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\nRecap: Something mysteriously dense that transmits radio signals is discovered in the ice of Antarctica. The mysterious block is dug out and brought to a research station on Antarctica. Julian Rome, a former SETI-worker, is brought in to decipher the message. Problem is that one of the researchers is a old girlfriend of his, and the situation quickly turns awkward, especially since the other female researchers practically throw themselves at him. And the block of ice with the thing inside is melting unnaturally quickly. Soon the object is in the open. The mystery continues though as the object generates a huge amount of electricity. It is decided to open the object, but just before that is done, Julian decodes the signal. \"Do not open\". But too late, and the object explodes as it is finally breached, and two things unleashed on earth. The first is an alien, that had been dormant in the object, and the other is a virus that instantly kills the research staff. And Washington, that is suspiciously updated on this historic event, decides that those things can not be unleashed upon the earth. So a Russian nuclear submarine, carrying nuclear weapons is sent to Antarctica.
Comments: The movie holds a few surprises. One is Carl Lewis who surprisingly puts in a good acting performance, and the other is that the special effects that are beautiful, well worked through and a lot better than expected. Unfortunately the story holds a lot of surprises of its own, and this time not in a good way. Actually it is so full of plot holes that sometimes the movies seem to consist of almost randomly connected scenes. It is never really explained why Washington know so much, why Washington is able to command Russian submarines, why the object is in the Antarctic and has woken up now. It is really puzzling that the alien pod is transmitting in understandable English. Some might want to explain this with that the alien had been to Earth before and knew the language (and obviously chose English, why?). But then it is very confusing why the nice aliens that apparently want to save the Earth from the virus, send their \"Do not open\" message encoded! And finally the end is as open as an end can be.
The movie is a little entertaining but too much energy (from me) must be diverted to fill in the voids in the plot. Therefore the total impression of the movie is not too good.
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\nWith one of my very favorite actors, James Spader, I expected this film to be at least tolerable. It wasn't. After the first half hour I watched the rest of it with the remote control in my hand so the fast forward was at the ready. So trite, so standard, one knows what's going to happen in each scene. One can even predict the dialogue word for word. This is one of those movies that makes one scratch ones head and say, \"How did this movie ever get made?\" In an effort to say something positive, I'll add that there are some mildly entertaining special effects. But, on the whole, if you've seen 5 Sci/fi movies, or you are over 9 years old, do yourself a favor and skip this one.
\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\nVery bad acting, and a very shallow story. Not even a decent B-Movie
Events that were suposed to be shocking like humans geting on board an alien ship were boring and very lame.
This is one of the worst sci-fi I've ever seen. I saw the 5.0 stars and decided to watch it since i like the genre, but it sucked so bad.
Now there's really very few good movies on ALIEN subject, I think because most of them are low budget
I give it 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\nAn unoriginal, overly predictable and only mildly entertaining low budget rehash of a sci-fi formula that we've all seen a hundred times before - a group of scientists in isolation confronting some unknown alien something, and in of all places (surprise, surprise) Antarctica!
The film features James Spader and an almost nameless supporting cast (with the exception of Carl Lewis, who's actually not that bad for a non-actor) - who deliver ho-hum performances that do little to invigorate the script's unimaginative dialogue. To make things worse the film's pace is slow, there's almost no subplot, and the few action sequences are stereotypical and not that exciting. Its little wonder that this thing went straight to DVD. What is a wonder is why Spader - an excellent actor at times, who won the Cannes Best Actor award for `Sex, Lies and Videotape', and did a splendid job in the innovative sci-fi flick `Stargate' - chose to sign onto this lackluster project. Or maybe not, if you look at his career, for it seems he has invested his talents in more misses than hits.
