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\nToo Much of Something Borrowed Grade B-
Super Bowl Sunday is one of the slowest days at movie theaters every year. Because of this, movie studios tend to avoid releasing bigger budgeted films that weekend. Every few years a studio releases a counter-programming female skewing movie (2001's \"The Wedding Planner\") to compete with the big game. This Super Bowl weekend similarly titled \"The Wedding Date\" will try to find success and attract viewers not watching the game.
Sick of people feeling sorry for her, single-woman, Kat Ellis (Debra Messing, TV's \"Will and Grace\") hires male escort Nick ( Dermot Mulrony, \"About Schmidt\") to pose as her boyfriend for her sister's wedding in London. Her family has been giving her a hard time about her not being married, and her ex- fiancé of seven years, who dumped her without a reason, is the best man. To make him jealous Kat parades Nick around her ex to make him see what he is missing. But ultimately Nick helps Kat realize that she can open up, and let someone love her.
The film borrows too much from similar wedding movies. It is almost a carbon copy of 1999's \"Picture Perfect\" and mixes in scenes similar to \"The Wedding Planner\" and \"My Best Friends Wedding\". The movie also has a reverse \"Pretty Women\" theme going for it, and knowing her audience, the director makes clever references to that and other films.
\"The Wedding Date\" has all the clichéd elements of a typical wedding movie, there is the stereotypical overbearing mother (Holland Taylor, \"Legally Blonde\"), and practically plagiarized wedding speeches by the family and friends at the wedding and rehearsal dinner. The twist at the ending has been done before, but it was something that wasn't completely expected. The real reason why Kat was dumped comes as a surprise and changes the direction of the film for the last half hour.
Even though \"The Wedding Date\" is predictable, it is able to stand on its own. Debra Messing, in her first lead role, proves she can be charming and funny. Dermot Mulrony has great chemistry with Debra Messing, but most of his dialogue was too corny and unrealistic. He is able to make best of what he is given, and be able to salvage the character.
By the use of many clever puns (often sexual), the film is actually funny. Although primarily a chick-flick the film has components everyone can enjoy. The feel good story, and humor make it the best date movie released in a long 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\nOne wonders why anyone would try to rehash successful movie plots that have already been seen, like it's the case with this movie. \"The Wedding Date\" is one of the best examples of why not to even try to remake, under the guise of a new story, something that should have been let alone. If a project like this goes ahead with the studio big honchos' approval, then go all out with big stars and glossy production values, that way, people will come for the stars.
Alas, that's not what happens in this misguided attempt at comedy. The problem seems to be the way the screen writers have transplanted the story to London, when basically, this seems to be a typical American situation that not even the setting will be able to fix. Then there is the problem with the stars. Debra Messing and Dermot Mulrooney? They have as much chemistry as oil and vinegar!
Since the Kat and Nick have no conflict from the start, the viewer is not pulled into the film the way the creators thought they would be. It's clear that Kat will fall for Nick, and vice-versa in this predictable story. Amy Adams, who was the best asset in \"Junebug\", comes across as a shallow girl who is willing to keep her lie going on and not come clean to the man that loves her and is going to marry her.
For anyone interested, the credits at the end of the film run for almost seven 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\nThere have been so many many films based on the same theme. single cute girl needs handsome boy to impress ex, pays him and then (guess what?) she falls in love with him, there's a bit of fumbling followed by a row before everyone makes up before the happy ending......this has been done many times.
The thing is I knew this before starting to watch. But, despite this, I was still looking forward to it. In the right hands, with a good cast and a bright script it can still be a pleasant way to pass a couple of hours.
this was none of these.
this was dire.
A female lead lacking in charm or wit who totally failed to light even the slightest spark in me. I truly did not care if she \"got her man\" or remained single and unhappy.
A male lead who, after a few of his endless words of wisdom, i wanted to kill. Just to remove that smug look. i had no idea that leading a life of a male whore was the path to all-seeing all-knowing enlightenment.
A totally unrealistic film filled with unrealistic characters. none of them seemed to have jobs, all of them had more money than sense, a bridegroom who still goes ahead with his wedding after learning that his bride slept with his best friend....plus \"i would miss you even if we had never met\"!!!!! i could go on but i have just realised that i am wasting even more time on this dross.....I could rant about introducing a character just to have a very cheap laugh at the name \"woody\" but in truth that was the only remotely humorous thing that happened in the 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\nIf Deborah Messing were not already cast as \"Grace\", this might be a tolerable film. However, it is simply another story of a frustrated spinster with issues, who hires a paid escort (Dermot Mulroney) she reads about in a Time magazine article to travel to London for her sister's London wedding. How new is this plot?
