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\nI saw this film at the 2005 Toronto International Film Festival. Based on a novella by science- fiction author Brian Aldiss, this film attempts to tell the story of Tom and Barry Howe, conjoined twins who are plucked from their family by an impresario in order to form a rock band.
Almost deliberately gimmicky, the film is also too clever by half (if you'll pardon the pun). By mixing genres, styles and moods, the directors (whose previous film was the excellent documentary Lost In La Mancha) lose their way pretty quickly. I was never sure whether I was meant to take it all seriously or not. Flashbacks, dream sequences, it was all just a bit much. Plus, the promised rock and roll just didn't move me. I was reminded a bit too much at times of Hedwig and the Angry Inch, a film I found original and moving. But in this case, the songs just weren't as good, nor were the main characters sympathetic. A more unfavourable comparison would be the similarly disappointing Velvet Goldmine.
\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 offers nothing but the dumbest conversations possible. as a matter of fact i most probably could not have imagined how meaningless a film, how synthetic the dialogs could be until an hour ago, but then again i saw this video. in a movie that does not depend on a powerful script, one expects to see at least good acting and tasty conversations and even some humor maybe, yet this movie lacks them all. you heard me it lacks them all. there is not a single point i like about this movie, none. i hate it. i'm sure anyone will do so too. the name is intended to give the target audience some thoughts of nudity and stuff, yet it fails even at the nudity. i don't know how but i beared to watch this thing for an hour or so, and i definitely recommend you don't do so. worst movie i've seen in my entire life. if someone offers you to watch it, ruuun awaaaaay saaaaaave your liiiiiiiiife
\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\nTerrible movie. If there is one Turkish film you should avoid seeing in 2006, that should be Banyo. What a waste of time. Other than couple of cheap laughs this movie achieves nothing, nada, zilch, nil. The dialog is cheap, and sexual clichés are all over it. The director needs to watch more films before attempting to direct his own. The red headed women displays examples of what an actress should not do. If you are interested in learning how not to act this is a perfect example of bad acting. The only good thing I can say about the movie is, wait, wait, there is nothing good I can say about it. I must have really disliked it to write about it this much. Jeez!
\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\nFirst of all, I am not a huge fan of contemporary Turkish cinema, which is because, the usual pattern of creating a box office success is by hitting below the waistline. This movie is nothing of an artistic masterpiece that deals with taboos, as the director and marketing ads imply. In my mere opinion, the sole purpose of this movie is make money by touching a sensitive morale(in fact it is mostly considered taboo in the native country) Cheap populism might provide with a brief definition of what I meant.
However, the acting is near perfect. In fact, most of the cast has theatrical background and tried hard to compensate for what Altioklar lacked; talent! All members of the cast were perfectly fit in their roles and well qualified for the job, even the less experienced ones. (Like Janset) At least, Altioklar deserves a small word of appreciation , just because he knows well how to choose the cast. Other than that, he is just a media monkey, who presumes himself a director with an artistic talent. Come on, art is not something that solely consists of dealing with naked/half naked women. And just because media boasts off, no director becomes a milestone in the history of Turkish cinema. Just close your ears and o something real artistic, I am waiting eagerly to applause your next work. Hope, this time you manage to achieve an artistic approach.
In short; Pros > Good acting, hot women (just kidding!) :) Cons> Each and every single thing, other than the cast
\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 expecting to see a lot in the bath of Altıoklar, as it is promised by the tag line, you will be very disappointed to see that the movie consists of nothing but the populist style of Altıoklar regarding most famous issues like sex, marriage and cheating. To much nudity, which seems to appear from nowhere and has no connection or whatsoever to the plot proves that Altıoklar was unsuccessfully to \"try something new\" as he has quoted. To much sex centered jokes seems to show that Altıoklar had fallen for the famous saying which is \"sex sells.\" I was hoping to see a very good story told with a very good narration technique. However in the end I found myself sitting down for 90 minutes and watching Altıoklar's experimental yet still to much focused on popularism 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\nAnd I mean ultra light. This film features four giant stars, about three and a half jokes and nothing beyond that.
There really isn't too much to say about this stinker, other than that although it has a couple of really good bits, most of it isn't very funny. Nor does it work at all as a romance. How about as a romantic comedy? Not on your life. Most of the dialogue is way too flat to be sophisticated, much less amusing.
