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\nThis (extremely)low-budget movie is compared to the great classic \"Silent Night Deadly Night\", since it is labeled as a Slasher Flick. First let me say that I think that even \"Silent Night Part 2\" is better than this (that one was filled with flashbacks of the original for more than half of the movie). \"Christmas Evil\" tries to get psychological by introducing the main character as someone who goes insane,(a strong word), slowly (very slowly). He is irritated by people who do not get the true meaning of Christmas and at work he can't stand how the fabricated toys are made with such lack of quality and love. Dressed up as Santa he finally goes on a killing spree. Also a strong word, since only 3 people are killed without the real need for special effects. No tension, no thrills, no gore, no cast. For one exception that is: Jeffrey DeMunn is in it. He is best known for playing aside Tom Hanks as one of the guards in the classic \"The Green Mile\". He still must be kicking himself these days for ever accepting the role. He truly is the only one who really can act, his supporting role is better than the main lead. (who also isn't that bad, but if you're overshadowed by a little supporting character, you're not great either.). And what about that strange ending ? (you have to see it, to believe it). \"Christmas Evil\" is downright boring, nothing happens and the artwork is just misleading. This is not a slasher. You wanna see a real Christmas slasher, check out the all time greatest: \"Silent Night, Deadly Night\".
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe only reason to give this movie even a single star is how much the ending made me laugh. I had high hopes as I usually love bad campy holiday horror movies, but this just didn't qualify. It's really just a bad attempt at showing a character slide slowly into insanity, which again, isn't a bad plot, but is done poorly here. There are some scenes (such as the ending) which are not intended to be funny, but actually made me laugh out loud. There were a couple of times when I thought the movie would actually go in an interesting direction, but it never fulfills what it could and should be. In my opinion, if you are looking for a Christmas slasher flick, try Silent Night, Deadly Night.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhat can possibly said about this movie other than, \"viewer beware\". Christmas Evil should come with a warning label like cigarettes do, because this was harmful to my eyes and ears. I am rarely this unsatisfied with a \"b\" horror flick, but this movie couldn't even bring a little scare to a five year old. The point of a relentless lunatic that has a thirst for blood in a film is that he/she should seem almost god-like, like nothing can stop their maniacal rage, but in this film the resident psychopath gets himself stuck in a chimney in a bizarre attempt to surprise his next victim and of course follow along with the all to popular legend of santa claus, it's a reminder to the viewer that this man is in no way dangerous because he's far too stupid to be dangerous. All in all a total waste of 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\nThis is one of the worst B slashers I've ever seen in my life. The ending is something you have to see to believe.
The movie starts with Harry Standing and Phillip Standing sitting on the stairs with their mother watching their father come down the chimney while dressed in a Santa suit. He puts the presents under the tree, eats the cookies and milk and then goes back up the chimney. Phillip goes to bed but Harry comes down only to find his father dressed in a Santa suit sexually pleasuring his mother. Then, Harry goes up stairs, smashes a snow globe, grabs a shard of glass, and cuts himself.
Then you move on to the present. You see Harry. He is a lonely man who sleeps in a Santa suit and watches little kids through a pair of binoculars. He has two books. One book for good kids and the other for bad kids. He writes down everything they do in these books. The guy is a creep. He also works at the Jolly Dream toy factory. His brother Phillip has a family and two kids and lives in a nice house.
When Harry finds out that his boss only cares about profits, he goes and collects all the toys and delivers them to a few kids. Then, he travels to a church and kills 4 people. Then he goes to another house and puts presents under the tree. The kids catch him but they go back to bed. So, Harry goes to the bedroom and kills the father and leaves.
As he is walking towards a house, a bunch of kids spot him and run up to him. The parent's are nervous and try to get their kids to come back to them so they don't get hurt. How do they know that Harry is the killer? Sure, you have to be suspicious because you never know who it could be. Harry gives the kids presents and the father pulls out a switch blade in an attempt to stab him in front of the kids.
When Harry runs off, the townsfolk light torches and follow him to kill him. They don't even know that he is the killer. When Harry reaches his brother's house, his his brother and him have a little talk and Phillip strangles him. He only loses consciousness. Phillip loads Harry back into his van. When Harry wakes up, he takes off.
The ending is something I could not believe. Once again, you'll have to see it to believe it.
One thing that bugged me was the black Santa. That's right, the man in the Santa suit they saw was a white man. So why did they bring in a black man?
Skip this and see Silent Night Deadly Night and Santa's Slay. You'll get your money's worth seeing those two films. They are better than this pile of garbage! I give this movie 1 star out of 10. Wish I could give it 0 stars cause that is what this movie deserves.
