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\nDialogue: stilted, clichéd; Acting: hammy, clichéd; Plot: predictable, clichéd.
Just what are Christopher Plummer Nastassia Kinski doing in this \"B\" rubbish? Plummer was well established decades before this movie was made, Kinski had masterpieces like \"Tess\" and \"Cat People\" behind her... Must have been desperate.
The bad guys all have bad-guy accents - *bad* bad-guy accents! (Plummer especially! Where *did* he learn to do \"German\"?) and most of them have bad-guy sneers as well. The innocent bystanders all overdo their panicking enough to make you laugh. The good guy survives, amongst other things: * a 5\" throwing knife buried hilt-deep in his shoulder - just pulls it out and seconds later is using the arm with no difficulty at all; * marines' machine-gun fire (I think someone referred to a .50) in the leg which he sorts out by tying a bandage around his pants leg and thereafter he barely has a limp; * several fist-fights in which he sustains multiple punches to the face as well as being run cranium-first into a door frame; * a fall, backwards, from what looks like the third floor, onto paving, without the slightest sign of a twisted ankle or any other such trifling inconvenience. The script has exactly 3 clever lines, the rest of the time it's all so dull and boring.
OK it's not all bad. Plummer does bring a certain class to his part, and is undoubtedly the best actor in this flick. Of course that doesn't say much, but he can do the callous villain without resorting to the ham techniques most of the villains use here. He delivers his \"Ve haff vays and meance\" type lines with some menace, but you are always aware you are watching Christopher Plummer acting the villain.
This movie is truly an awful waste of time. The acting, such as it is, is sort of 70's 007 movies wooden line delivery meets Bruce Lee's very obviously faked fight scenes, but it's not even anywhere near as good as either a Roger Moore 007 or a Bruce Lee film. Don't bother.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nMerry madcaps in London stage a treasure hunt, with one young woman inadvertently fixing up her married politician father with a strong, independent lady-flier who's never been in love. Intriguing early vehicle for Katharine Hepburn, playing an Amelia Earhart-like aviatrix who's been too self-involved to give herself over to any man. The director (Dorothy Arzner) and the screenwriter (Zoe Akins, who adapted Gilbert Frankau's book) were obviously assigned to this project to get the female point of view, but why are all the old clichés kept intact like frozen artifacts? Billie Burke plays the type of simpering, weepy wife who takes to her bed when thing go wrong, and Hepburn's final scene is another bummer. A curious artifact, but not a classic for Kate-watchers. ** from ****
\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 film is about Sir Christopher Strong (MP--member of Parliament--played by Colin Clive) and his affair with the Amelia Earhart-like character played by Katherine Hepburn. Up until they met, he had been a very devoted husband but when he met the odd but fascinating Hepburn, he \"couldn't help himself\" and they fell in love. You can tell, because they stare off into space a lot and talk ENDLESSLY about how painful their unrequited love is. Frankly, this is a terribly dated and practically impossible film to watch. Part of the problem is that in the Pre-Code days, films glamorizing adultery were very common. Plus, even if you accept this morally suspect subject, the utter sappiness of the dialog make it sound like a 19th century romance novel...and a really bad one at that. Sticky and with difficult to like characters (after all, Clive's wife is a nice lady and did no one any harm) make this one a big waste of time. About the only interesting aspect of this film is the costume Hepburn wears in an early scene where she is dressed in a moth costume! You've gotta see it to believe it--and she looks like one of the Bugaloos (an obscure, but fitting reference).
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nYes, I sat through the whole thing, God knows why.
It was a long afternoon, I had nothing to do, it was bitterly cold outside, okay, those are all lame excuses but they're the only ones I have.
I gave The Darkling 4 stars out of a possible 10 - I have seen worse films, but this one definitely is right there in the old trash bin of bad filmdom--poor script, poor acting, bad lighting, and cheesy special effects.
The storyline, which never completely makes sense, revolves around this simple little family, Daddy, Mommy, and little girl--that I assume the viewer is supposed to be \"identifying\" with, all three of them were tedious and annoying. You just want the dark side to get every one of them.
Daddy is a cook whose hobby is cars. Daddy meets a rich man named Rubin who collects cars and who is also in possession of a being he purchased in the \"mysterious\" Orient. Rubin keeps it in a birdcage and refers to it as \"The Darkling\".
During the course of the film, the Darkling is explained as being about 3 or 4 different things: a shadow without a person, the inner darkness that exists in all of us, and the Devil. So take your pick of whichever one of those explanations suits your fancy--because trust me, it doesn't really matter.
