. I am from this region of Iran myself. I am a Bakhtiari.
Chris, I am sorry to bother you but Bakhtiari region of Zardkuh is in Iran not in Irak as you mentioned in your comment. Iran and Irak are two different and distinct countries. Taking an Iranian for an Irankian is almost like taking an American for an Mexican. Thanks,
Ziba
\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\nDocumentary about nomadic Persians making a treacherous traverse of massive mountains to get their herds to grass. Watching this silent, black and white feature, marred in part by a twink-twink-twink Oriental music score that could not have been used in the original exhibition, is even duller than it sounds. The spectacular scenery is lost on a small black and white screen, and there is an utter failure to establish any kind of plot line. I loved Nanook of the North and March of the Penguins, but despised this movie, notwithstanding the similarity of the theme. Physical hardships alone are just not that interesting.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe problem I find with this title is that I am not sure if the director is trying to produce a documentary or movie. A blend of the two genres just doesn't work and that leaves the whole thing hung in the middle of nowhere. This is more so as the director has picked the most extremes of what is supposed to be happening around our everyday life making it an unconvincing documentary. If it is meant to be a thriller/drama this is too dull and monotonous. In either case, what is the moral or the message which the director is trying to convey to the audience? That around us there are people who ill-treat others who are willing to be ill-treated? That there are many crazy lunatics around us? So..........so what?
\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 in no way entertainment but more of a look deep into the depths of the darkest side of human behaviour. Loosely linking a half a dozen stories of the worst kind of depravities, perverted sex, greed, violence and intolerance. All the action is played out over a few very hot and sticky days during a heatwave in Vienna and the heat is maybe responsible for some of the anger and hate in the film. For me the treatment of the retarded girl by the security equipment salesman was about the worst episode, closely followed by the scenes of drunkenness and perversity in the 'slags' flat. You will be gripped and I hope horrified by this film. I hated it but I felt compelled to see it through. 1/10 for 'fun' 8/10 for displaying 'man' as he sometimes is.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie reminds me of \"Irréversible (2002)\", another art-work movie with is a violent and radical approach of human nature. I did not like the movie but I cannot say that it is a bad movie, it is just special. I reminds me also of \"Camping Cosmos (1996)\" where a bunch of low-class figures are residents of a camp at the sea in Belgium. The same description of people living together, side by side against their wills and with all the confrontation of characters that do not match together. I also thought about the books by the French writer Emile Zola who was a writer of the style that is naturalism. I did not like the movie and I also do not like the people who are in it. They all seem so vulgar, without any basic good taste. One could ask the question why do they live, they all seem to be on this planet a a member of a big farce, forced to live against their will. Or you could say: the hell is on this world.
\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\nEarlier today I got into an argument on why so many people complain about modern films in which I encountered a curious statement: \"the character development in newer movies just isn't nearly as good or interesting as it used to be.\" Depending on the film(s) in question, this can be attributed to a number of things, sometimes generic special effects and plot-driven Hollywood garbage like War Of The Worlds, but in the case of over-the-top, uninteresting attempts at social commentary and a desperate struggle to put \"art\" back into cinema, it's movies like Dog Days that are to blame.
I normally have a very high tolerance for movies, no matter how dull or pointless I find them (ranging from good, long ones like Andrei Rublev and Dogville, to ones I've considered painful to sit through a la Alpha Dog and Wild Wild West). I shut this movie off 45 minutes in, which is 30 minutes more than I actually should have. I wasn't interested in any of the characters whatsoever and found nothing substantial beyond a thin veil of unfocused pessimism. In an attempt to say something about the dregs of society, this film too easily falls into being self-indulgent, trite, and exploitative in a very sincere sense. Granted, I've seen many disturbing movies on the same subject, but there are so many better films out there about depressing, pathetic people (Happiness, Gummo, Kids, Salo, Storytelling, Irreversible) that actually contain characters of great emotional depth and personality. Dog Days had none more than an eighth grader's distaste for society, choosing to ignore any true intelligence about the way people actually are, and instead choosing to be a dull, awful, and hopelessly unoriginal attempt at a work of \"art.\" This isn't a characterization of the unknown or a clever observation into the dregs of society, it's just boring and nothing worth caring about.