\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\nDepending entirely on your own personal state of mind when watching this, \"Christmas Evil\" can either turn out to become an ambitious and innovative psychological thriller OR one of the most pathetic and infuriatingly lame holiday-themed slashers ever made. Me, personally, I'm tempted to opt for the latter because I didn't bother to do any research at all and simply anticipated a cheesy and undemanding early 80's slasher with a nutcase in a Santa Clause costume butchering people. Wrong! The movie actually handles about a bloke named Harry Stadling; who's obsessed with Christmas, works in a rubbish toy factory and considers it to be his responsibility to determine on Christmas Eve who deserves presents and who deserves punishment. Harry's issues all started when he witnessed Santa  his daddy in a costume obviously  caress his mommy's naked legs at a tenderly young age. After that he just developed into a social outcast, much to the irritation of his younger brother, who's bound to snap one (holi)day. I fully understand why certain fans appreciate this slightly eccentric horror movie, but did it really have to be so boring? There are several overlong and seemingly endless parts of the film in which absolutely nothing happens. I can forgive the shortness of gore and outrageous bloodshed, but this movie doesn't even benefice from an unsettling atmosphere or unexpectedly demented plot twists (with the notable exception of the finale, I must admit). Also, I would have taken the concept more seriously if the crazed protagonist would focus himself on lethally punishing the naughty children! He doesn't and exclusively kills misbehaving adults. How are you supposed to take wannabe controversial and original Christmas thriller serious when Santa doesn't even commit one miserable child murder? THAT would have made \"Christmas Evil\" a classic, whereas now it's just a forgettable and pitiable piece of junk.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhy, oh, why won't they learn? When you've got a nice, juicy exploitation gimmick, use it! Don't go messing around trying to get all deep and thoughtful; you're only gonna wind up looking foolish.
Christmas Evil is the story of Harry Stadling, who saw a little bit too much of Mommy kissing (Daddy-dressed-as-)Santa Claus back when he was a kid. So, of course, Harry grows up obsessed with Christmas, and finally, when his disillusionment becomes too great, he flips out, dresses as Santa, and wanders the city giving out toys to good little children, and viciously killing anyone he deems naughty.
Simple enough, and not a bad place to start. (After all, how many other holiday-themed horror flicks use the same schtick?) Unfortunately, this film wants to be more \"Santa, Portrait of a Serial Killer\" than \"Silent Night, Deadly Night\". Two-thirds of the film are spent documenting Harry's slow but inevitable breakdown, when I would have been willing to buy the premise by the time the opening titles were rolling. You know a slasher film is in trouble when you find yourself urging the killer to just get on with it already.
Perhaps Harry's descent into madness could have been compelling in the hands of a competent director, but alas, we've got some guy named Lewis Jackson. Apparently, this is his only film, and it shows. The action jumps giddily from scene to scene, without establishing shots or clear views of the actors to let us know where we are and who we are seeing.
Even once the film gets rolling, we're still treated to heaping helpings of Harry's self-pity, insecurity, and neurotic behavior. More depressing than frightening, Christmas Evil is one to 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\nGoing into a movie like I this, I was expecting absolutely nothing entertaining except for a whorde of kills.....what I got was even less.
Christmas eve 1947 a kid witnesses his parents doing it while daddy is in a santa suit. Horrified, he runs up the stairs and cuts himself. The story begins 33 years later and Harry Stalling is your normal everyday joe.....cept for the fact he's obsessed with Santa. After his boss makes fun of him he goes insane, dressing up like santa and starts killing non-santa believing patrons and his boss. An unruly neighborhood catches up to him and just as they're about to torch him, he drives his van off a cliff.....into the moon. Not the best ending I've seen but it was original.
It was a slow paced, boring movie that really had no redeeming quality except when Harry went apeshyt on the church goers. There was hardly any gore and even the \"sex\" scenes were toned down.