The Darkling's main problem seems to be that it craves having a companion--it gets a human companion--and then eventually is dissatisfied with the human being. This, of course, leads to immense wealth, followed by disaster, for the human who hooks up with The Darkling.
And for the rest of us -- it just leads to a very long, tedious 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\nThe Darkling was a very interesting and entertaining film while F. Murray Abraham was in it. Spoilers: About halfway through, F.Murray gets zapped, because The Darkling is some kind of demon-like creature who enjoys living vicariously. He takes bums and losers and perverts them further while giving them all they want in terms of success. He feeds from their enjoyment of the Seven Deadly Sins. However, part of it is that he needs to get people who may be flawed but not completely evil. Otherwise he cannot \"pervert\" their natural goodness. That's what the little guy said in his Barry White voice, which I found both charming and amusing. Mostly amusing. Like imagine Barry White if he were a little dwarf and he was telling Aiden Gillen \"Dee Plane, Dee Plane, Bos, Here eet come, Dee Plane!\" All through the movie, Dee Dwarf (actually a robotronic cherub) talks to Aiden Gillen in the Barry White voice, saying things like \"It's OK to be bad, you know you want it.\" \"Now you've committed murder, you're really moving up in the world\" and other remarks that sound like commercials for \"Being Evil\" Stores or something. It really is hilarious in a sick way.
Anyhow, Aiden Gillen is no F. Murray Abraham, and the movie tanks as soon as Murray gets the axe (or knifed?). F. Murray brings a certain happy malevolence to his role in this film. He is a good actor. Aiden Gillen on the other hand has a permanent happy smirk on his face, and he looks like maybe his remedial English Comp. class had never hit the Mythological Characters and he could not imagine what the movie was about. The ENDING is really creepy and yet almost comical. If this movie were a parody, the ending was perfect. If it was not a parody, then it was creepy; but a cheap use of a little girl to deliver a gross-out that the movie itself could not deliver. The people who made this movie lost whatever it was that they wanted to do with it somewhere before the ending. It just ends like they just realized that they had run out of money and had to film a quickie ending.
\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 thought it was naughty of them to say in the credits that the story and screenplay were by Preston Sturges. Sturges was one of the better Hollywood screenwriters until his talent faded and he retired. However, it wasn't the Preston Sturges, it was Preston Sturges, Jr. The story was essentially based on Robert Louis Stevenson's short story \"The Bottle Imp\". A good man comes into possession of an evil object that will grant him any wish but which will ultimately doom him to hell. That's fine. Nobody said screenwriters had to be original. The actors are generally pretty competent given the mediocre writing that they had to translate onto the screen. My biggest complaint comes with the ending. The hero thinks he has discovered a way out of his dilemma but tries to solve the problem in a somewhat different way in an attempt to save an innocent person. At first this seems to have worked but true to the code of the modern horror film, they feel they have to provide one last dollop of horror at the very end of the film. This is a stupid convention. The older horror films got along just fine with allowing the hero to win out at the end. There is nothing wrong with good triumphing over evil no matter what the current crop of film makers seems to think. You can give the audience a good healthy scare and still make them feel happy at the end. In fact, I think it's preferable.
\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\nOn the surface, this movie would appear to deal with the psychological process called individuation, that is how to become a true self by embracing the so-called 'dark' side of human nature. Thus, we have the Darkling, a classic shadowy devilish creature desperately seeking the company (that is, recognition) of men, and the story revolves around the various ways in which this need is handled, more or less successfully.
However, if we dig a little deeper, we find that what this movie is actually about is how you should relate to your car like you would to any other person: - in the opening scene, the main character (male car mechanic fallen from grace)is collecting bits and pieces from car wrecks with his daughter, when a car wreck nearly smashes the little girl. Lesson #1: Cars are persons embodied with immortal souls, and stealing from car wrecks is identical with grave robbery. The wicked have disturbed the dead and must be punished. - just after that, another character (Rubin) buys a car wreck intending to repair it and sell it as a once-lost-now-found famous race-car and is warned by the salesman. Lesson #2: Just like any other person, a car has a unique identity that cannot be altered nor replaced. In addition, there is the twist that Rubin actually sees a hidden quality in what most people would just think of as junk, but eventually that quality turns out to be a projection of Rubin's own personal greed for more profit. Lesson #3: Thou shalt never treat thy car as a means only, but always as an end in itself. - then we have the scene where the main character is introduced to Rubin and, more importantly, Rubin's car: The main character's assessment of the car's qualities is not just based on its outer appearance, but also by a thorough look inside the engine room. Lesson #4: A car is not just to be judged by its looks, it is what is inside that really counts. There is punishment in store for those who do not keep this lesson in mind, as we see in the scene where another man tries to sell Rubin a fake collector's car. This scene by the way also underlines the importance of lesson #3.