Neither funny, nor remotely romantic, the Wedding Date slides over the storyline of deceptive sex by bride and best man, and paid for escorts to pass off the film as Four Weddings without Hugh, and definitely, a dead end deal for the naive groom who is ignorant to the sexual history of his bride (Amy Adams). While Messing has perfected the repressed princess, 30- something woman with a failed relationship history, her neurotic and drunken moves on yet another faux beau is simply the restating of her TV series. If this woman is an actress, get a role that does not rehash what is already on prime time.
Lots of drunken female bonding, cricket visual jokes, and Mulroney in a towel (nice!), but the film is a bore with the obvious happy ending. Expected Messing sequel: Divorce Date.
\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 cinematic achievements here, however that's not even the important question. How does it fare in its endeavour to be a competent date movie--and star vehicle?
The formula requires the cute female lead a la Ryan or Aniston--check; there's a built-in TV audience!
Add thick-headed, compliant men, usually including the problem ex-boyfriend/fiancée--check.
Assemble a plot that maximizes the bankability of the stars. So far, so good.
What is the male lead to consist of? He has to make all the women in the movie and in the audience (and the gay flight stewards) instantly swoon. But...he cannot be so hunky as to threaten to the male audience, and he can't outshine the star. Roll cameras...
The problem is Messing thinks she's still in a sitcom...she has only one presentation: as the wide-eyed doormat that she's made a career out of. A capable actress might have pulled it off after the love scene, where things promptly nosedive into the soap suds.
You can't help feeling good for Mulroney...you can read it in his face that he sees through all of this. He's gotten all the respect of a lifetime .260 hitter. This time, he smacks one out to the warning track, and no one can figure out what to do, as he amusedly takes home plate.
\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 best thing I can say about this film is that it is well-paced. It did not fall flat. The next best things are the supporting performances by the actor playing foppish groom-to-be Edward, the always marvelous Holland Taylor, and the actor playing Taylor's husband. The actor helping to critique Messing's potential outfits in an early scene brings a delightful absurd-yet-winning quality to the proceedings. Okay, that's about it on the positive side.
Dermot Mulroney, whom I adore, is far more believable expressing contempt for Messing than in any scene where he's attempting to be either businesslike or supporting. As others noted, he appears to have no emotional investment in this enterprise other than wrapping it up as quickly as possible. Messing, on the other hand, sincerely tries to carry the film and to create the illusion of chemistry with Mulroney. She is adequate doing so, but is simply not strong enough an actress to pull all of this off without help. Give her an \"E\" for effort and a \"C+\" for achievement. Given Mulroney's indifference, the one thing that could've helped Messing would have been a brilliantly cavalier Irons-esquire performance from the actor playing her ex-fiancé, Jeffrey. Instead, his performance is weak-kneed, mewling, and feckless.
If I tried to analyze this one any further, I'd obviously be paying more attention than most of the people involved. It's harmless enough to pass time if you have nothing else to do, and less obnoxious (and less creative) than The Wedding Singer, but you're much better off watching \"My Best Friend's Wedding\" 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\nI found this movie to be a great idea, that didn't deliver. It seems they found a way to build suspense, but couldn't stage their payoffs very well. In one case the police, are on the clock to find the hideout of the kidnappers. They painstakingly go from dentist to dentist to match a dental record. At the same time, the kidnapped man (Mason) escapes through the elevator shaft. After all the build up, the police arrive at the same time he gets free, which is very anti-climatic to say the least. There are also large narration scenes that take us \"inside the thinking\" of the terrorized husband and wife, which detracts from the suspense rather than adds to it. We are fully aware of their tension, and the voice-over is an insult and robs the viewer of any chance of a personal experience with the fear, as Hitchcock proved time and again, is far more effective. The greatest disappointment, is to sit through the whole movie, and the get the quick, rather bland ending. I mean it just...\"ends\" in a snore.
\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 exclamation point in the title is appropriate, albeit an understatement. This movie doesn't just cry -- it shrieks loud enough to shatter glass.
Filmmakers Andrew and Virginia Stone made shrill, humorless suspense thrillers that strove for a semi-documentary feel. Here, they shot on actual New York locations with tinny \"real-life\" acoustics to jack up the verisimilitude. But the naturalism of the sound recording only serves to amplify the Stones' maladroit dialog and the mouth-frothing histrionics of tortured butterfly Inger Stevens.