Too boring......4 out of 10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nthis is without a doubt the worst most idiotic horrible piece o' crap i have ever watched.
this movies plot is that some guy goes crazy and dresses up as santa claus and kills people BECAUSE he saw his mother give his father oral sex while he was dressed as santa clause. THAT IS WHY HE WENT INSANE? is it just me or is that the worst damn reason for someone to go insane like EVER? and that's not the only thing. i'm being serious when I say NOTHING HAPPENS IN THIS DAMN MOVIE. nothing until like 1 hour and 15 minutes of it have gone by.
there's an entire friggin scene where he glues a friggin santa beard on to him. IT'S A FRIGGIN MINUTE LONG. WHO THE HELL WANTS TO SEE THAT? however i must say the ending of this movie made me crap myself laughing at it. so if you see this movie on TV or something come back in like 1 hour and 20 minutes just to watch without a doubt the worst ending in all of cinematic history. and i'm serious about that.
it's not even so good its bad, it's tedious, it's idiotic, it made me want to break the vcr. it's just not worth your time also i'm sure every other review mentioned this but The actress who played the mother on Home Improvement was in this movie for a split second. YOU WANT TO KNOW HOW BAD THIS MOVIE IS? I'D RATHER WATCH HOME IMPROVEMENT FOR SIXTY SIX HOURS THEN EVEN LOOK AT THIS MOVIES COVER EVER AGAIN.
\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\nStupid and just plain weird movie about some kid who becomes traumatized when he finds out Santa isn't real (???). He grows up and becomes an adult (Brandon Maggart) who makes lists of people who are naughty or nice. One Christmas he snaps and sets out to kill the naughty people--dressed as Santa of course.
Boring and just plain bad killer Santa movie. If you're looking for gore, it's not here. Only a few of the murders are shown and they're not that gory with VERY fake effects. Most of the movie just contains Brandon Maggart talking to himself and slowly going crazy. The script is trite, the acting is terrible and it leads to an ending which had me staring slack-jawed at the TV. Seriously, I had to rewind the tape and watch it again to make sure I wasn't hallucinating! Really REALLY poor ending.
If you want a scary Christmas flick rent \"Black Christmas\" (the original 70s version---NOT the terrible remake). Avoid this one at all costs.
\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\nNo, I've never seen any of the \"Santa Slasher\" series, i.e. 'Silent Night, Deadly Night,' the original 'Black Christmas' or this one, 'Christmas Evil.' I've heard all about their reputation, or, MADS (Mothers Against Deranged Santas.) I thought I would rent this one as I've heard it pop up as a reference on a 'Fat Guys At the Movies' segment.
Mothers should be against this, but not for the ooooohhhh \"killer\" Santa, but for the fact this movie was just plain crap. Boring, long  even at only 92 minutes, crap.
Little boy sees Santa arrive down a chimney in 1947, deliver presents, eat some goodies and miraculously, float up the chimney. Boy goes to bed, but returns to living room to witness Mommy and Santa (sort of) getting it on. Apparently this messed up that kid for the rest of his life, though the scene was about as steamy as when Ralphie's dad got the \"Leg Lamp\" in 'A Christmas Story.' He was sooo disturbed, he went to the attic and, well cut his own hand.
Fast forward to the future! Now, it's 1980 and messed up boy works in a toy factory. We get a whiff of him being a little off-kilter, and he stalks both kids and parents alike. Who's naughty, who's nice, blah blah. It takes a good two-thirds of the film to get him to finally snap  as if that's not foreshadowed from frame one. NO MOVIE should take that long.
I will admit, this movie had its tension building, but only because I kept expecting him to do something, anything to anyone. When he finally does, well, punish \"who's naughty,\" it's as graphic as a \"Garbage Pail Kid\" card. And I haven't mentioned the WTF ending. I'm thinking it was a metaphor, but in reality, it's just as weird as the rest of the movie. (Take the brother who's upset his sibling is killing, and his solution isuh, killing.) Don't open this mess, even on Christmas Eve, or Evil. Again, I didn't watch the other \"Santa-Slashers\" but this one sucked bad. It built up suspense due to the nature of the movie and never once delivered a decent present.
\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 saw mommy...well, she wasn't exactly kissing Santa Clause; he has his hand on her thigh and wicked thoughts in mind.
This was enough to emotionally scar a young boy who wanted to believe. He grew up to be a bitter man who was upset at the quality of the toys being made, and the lack of Christmas spirit.
Expecting a real slasher flick, I was very disappointed that less than a handful of people dies, and there was no nudity at all. What a bummer.
I wanted to like this flick, but it was just too slow and really didn't have a good script. I didn't expect great acting, but I sure wanted some action. There just wasn't any.