\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 once promised never to walk out of any film ( a personal policy that made me suffer through the most different kinds of dreck, such as Rambo 3, Baise Moi, Deep Impact) - but Mr. Seidl almost succeeded. Hundstage was a truly awful experience. Anyone who sees this movie will think that Austrians are a miserable, pathetic bunch of retards. It shows a world where love and humanity don't exist, a world where people humiliate each other only for one reason - to distract from their own miserable existence. By choosing a documentary-like style with non-professional actors (most of them look like straight from the imagination of Austrian shock-cartoonist Deix) director Seidl wants to make us believe that this is real life in Austrian (European? Western?) suburbs. The viewer is confronted with depictions of sex orgies, violence against women and handicapped people, madness and degradation. But this isn't social criticism. This is just pure shock without any aesthetic value. Instead you get bad acting, bad cinematography, bad filmmaking. If anybody needs a film like this to realize that there are things wrong in our society then this person must have walked through life with closed eyes. This is pseudo-social criticism with a sledge hammer. And it looks down on people in a disgustingly condescending way. It shows ugly people - that is not the reason why I hate it. But it depicts average people in an ugly, misanthropic way. And this is why this film is truly despicable.
\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 you are looking for a film the portrays the pointless and boring existence of middle class lives caught in a web of non-communication and false ideals, then this is the film for you. If you also what the film to be engaging and keep your interest, then you should probably look elsewhere. There are many films that do this far better. For example, try some of the darker films by Bergman. The Filmmaker felt that in order to show the spiritual poverty of the middle class he should subject the viewer to one agonizingly dull and vacuous incident after another until the film finally comes to its tortuous and pathetic end. If you value your time there are far better ways to spend two hours, like cleaning your house, for example.
\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\nFragmentaric movie about a couple of people in Austria during a heatwave. This kind of movie has been done more often, and most of all, better. The stories don't really have anything to do with each other, apart from the pathetic finale: 'people are cruel'. Ugly flesh, unpleasant people and a movie that goes on way too long without really making a point... Ultra-realistic? Hardly... Boring? Indeed. Not even gorgeous Franzisca Weiss can save this one! 3/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI didn't think it could be done, but something has come along and replaced Open House- a low budget horror about someone killing over the high price of real estate- as the worst film I've ever seen in my short but otherwise sweet life.
It was touted as the best film in Montreal's most recent film festival, which leads me to believe that every other entry must consist of blank-wall shots accompanied by people reading gloomy poetry.
Watching this movie was like a little slice of Hell. It's from Austria, and it attempts to stumble along in the footsteps of Short Cuts and Blue Velvet- scenes about various characters living in a suburban area with a dark underbelly. There's the fat dog owner and his fat maid wife who stripteases for him, the skinny divorcee whose wife still lives with him in a house that includes the untouched room of his dead child, the über-annoying woman hitchhiker who recites top ten lists... The list goes on. Forever. Much like the two hours plus I spent in that theatre.
Yes, the characters interact, but not in a clever or interesting or even relevant way. I couldn't say if they were any good as actors, as, according to the subtitles, they were given lines that were the Austrian equivalent of \"You are so lame!\" They certainly didn't have to learn many, as each repeated his or her same lines at least three times in a scene.
This is no Gummo, or any of the aforementioned movies. There is no art to discover, and nothing to dwell on afterwards except maybe whether or not you should change your \"never walk out during a movie\" policy (which quite a few older couples did during a random orgy scene- and if that sounds appetizing, it's not, unless you're one of few who doesn't find the idea of your parents having sex- and with a few local middle-aged couples, to boot- revolting).
This movie was offensive to me. Not the flabby nudity, not the cringe-inducing soundtrack, not the shockless scenes involving guns. I was offended that someone actually spent money to make this when there are capable writers and filmmakers out there looking for funding. I was offended that someone from out of town might have gone to see Dog Days and come out wondering if that was the best us Montrealers could find. Most of all, I was offended that, somehow, the people involved with the festival duped everyone into believing that the emperor had a gorgeous and mesmerising new outfit when it was painfully clear that he was as naked as the fat maid wife doing a striptease.

\n
assistant\n0
\n"