What's really ashame is the premise is not bad at all. This movie could have been so much more, especially with all the recent focus on some of the bogus ways in which films are promoted, complete with phony quotes from critics. The film uncovers the un-mined territory of the press junket -- those all expense paid trips for journalists who almost always write nice reviews. But instead of exploring what should have been a motherlode of jokes, it devotes all of about three minutes to this territory and moves on in pursuit of the film's lame romance.
The same with Catherine Zeta-Jones' character -- the whinny, self centered movie star. Zeta-Jones does a good job with what she's given, but she's given practically nothing. It's all homogenized junk that looks very pale in comparison with some of the things we've heard about stars over the years.
In the end, it is hard to understand what made Zeta-Jones, Julia Roberts, John Cusack and Billy Crystal sign aboard this doomed ship, which sinks like a rerun of \"The Love Boat.\" In fact, as the old joke goes, they should have forgotten the script and filmed the deal. It would probably make a better story. So, go ahead and tell us, filmmakers, what do you have on these stars that got them to appear in this?
\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\nLet me put it another way: balls. Or, how about bollo*ks. This is truly awful, more embarrassing than those it attempts to satirise. Julia Roberts is a skilled actress, and usually her work is of the highest standard. This movie is so lacking in direction even she struggles to look proficient. Normally she is the consummate professional, yet I swear that in her eyes, there were signs of bewilderment and despair.
The one thing that might have rescued this move was the idea about the director (Chris Walken) turning the movie into a secret documentary about the actors. Unfortunately, that theme wasn't explored to it's full potential. Too little, too late.
Zeta Jones was wooden, Cusack was Cusack, and Crystal should stick to acting. The two talented ex-Buffy stars had different experiences - Green hopelessly mis-cast, and Balfour under-used. Well done to Julia for just about preventing this from being the worst movie ever made.
\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\nHow this film was made with so many big stars is beyond me. This is a terrible cliché' ridden film with the worst acting any of these actors have ever done. It really surprises me that so many of these A list stars would agree to this unfunny film. What's even worse is the fact that is made almost 100 million here in the states. It does go to show however that big stars can pull in the bucks, even if the film is terrible. I felt sorry for everyone involved in this snore-fest. Billy Crystal tried his best with the what he was given and the rest of the stars seemed to be walking through the motions. Whatever you do, don't fall for the excellent cast because no one could have saved this.
\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\nWow, what a great cast! Julia Roberts, John Cusack, Christopher Walken, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Hank Azaria...what's that? A script, you say? Now you're just being greedy! Surely such a charismatic bunch of thespians will weave such fetching tapestries of cinematic wonder that a script will be unnecessary? You'd think so, but no. America's Sweethearts is one missed opportunity after another. It's like everyone involved woke up before each day's writing/shooting/editing and though \"You know what? I've been working pretty hard lately, and this is guaranteed to be a hit with all these big names, right? I'm just gonna cruise along and let somebody else carry the can.\" So much potential, yet so painful to sit through. There isn't a single aspect of this thing that doesn't suck. Even Julia's fat suit is lame.
\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 disgusting and painful. What a waste of a cast! I swear, the audience (1/2 full) laughed TWICE in 90 minutes. This is not a lie. Do not even rent it.
Zeta Jones was just too mean to be believable.
Cusack was OK. Just OK. I felt sorry for him (the actor) in case people remember this mess.
Roberts was the same as she always is. Charming and sweet, but with no purpose. The \"romance\" with John was completely unbelievable.
\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 seen a lot of bad movies with big actors in it. But this movie was terrible. I have yet to see why people thought it was funny. The idea behind it is stupid. Plus all the things that are supposed to be funny are just dumb. Why anyone would want to watch this more than once just baffles me!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nthe only scenes wich made me laugh where the ones with christopher walken in it(the crazy filmdirector)the rest of the movie was just boring.in the first hour or so nothing really happens.jokes which supposed to be funny aren't and zeta jones douglas is really overacting.julia roberts does a routine job of the former ugly duck (yeah right!) into the girl next door (where did i see this before?) who gets the guy.for short.i really didn't care what would happen with the main characters.if cusack really fell of the building in a suicide attempt the movie could have been more interresting to watch.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIn fact, it never was. I'm not sure why Billy Crystal wanted to recreate a 1940s screwball comedy. What a vacuous shambles! None of these people come close to a Cary Grant, Spencer Tracy, Katherine Hepburn, etc, and anyway, today's audience isn't as receptive to this facile muck. Writing is trivial. The hackneyed plot is razor thin and obvious. The chemistry between the leading characters is non-existent. It's interesting that Julia Roberts seems to think she's a reincarnation of some big star from the \"golden age of Hollywood\", whenever that may be. It's an effect she tries and fails to attain yet again with Richard Gere in Runaway Bride.