\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 am just going to tell you about this one so don't read if you want surprises. I got this one with the title Christmas Evil. There was also another Christmas horror on the DVD called Silent Night, Bloody Night. Whereas Silent Night, Bloody Night (not to be confused with Silent Night, Deadly Night) had lots of potential and was very close to being good, this one wasn't quite as good. It started out interesting enough watching the villain (if you can call him that) watching the neighborhood kids and writing in books about who is naughty and nice, but after awhile you are looking for some action and this movie doesn't deliver. You need character development, but this goes overboard and you are still never sure why the heck the guy snaps. About an hour in he kills three of four people while a whole crowd watches in terror, and the guys he kills aren't even his targets they are just making fun of him. This is one of many unsuccessful attempts by the killer to knock of the naughty. He then proceeds to try and kill this other guy, and he tries to break into his house by squeezing himself into the fireplace. He promptly gets stuck and barely manages to get out. He then enters through the basement and then tries to kill the guy by smothering him in his bedroom. He can't seem to kill the guy this way so he grabs a star off the tree and slits the guys throat. What the heck was a tree even doing in the bedroom in the first place? Oh yeah, the killer before this kill stopped off at a party and had some fun too. Well that is about it except for the town people chasing him with torches and the unresolved part with his brother and that tune he wants to play. What was that even about? He kept talking about something that was never really explained. How does it end you ask, well since I have spoilers I will tell you. He runs off the road in his van and proceeds to, well lets just say it was 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\nThis movie is not that interesting, except for the first ten minutes. The pace and editing are a perfect introduction in an ensemble piece, even better than say Gosford Park. Then it inexplicably slows down, loses focus and starts resembling a traditional French movie only to regain focus in the end with the love relation between Antoine (Depardieu) and Cécile (Deneuve). In the middle there are too many sidelines and loose ends in the story, several threads started are not ended.
*******SPOILERS AHEAD The main story is the relation between Antoine and Cécile. He has been loyal to her after his relation with her many years ago, despite her remarrying and setting up home in Morocco. As builder he now rebuilds his own life and recovers hers by taking the mask of Cécile's marriage. Having accomplished this, he is buried after a freak accident (literally) and becomes a comatose. He wakes only after she has burned their old picture as indication that they've reconciled with the past and can properly start their lives again together. *******END OF SPOILERS
It remains unclear what vision this director wants us to see us because there are so many other stories here: Illegal immigrants want to enter Europe, there are frequent radio broadcasts about the overthrow of Iraq's former regime. Cécile's child is bisexual and is bitten by dogs (loyalty) once he meets his boyfriend, whereas the girl he lives with seems to be sick (of that?). Her sister is traditional Islamic, and enters a relation with Cécile's husband. It portrays Morocco as unnecessary backward, despite all the building there is a strange colonial vision shining through that almost glorifies the past. It portrays Islam as backward and prone to extremism, which may sometimes be true, but certainly not in general. In the end it can all best be described as adding some couleur locale and l'art pour l'art.
Deneuve and Depardieu are great. With this material they are so familiar they are able to spin something extra in every scene: lifting an eyebrow, body language, radiating pride, awkward behavior. The movie itself is disappointing and only confirming the limited role of French cinema in the world nowadays. With some notable exceptions of course.
\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\nOk I will sum up this movie... A bunch of skanky British women have some disease that basically is turning them into zombies. The whole movie consists of these women talking, smoking, and rarely going out for \"meat\" Or humans to eat. I swear I had to MAKE myself watch this movie... UGH
\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\nUnfortunately, the realism is boring. This movie, I thought it would never end, would have been better if all the characters would have been nuked in the first five minutes. Where's Blade when you need him? While as dismal as COMBAT SHOCK, REQUIEM FOR A DREAM and as nightmarish as BOISE MOI, DEAD CREATURES isn't nearly as entertaining as any of the aforementioned bleak movies. While the gratuitous cannibalism might make the wannabe Jeffery Dalmers hearts race a little faster, it wasn't nearly as interesting as RAVENOUS. Really, I found it about as interesting as late-night infomercials, and as exciting as a trip to the dentist. If you have strong masochistic qualities, you might be able to endure this, otherwise, for no one. I was really surprised that this one wasn't made by the people at Brain Damage as that was the quality of Dead Creatures.
\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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I watched half of this movie and I didn't like it.
First reason: Boring. Barely anything happens, the women sit around and discuss how terrible their lives are and how they have no hope, they smoke weed, read magazines, care for their sick friend, and cut up the occasional dead body. BORING!!!!
Second reason: There are too many things left unexplained. Many scenes are dedicated to a zombie hunter who kidnaps random men, restrains them in a chair and interrogates them. Who are these men? How do they know anything about illegal activity concerning the diseased flesh eaters? Why does he kill one and let another one go?
Also there is this dude who at first I thought also had the flesh eating disease but he puts his fist through a wall with superhuman strength suggesting he's not quite what we originally thought-never explained! How frustrating is that?