In a performance completely devoid of modulation, Stevens plays the wife of electronics whiz James Mason (looking haggard and bored); both are held captive by extortionist Rod Steiger (looking bloated and bored) and his slimy cohorts in a scheme to blackmail an airline with a deadly bomb that Mason has unwittingly helped construct.
Here is another credibility-straining instance of a criminal mastermind so brilliantly attentive to every detail, yet knuckleheaded enough to hire a drug-addicted degenerate as an underling. The Stones' idea of nail-biting tension is to trap the hysterical Stevens alone with Benzedrine-popping rapist Neville Brand, filling the frame with his sweaty, drooling kisser. But the camera work is so leaden and Brand so (uncharacteristically) demure that the effect is hardly lurid, much less suspenseful. The Stones, a square pair at heart, don't even have the courage of their own lack of convictions.
The film, which ends with the portly Steiger chasing the fleet-footed Stevens on a subway train track, is as clumsy as its ungainly heavy. With Angie Dickinson as Steiger's amoral girlfriend, Jack Klugman, Kenneth Tobey, and Barney Philips.
\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 discovered this movie on IFC, and I thought it would be interesting. For \"tiny\" love stories, some of the stories really dragged on in this movie. The fact that none of these women had names almost makes you suspect that the actresses were talking about their own real sex lives, including Kathy Baker and Alicia Witt. I have to admit, I want to start seeing some more romantic views of first sexual encounters again, like in \"Strike!(1998),\" when Odette Sinclair's acquaintances started asking about her presumed first time, and Tweety asked \"Was it beautiful?\"
Some might think re-enactments and flashbacks would improve this movie. I think it would make things even worse. It doesn't necessarily have to be hardcore porn to get my attention, but somehow I just expected 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\nContrary to another reviewer, I think that this is WELL-written, especially the more fictional it is, because greater imagination would be required; and well acted, because there were no other characters with whom to share the focus of these dozen-minutes-plus, well-done monologues. But I'm just not entertained by such solemn, pious rememberances. Everybody has a story to tell and some are more interesting than others. Everybody has problems and some are more intense than others. These are just ten, not-very-atypical stories and problems, exemplifying how anybody's life (or part of it) is fodder for film. Then again, I think poorly of TV's reality shows, too. So, if that's your bag, you may like this. It's the kind of stuff that would make for good 'phone and/or internet gossip; but absolutely without other-than-verbal action. And, although each of the speakers is female, I'm gonna leave gender outta this.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is a movie about how men think women think about love. No woman describes a one-night sexual encounter and declares it a love story.
Of the ten monologues I felt only three really had any kind of truth ring through them. I kept waiting for the film to get better, and it did a bit, but never better enough.
This is an interesting concept, and I kept wanting it to be good, but it never succeeded. Maybe if they actually WERE love stories it would have worked.
\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\nEvidently lots of people really like this, but I found it infantilising and reasonably offensive codswallop, saved from oblivion by Jane Russell and a couple of memorable musical numbers, especially the opener (but there's a marked dip in invention later on). I don't get on with Monroe - she's supposed to be playing a dumb blonde who ain't that dumb, but she just comes over as dumb. Russell can't quite convince when she claims never to have been in a gymnasium, but is otherwise rather wonderful. The men are staggeringly uninteresting, as is the plot. By no means atrocious, but so patchy that, if this is a classic, God help us all.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film is hardly good, not great at all. A few memorable scenes and the unlucky choice of pairing Norma Jean with an actual actress. Jane Russell has it all working for her, Marilyn's lesser woman and/or actress. One can only wonder why this is considered being one of the highlights of her lame career. 3/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAnyone who has seen 'Shine',Scott Hicks film of the heartbreaking yet ultimately joyful life of the pianist David Helfgotts; will I am sure realise that 'The SOLOIST' is very poor in comparison.It is as slow as a lullaby( I took five breaks answering emails just to wake up). The depiction of the homeless area way over the top and extremely self indulgent, on a par I fear with the awful beach battle depiction in Joe Wrights other disaster Attonment. .J Fox performance was an extremely poor example of acting and lacked credibility from the offset.Downey on the other hand; although struggling with a badly paced film, still manages to charm,9Is it me or is he turning into George Clooney in more ways than one?). Comparing both these well known so called 'STAR'actors though is unnecessary as the light that shines brightest as far as acting is concerned must be that of 'shine's' Geoeffry Rush who's brilliant performance definitely SHONE far brighter in my sky. With both 'Attonment' and 'The Soloist' the written word wins far more prizes for empathy of subject. Read the book and articles or wait for the DVD its bound to be in the bargain basement soon.