The most remarkable thing about `Alien Hunter' is how they managed to cram in so many elements from so many great sci-fi films, and still have the thing turn out so listless and contrived. There are huge borrowed bits from `The Thing' (both Howard Hawks' original and John Carpenter's excellent 1982 remake), `Contact' and `Outbreak'; a few hints of `Alien', CE3K', `The Andromeda Strain', `Kubrick's `2001' (i.e. the `alien black box') and `Mission To Mars' (i.e. the mystery message); and even a little dash of `Sneakers' and `A Remarkable Mind' (although not sci-fi films, they share a `cryptology' connection). Hell, there's even cornfields and Antarctica, just like the recent `X Files Movie'. And the luminous translucent spaceship at the end looks exactly like something that was plucked from an outtake from `The Abyss'.
Its all been done before and done a whole lot better, although I will admit there were a few mild surprises towards the end. I could say a little bit more about the plot, but there's absolutely no need. You already know over half this movie without ever seeing it. (5 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\nBegins better than it ends. Funny that the russian submarine crew outperforms all other actors. It's like those scenes where documentary shots...
--- SPOILER PART ---- The message dechifered was contrary to the whole story. It just does not mesh.

\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 it a remake og the Thing (1982/1951), i think it is, there are so many factors from det previous movies do deny it.
So the acting is bad, James Spader does a superlow stargate re-enactment of himself, with his coffy mug and his somwhat strange thinking/movements but that's about it, the other actors i did't even notise. You don't get the feeling of getting to know anyone of the main characters. And the plot evolvement is slow, boring and, yah i know what is about to happend in 30mins. Score/music is ultraboring, imean there are alot of ubertallented people out there that would make scores for a coke and a credit, but this is major crap. Some of the special effects are nice, if it was made in early 90's. If you like Slimy Aliens, chills and thrills, don't whatch this movie. its a dull combination of the Thing, Alien 3, Outbreak and some Jerry Bruckheimer/Michael Bay production gone really really bad. Now this combination would be cool if somone knew what they where doing, and the only ones on this production that knew that was, no one.
Though i have seen far worse, i would not recomend this movie to anyone, but if you are up one cold night, and just wanna glanse at something, it will pass the time, slowly.
\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\nSnuggle down in your favourite chair and switch on the play-station, as you toss this into the waste disposal unit. Spend a useful 90 min. living your favourite game. Disjointed - poorly filmed - non directed junk. It takes a bits from several other \"science fiction\" movies and badly attempts to join the parts into a pathetically weak story. There's nothing new here, the filmmakers do not seem to realise that providing simple entertainment would achieve a monetary game, but a touch of skill ingenuity and flair is required to turn it into a good film. Any money spent watching this is a waste, and personally i would like my 90 min of life back.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie couldn't decide what it wanted to be. There were a couple of sub-plots that for awhile made you think these items would all come together in the end... but they didn't. If you want a \"alien in the frozen waste\" story, stick with the 1950's version of THE THING (not the abomination that was remade in gore-o-vision 20+ years later).
I couldn't get over the fact that the \"alien\" looked pretty much recycled from INDEPENDENCE DAY.
The \"bare minimum\" sets would have been more effective if they had hired actors who could actually act and carry off the intended mood.
Lots of scenery chewing with little payoff.
\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 oh soooo glad I have not spent money to go to the cinema on it :-). It is nothing more than compilation of elements of few other classic titles like The Thing, Final Fantasy, The Abyss etc. framed in rather dull and meaningless scenario. I really can not figure out what was the purpose of creating this movie - it has absolutely nothing new to offer in its storyline which additionally is also senseless. Moreover there is nothing to watch - the FX'es look like there were taken from a second hand store, you generally saw all of them in other movies. But it is definitely a good lullaby.
\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\nAlien Hunter: 5 out of 10: Is it me or does every movie that starts in Roswell, New Mexico suck. Take Alien mixed with The Thing, mixed with Contact, mixed with of all things On the Beach, The Andromeda Strain, the classroom scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark and a throw in a little Stargate to boot.
Derivative doesn't even begin to describe this movie. Of course with nothing original plot wise they amp up the gore and sex right? Nope gore is a blink and you miss it affair and sex is all tease. (James Spader causally mentions he needs a shower and the delectable Leslie Stefanson asks to join him. he turns her down. AGGH!)