There are numerous other examples in the movie of the 'car=person'-theme, and I am too tired now to bother citing all of them, but the point remains (and I guess this is what I'm really trying to say) that this movie is fun to watch if you have absolutely nothing else to do - or, if you're a car devotee.
\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...Ok I have read about this film somewhere in the internet, and many criticized on how bad and sucks this film was. And I couldn't have been more agree about it. Then after that I saw this film on DVD, I was thinking twice about this and then came commercial of this film on TV. Luckily I spared my money for this pieces of crap. I was sacrificed my sleeps for this film and soon it turned out that this film couldn't make me satisfy. So I can't be judging on how the film was made, but anyway... it still sucks. As for those who liked this film, I would apologize for flaming this film and telling on how sucks this film is. I don't know what do YOU think about this film?
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI checked this movie out based on a favorable review on this page. It is slow moving and the payoff is a four star dud..The only mystery here is how Oscar® winner F. Murray Abraham got involved with such a lousy script!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nMaybe it's the dubbing, or maybe it's the endless scenes of people crying, moaning or otherwise carrying on, but I found Europa '51 to be one of the most overwrought (and therefore annoying) films I've ever seen. The film starts out promisingly if familiarly, as mom Ingrid Bergman is too busy to spend time with her spoiled brat of a son (Sandro Franchina). Whilst mummy and daddy (bland Alexander Knox) entertain their guests at a dinner party, the youngster tries to kill himself, setting in motion a life changing series of events that find Bergman spending time showering compassion on the poor and needy. Spurred on by Communist newspaper editor Andrea (Ettore Giannini), she soon spends more time with the downtrodden than she does with her husband, who soon locks her up in an insane asylum for her troubles. Bergman plays the saint role to the hilt, echoing her 1948 role as Joan of Arc, and Rossellini does a fantastic job of lighting and filming her to best effect. Unfortunately, the script pounds its point home with ham-fisted subtlety, as Andrea and Mom take turns declaiming Marxist and Christian platitudes. By the final tear soaked scene, I had had more than my fill of these tiresome characters. A real step down for Rossellini as he stepped away from neo-realism and further embraced the mythical and mystical themes of 1950's Flowers of St. Francis.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nPoor Ingrid suffered and suffered once she went off to Italy, tired of the Hollywood glamor treatment. First it was suffering the torments of a volcanic island in STROMBOLI, an arty failure that would have killed the career of a less resilient actress. And now it's EUROPA 51, another tedious exercise in soggy sentiment.
Nor does the story do much for Alexander KNOX, in another thankless role as her long-suffering husband who tries to comfort her after the suicidal death of their young son. At least this one has better production values and a more coherent script than STROMBOLI.
Bergman is still attractive here, but moving toward a more matronly appearance as a rich society woman. She's never able to cope over the sudden loss of her son, despite attempts by a kindly male friend. \"Sometimes I think I'm going out of my mind,\" she tells her husband. A portentous statement in a film that is totally without humor or grace, but it does give us a sense of where the story is going.
Bergman is soon motivated to help the poor in post-war Rome, but being a social worker with poor children doesn't improve her emotional health and from thereon the plot takes a turn for the worse.
The film's overall effect is that it's not sufficiently interesting to make into a project for a major star like Bergman. The film loses pace midway through the story as Bergman becomes more and more distraught and her husband suspects that she's two-timing him. The story goes downhill from there after she nurses a street-walker through her terminal illness. The final thread of plot has her husband needing to place her for observation in a mental asylum.
Ingrid suffers nobly through it all (over-compensating for the loss of her son) but it's no use. Not one of her best flicks, to put it mildly.
Trivia note: If she wanted neo-realism with mental illness, she might have been better off accepting the lead in THE SNAKE PIT when it was offered to her by director Anatole Litvak!! It would have done more for her career than EUROPA 51.
Summing up: Another bleak indiscretion of Rossellini and Bergman.