\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\nBilly Crystal normally brings the crowd to laughter, but in this movie he and all the rest of them cannot bring any smile on my face.... or perhaps just one. They call it comedy, I say it's a waste of my 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 found this film to be an utter dissapointment. The talent available to the director- notably Stanley Tucci, Chris Walken, Hank Azaria and Alan Arkin (without even mentioning the four main leads)- have been completely wasted on an unfunny, mediocre story, whose conclusion one couldn't really care about once introduced to the dire, stereo-typed characters. Julia Roberts is feeble, Zeta-Jones is just plain annoying (appearing to reprise her role from high fidelity, minus the humour), Crystal just plays his same old hyper-active, neurotic, annoying alter-ego and Cusack simply walks through his part, apparently bored with the whole project.
For what is supposed to be a 'Romantic comedy', there is absolutely no romance between the central characters, let alone chemistry, and as for the comedy- (possible SPOILERS)well, the only moments of mild humour came off the back of Cusack's role in Grosse Pointe and his relationship with Alan Arkin- the scriptwriter obviously unable to show any originality whatsoever. (Spoilers) Azaria was reasonably amusing as the Mexican lover and Walken did quite an amusing turn as a parody of an arthouse-maverick-Dogme type director- but these parts constituted very little screen time and instead (Spoilers) we were treated to Billy Crystal having his groin sniffed by a dog. Pure genius.
For a huge fan of the majority of John Cusack's work, not to mention the rest of the fantastic cast, I was completely let down by a film with plenty of good ideas, and at the same time completely unwilling to explore or elaborate on any of them, instead resorting to the same old genre cliches and even lowering itself to the depths of almost 'gross-out, teen-movie' humour at times.
A very poor 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\nCharacters you don't care about, relationships you don't care about and you sit through all that to see the ending you knew was coming from the start. Julia Roberts usually leaves no impression on me one way or the other. She was actually somewhat endearing in this role.
\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\nShame on Julia Roberts and John Cusack. They are so talented and should not have had any part in this movie. The storyline was dumb and predictable. The jokes were not funny. The romance was not really romance. I was all too happy when this movie ended.
\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 my wife and I decided to watch this movie we thought it couldn't fail. I love Billy Crystal, my wife loves Julia Roberts and everyone we talked to said they loved it.
We were misled, in spades.
On my part, I felt Billy Crystal's character was extremely one-dimensional and did very little for the film. Sure, he cracked a couple of good jokes, but as a character he did nothing but take up space.
And poor Julia Roberts. In past shows she plays well as a strong-willed, self-determined lady. In this flick, she seems completely repressed and had very little fire. This is not the Julia Roberts that my wife enjoys watching.
OK, if I were to find one good thing, it would have to be Christopher Walken. Now that's entertainment. But, just like Billy Crystal, hardly anything is shown of his character.
If you're looking for a night of mindless laughs with very little redeeming value, go see it. But if you're looking for a smart, romantic comedy, this is not your film. It's none of the above.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie is horrible! It rivals \"Ishtar\" in the number of embarrassingly bad moments. I would have rated it lower than a 3, save for a couple of funny lines; but, overall, this film was crap! It looked like they made it over a weekend at some bankrupt resort somewhere. Joe Roth should join Elaine May on the directing sidelines forever!
\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\nWhat a stinkeroo this turned out to be!!! At one time, much earlier in her career, Linda Darnell was one of my favorites - no great shakes as an Actress, but very beautiful and pleasant (particularly in films like \"The Mark of Zorro\" and \"Blood and Sand\") but when I saw this monstrosity, the memories of her golden days faded quickly. The story is unbelievable and farcical, the acting second-rate, the supporting cast insufferable. I cannot think of a more immature performance by anyone when compared to Tab Hunter, and Donald Gray had to be the most boring leading man they could have picked. Added to this, was the terrible photography (and I am not just referring to the color!) Everyone associated with this, must have shuddered whenever it was shown.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI just watched this horrid thing on TV. Needless to say it is one of those movies that you watch just to see how much worse it can get. Frankly, I don't know how much lower the bar can go.
The characters are composed of one lame stereo-type after another, and the obvious attempt at creating another \"Bad News Bears\" is embarrassing to say the VERY least.