In fact if a movie ever needed a shower scene to liven things up this is it. I mean if your going to have impossibly good-looking women in white bathing suits wandering around an Antarctica research base why not go for broke.
With about 30 seconds of actual thrill in the entire movie Alien Hunter is remarkable serious and slow going for a sci-fi adventure. Needed a much better plot twist to liven it up and by the way the Alien itself is a horribly clichéd artifice and has virtually no screen time for someone who shares half the title.
I also inquired during viewing what is with the Children of the Corn in space motif. (Note that since Jason of Friday the 13th fame, Pinhead from Hellraiser and that Leprechaun have all traveled to space to slay nubile teenagers why not the cornfield?) The characters in the cornfield dress like Logan's Run extras and I was just waiting for the stalks to come alive and attack them.
That however would have been exciting and apparently against this movies covenant. The acting is mostly fine as Spader reprises his Stargate role while Stefanson and Janine Eser model the latest in Antarctic beachwear. John Lynch however read the whole script and acts the like the insane bad guy well before the story would indicate it.
Alien Hunter is a disappointing derivative slog that makes me pine for a proper Children of The Corn in Space movie.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI just saw this film tonight and I have to say that it's a mess. I love Vince Vaughn but he ends up more annoying that funny here and the film is more than less a remake of the crappy 80's classic \" Santa Claus the movie\" but with out the camp or the bad Sheena Easton song at the end. .The story is your run of the mill black sheep in the family who comes back to face his family for the holidays kind of thing but with North Pole as its setting. Of course Fred (Vince Vaughn) is the family screw up who comes home after a series of set backs that include his girlfriend (Rachel Weisz in a cameo role) dumping him, so he comes home to face his parents and his more successful brother Santa Claus (Paul Giamatti) and wacky high jinks follow with a bit of sibling rivalry and a bit of anarky as well that threatens all of Christmas. Now if you think you know the ending of this film, I think you would be right because it's predicable to the hill. As for the acting, Vince Vaughn plays the same lovable loser he always plays but this time he ends up more annoying than likable, Miranda Richardson plays Mrs. Claus but the role is more than less one note, Elizabeth Banks plays Santa's assistant but she's not much of a character at all other than a neurotic joke and poor Kevin Spacey ends up basically playing the same person he plays in the film \"Glengarry Glen Ross\" but a little more anal. The only two actors who come out of this film with their dignity intact is Paul Giamatti, who brings a real sincerity and warmed to his role as Santa Claus but he looks somewhat embarrass to be in the movie and you can't blame him and Rachel Weisz, who manages to do a lot more with a very small role than most of the main actors do with theirs, which is a shame because both Rachel Weisz and Paul Giamatti deserved a lot better than what this script gave them.
To put it in a nutshell, 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\nPainfully bad Christmas film that has an equally painfully bad performance by Vince Vaughn, who is paying his usual frat boy self but this time for a children's movie but with out the wit or charm that is in his R rated films. Vaughn seems like he's on autopilot though most of the film and he keeps running into walls with his lackluster performance. After 30 minutes into the film, you would be in touch your inner scourge and say \"Bahumbag\" at how unfunny this film is and after another 30 minutes, you will want to walk out over how unbearable the film has gotten during that point. Out of all the actors involved in this mess, only Paul Giamatti and Rachel Weisz brings some life to there perspective paper thin roles and that's manly because they are both way too good of actors to be in this film. Paul Giamatti brings some depth and warmth to the character of Saint Nick himself but he's forced to Vaughn's level of juvenile behavior when they are doing their sad sibling infighting. You can see in Giamatti face that he's not having fun with his role and it painfully shows in certain parts of the film. Rachel Weisz brings a sense of fun and spirit to her role but she really does not have much of a character to work with and you can see in her face that she's well aware of that, so much so that she seems irritated in certain parts of the film. Fortunately for her, she's not in the film much at all and is able to save some face, unlike Giamatti, who looks like he's about to fire his agent by the end of the movie. The direction also feels uninspiring, like there is no feeling or flow to be had and this is a supposed to be a holiday movie but it ends up feeling like you are just staring at a fancy widow display that is being torn down.