\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 could have been an engaging-and emotionally charged character study is totally undermined by the predictable factor. Fox is OK as Nathaniel Ayers, the Julliard trained musician who dreams of playing with the Walt Disney orchestra until his bouts with schizophrenia drive him into the street and ultimately skid row. Looking for a good story to boost his flagging career, reporter Steve Lopez {Robert \"rehab\" Downey } gets to know him and tells his story. Taking every element of the classic \"how we hit the skids\" movies, borrowing very liberally from \"A Beautiful Mind\", taking the bogus \"feel good\" attitude of films like \"Rocky\"-you pick the sequel number-and whipping up too much 1930s style melodrama all that is left on the screen is a burnt out shell of a movie. It is corny, trite, utterly predictable and plays way too often on our sentiments. I hate to say it, but this is the kind of movie that, if you say you hated it, people will give you bad looks. I really wish I could say something positive about this film, but I really can't. The acting redeems it somewhat, but not enough for me to give it more than one star. Strictly made for TV movie stuff. Not worth your 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\nWhen you pick a movie I hope one factor you will consider, are the actors in the movie using their fame to influence the moral fabric of our society in a positive or negative way? This is not a political statement this is a moral issue that effects are society. When a comedian/actor makes curl sexual and racist remarks about a teenager and her father we should ask ourselves (do I want to support that behavior)? In this case Mr. Foxx behavior tears at the social fabric that teaches our youth right from wrong, good behavior from bad that loving-kindness is better than hatefulness. Mr. Foxx should remember he is only entertainment and there is a lot of that out there for us to choose from. Saying sorry does not get him off the hook. It will not undue the hurt or remove the bad behavior he spreads to our youth. One way to stop this behavior is to stop being a fan of it. No longer see anything they are part of. We cannot change them but we can stop the fame we give them.
\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\nCharlotte's deadly beauty and lethal kicks make the movie cooler than it'd be otherwise.The story is so poor and Charlotte's character dies in such a foolish way, that you wonder if this's the ending they had thought of for this movie. I wish somebody could tell that an alternative ending exists, but I fear it doesn't. As for the rest of the cst, well I'd say they simply didn't act very well; although the blame should be put on the poor script.This movie reminds me of Rush Hour 2 where Zhang Ziyi dies in absurd way, since she had been the only one who had stolen the show during the whole movie. I could give this movie 2/5
\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 ever sit through a movie and after it's all over it's like one big \"wtf!?\".
Welcome to Decoy.
Another straight to video action fodder flick you can immediately forget about having watched or better yet don't watch it at all. Peter Weller and Robert Patrick star and are quickly wasted in this going nowheres fast mercenaries-for-hire action dud where the story is pretty darn bad and the action sucks and what's the point of watching an action flick if the action blows? Robert Patrick in particular hits a new low in an action sequence that has him firing a machine gun while standing on the hood of a moving school bus. Co-stars the ambient Charlotte Lewis and Canada's own Scott Hylands (of TV's Night Heat fame).
\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 pointless movie with nothing but gratuitous violence. The only fun I had was playing \"spot the location\", as much of it was filmed in my home town of Regina, Saskatchewan. I like to support locally produced films but this one was a major disappointment.
\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\nNow here is a film that if made in Australia would have easily been a comedy. Sadly and annoyingly, here it is, flaccid and cheesy and overbaked from Lala land. How did the di-erector get it so wrong? Well, mainly by being serious about a job so hilariously startling that nobody in their right mind could take seriously. Unless of course they were a nerdy lonely gay cliché (but somehow cute)...or is that cliché piled upon cliché. No value in the story that almost seems like a prequel to Gus Van Sant's GERRY..... and with a title like THE FLUFFER how is it all such a lead weight? Well this auteur must have soooooo mad that he didn't get to Burt and BOOGIE first that he had to make his own. Convoluted and undeveloped apart from the 'unrequited love's a bore' theme left over from a faded Streisand lyric, we have only moody beefcake and TV serial level storyline left. The un necessary fourth act of this overlong turgid drama is truly terrible as the film wanders off like the Gerries into to desert and gets stuck there. In Oz in the late 90s some 20 somethings made a similar but actually hilarious film called MONEYSHOT. Originally filmed as THE VENUS FACTORY it too suffered from an auteur more awful than Orson so they re-filmed half of it, got a ruthless TV editor to chop it up and down down to 72 minutes and hey-presto..comedy, tonight! A lesson there in when bad films turn good by lightening up. I guess THE FLUFFER stiffed on release and after seeing it not perform, I can understand why.