Conclusion: I found the women annoying, the story uninteresting, the duologue tedious, and the action non-existent. Also the cover art is misleading since it makes you believe this movie is going to be cool when it clearly isn't. I rented this movie based on some of the reviews made by other people on this website, and although I respect the fact that some people might have enjoyed this flick, I will from now on make sure I read more than two reviews deep into a movie so as to avoid renting another movie I regret seeing.
\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 one of those I regret having invested 90 minutes of my life that I'll never get back in. The premise is really interesting - essentially it's a zombie flick from the perspective of the undead (let's not split hairs as to whether they're actually dead or not}. Unfortunately, they fail to deliver a compelling story within this framework. The nearly unbearable monotony of the lives of the central characters may add to the realism of the film, but it sucks all the entertainment value right out of it. If they had put a little more effort toward keeping the viewer engaged, it would have been much more likely that they drive home the social commentary.
\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 bunch of women who can't act sit around, talk, smoke pot. They have another woman in a wheelchair they hide because she is deformed, and occasionally they kill some one to feed this person human flesh that really looks like some store-bought ham which they dressed up by sticking on a few plastic fingers. We don't see them killing anyone, suddenly there is a body on the floor, covered by a bloodied sheet. I can't eat Spam cover by a sheet anymore because of this. Just the thought of Spam cover by a sheet is enough to induce the same narcoleptic fit brought on by trying to get through all of this movie. Occasionally there are randomly inserted scenes of a guy who is \"hunting\" them by way of torturing some guy he strapped to a chair is his basement. Why he caught this guy and how he is connected to the Sit-On-The-Couch Sisters is never explained. There are also scenes of some \"superhuman\" guy freaking out. He p***es blood and punches through a wall, but who he is or what is wrong with him is neither explained nor even tied in to the story.
There is no action, no special effects, no story. If you want to watch some boring people talk in a profound way about nothing while sitting around and eating ham and smoking, then here's 90 minutes of that, because, except for a scene where one chick does some hooking on a street corner and the aformentioned random scenes, absolutely NOTHING happens. (YAWN) Oh, I almost forgot, you get to see them move some stuff, including the deformed sister, when they move to their new apartment. Its one of the few times they're not sitting on a couch or lying in bed.
\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\"ASTONISHING\" Screams the LA Times from the front of the DVD box. They must have been referring to the fact that such a sorry piece of crap was ever released. The film revolves around a bunch of girls who have a disease which forces them to become cannibals, and murder innocent people just to stay alive. Their skin peels off throughout the film, we also see severed legs, heads etc that are about as convincing as a Halloween Fuzzy Felt set. There is an awful lot of talking b*ll**ks, a bit of human cuisine and some weird zombie hunter chap who imprisons the sufferers of said skin illness in his closet strapped to a chair, before stabbing them in the head, chopping them into bits...
You get the picture. Considering there is no acting talent on display at all, and the gore is laughably unrealistic, what is the point of this whole farrago? Again looking at the video box, the guy responsible for it is an \"underground cult director\". Would that be like those weird religious cults where they brainwash you into thinking one way when clearly the opposite is true? Because that's the only possible reason I can think of for anyone to derive pleasure by watching this tax write-off. Then, on the same paragraph he compares himself to Mike Leigh, Ken Loach and George Romero. HAHAHAHAHA oh stop it. Now you're just being silly.
Do you enjoy this film? Are you offended by the above opinion? If so, you must be a member of said cult. Do they pocket your wages? Do they let you see other family members? Do they force you to watch Andrew Parkinson films till you think he's the best director since A.Hitchcock? Do tell... this sounds like a Panorama special brewing to me. And say hello to the critic of the LA times when you return to your colony, will you? 0/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI chose \"Dead Creatures\" because I thought it was a zombies movie just like \"28 days\" or so... but not at all. It isn't even a horror movie. Nothing happens, except for a group of women that seem to have been infected by a strange virus that make her to eat human flesh in order to survive.
That plot gives rise to a series of disgusting scenes of cannibalism...
Very VERY BAD MOVIE.
*My rate: 2/10
------------------
------------------
\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\nHow did this ripoff of \"Being There\" ever get to be so loved? People say it's proof that a decent, honest man can succeed despite lack of intelligence. They're wrong. The movie is proof that luck is everything: hope your friend invests all your money in Apple and not Atari; hope your shrimp boat is the only one out at sea when a storm breaks; hope that you don't die of shock when you're luckily shot in the buttocks and not in the back; hope you don't get AIDS from your wife. This movie is also politically reactionary -- all who rebel against societal convention lose their legs, do drugs, beat their girlfriends, or die young. In addition, the product placement in this film (Nike and Dr. Pepper) is shameless. An emotionally manipulative film that is very, very empty.