I don't know what went wrong here but with only two actors involved (Giamatti and Weisz) trying their best to at least bring something to the table with a unfunny script they had to work with, spotty direction with no feeling for the subject at hand ( and this is a Christmas movie of all things) and a actor who just does not care about his performance (Vaughn), you have a very unevenly bad film that is very painful to watch.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nEvery Christmas eve I make my kids endure yet another showing of It's A Wonderful Life. I also thoroughly enjoyed Bad Santa. So sue me. I admit it. I like cheesy, schmaltzy movies. I like excellent, intelligent ones too, but as with so many things, variety is a good thing. What would the Christmas season be without the annual cinematic ka-ching ka-ching of Santa in all his guises, from Edmund Gwenn to Billy Bob Thornton? Fred Claus will make no one forget Bedford Falls, but I do not believe a Christmas film should have to reach iconic stature to succeed. \"Fred\" is a perfectly OK holiday movie, with enough humor for the adults and sufficient charm for the kids. My wife and I laughed a lot, even if most of the humor was obvious and Vince was just being Vince. Paul Giamatti was a top-notch Santa, which helped a lot. Not a great flick, and unlikely to become must-viewing for anyone's annual Christmas traditions. But my wife and daughter and I enjoyed it for what it was, holiday schmaltz with a small dash of spice. There's nothing wrong with that.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nHow hard is it to write a watchable film with Vince Vaughn, Paul Giamatti and Kevin Spacey? Apparently VERY difficult for the writers here.
I still have no idea how Santa is younger and looks 20 years older than Vince (who plays the BIG brother). I must have missed that part of the story but in reality, it really didn't matter. Many scenes seemed out of place and contrived; the kind of \"funny notion\" scenes that are drug out WAY too far to where any sense of comedy is lost.
The director/producer tried to go \"tear jerker\" at the end, which would have been suitable if ANYTHING leading up that point had been worth following.
Ugh, major disappointment. I can see how some people might enjoy this OK, since many people will take any garbage they're fed, but I would strongly encourage waiting for DVD on this one. NOT worth the $23,978 it takes to get your family to the movies these days.
\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\nOkay, during this past thanksgiving break, whilst having the whole family together everybody decided to go see a movie, and since Fred clause was voted majority, thats what we went and say.
To start off the movie had so many plot holes it was pathetic. Simple explanations of why a certain event was happening was void. example; who the heck is trying to 'shut down' Santa clause? Is it some sort of corporation? A little explanation would of been lovely.
Second: The movie tossed you flimsy characters that evoked no sympathy from you about their feelings or actions. example: the little elf named Willie and the only tall girl in the elf village. they see each other twice and then they are a couple and i could of cared less because this movie didn't make me care.
Third: I suppose this was suppose to be a family film? Its rating was low at just PG. For a family film there were several articles of suggestive conversation. It didn't bother me, but if i were a parent i could see a problem.
Through the whole movie Paul Giamatti looked extremely bored with his role, but honestly he was the only one worth watching in the movie. Vaughn had a few funny moments but played the same character he has for the last two movies. mouthy frat boy. (nothing against Vaughn, he's been good in other movies)
so this movie gets a 3 out of 10 stars from me, just because somebody had to put in the effort to produce, film and release this flick.
In my opinion i would definitely pass on this flick, or if you HAVE to see it save it for a rainy day rental.