\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 a great idea for a film but it, unfortunately, doesn't turn out to be a great movie. What starts out as a sweet and almost goofy romantic comedy about a Fluffer in love with his Fluffee spirals out of control into a bizarre combination of genres and a veritable stew of plots, with liberal borrowings from BOOGIE NIGHTS, THELMA AND LOUISE, SHOWGIRLS, FRISK, and even a curious \"dash\" of 400 BLOWS thrown in towards the end. (At least the director did his research!) The result is not necessarily boring but, in the end, this slick, well-produced flick doesn't quite add up to anything. However, the actors all do a game job with the material and there are a few good laughs at the behind-the-scenes world of gay porn.

\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 wanted to see the movie because of an article in a film magazine. It wasn't a highly recommended one by the critic. The storyline is different and I am sure that it could have been a good movie if it was in right hands. Directing and acting were awful!! I had the feeling of watching a movie which was made a bunch of amateurs. Although the movie started promisingly, it got worse and worse. I think this is an unoriginal movie with awkward characters.. I still think that it is worth watching as I haven't seen films subjecting gay porn. Don't keep your expectations high though,then you will be very disappointed. * out of *****
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis was god awful. The story was all over the place and more often than not I was confused because of horrible editing. I felt no sympathy for anyone because their characters were not developed enough. They were extremely superficial people with no dimension. Cheesy, cheesy stereotypes with subplots that went nowhere. The stripper chick was just a distraction, even if she was decent looking. I don't know what this was attempting to be, but how shocked was I when they showed this trash on Sundance? I almost cancelled my subscription. You'd think a channel like that would show more quality films. There are much, much better gay and lesbian themed films out there. \"The Celluloid Closet\" is an excellent documentary. I thoroughly enjoyed \"Wigstock: The Movie\". I'm sure there are others that have slipped my mind at the moment, but what I'm trying to say is that this just wasn't worth it. If you catch it on TV, ok, but otherwise don't bother.
There were maybe three or four shots that looked really nice (sad I can count them on one hand), otherwise the cinematography was pretty crappy as well. The lighting was way off in a lot of places. I think some of the effects were used to try and add to something that just had practically nothing going for it.
I can't deny Johnny Rebel is pretty hot (without the blond hair of course). Too bad his acting did nothing for me. Stick with real porn, buddy.
3/10.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe Fluffer may have strong elements of porn industry truth to it - but that doesn't make up for the fact that it's pretty shabbily directed and acted - and with a very mediocre script.
B grade from start to the exceedingly drawn out finish.
It would be embarassing to think of the general public being offered this piece as an example of state of the art gay film making.
Hopefully it has a limited life in the gay film festival circuit and is allowed to die a natural death on video.
This film will open the Queer Film Weekend in Brisbane on April 10, 2002. I think its success there will be strongly influenced by the amount of alcohol consumed in the preceding cocktail party - they're gonna need 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\nI entered the theatre intending to pass a pleasant 90 minutes being entertained if not enlightened. I left neither entertained nor enlightened. This movie can't make up its mind what it wants to be and ends up being not much of anything. There are a few funny lines and a few incredibly pretentious movie references (The 400 Blows--for this character? come off it!). While none of the characters gets treated with much respect, the over thirty gay men get the worst of it: all predatory, fat, sad, slobs. If you're in the mood for a movie dealing with gay relationships check out Parting Glances, Longtime Companion, Trick, All Over the Guy, Red Dirt, Maurice, Philadelphia instead. You'll thank me.

\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOh, well, this movie starts off well. It's kinda funny and seems like it could be a fun movie. Then it becomes a bit serious and goes off the rails. It sort of wants to be 'Boogie Nights' but it can't achieve it. If only it stayed with the tone of the first quarter of the 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\nBut this movie was a bore. The history part was fine but the musical part was not. Not one song I cared about and no soundtrack to be heard.
If Sweet Jesus\" was suppose to be comic relief it never work. If John Adams was suppose to be the obnoxious annoying one, the rest of them were trying to overthrow him in every scene.