I have seen some prized turkeys in my time, but there is no reason to list any of them since this is \"Numero Uno\".
Let me put it to you this way, I watched the Vanilla Ice movie, because it was so bad it was funny. This...this...is NOT even that good.
\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 saddest part of this is the fact that these are 87 minutes I'll never get back. I knew this was terrible from the get-go, with the guy dressed as a lunatic Indian chief on top of the roof. (See if they could get away with that in 2008). My 10-year-old boy is really into baseball right now, so we decided to rent it on a rainy day. Even though he seemed to enjoy parts of it, I had to cringe when I heard all the needless foul language. Bad, bad movie. This was an awful ripoff of Bad News Bears. Completely shameless and completely predictable. I don't mind a predictable movie if it's done well, but this one absolutely was not.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nHave not watched kids films for some years, so I missed \"Here Come the Tigers\" when it first came out. (Never even saw \"Bad News Bears\" even though in the '70s I worked for the guys who arranged financing for that movie, \"Warriors,\" \"Man Who Would Be King,\" and \"Rocky Horror Picture Show,\" among others.) Now I like to check out old or small movies and find people who have gone on to great careers despite being in a less than great movie early on. Just minutes into this movie I could take no more and jumped to the end credits to see if there was a young actor in this movie who had gone on to bigger and better things--at least watching for his/her appearance would create some interest as the plot and acting weren't doing the job. Lo and behold, I spied Wes Craven's name in the credits as an electrical gaffer. He'd already made two or three of his early shockers but had not yet created Freddie Krueger or made the \"Scream\" movies. Maybe he owed a favor and helped out on this pic. More surprising was Fred J. Lincoln in the cast credits as \"Aesop,\" a wacky character in the movie. F.J. Lincoln, from the '70s to just a few years ago, appeared in and produced adult films. He was associated with the adult spoof \"The Ozporns,\" and just that title is funnier than all of \"Tigers\" attempts at humor combined. Let the fact that an adult actor was placed in a kids movie be an indication as to how the people making this movie must have been asleep at the wheel.
\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\nMight contain possible spoilers (Not that anything in this film is new or will even mildly surprise you for that matter)
Why does Disney feel the need to recycle everything they ever made into oblivion? Sure it's cheaper for them, but after a while, wouldn't you think there overall quality and the way people think of them would drop off. House Of Villains is a despicable display of cartoon crossovers that make absolutely no sense at all. Some signs of the total disregard for previous films in this are: The voices don't even remotely match up and Iago is evil again (Since when?!) I know that these films are directly towards children but there was a time when all could enjoy Disney films. Even the movie's musical number (which had been Disney's specialty for years) stunk. I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone even the very young. All I can is that if more of these movies of the same caliber are released, it's only a matter of time before some small animation studio surpasses Disney in overall quality.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI found this on the shelf while housesitting and bored. How can people possibly give this a 10? It's not just that it's supposed to be a feel-good redemption film (I think), because it doesn't work on that level either. Weak plot, bad dialogue, terrible acting; there's just nothing there. Harvey Keitel is decent, but has nothing to work with, and Bridget Fonda and especially Johnathon Schaech are just terrible. The plot progression (especially the relationship between Byron and Ashley) makes no sense. It seems like the writers wanted the plot to go a certain way and made it, without actually writing in the necessary bits to make it flow. It's only an hour and a half, but that's 90 minutes of your life you'll never get back.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie makes Canadians and Brits out to be asinine, moronic idiots. The men get stoned/drunk, and then they yell/beat each other up in almost every scene. The women are superfluous to the story  I do not understand what they are there for  they spend every scene causing a ruckus, or worse, milling around like mesmerized cattle. Apparently, Canadian women are either quarrelsome vulgar tramps or hulking hippie chicks. It's the standard knocked-up girlfriend, her loser boyfriend and his wicked mother ludicrousness that we have seen in countless movies before.
Every character here is a carping, infantile stereotype. Not to mention that they all looked like they need a shower! And the idea of any kind of scene implying sex with George Wendt  shudder  is enough to make anyone gag! I watched the movie because Samuel West was in it  but I cannot understand why he would have accepted a role like this. Maybe he needed the money. Ian Tracey is a superb actor - the only one with a vague redeeming moment, but his talent is wasted here.