\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\nWell, I have to say, this movie was so bad that I would have walked out if i didn't have to review it for work. ANd the worst part is, I wanted to see it so badly that I drove all over the city, paid $10 parking two times because the newspaper listings were wrong. Vince Vaughn plays the guy he always does -- the only time I've seen him play someone else was in that movie with John Travolta. Anyways, the plot has potential -- it sounded great in the preview, but it is filled with totally ridiculous, predictable, weak plot turn points. And I was hoping that this would be one Christmas movie where Christmas DIDN\"t have to be saved, and that Santa didn't need a replacdmetn, but nope. The only cool part was the sleigh rides, and the little bladck kid was the best character. I'm sure this movie would be great for young kids, but for adults it's so lame that it's chore to sit through.
\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 don't know what I missed here, but I can't believe all these positive comments by so many people on this film. I thought it was silly, and a bit over the top. I did like the performances of Gregg Henry and Michael Rooker, however the others were just... boring.
Now I like B movies, I really do, but this was a bit further down the alphabet for me. I saw someone compare the humor and horror in this to \"Army Of Darkness\" and \"Shaun of the Dead\", as well as \"On par with The Re-Animator\". You must be joking. I didn't find this film funny, it tried, it did make an effort, (possibly too much of an effort), but it failed in my opinion. By the time I was hit with the 3rd or 4th one-liner I was rolling my eyes and checking my watch.
There were definitely homages made to several other films, which is always cool, kind of like an inside joke for us horror fans. But here it may have just been a lack of original thought. Admittedly there were some nice special effects, good gore, but that can't carry an entire movie. The mutated Grant looked like a cross between Jabba the Hut, and in the early stages of mutation- Chet from \"Weird Science\" (after he was turned into the monster) and one of the alien creature/children from \"The Explorers\". It just didn't work. I thought it looked like something some kid from Grade 5 art class could have designed. Then there was Brenda, the woman that Grant impregnated and chained up in the barn. When help finally arrived she looked like a giant tick waiting to be popped. The design once again was totally unimaginative. A round flesh colored balloon with a face in the middle. *yawn*
Now about the zombies- The more movies I see with zombies in them these days the more I wish George A. Romero had a patent on them and was the only writer/director allowed to make movies about them. He's the only person so far to do it right, with the exception of Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg (but that was a comedy). Oh, and Danny Boyle, but they were a different style of Zombie. Maybe Mr. Romero has ruined any zombie film for me due to his ingenious ability to get his actors to moan, groan and shamble about as if their joints are dried up and lacking even a drop of synovial fluid, and their muscles are fighting the effects caused by rigor mortis that had started to set in right before they were re-animated. The people of \"Wheelsy\" just didn't have the proper motivation... they were horrible zombies.
So in the end I give \"Slither\" a 3, for a couple of laughs and a few nice gore scenes.
\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\nDefinitely the worst movie I have ever seen... Can somebody tell me where should have I laughed? There's not a single hint or shadow of an idea. The three leading actors are pestilential, especially the one (I think it's Aldo) from Sicily who _can't_ make a Sicilian accent!!! Not to say about the dream-like insertion about Dracula... just another expedient, drawn from the worst cabaret tradition, to make this \"film\" last a little longer. Massironi and Littizzetto do what they can, but this so-called movie was really too, too hard to rescue. I would have given it \"0\"/10, but the lowest mark was 1/10 and so I had to overestimate it by one mark.
\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 me every piece of art is to be judged by these criteria: Form, Function and Meaning. Guernsey seems to be dedicated to forms: nice shots and sometimes interesting acting. The long close ups suggest a function that the viewer may fill in by himself. Because of lacking texts the story becomes a quiz. An introvert person suggests to have depth, but sometimes it turns out he has nothing to say. This film acts like an introvert person. If you have not read the synopsis you cannot see that it was the suicide (and the unanswered question Why?) that changes Anna's view on life and makes her suspicious. 'Why don't you speak to me?' asks Sebastiaan. Anna doesn't answer, she only starts looking a long time at him without saying a word. What is the function of that shot? What does it mean? My question is like Sebastiaans: What has this film to say? What is meant by this movie? The answer for me: It shows us a handful of persons with the passion of a glass of water. The story of their lives is simple and boring. Motives behind their actions are not shown. The rest is: skins, residences, landscapes. Nice and artistic done, but meaningless without having disposal of 'instructions for use'. In my opinion this film is made for fellow artists, not for the common viewer.