\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 argued with myself whether to rent this or not. I'm always afraid of renting something I've never heard of (don't remember this being in theaters). Great cast...that's what tipped the scales. 30 minutes in, I almost stopped watching it. The first few minutes are fun to watch, but unbelievable. It only gets worse after that. The writers of this movie could do a little research on future projects if they want to make their movies even a little better. Or they could just try writing something just a little bit believable. I give it a 3....a 1 for the writing (only because there are words)and a 2 for being able to get so many good actors to agree to do this movie despite having to read the script. Oh my god this movie sucks.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\ni guess its possible that I've seen worse movies, but this one is a real stinker! the plot is unremarkable but thats not the worst of it. the directing is no where close to what you would expect from andy ching. he's capable of good work but failed to pull this movie together.
angie harmon, playing the female lead as a reporter dogging into who's behind the assassination of the president, truly butchered the role. there was no chemistry with gooding, her demeanor was flat and wooden, and the 5 inch spike heels she wore throughout the movie were absurd. this outing for harmon places her solidly at the bottom of the \"b\" list.
and what was cuba gooding thinking??? he has to his credit a number of outstanding performances, but this was far beneath what we've come to expect from him.
poor james woods and burt reynolds. poor poor poor poor poor.
\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\nCuba Gooding Jr. is a secret service agent who blames himself over the assassination of the U.S. President, i'll point out straight away that this is not the type of role that this very talented actor is noted for, and this film shows us why. He teams up with a persistent news reporter (Angie Harmon) to uncover the conspiracy surrounding the president's death, and so on, blah, blah, blah.
Even with a cast of James Woods, Cuba Gooding Jr, Anne Archer and Angie Harmon 'End Game' fails to grab your attention, plain and simple; some of the action is good, the acting isn't all bad and the story although clichéd and done before could have lead to an entertaining and enjoyable movie - WELL IT DOESN'T! The writing of the script and the direction makes absolutely sure of that, at no point does it suck you into the story or make you give the slightest thought to any of the characters.
4/10 It's Boring, Predictable and Dull.
\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 spent almost two hours watching a movie that I thought, with all the good actors in it, would be worth watching. I couldn't believe it when the movie ended and I had absolutely no idea what had happened.....I was mad because I could have used that time doing something else....I tried to figure it all out, but really had no clue. Thanks to those who figured it out and have explained it....right or wrong, it's better than not knowing anything!! Who was the lady in the movie with dark hair that we saw a couple of times driving away? How did First Lady know that her husband was cheating on her? At the end of the movie Kate said she would eventually find out the truth. Does this mean that we're going to be subjected to End Game 2?
\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\nEnd Game started well, the least said about the end the better. it seemed like things we're happening just to keep the plot going, for example the reporter who at first is a very inquisitive, intelligent person, half way through does something really stupid and totally out of character, we are given no reason for this apart from, the next scene wouldn't make sense without it. The whole story could have been told in about 30 minutes, it would have made an average TV political drama The brilliant Cuba Gooding Jr. is very watchable however and James Woods does an admirable job considering.
The end game was honestly one of the worst films I've ever seen......and that's saying something, I've seen Gigli.
\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\nPlease, help the economy - spend your money elsewhere! The synopsis of the movie is: the First Lady has her husband assassinated because he was cheating on her. That's it. Undetected by anyone, except Cuba and Angie, she designs and implements a vast assassination conspiracy which no one knows about...and gets away completely free.
Some specific points are particularly hilarious: While standing in front of the president, Cuba a deflects the assassin's bullet...which then enters the back of the president's head.
Cuba and Angie watch film from a news camera, and they see...a clue. They go to great lengths to protect the film, believing that they are the only people that have a copy of this very public film.
Cuba speaks with a presidential staff member. The PSM comments that there was no conspiracy. Cuba claims there was more than one person involved. The PSM then rants that the conspiracy includes the FBI, the CIA, and the NSA. Gosh, I wonder is the PSM is involved.
Ms Archer, the First Lady, is a craptacular artist. Cuba can't make out a painting, and she says, \"You're too close...stand back...look from a different perspective, look from my perspective.\" Can anyone miss THAT clue?
\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\nPredictable, hackneyed & poorly written. Foolishly I reasoned such a prominent cast would not be involved unless it had merit. I guess competition amongst actors is so intense these days (and will only get worse) that one cannot pick and choose much any more. Early on we were given an inkling who was was instrumental in the assassination and we had it rammed down our throats ever since. The movie lacked intrigue, giving us little insight into the victim and only one possible motive for the murder. Some of the discourse was, frankly, embarrassing! It's hard to believe anyone would even consider, let alone commit to, the spending of tens of millions of dollars to make this tripe.