As for the rest of the plot  the three imbeciles trying to get their dope back  yawn - or Karl  who is dead, but who is actually a character very much alive in the minds of those left behind (almost like Rebecca in Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece  although I am ashamed to even have thought to compare these two films), why even bother? Karl is so galling that you find the circumstances of his death gratifying.
By the end of this wretched movie, I thought they would all have been better off going down with him on that boat!
\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\nNot only was this the most expensive Canadian film ever shot in BC, but easily the worst, never seeing the light of day. The director is not even Canadian, but British, and boy does it show. We are all made out to be a bunch of over-sexed dope fiends and morons. The spirit of what it means to be Canadian is absent, and this is supposed to be the reason we fund this bunk. Of course the British character is normal. The rest are a crop of sitcom stereotype - can you say \"Norm!!\"? The cinematography ranges from pretty postcard images to murky indoor silhouettes. The actors always seem to be fidgetting. Are they as bored as the viewer, or is this the directors idea of cinema? Avoid this mess and check out some of Bruce Mcdonalds films. A true Canadian boy with something original to say cinematically. You won't be compelled to walk out on HIS films after 10 minutes.
\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\nAnyone that has see Tammuz's Child Eaters knows that this is a director that can do better. Let's hope it was not a case of too many hands in the pot (Telefilm anyone?)and that is was a case of second feature jitters. The characters are one dimensional and over used. The scenery is terrific however and showcases the Pacific Northwest beautifully.
The cinematography is great. Shot almost entirely outside, the images are crisp and beautiful. You can almost smell the wind blowing through the leaves.
Technically this movie is as sound as they come - it just lacks a heart.
\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 splendid example of how Hollywood could (and still can) take a masterpiece of literary fiction and stupidly foul it up.
In the case of \"the Big Sky,\" writer Dudley Nichols and company arrogantly assumed they could improve upon a classic pioneer novel by the Pulitzer prize-winning author, A.B. Guthrie. In so doing, they removed the soul of the story and any edge and impact it may have had as a film adaptation.
The epic nature of Guthrie's book and the evolution of its main character, Boone Caudill, from a naive, Kentucky lad into a hardened and competent survivor/mountain man, has been replaced with a downscaled riverboat farce that bears little resemblance to the author's intent. In the movie version, Boone's presence is nothing except underwhelming.
Intriguing and even shocking plot elements that give Guthrie's novel impact and excitement have been removed for no apparent reason whatsoever. Most puzzling of all is the emphasis placed upon the Zeb Calloway character, who was an incidental, minor character in the book, only occupying a handful of pages. On the other hand, a very important and fascinating character, Dick Summers, the veteran pioneer, is missing altogether!!! It is also apparent that director Hawks decided the Zeb character in the movie, played by actor Hunnicutt, wasn't irritating enough. So Zeb/Hunnicutt was given a significant amount of time doing that obnoxious, voice-over narration that is the Hollywood short cut for incompetent screen writing, editing, and direction.
Some movies have actually improved upon the books upon which they were based (William Wyler's \"Ben-Hur\" is an excellent example). But this is horrible and depressing not only as an adaptation of a novel but as a film unto itself.
The story is dull and clichéd, and the characters - at least the ones that have not been edited out of the script - are just shallow and boring shadows of Guthrie's literary vision. And unfortunately, Kirk Douglas' star appeal, which could have helped lift this film, was scuttled by the milktoast role he was given.
If you can believe it, the film version of Guthrie's Pulitzer prize-winning sequel, \"The Way West,\" also starring Kirk, is even worse.
In my opinion, \"The Big Sky\" further solidifies Howard Hawks' place as one of the most overrated, tepid directors in the history of cinema.
\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'll give writer/director William Gove credit for finding someone to finance this ill-conceived \"thriller.\" A good argument for not wasting money subscribing to HBO, let alone buying DVDs based on cover art and blurbs. A pedestrian Dennis Hopper and a game Richard Grieco add nothing significant to their resumes, although the art direction is not half bad. The dialogue will leave you grimacing with wonder at its conceit; this is storytelling at its worst. No tension, no suspense, no dread, no fear, no empathy, no catharsis, no nothing. A few attractive and often nude females spice up the boredom, but this is definitely a film best seen as a trailer. I feel sorry for the guy who greenlighted this thing. Good for late-night, zoned-out viewing only. You have been warned.