\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\nAnna lives with her family in a new housing estate just outside the city. She has been with her husband Sebastiaan for years and they don't talk so much anymore. While on a working visit abroad, a female colleague commits suicide. Anna is deeply impressed by her death, even though she hardly knew her. Nobody seems to know why she took her own life. For the first time Anna realizes that one can be an unknown among your most dearest. Anna doesn't mention the incident back home and starts observing her husband and child. Guernsey is the story of a woman who suddenly starts looking at her own life. And she wonders how she got so drifted apart from the people closest to her.
(This is my translation of the DVD cover text synopsis. I hope you find it useful, as this movie doesn't have an IMDb Plot Summary yet at this 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\nGUERNSEY (Maria Kraakman - Belgium/Netherlands 2005).
The mousy Maria Kraakman plays Anna, a woman in her thirties, who finds out her husband (Fedja van Huet) is cheating on her but she doesn't dare to confront him. She painfully avoids any confrontation with human beings, her parents as well as her sister, so we have a main character in a feature film that doesn't do much at all. We barely know anything about her background or her motivations. Just a woman who seems to be stuck in a blind alley, not just during this difficult episode of her life. She obviously suffers from something, but why do we in the audience have to suffer as well?
I almost gave up on cinema after seeing this unwatchable mess. These were a very dull and painful 90 minutes. Normally I try to avoid wasting energy on bad film making. I'll take the beating and roll with the punches, but in this case a fair warning is in place. How on earth did Nanouk Leopold get funding (in large part from publicly financed funds) for this turkey? Obviously, there was no script to speak off. It could be compensated by an ingenious filmmaker with cinematographic ideas or a cast with only a little more appeal. None whatsoever, just a vaguely defined concept, \"I want to do something from a woman's point of view\". The result is an insult rather than a tribute to a female perspective on life.
To make things worse, there's not an interesting shot to be found in the entire film. I cannot think of a cast who could have spiced this one up, but Johanna ter Steege is a (small) light in the dark, if possible with this dire lack of material. I'm trying to imagine how Leopold tried directing Maria Kraakman: \"Maria, look at the horizon, we'll film you for three minutes, just express sadness\". A perfect cure for insomnia. Get a copy and watch this late at night, guaranteed too put you to sleep.
Camera Obscura --- 1/10
\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 movie was long and boring. Surprising that it was selected for Cannes, although they tend to like pretentiousness. Point is that contrary to other Dutch stars of the arty genre like Kerkhof and Kruishoop, Guernsey feels utterly empty. Even more so it has no cinematic quality whatsoever. A long opening shot doesn't mean cinematic depth, it's just a long boring shot. The story wasn't interesting and the characters had problems I couldn't identify with at all. The actors didn't shine under her direction and seemed lost at times. Leopold tried, but she is not the talent I hoped she would be. Where are Kerkhof and Kruishoop? They really made some waves in Dutch cinema. Leopold just made another attempt.
\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 fans of Laurel and Hardy, the 1940s and beyond were a very sad time for the team. Their contracts with Hal Roach Studios had expired and now they were \"free agents\"--able to work for any studio who offered them a job. Unfortunately, Fox, RKO, MGM (without Roach) and even a French film company who hired the boys had absolutely no touch for their comedic talents. Plus, Stan and Ollie were a lot older and seeing these geriatric men taking pratfalls seemed sad, not particularly funny. Stan looked very ragged and Ollie's weight had ballooned up to the point where he could barely walk--and so it made me feel uncomfortable laughing at their very, very sedate antics.
In addition to their age, this particular film suffers because Fox Studios oddly cast them in a supporting role and created a parallel plot involving a young couple--something that reduced their time on screen AND turned them into insipid \"hangers on\" instead of just being themselves. A cute and cuddly Stan and Ollie is very foreign to the old Laurel and Hardy of the 20s and 30s--and just seemed awfully strange and suited them poorly.