\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 first half of the film is OK, the second half one of the most tedious experiences imaginable. Quite possibly the most overrated movie of all time. \"Pulp Fiction\" was robbed for \"Best Picture.\" This is one of those films that people feel required to love because the main character is \"slow.\"
\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\nGreat CGI effects & a truly Oscar-worthy performance by Gary Sinise as Lt. Dan.
Tom Hanks is a one-trick pony in this movie, how he got the Best Actor Oscar that year over Morgan Freeman was a crime.
This movie is a pandering treacly love letter to the baby boom generation, with a barely concealed right-wing prejudice, beginning from Forrest's service in Vietnam all the way through to the \"resolution\" with Jenny at the end.
With that said, though, it is hugely entertaining and an American movie through and through. I found certain parts of this film exceedingly offensive, Zemeckis dumbs down this movie almost to the level of Gump himself . . .maybe that was the point he was trying to make.
Watch this film and ask yourself \"What is Robert Zemeckis saying about what makes a good American?\"
Forrest seems to have made the \"right\" choices and been at the \"right place at the right time\" for the last 45 years. Those who are wrong according to the director's vision seem to pay a heavy price. So is Zemeckis saying that idiocy disguised as innocence and naivety is a patriotic, even AMERICAN 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 loved \"Anchorman; The Legend of Ron Burgundy\" and hoped this would be just as funny, but alas, it wasn't. Some bits are excellent though. I thought the sports guy, Champ Kind, professing his love for Ron Burgundy in the car filled with the other members of the news team was hilarious. Everyone is ignoring him and he just gets louder and louder and finally kisses Burgundy which doesn't get acknowledged either. But on the whole the story doesn't gel. It's a noble attempt, however, to salvage the unused bits from the first movie, including an entire plot about some pretty benign would-be domestic terrorists called \"The Alarm Clock.\" Maya Rudolph of Saturday Night Live is one of the members and has a couple of funny lines, but basically this unused plot line has good reason to be unused in the first movie. The extras on this disk are pretty good, with the best two being the filmed rehearsals featuring lots of improv comedy, and the faux commentary with Will Ferrell and an \"exec producer\" who Ferrell discovers early on was not even a part of the movie in any way, shape or form. Turns out he's \"just a guy\" who walked in the side door of the recording studio and pretended to be a producer. It's some pretty funny stuff though and goes on for about 10 or 15 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\nLook, I loved the PROPER Anchorman film, but this was reaaaaallly bad. The kind of bad that makes you wish you could get that time back in your life, the kind of bad that makes you think \"what on Earth were they thinking to film this in the first place\", the kind of bad that makes you wish you'd taken 50 more minutes when stepping into the kitchen to grab a snack during the film, the kind of bad that makes leprosy look fun, the kind of bad that makes you think you wish you rented a Pauly Shore film instead....seriously, I cannot explain how very bad this was.
Having said that....there were some semi-amusing laughs, but they are all so much LESS funny than Anchorman. Sure, they tried to make it entertaining and fun, but the entire subplot that was left out of Anchorman that made it here was genuinely left out for a good reason...it wasn't even a little bit good.
Do yourself a favour (or in the USA, a favor), and don't watch this DVD...it will tarnish the good movie that Anchorman is and you don't want to do that.
Okay...I'm alright now.
\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\nPieced (edited) together from dead body parts (deleted scenes) from corpses (Anchorman), the Frankenstein Monster (Wake Up, Ron Burgundy) is definitely not a sight for sore eyes (something you'd ever want to watch twice.....maybe even once for that matter.)
More often than not -the relativity of the scenes in WURB are made relevant by a third person narrator. Even more troubling is that the characters in WURB are inconsistent with the versions of themselves that we had at the end of Anchorman (in opening narration we're told WURB takes place shortly after the original.) At the end of Anchorman, Burgundy had grown since the start of the film and embraced having a hybrid co-anchorwoman/lover. In this film, he's back to his immature antics with prank phone calls to Veronica (quite clearly these are the more of the same scenes from the original Anchorman spliced in to WURB.)
The part that makes this a movie, a continually evolving story, involves a bank-robbing clan without a cause called the Alarm Clock. These scenes are almost painful to sit through. This part was scrapped from the original scripts for Anchorman.
The majority of other scenes involving our Channel 4 news team are clearly alternate/deleted takes on scenes from Anchorman. They go to the same party as in the original, the same original \"group bitching about having a woman on the team\" scene, and the same cat fashion show segment that Veronica had objections to reporting.