Hancock and Jefferson were the only bearable characters in the whole movie.
The historical quotes and the debate about slavery in their historical context were interesting enough but not enough to overcome the lack of music in a musical.
Shouldn't you be humming the songs after a musical, except for a few chirps, nothing else was worth the breath.
\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 you have to give some points for the sheer courage of writing a musical around a history lesson but how about some decent music?
Is the cartoonish acting of Howard DeSilva meant to pique the interest of otherwise jaded children?
Is William Daniels' campy contemporary (for the time) acting style meant to appeal to a 1960s/70s demographic?
Do we need all the \"in-jokes\" about NY & NJ? (I can hear the blue-haired Broadway audience guffawing on cue.)
Sorry, I find the whole piece dated, boring & the acting far too strident for the screen
\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\n1993 was the year. This was long before Phillip Seymour Thomas had won an Oscar. Who knew I would be an extra in a movie with him? I was actually a paid extra in \"My Boyfriend's Back,\" which was shot in a suburb of Austin called Georgetown, TX. The original title was \"Johnny Zombie\" (thank God the producers had a change of heart!) I was in the theater scene. I rushed out to watch the movie the day it was released in theaters. It is more of a comedy than a horror movie. But... for a good laugh, you might want to check it out. Nothing that is even close to \"Dawn of the Dead\" or even \"Shaun of the Dead\" quality, but the cheese factor is good enough. ciao
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI have seen over 1000 movies and this one stands out as one of the worst movies that I have ever seen. It is a shame that they had to associate this garbage to The Angels 1963 song \"My Boyfriend's Back.\" If you have to make a choice between watching this movie and painful dental work, I would suggest the dental work.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'm easily entertained. I enjoyed \"Hot Shots\" and \"The Naked Gun\" and their many sequels, even when most people found them unbearable. I've even managed to enjoy most Pauly Shore movies. There is only one movie that I've seen that I can honestly say was bad...and this was it. It's been a while since I've seen it, but I do remember sitting in the theater thinking, \"This is a dumb movie. Why did I see this?\" It's honestly the only movie that I cannot recommend.
\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\nTurn your backs away or you're gonna get in big trouble out of MY BOYFRIEND'S BACK! Only a happy ending can bloom your innocence that is full of gloom and doom at the very moment you're watching this. It's safe to say that the entire movie falls apart, with a sarcastic approach and tribute to zombie shows that defy nonsense to the max. We get a name like \"Johnny\" every so often, and this \"Johnny\" has nowhere to go. There isn't a specific reason to why our \"dead corpse\" crawls out of his grave just to survive until prom night, so that renders the movie totally useless. Without a feeling of sorrow, his mother is convinced to tell the doctor that he's dead. Johnny takes a bite out of Eddie's arm afterwards. The viewer is asked a tough question: Why does the movie have to be this cornball? There is an answer. Any resemblance to all persons living or dead is purely coincidental. \"Living\" is a coincidence. \"Dead\" has nothing in common with the movie. Show this one to your girlfriend and she'll skip the senior prom, turning your life into a deserted ruin. Blah!!!
\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 make me forget. Please. Please. This is the worst film I have ever had the misfortune to watch. I consider the film an insult to my brain as well as my backside who both have suffered from me sitting and watching this film. I have yet to see what damage it has caused my sight and my ability to complete sentences. What a load of garbage!! And don't get me started about the acting... Someone please help me forget!! \"Weird Science\" -- come back!! Everything is forgiven...
I am \"proud\" to give this film the first 1 here at IMDb... And I've voted for hundreds of films... Many of them c**p but this is so bad I can't even believe it. Someone actually came up with the idea and thought it was worthy of becoming a film? Someone actually read the script and decided to produce the film? Someone read the script and auditioned for it? Someone saw the film and decided *not* to put it on a shelf to collect dust for eternity? *These* are the questions I want answers to. Not the philosophical question about that tree in the woods and well, you know...
\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 this move several years ago at the Central Florida Film Festival if I recall. I liked it, it showed great potential. I guess most people here are blasting this film because the film did seem hobbled together (by the filmmaker's own admission on the official site -- the short was exhibited as a \"rough-cut\").
But nonetheless, it was an easy-going comedy. I think many people try to read far too much into a comedy. All they are supposed to do is make you laugh -- that's all. I did just that at its showing, so it succeeded on that level. Just my 2 Cents Anyway.