\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 craptacular. I was so emotionally uninvolved in every single character that the movies' biggest antagonist was, in fact, myself. I played it beautifully throughout; promising myself I would walk away, but only drinking another beer hoping it would auto-magically transform into something engrossing along the way. Even in this state, I couldn't help but notice that Cuba's acting was as flimsy as tracing paper. His obsessive dedication to his job was unconvincingly done as well as his one night binge after the failure of his own idiot standards. Burt came on the screen as a General, that's right, a General (who wears too much makeup). I fell into a frighteningly fast binge to rival Cuba's, except mine was real and I stubbed my toe. Recompense! Recompense my stubbed toe!
\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\nSome guy gets whacked. Right out in plain sight this other guy shoots him. He's got some bodyguards and they whack the killer, but a reporter gets interested. She goes to the hospital where they took the guy who got whacked. She walks in, and corners one bodyguard, but he doesn't feel like talking. I can't figure out why. It's not like anyone else is interested. She's the only reporter there. Anyway, her editor discourages her from working on this lame story. But hey, she does anyway. She goes to see the killer's sister & mom. A few minutes after she leaves they get whacked big time-- somebody blows up their trailer-- huge ball of fire. Then she searches out the bodyguard from the hospital. She finds him hungover on his boat, but a minute later they're both underwater sucking on a scuba tank 'cause three guys are trying to whack them (and have blown up the boat big time-- huge ball of fire). The reporter and the bodyguard whack two of the guys who are trying to whack them.
In the course of the next hour another guy gets whacked crossing the street, there's a shootout with several stiffs in a warehouse, some car chases with wreckage & death, a fake suicide, etc. etc. Lotsa stiffs, all kindsa carnage.
Great stuff, but what the reporter and the bodyguard can't figure is: why in hell the original guy got whacked. What's the motivation? Of course, it might help us to figure out why the reporter's even interested. Through almost all of this she's the only reporter on the story. Nobody else in the media cares. Not even with all the big fireballs and dead bodies. True, the original guy who got whacked wasn't exactly a celebrity. His job was a little bit dull. He was just the President. Yeah, the one who lives in the White House. Oh, and the bodyguard is a Secret Service agent.
Is that the spoiler?
It should be. After all there are no TV cameras, no other print reporters, no bloggers... just another one of those police blotter crimes...
So what's the spoiler?
Lemme think...
No! Wait! The spoiler is that his wife did it! Yeah... the First Lady. She was p---ed because the President was fooling around. And she gets away with it. She's really sharp, huh? But how the hell could anybody ever figure that out? Why would anyone bother? After all, only one reporter is even interested.
I give this move a \"1\". It was so dumb I just had to keep watching. And it only got dumber! That's the real spoiler! But even though I've told you, you've got to see it to believe 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\nSo I'm looking to rent a DVD and I come across this movie called 'End Game'. It stars James Woods and Cuba Gooding JR and has the synopsis of a taught political thriller. Well worth a look then. Or so I thought.
Boy, was I wrong.
End Game has just about the most ridiculous plot I have ever had the displeasure of enduring. Now being something of a whodunnit, I can't really tear into it as I would like without 'ruining' it for those who have yet to experience this monstrosity. But questions such as 'Why has he/she/they done this?', and 'Where on earth did they get the resources to pull this off?' are all too abundant following the film's unintentionally hilarious conclusion.
As for the acting - you know those films where you can almost feel that an actor's realised that they've made a terrible mistake in signing on for a movie, and this then shows in their performance? This is one of those. Accompany this with a laughable script and seriously flawed, irritating direction and you have the recipe for cinematic poison.
Of course, this didn't make it to the cinema, and for the same reason you should not allow it into your living room; it is appalling.