Burgundy re-creates their first date with the drive-in spot overlooking San Diego and dinner at his favorite club, Tinos. Neither character make mention that they've been to the drive-in spot before and when Burgundy walks into Tinos with Veronica, he introduces it to her as though they've never been before. Oh, and they're wearing the same clothes as on their original date.
Still, I have to give some credit to the filmmakers - even if WURB is nothing more than a clever way of presenting deleted scenes tied together with narration. Between the two Ron Burgundy stories - this is the weaker one. Looking back on it, it's quite a feat for Anchorman to have risen from the ashes of WURB. You stay classy, IMDb. Thanks for stopping by.
\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 collection of Deleted scenes and alternative takes, edited together and with added voice-over to make it appear to take place after the events of the first. Pretty cool idea, but deleted scenes are left on the cutting room floor for a reason and this is further proof. As it's just not as funny as \"Anchorman\", and really let's face it THAT film wasn't exactly comedy gold either, so you get a 'movie' worse than one that was moderately funny. In my eyes that STILL puts it one or two notches above \"Kicking and Screaming\", or \"Bewitched\". Chross your fingers that \"The Wedding Crashers\" is a return to old school form (no pun intended)
My Grade: D
\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\nKudos to the patience of Paul Muni, who spent hours and hours in the makeup room each day to look the part of Zola. Muni was the one of the biggest stars in the 1930s and I wonder how many people today -other than classic movie buffs - know anything about it. He was a giant in the business for at least a decade. He could have won the Academy Award for this performance, which would have given him two in a row, as he won it for playing Louis Pasteur the year before. My own opinion is that while he tended to overact a bit, I still think he was one of the great actors of the \"Golden Age.\" Whatever part he played; you were riveted to the screen watching him.
Unlike the Pasteur role, I thought this story smacked of a little too much of what we've seen in the last 60 years: going overboard to make a Liberal hero. Even in 1937, Hollywood couldn't suppress its disdain for police or for the military, here making it a point to tell us how \"corrupt\" those organizations are. Filmmakers just love it when authority is challenged and defeated. In that regard, this film is way ahead of its day since we've seen this big-time since the 1960s.
However, it must be noted the facts support this story. It also does not in any way diminish Zola's accomplishments as a social reformer, getting rid of certain evils. Good for him! I wish they had spent more time showing that, than concentrating on one trial.
\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 like a movie that has at least a vestige of a story. This doesn't occur in this movie. It's a series of vignettes with no cohesion.
There are scenes of a person collecting pineapple cans. A woman with a blond wig never removes her sun glasses. This woman shoots at other people at the beginning of the movie and we never find out why. She disappears completely after about 30 minutes. There is another coquettish woman who endlessly cleans a man's apartment. There are endless scenes at a fast food joint where the Mamas & Papas 'California Dreaming' is vastly overplayed (I used to like the song). The dialogue is mostly concerned with food (pineapples, chef's salad and ordering drinks). I assume most of the actors gained weight during this movie because a lot of fast food was consumed.
There is no passion in this movie because there is no story. This is purportedly a romance - it is no such thing. I just wonder why I didn't hit the Fast-forward. I kept waiting for something significant to happen  it doesn't. Maybe that's the only consolation to this movie - scenes shifted so rapidly that it tricked you into assuming that there was going to be a revelation to all the nonsense.
\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 never ending frenzy of clever visual ironies does not necessarily create an engaging film. The \"Blonde Wig\" half of the movie never took off perhaps due to too much self-indulgence by its makers.
The Wong Faye half (featuring a very playful, if Karen Carpenter looking, Faye Wong) holds much more appeal. All the ingredients are there, however, the girl-meets-boy story element takes a back seat to artsy cleverness. Character development is uneven. Emotion is missing.
For music lovers, Wong Faye's \"Mung Jung Yun\" (Cantonese version of the Cranberry's smash hit \"Dreams\") is used effectively in Chungking Express. Faye Wong also recorded a Mandarin language version called \"Zhen Tuo.\" Both are on CD, although only \"Mung Jung Yun\" is found on the official movie soundtrack CD.
\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\nAverage viewers looking for any sense of internal coherence in a film should probably give this one a pass. It generates the same feeling as staring at a curious array of individual images that seem to have some relationship one to another, but never coalesce into a totality.
While this isolative approach to creating a kind of cinematic montage may appeal to a few students or critics steeped in the inside language of contemporary filmmaking, it is flatly irritating and condescending to us commoners who just fell off the haywagon. An overt avoidance of accessibility may be the intentional hallmark of auteurs like Kar-wai Wong and Tarantino, but to me it comes across as Andy Warhol warmed over. The only redeeming characteristic I find is in the production values, and them there just ain't going to cut it all by themselfs.