\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\nFirst of all, what is good in the movie ? Some pretty actress ? the exotic background ? the fact that the actors don't laugh while acting (I would have if I had been in their situation) ? I don't know. The storyline is simple : a catholic priest who does abstract painting tries to find out who (another abstract painter) killed his little brother, a male prostitute (raped by another priest when he was young...). I'm afraid there is nothing here to learn or to let think a little about serial killers, art or religion. Dennis Hopper is not very good here. This is the worst episode of the worst season of \"profiler\" (the serie) with replacement actors and unbelievable coincidences (the uncle is the policeman who, the girl who lives at another victim's house could have a baby with the priest, etc., etc).
\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 an impulse pick up for me from the local video store. Don't make the same mistake I did. This movie is tedious, unconvincingly acted, and generally boring. The dialogue between the young priest and his uncle is particularly poorly written and delivered; I cringed at every scene they shared. Dennis Hopper makes a few sparse appearances and is his usual disjointed self; his role was clearly not a stretch for him. And although the movie is supposedly set in Puerto Rico, it feels a lot more like a Hollywood movie lot; all of the main characters are Caucasian and several tend to speak English with pseudo-Irish accents. Odd. Anyway, when you see this one on the shelf of your local video store, keep walking.
\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 a mess. It had the absolute worst editing I have ever seen. It was almost like at the end of a scene the writer wanted to go to commercial, and the filmmaker added a second of black screen to fulfill the writers dream.
Under the messy direction and editing, there was a glimmer of something good. A good idea, a compelling spark. But somewhere it went wrong.
The story is about a quasi-psychic priest who is trying to solve a string of murders. The first thing that is hard to bite into is Richard Grieco as a priest. Well the part doesn't call for him to be a good priest and he succeeds rather well. The second problem is Dennis Hopper as the crazy bad guy. He always plays the crazy bad guy. Very ho hum.
Oh, a thought occured to me that maybe all the jumpy, horrible editing and disconnected plot was trying to add a sense of the confusion the character (Grieco) was experiencing. And just to prove that it was contrived they rolled the credits backwords. Not a good sign for any 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 the culmination of everything that is bad about modern film. unnecessary slow motion, unnecessary flipping/jumping/somersaults, unnecessary characters, unnecessary dialogue.... basically unnecessity. (is that a word? well, it's just been invented by I, Robot.)
What happened to practicality? (i.e. the car garage, the skin spray) the only tool that shows a combination of futuristic and realistic function is the card swipe at the coffee shop.
What happened to showing respect for women? (i.e. smith's character does nothing but degrade the doctor for the better part of the film, and yet she still \"wants\" him. WHERE IS THE TENSION? I'll tell you where, good looks and not admiration or common ground)
What happened to a detective that detects? Smith did nothing but sit around and feel sorry for himself, complaining to other people, and when they said something that sparked a thought he was off. this is such a lame way to get the story from point b-c-d-etc... it was OK once, but not several times in a row. (speaking of several times in a row, what was the \"I'm snoring and not listening to you joke? Twice In One Scene?)
What happened to the small parts in a movie being somewhat meaningful and not just a tool to promote rescue scenes? Shia LaBeouf (the kid) is in the movie for a total of TWO SCENES, we know that A-he degrades women, and B-he knows Smith....... so of COURSE we should care about him and whether or not he comes to harm,
What happened to Hero's? let's just forget that there are people, women and children everywhere getting attacked by robots and selfishly save the only person withing my view that I have an acquaintance with. and why did he have to ramp his bike through the air, showing off, while the doctor was somehow able to reach the same distance in a matter of seconds on foot.
don't get me wrong, I'm all for spectacle. but I'm also all for a shred of realism and meaning.
I have to say I've never laughed quite so hard at a film in a long time. so thanks Alex.
I pray for the swing of the social pendulum back to simpler techniques, simpler stories and simpler everything else in films...... but mainly simpler techniques.
Big Budget Action films: \"you so have to die\"
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIn spite of the great future-design touches, the clever Asimov premise, and Will Smith's dependable cool performance, this movie doesn't live up to expectations. The clichés come thick and fast; (waking from a recurring nightmare, maverick cop has his badge revoked by hardass lieutenant, to list more would be spoiling it - you can see the end a mile off). This movie is also stagebound - you never feel that you have travelled anywhere; what's supposed to be a global disaster never leaves an obviously CGI Chicago. The robots themselves are good in closeup, but the 'crowd' scenes look more like bad Disney -the CGI is overdone again and again. And if you can destroy the robots by smashing them, why do they need to inject 'nanites'? You know it's a duff movie when stupid questions like that start to bother you before the climax. It could have been great, but it's less than the sum of its parts, mainly due to the utterly predictable plot that could have come from any action film of the last forty years.