\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 unfortunate, to have so many of my \"a\" list, and good \"b\" list actors agree to do this movie, but they did, and that is what sucked me into watching it. I had never heard of this movie, but there was Cuba Gooding Jr. right on the DVD cover, and James Woods in the background how bad can it be? In a word Very! This movie starts o.k. has some twists and turns, then just lays an egg. The ending was so weak, it was as if the writer got called away and his 4 year old son sat down at the type writer and hacked out the ending. How ironic a for a movie titled \"The end game\" to have such a poor one. These are the types of movies that can move \"a\" list actors to the \"b\" list in hurry. I hope Cuba Gooding JR, and James Woods don't make a habit of 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\nSPOILERS AHEAD
This is one of the worst movies ever made - it's that simple. There is not one redeeming quality about this movie. The first 10 minutes are quite tricky - they actually lead you to believe that this film will be shocking and will have you on the edge of your seat. Instead, you will spend 83 minutes punching yourself while watching stolen and poorly made scenes run without any organization. The lake was ridiculous, looked like an aquarium, and had the same plant in different parts of the lake bed. Characters show their advanced teleportation powers, for example Alex Thomas who falls into the lake (drunk), and then ends up on his boat in an impossible position. Angie Harmon put up a pitiful performance as Kate, made worse by the space-time continuum rupturing dialog that appears to have been written at the last minute by a fifth grader. An example of this would be when she said, \"Flashlight!\" in such a stupid manner that it shows the threshold of how much a human body can cringe before it snaps in half. Finally, the editing of this movie was by far the most bizarre and horrific that I have ever seen. It was like the cameramen were a bunch of chimps who had been given camcorders by scientists. An example of this would be when we suddenly get a closeup of the headlight on Alex's car. I would bet that there was little to no time spent editing this movie. The ending was absolutely pathetic. The writers were obviously trying to create some sort of mysterious plot line that made the viewer say, \"oh yeah!\" Instead, we're left to view some dumb painting of a spider that somehow fits into the story line. Unfortunately, there is not one perspective in the millions out there that could save this movie from being a festering piece of crap.
I give this a .5 out of 10, the .5 being from the fact that this movie was recorded on film instead of becoming a picture 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 didn't expect a movie as good as \"In The Line of Fire\" or an episode of \"24\", but it looked like this movie was made for TV and did a mediocre job at best. The (good) cast couldn't disguise the fact that the plot was all too predictable and actors had to struggle (they really try their best I think) through their lines of bad script, giving their rather flat characters any extras. When I watched the movie I got the feeling that I had seen most of this in other (better) movies. In it you had car chases, big shootouts, romance, plot twists etc. etc; This movie has none.
** Spoiler** As soon as you see another woman talking into the phone to Cuba's character, you know who's behind all this and all the hints you're being given (\"you stand too close to the president, see it from my perspective..\" ) sound silly.
If it were up to me (and maybe it's a good thing that it isn't) I would rewrite the plot like this:
First lady orders the murder of her husband because she is sick and tired of writing checks to Cuba all the 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\nThis movie looked good - good cast, evergreen topic and an explosive opening. It went downhill from there. Why was it filmed by hand held camera? It shakes, judders, part captures scenes and simply confuses the viewer. A poor choice indeed. As if this was not enough, the worst edit in memory assumes a drugged viewer - mandatory if you want to get any enjoyment from it at all. And then it commits the worst sin of all. After leading the viewer down all sorts of unlikely and implausible scenarios to the point of exhaustion, they roll credits without revealing the denouement - the ending - the payoff -like what the heck was the motive? How can you expect to succeed by making thrillers without an ending? Doh! This movie had great promise and ending up doing a face plant in the mud. What a waste of effort. Poor effort by writer and director.
\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 rented End Game, having never heard of it, but I'm fond of political thrillers so I thought I'd give it a shot. After doing some research on the movie, I found that it had initially been intended for theatrical release, but instead had gone strait to DVD. After seeing it, I'm thinking, \"no wonder.\" The movie is shocking in its unoriginality. The plot and the characters are perfunctory. I figured out whodunnit by the half way mark but the ending was a curve ball. I have to say, I didn't expect it to end quite the way it did, but that's not a point in its favor. The more predictable ending would have been preferable to one that is so bad. Perhaps the film makers saw how predictable the film was and so they decided to throw in a twist--even one that made the movie even worse.
Stay away. I want the $5.98 and my 107 minutes 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\nCamera work - Why is the camera work in this movie so jumpy? This is annoying and distracting. Editing - the Flashes of the still pictures were way too short. Many of the other scenes were too short also. Just flashes. Sound - the background music was way too loud and covered up the voices. One should not have to rewind and replay to catch what was said. Doesn't anybody check these things and make them do it over again. Please reduce the volume of the background music in future. Is adjustment of the relative sound levels the job of the editor, Julia Wong? The plot had way too many loose ends. The basic story line had potential. I think the film needed more work. Was it rushed? Perhaps they ran out of money. Like a lot of movies, it started out great but just petered out toward the end. I really don't understand this, you know you have the story board before it goes into production so why doesn't all the loose ends get taken care of in the storyboard.