This is one of those productions in which you watch and listen and wait anxiously and in vain for some clever development of an idea or thought to sustain all the remarkable and beautiful individual scenes. Sorry. The calligraphic credits unexpectedly begin to roll just as your interest begins to stir. I get the same big yawn and let-down reading what I guess are very knowledgeable and thorough comments about this film that never lead to anything truly comprehensible. Ideas and images without some external context are not my idea of fun.
Call me a philistine roaming the streets of Hong Kong looking for a bowl of chop suey.

\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 saw virtually no redeeming qualities in this movie. The only thing I did see was Quentin Tarantino's seeming insane obsession for it... There were some attractive women in this movie and perhaps that is one decent quality. Overall however, I found this movie surrealistic and ridiculous. The hand held film making coupled with slow motion and other cinematic gimmicks I found clumsy and dizzying, even sickening. Overall the music throughout was horrible and repetitive to the extreme as well reminding me of psychological warfare of the U.S. military against various malcontents.
The various vignettes that made up the movie are haphazard in their placement and unfulfilling and unresolved in their content and \"conclusions.\" A depressing movie (not a true _film_, a term I reserve for true art) that left me with a bad feeling. Do not believe the various people that try and spin this as a \"romantic comedy\" though there are certainly isolated elements of both this movie repudiates in content, form, and conclusion any association with this genre.
I suggest staying far away notwithstanding the seemingly overwhelming positive views of IMDb and other ratings sources.
\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 completely baffled as to why this film is even liked, let alone held in such high regard, especially by so many critics who are, otherwise, quite sensible.
There is one key word which describes this film to its core - irritating.
The most easily explained example of this is the director's use - or, more accurately, abuse - of music. In the first half, a really dull reggae tune is played about three times (when once is too often). But in the second half, The Mommas And The Papas \"California Dreamin'\" is played at least seven times, usually at top volume. Godsakes, whether you liked the song or not beforehand, you'd be thoroughly sick of it by the end. Just think, some people claim to have seen this film four or five times. This means they've listened to California Dreamin either 28 or 35 times.....
All of this needless hyper-repetition (it contributes nothing to the story) could possibly be excused if the remainder of the film had any lingering merit, or if the story was in any way involving.
But it ain't.
The only aspect I found likeable was Bridgette Lin's charging around and still playing Asia The Invincible in a raincoat and sunnies. Even this wore off fairly quickly.
I'm sure this film's undeserved high reputation will convince many poor suckers to go and see it.
I can only warn you - if you've never seen a HK movie before, don't start with this one.
If you feel compelled to watch it, avoid at all costs seeing it in a cinema. The fast-forward and mute buttons are essential tools for survival here.
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\nFor those deciding whether or not to watch this movie and are reading these comments for insight, I first offer these four words: Don't waste your time! \"Chungking Express\" was shoddily filmed, slapped together quickly and seems as though it were conceived in its entirety by someone standing in line at a Hong Kong Burger King. I can't remember ever watching a film with an assortment of such one-dimensional characters trying to work their way through a script this mundane! It's an absurd effort with philosophically ridiculous dialog (a man wanders into his flooded apartment and offers the stunning revelation that \"tears can be dried with a tissue, but water takes time to mop up\"). The same character is also seen carrying on a deep, meaningful rapport with his towels, soap, stuffed animals, dirty laundry, etc. The shaky, wandering, hand-held camera-work was another annoying feature I could have done without. And if that isn't enough to make you puke in your popcorn, we hear the old 60's ode \"California Dreaming\" by the Mamas and Papas blaring over the soundtrack over and over again during a particularly lengthy sequence.
Quentin Tarantino was responsible for bringing this loser to America through his Rolling Thunder Productions company, though I cannot for the life of me figure out why a man with his talent would bother. He was known to have remarked, \"I'm happy to love a movie this much.\" A lot of us, though, hope he will concentrate on making his audiences happy with more worthwhile discoveries in the future.
\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 another example of the curse of east Asian cinema: two or more separate stories rolled into one film. Other reviewers have obviously picked up on it as well because there are several mentions of the \"first part\" and \"second part\". How can you have any character development or a deep plot when the characters and the story are featured for such a short time? I was enjoying the first part until it abruptly stopped (it didn't \"end\", it just stopped in what appeared to be the middle of the story) to be replaced by an inane and totally unbelievable second part that seemed to focus around a girl rearranging and cleaning a guy's apartment (wow!) I look forward to the day when Wong Kar Wai is given a decent script to work with!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"