\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 most boring, worse and useless film I have seen last year. The plot that was meant to have some philosophical aspects emerged to me as a very bad hollow copy of the matrix, with plenty of clichés: the lone wolf cop, good looking, psychologically disturbed, sleeping with his gun... + nice hard worker and shy, but good looking she-scientist, you add a 2 cent plot and you have I, Robot! I was terribly disturbed by the obvious advertising of brands like FedEx,Audi,converse etc. This movie stinks the commercialization and tend to be more a poor ad spot that unfortunately will not end after 30 sec. I wouldn't recommend this to my worse enemy, if you have some spare time, watch a good TV program instead or better read a nice book.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI just saw this film on DVD last night, and decided to check out the reviews this morning. It seems that \"I, Robot\" has polarized the critical viewing community here on IMDb (and given rise to a lot of insults and name-calling, too).
I find this somewhat surprising, as this film is not great (or even good), but neither is it terrible (or even really bad). What this film really is, is...depressing. Depressing that the US film-goer population is so ready to lap up insipid, clichéd re-heats, and acclaim them as spectacular new works. This film as \"retread\" written all over it, from the plot line (an uneasy mix of Asimov and modern-day uber-action) to Smith's character (a smart-mouthed cynic with a backbone of titanium), to the special effects (that borrowed from Matrix and a few others).
\"I, Robot\" is, sadly, quite possibly the perfect action movie for today's audience: superficial plot, insipidly snappy dialog, and lots and lots of adrenaline. Smith is mediocre, but we already knew that (he seems to be Hollywood's latest unsuccessful attempt to create a black Bruce Willis). The story has lots of holes in it, of all sizes, but I don't think most people drawn to this film are critically-minded enough to notice. Perhaps a blockbuster by today's standards, but very B-movie compared to true winners.
\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 can't really think of any redeeming features of this utterly bad rendering on Asimov than the art direction. Forget the product placement disaster, the unconvincing performance from Will Smith and the gargantuan plot-holes. This wasn't only laughable and but painful to watch. Even the action was boring. A mixture of MTV inspired production values and utterly bad dialogue probably aimed at very small children.
What a shame that sci-fi this bad can still be made after we've had Bladerunner, Minority Report or to a lesser extent Dark City (by the same director). This one really belongs in the bottom 100 list. Truly awful.
\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\nWaiting to go inside the theathre with tickets in my hand, I expected an interesting sci-fi fantasy movie which could finally feed my appetite of movies regarding robot-technology, instead I went disappointed by each aspect of it, once more proving that stunning special effects can't help a boring plot, which by my opinion was the worse in this year. Acting in this movie also dissatisfied me, Will Smith didn't show anything new in this movie, yet I never saw his acting to change since \"Men In Black\" which was his only success by my opinion. He had to retire since than, not spoiling his name with titles like \"I,Robot\" and \"Men In Black 2\". 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\nDel - \"You are the dumbest smart person I've ever met.\"
Calvin- \"Well,I had a brain, but they lost it in the re-writes.\"
I think what I find most egregious about this bastardization of Asimov's work was how the character of Susan Calvin was portrayed. In the books, she was actually one of the first strong female protagonists, able to think her way through a problem. Here she's just a damsel in distress, waiting to be rescued by Wil Smith.
There are passing references to Asimov's Laws of Robotics, but they are an afterthought to the CGI and action scenes.
Smith is likable, as he is in most of his films, but honestly, the story isn't that good. YOu figure it out long before these genius characters do.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film was so disappointing. From the blurb that made me decide to see Phantom Love (why is it called this?)I had expected something arty and thoughtful with beautiful imagery. It did have some interesting images but these often seemed random and made no sense. In fact they seemed like they were inserted to fill in time. In the end the effect was listless.
I believe the film was meant to be atmospheric, but it just wasn't. The lack of a coherent plot did not help matters. You might say it was mysterious, but I think it was just incoherent with no atmosphere.
The main character seemed to be disturbed but the plot did not draw me in enough to care about her situation. Without looking at the cast list I would not have known that you see the main character as a child. The film has very little context for the time, place or character. I am not a prude but the sex scenes (there were several) seemed pointless and confused me further, I recognised Lulu but I was not sure if it was the same man, different men, a lover, her husband or was she a prostitute. It was only when I saw the credits that I discovered the hairy back was meant to belong to her lover. This film did manage to make what should have been shocking (dream sequences involving Lulu's mother) seem a bit boring.