Sorry to be so critical.
\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\nYou have to figure that when the star's name is listed wrong in the opening credits, you are not in for a good time (the credit reads \"Cuba Gooding, J.R.\"). Some nice car chase, shoot 'em up, blow 'em up action if ALL you want is action, because the relationship to what plot exists is tenuous at best, and completely unbelievable. The motivations of the characters, especially that of Gooding's at the end, are worse then unbelievable, they are irrational when they are not hopelessly muddled. All I can think is that Andy Cheng must be a really nice guy to get this many good actors into this foul a project (he can't have something on all of them, can he?).
\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 ranks as one of the worst movies I've seen in years. Besides Cuba and Angie, the acting is actually embarrassing. Wasn't Archer once a decent actress? What happened to her? The action is decent but completely implausible. The make up is so bad it's worth mentioning. I mean, who ever even thinks about the makeup in a contemporary feature film. Someone should tell the make up artist, and the DOP that you're not supposed to actually see it. The ending is a massive disappointment - along the lines of \"and then they realized it was all a dream\"
Don't waste your time or your money. You're better off just staring into space for 2 hours.
\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 like a bad indie with A-list talent. The plot was silly, all the way to the end. It reminded me very much of something churned out for the home video market in the 1980's. I would have given it a one, but there were brief moments when you could see the actors really really straining to make this worthwhile. I think the worst thing was the underwater scene's held off of the dock. The underwater lighting seemed to come from no were, and whenever someone we were supposed to care about was close to running out of air, this air tank would kind of appear. I would avoid this, unless there is nothing else on the shelf. Good Day.
\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 had all the clichés of movies of this type and no substance. The plot went nowhere and at the end of the movie I felt like a sucker for watching it. The production was good; however, the script and acting were B-movie quality. The casting was poor because there were good actors mixed in with crumby actors. The good actors didn't hold their own nor did they lift up the others.
This movie is not worthy of more words, but I will say more to meet the minimum requirement of ten lines. James Wood and Cuba Gooding, Jr. play caricatures of themselves in other movies.
If you are looking for mindless entertainment, I still wouldn't recommend 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\nMST 3000 should do this movie. It is the worst acted movie I have ever seen. First of all, you find out that the shooter has no bank account and no history since leaving the army in 1993 and pays his rent in cash. There is no way in hell that a person like that would ever be allowed to be that close to a president not to mention a high profile job. Also, the head of security for the POTHUS would not be so emotional that he would start drinking into a haze if the president was shot. This movie sucked. I cannot express the extremite that this movie was. Every single actor was terrible. Even the chick at the trailer park. I crap on this garbage. What a waste of 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\nFlat characters that you do not and never will care about. Cringe-inducing dialogue at places. No twists (they think they have one, but if you didn't figure it out after about 40mins you're not too bright). Lots of well know actors in roles and performances that, fortunately for everyone involved, will be forgotten as soon as the end credits roll.
I don't mind 'slow' movies, but they've got to be going _somewhere_. This one doesn't.
The plot wasn't what made this a direct-to-DVD movie, that's just a rather convenient excuse to try and drum up some fake controversy.
The as-of-writing 37(!) ten (10) ratings must be from people involved with the production.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAn ensemble of uninteresting and unlikeable characters twist and turn their way through a flimsy plot that might be interesting, if only you could bring yourself to care. This \"twisting and turning\" I speak of refers not to the story (which contains all the suspense of a recipe for tuna casserole) but to the director's inability to keep the characters' faces even remotely centered in the frame. On the other hand, Angie Harmon has very nice nostrils and left ear.
The only real surprise in the movie is the big names they convinced to do it. When you consider this movie was never released in theaters despite having an all-star cast, you might be inclined to think something stinks.
And indeed, it does.
\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 had some great actors in it! Unfortunately they had forgotten how to act. I was hoping the movie would get better as it went along but the acting was so robotic it was doomed from the very start. It actually appeared that maybe the actors were reading from a script the whole time. Maybe it was the Musical score or the Director himself, but one thing is for sure the Make-up artist needs to get another job ! The Facial Powder was so thick you could see it caked on the actors faces ! Would not recommend this movie to anyone, no wonder it never hit the Theaters. Cuba Gooding Jr. / James Woods shame on you guys for not giving it your all. The Plot was great just needed a whole lot more.