\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 just a shame. Orlando, Florida seems to becoming a more recognized filmmaking area (like Vancouver's rise to prominance). The Brothers was shot in Central Florida and this short film is a bit of a setback for the area (which made great strides with the Indie film Walking Across Africa and the great HBO miniseries From Earth To The Moon).
I will try to be as honest as possible. I think Orlando was the perfect place to film The Brothers. It had the potential to give a new spin on the 'Boy Band' craze. After all, both N'Sync and the Backstreet Boys come from this area. But, The Brothers falls short probably because of a weak script. Both lead characters are flat with almost no development (part of this could be the amatuer actors, but some of it is certainly the way the script was written).
Also a problem is the choice of jokes. Many of the jokes are too repetitive (they do come off funny the first time, but it does grow to be a bit boring). Some of the 'concert' scenes are staged poorly (and many of these scenes also don't seem to move the story along in any way).
I had high hopes for this one, but alas its a disappointing effort. I also hope the best for the upcoming feature based on this short. But I think the best thing for filmmaker John Figg is to move to different genres (quickly). Comedy isn't his strong suit. But, its indisputable that he definitely is one of the more prominant filmmakers in the Orlando area (its just a shame that right now he's infamous, not famous).

\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 just a terrible 'comedy' -- it really is a bad film. there are no funny elements. no jokes that are funny. i don't know how some people can claim this dismal short film could be 'smartest' or 'quality.' perhaps if its the only film that a person has seen you can make that claim of the brothers. but, i have seen thousands of better films: namely leonard part six (now, that's funny)! i don't know how the brothers is even considered eligible to be listed on the internet movie database: its more like a home video than an actual film.
jokes aside, just skip this film. a root canal is more enjoyable that this cliche-ridden unfunny material.
\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 noticed that this film has taken the brunt of a lot of insults. It probably earned some of them, but it wasn't that bad. Well, I'll be honest: I never want to see this film again. It was a bad film. But I don't hate this film, it tried to tell a story. As a drama, this film could work very well actually. I just think the filmmakers misgauged which road to take when they made this (they should have added more funny bits if they wanted it to be a comedy). With a rewrite, it could have been a great film. But as a satire, it didn't work in its current form -- many scenes did not fit within the context of the plot: for example, the robbery scene makes little sense in the story. Still, it wasn't the worst independent film ever made -- is it in the Top 10 Worst? That's debatable.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\ni can't figure out who greenlighted this thing! it has no redeeming qualities, none, nada, zip, zilch.
the acting was bad. the directing was bad. the writing was bad. the plot was bad. the music was bad. the editing was bad. ....well, at least the filmmakers were consistent.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI have been an environmentalist for years and was really looking forward to this show. I had it set to record all episodes because I thought I could really learn some great new things. I probably could if I could get past Rachelle.
I'm sure a lot of this is staged to seem like a reality show and appeal to that class of viewer. It doesn't work for someone who's really interested in improving the planet.
This show should be called Nagging with Rachelle.
Since Ed is such a great font of information, maybe a second show that's really serious about the environment would be a good idea. Dumbing things down is not necessary for some of us.
I no longer record episodes or watch the show, but do let me know if a real green show may be in the works.
\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\nIs there a movement more intolerant and more judgmental than the environmentalist movement? To a budding young socialist joining the circus must seem as intimidating as joining a real circus. Even though such people normally outsource their brain to Hollywood for these important issues, the teachings of Hollywood can often seem fragmented and confusing. Fortunately Ed is here to teach neo-hippies in the art of envirojudgementalism.
Here you'll learn the art of wagging your finger in the face of anyone without losing your trademark smirk. You'll learn how to shrug off logic and science with powerful arguments of fear. You'll learn how to stop any human activity that does not interest you by labeling it as the gateway to planetary Armageddon.
In addition to learning how to lie with a straight face you'll also learn how to shrug off accusations that are deflected your way no matter how much of a hypocrite you are. You'll be able to use as much energy as Al Gore yet while having people treat you as if you were Amish.
In the second season was even more useful as we were able to visit other Hollywood Gods, holy be thy names, and audit - i.e. judge - their lifestyles. NOTE: This is the only time it's appropriate for an envirofascist to judge another because it allows the victim the chance to buy up all sorts of expensive and trendy eco-toys so that they can wag their finger in other people's faces.
What does Ed have in store for us in season three? Maybe he'll teach us how to be judgmental while sleeping!