The nail filing actually made more sense, as it did give some indication of Lulu's emotional state. I will not fault the actors as I don't they had a lot to work on.
I do not know if the lack of context or flow in the film was because of ineptitude or because it was pretentious but the end result was dull.
I can't be bothered talking about it anymore.
\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\nLately they have been trying to hock this film late-night on cable TV commercials. Don't believe the hype. I was one of the unlucky people to see this stinker in theatres. This is, in my opinion, the 3rd Worst Movie of All Time, just behind Mac & Me (#1 Worst), and Jack Frost (#2 Worst), but I must admit, they are all close and all TERRIBLE! Really, nothing of this movie is funny, or disturbing, or anything else it claims to be so don't waste your money. The only thing it is good for is giving to your worst enemy. I'm not lying about that. Someone who you would love to kill or torture would be a prime candidate for this film. It is that awful. If you don't believe me then you deserve to suffer through the misery of watching this, which I doubt you can finish. Two Thumbs Enthusiastically Down.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film stars, among others, \"SlapChop\" Vince Offer (who also wrote, edited and directed) and Joey Buttafuoco--not exactly names that scream out \"quality\". And with such uplifting skits as \"Supermodels taking a dump\" (it's exactly what it sounds like), a guy who robs a sperm bank (the \"Rhymer\"), necrophilia with a rotting corpse, black market fetuses (featuring a guy scooping what are supposed to be them out of a jar), lots and lots of gay jokes, a skit about a giant phallus who is a superhero and forced abortions. The skits are painfully unfunny (such as \"Batman and Rhymer\"), the acting not good enough to be considered amateurish and the film is crude just for the sake of being crude...and stupid. I truly believe a group of 8 year-olds could have EASILY made a funnier film with the same budget.
Apparently this film resulted in a lawsuit by \"Slap Shot\" Vince against the Scientologists. Frankly, I wouldn't know who to root for in this case!!! Apparently, he alleged that somehow Scientologists destroyed his reputation and sank this film. No matter that the film is repellent junk from start to finish and 99% unfunny (by comparison, Ebola is funnier)...and these are the nicest things I can say about the movie.
By the way, that IS Bobby Lee (from \"Mad TV\") wearing a diaper and participating in the dumb fake porno film. It's amazing his career could overcome this.
\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 a row of sketches, which partly pass over into one another. I realized the passing over late in the movie, at first it only irritated me.
Many of the episodes in this movie come along without any recognizable punchlines and simply try to wangle around that fact, using absurdity and obscenity. The attempt of it to stay comedy without any funny bits fails.
My personnel and maybe subjective result after watching this movie (My god, it hurts in my head every time I call it \"movie\"): A bold attempt to turn nothing into something great. But it failed. At least the director made something out of nothing. But it isn't something good.
Many movies didn't turn out as funny as they were planned, but this one tops them all. It's the real life manifestation of the worst case scenario of film making. No. To correct myself, it's even worse than that. A movie with gags so bad, that they aren't funny at all. It's not even fun to watch the lead-actor, writer and director (all three the same guy by the way) perish by drowning in the sea of bad movies. The movie is too bad for that.
\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 really impresses me that it got made. The director/writer/actor must be really charismatic in reality. I can think of no other way itd pass script stage. What I want you to consider is this...while watching the films I was feeling sorry for the actors. It felt like being in a stand up comedy club where the guy is dying on his feet and your sitting there, not enjoying it, just feeling really bad for him coz hes of trying. Id really like to know what the budget is, guess it must have been low as the film quality is really poor. I want to write 'the jokes didn't appeal to me'. but the reality is for them to appeal to you, you'd have to be the man who wrote them. or a retard. So imagine that in script form...and this guy got THAT green lit. Thats impressive isn't it?
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nHow do I begin? This movie is probably one of the worst movies I have ever seen .It has no redeemable qualities .I just sat through this movie and it was a struggle.It failed to get even a single smile on my face.I find it hard to believe that anyone would distribute this horrible film. I felt that this movie was a failed attempt at distasteful humor. The only thing that was worth anything about this movie was the soundtrack, I'm pretty sure thats the reason I wanted to see this movie in the first place.I will wrap this up as I am going to try and forget the time I just wasted with this piece of crap. I will leave you with this warning. DO NOT WATCH THIS FILM ,IT SUCKS.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"