\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\nDon't get fooled with all the big names like Burt Reynolds,James Woods and Anne Archer. They are just glorified extra's. Their scenes were probably filmed in one day or so. Whatever their motives for being in this movie, if you have an actor like James Woods you better make good use of him. To me this is a sign of bad direction through and through. The plot itself wasn't that bad. And the acting from most of the actors was above average. Cuba Gooding Jr. however was terrible. He was so unbelievable that I almost laughed at his dramatic scenes. And since this was meant as a serious movie that can't be a good thing. The action scenes were not bad,but they lacked that special punch to make it more exciting. Again better direction was needed. Also the pacing was wrong for a movie like this. It took the main character almost half an hour to get in action. For an action thriller of only 90 minutes that is far too slow. The only redeeming factor is Angie Harmon. She does her best to make it all work. Too bad the director left her hanging. Yes,this movie could have been much better with a great director. Andy Cheng is far too inexperienced as a director to pull it off. And for an action/stunt coordinator of his caliber you'd expect at least more exciting action scenes. Don't waste your time with this one. Avoid!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI am a big 1930's movie fan and will watch most anything that I see on Turner Classic Movies thats new for me. So I gave this a shot, after all it's the great Harold Lloyd who rivaled Chaplin as a great silent film comedian. I have watched much less of Lloyd's silent films then of Chaplins but I have to say I'm a much bigger Chaplin fan. Anyway this film fell so flat for me that I didn't finish it. I can understand why his sound career was so limited, he didn't get very good material to work with. After you've seen Chaplin, Abbott and Costello, The Three Stooges, Martin and Lewis, The Marx Brothers, and Laurel and Hardy do boxing spoofs (or violence in general), this one is very forgettable. I was also interested in watching Adolphe Menjou as I really enjoyed him in Paths Of Glory but his role here also did nothing special for me. Maybe they should have gotten into the boxing sooner because at least half the film (at least it seemed that way) is before he gets in a ring. I can tell there are a lot of Lloyd fans here and this wont be a popular review but I must rate this as compared to what else was out there at the time, 4 out of 10. Don't watch this with anyone your trying to get to like old movies as they may not watch another one with you again, very flat. For an alternative to anyone who really liked this or is looking for more little known comedies in general I recommend \"Kelly The Second\" made a few years earlier, another nobody becomes a boxer comedy with Patsy Kelly and in a supporting role Charles Chase. These have both been shown on the Turner Classic Movies channel.
\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\nAbout three minutes into this thing I started fast-forwarding, pausing only during the nudity (why is it that bad movies always include such good looking women?). In ten minutes I was done, and wishing I could get my money back from the rental store. The people who write these movies should be sanctioned by the MPAA. Come on writers - the bad guys ALWAYS get into the car with the bomb activated by the good guy's remote control! That's the way its been done since the days of the Ottoman Empire! Also, to add insult to injury, the \"twist\" at the end was so formulaic, that it could have come from any action movie written in the past 25 years. Burt Reynolds was fine, but he should concentrate on real movies.
This movie is just a waste of time - Run away! Run away!
\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 very tired looking Burt Reynolds plays a mercenary battling his former employers for some gizmo these non-heroes plan to sell to \"the Iranians.\" Low-rent video nonsense by the producers of \"Silk Stalkings\" offers some decent action footage and a lot of ineptly staged \"drama\"...a lack of logic and truly dreadful dialogue are the defining aspects, although the final twists and allegiance shifts could've been a nifty end to a better movie. Burt still has presence, although it also means you notice more when he mouths insultingly half-baked \"one-liners\".
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe movie was not a waste except for some boring scenes in between.But the women cast gave a pretty good show than the males who were laughable.
But Krista Allen really rocked in the movie .Her voice was so seducing and sexy.The scenes in the bed involving Krista should have shortened but she made it so watchable and sexier than any one could do.Krista really is one of the best in such roles.She also enacted quiet well as the baddie in the last 5 minutes,which is the interesting part of the movie.
Burt Reynolds was not that good and this was not his best as an action star.He could have chosen a better script than this.Ireally think he did for money.
\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 definitely a Burt Reynolds fan, but sorry, this one really stinks. Most of the dialogue is laughable and the only interesting plot twist is in the last five minutes of the movie. I can't believe he even made this one. Is he actually that hard up for money?
\n
assistant\n0
\n"