\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\"Algie, the Miner\" is one bad and unfunny silent comedy. The timing of the slapstick is completely off. This is the kind of humor with certain sequences that make you wonder if they're supposed to be funny or not. However, the actual quality of the film is irrelevant. This is mandatory viewing for film buffs mainly because its one of the earliest examples of gay cinema. The main character of Algie is an effeminate guy, acting much like the stereotypical \"pansy\" common in many early films. The film has the homophobic attitude common of the time. \"Algie, the Miner\" is pretty awful, but fascinating from a historical viewpoint. (3/10)
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nCrazed Shotgun toting-incest driven-revenge seeking truck drivers & obsessive control disorder \"daddy raped me when I was 12\" handcuff carrying, all latex wearing prostitutes is just a few of the character you will be introduced to in this complete disgrace of a movie that can easily be viewed on any cable TV station (IE: Skinemax) at 4am on Sunday nights. (And yes I know that was an entire sentence, but bare with me people; this is a long-winded review for a short pointless film).
Filmed in \"somewhere\" Canada, with almost no budget, the plot to this freak show is trite, the police in it obviously never heard of \"State Jurisdiction\" because they end up chasing both Miya (Hookers) and Trent (idiotic, Anal Retentive, Generic, insecure College Student) all across the U.S. (and I thought only the FBI could do that). The camera is shaky, the sex scenes are mediocre and the acting is so bad it might actually cause unintentional acid flashbacks to movies like \"Ishtar\" and \"Leonard Part 6\".
As far as the Skin scenes go (which is the only reason to even rent this movie, don't even think of buying it) there are two of them. The first one is the only one worth watching though which is the Dominatrix Sex scene with Kari Salin and ____(insert unknown actor here, he's obviously done nothing else worth noting) in a seedy, disgusting Motel room (the kind with the busted sink that drips, and the soda machine outside that only has blue tonic water left in it). It's all S&M (riding crops, handcuffs, hot wax, and underwear licking) folks and in the end, he gets left in a motel room, with no money and cops waiting at his door (that's goes to show you guys, don't let a hooker tie you up in a \"middle-of-nowhere\" motel room). Sadly though, Kari shows no skin worth remembering, and that alone can cause deep-seeded traumatic experiences for some gentlemen, so that is definitely a downer towards this flick.
As for the ending, *Snicker*Snicker* I know you probably wouldn't mind if I revealed it to you but I won't, you should spend your hard earned money for that one. All in all I give it a 1/5 for action, a 3/5 for Skin (See last paragraph) and a 0/0 for acting, character development or intricate plot twists.
- Laughing Man
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI've had a thing for this Kari chick for a while, and as far as how she looked in this movie, no complaints. But after catching it last night in HIGH DEFINITION, I am certain: that's the only thing in the movie that isn't substandard. The script is horrible, the acting is horrible, the direction is horrible. I saw in another comment someone commenting on how great the sex scenes were...what? Not at all. When a movie is this bad you might as well just turn it into softcore porn, but instead I get to see some pasty white dude blocking me from seeing Wuhrer's body and scenes that offer me nothing except a tease. They should have just gone cinemax so that the movie wasn't a complete waste of time, but no. With a script this awful they should've capitalized on Wuhrer's looks, since that's the lone pro of the movie. 2/10, only because she looked so hot.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI actually had hopes for this movie since I've seen Kari in a few other things and think she has some talent. Alas, this dud is a case study in what not to do in a screenplay. Completely undefined characters without a shred of likeability, and no plot whatsoever. Is it a road/buddy/comedy/thriller/romance/drama? The filmmakers don't have a clue, and neither do we.
\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\nRun away from this movie. Even by B-movie standards this movie is dreadful. It is also insidious in it's theme. The main theme is that people who reject society and have no respect for anything are cool and worth admiring. People who treat others with respect are losers. Guncrazy is a movie that speaks for the disenfranchised a lot better than this movie, see it instead.
No normal kid would do what Trent does. State Troopers do not work as they do in this film etc. Seeing this movie makes you realize why writers use the hooker-with-a-heart-of-gold cliche. Mija is a completely unsympathetic hooker,who yes, has had a terrible life. However, she is such a terrible person the audience cannot identify with her.
Usually there is one thing a movie can be recommended for, in this case there is none. It is such a ridiculous movie it insults the person who tries to identify with the main characters. The acting is adequate by B-movie standards and the direction presents nothing new or interesting.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"