Now even with their age, this COULD have been a decent movie if it had been given decent writing and if it appeared the studio cared--and it's quite obvious they were using the \"B unit\" here--with, at best, second class support. In particular, there are very few laughs and the last 10 minutes of the film is simply dreadful--relying exclusively on a sloppy rear-projected screen for the stupid chase scene--which might just rank as one of the worst of its kind in film history.
For mind-numbed zombie lovers of Laurel and Hardy, it's probably a film they will love. But, for lovers of the team who are willing to honestly evaluate this film relative to their amazing earlier films, it simply comes up wanting indeed. In fact, of all their full-length films pre-1940, I can't think of one I liked less than DANCING MASTERS. Unfortunately, of the post-1940 films, this might just be one of their better ones. Sadly, it got a lot worse--with wretched films like THE BIG NOISE and NOTHING BUT TROUBLE. I just wish the boys had just retired after SAPS AT SEA.
Finally, I wonder if all the generally positive reviews for this film on IMDb might reflect the reviewers' love of the team more than it's an indication that this is a good film? For an audience who are NOT already in love with the team, I don't know HOW this film will do anything but bore the audience--it certainly WON'T convince anyone that Laurel and Hardy were comedic geniuses. But even comedic geniuses need material worthy of their talents.
\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 suppose bad Laurel and Hardy is better than no Laurel and Hardy at all, but just barely. It's sad that the Fox films are the ones getting a big release on DVD, exposing people who may not be too familiar with L&H to their WORST stuff rather than their classic comedies.
Once again the boys are saddled with a dumb romantic plot about a guy who's invented an invisible ray. He's in love with the bosses' daughter, who hates him and prefers some slick guy. It's incredible to think the geniuses at Fox thought THIS is what L&H needed in their films.
Without their pancake makeup the boys look tired and old. The only scenes that work for them in this picture is when they try to sneak out of a bedroom window at night and the rather bizarre scene where Robert Mitchum, being a classic noir bad guy tries to sell Oliver Hardy \"insurance\" on Stan.
Otherwise, this script is just a mess. Forget this and see if you can find a copy of \"A Chump at Oxford\" or \"Bohemian Girl\" or \"Sons of the Desert\" instead.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAs a big fan of David Mamet's films and plays, especially his first film House of Games that also starred Joe Mantegna, I was expecting great things from this film. Instead, I found myself annoyed by the film's superficiality and lack of credibility. Racial slurs are thrown about without any feeling or meaning behind them, in the hopes of setting up a racial tension that for me never materialized. Identity is totally reevaluated and men become \"heroes\" for no apparent reason. Because of his oaths taken as a cop, the lead character adamantly refuses to perform one relatively small action that would harm no one and could possibly save lives, and yet performs another action which is very violent and VERY illegal, but then still refuses the minor action. In addition, a highly unbelievable subplot involving a man who has killed his family is introduced just for the sake of a plot point that was all but advertised with skywriting, and the cop's reaction to that occurrence stretch credulity way beyond all reasonable limits. Needless to say, after expecting another exciting thriller from David Mamet, I was extremely disappointed to say the least. 3 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\nDavid Mamet is a very interesting and a very un-equal director. His first movie 'House of Games' was the one I liked best, and it set a series of films with characters whose perspective of life changes as they get into complicated situations, and so does the perspective of the viewer.
So is 'Homicide' which from the title tries to set the mind of the viewer to the usual crime drama. The principal characters are two cops, one Jewish and one Irish who deal with a racially charged area. The murder of an old Jewish shop owner who proves to be an ancient veteran of the Israeli Independence war triggers the Jewish identity in the mind and heart of the Jewish detective.
This is were the flaws of the film are the more obvious. The process of awakening is theatrical and hard to believe, the group of Jewish militants is operatic, and the way the detective eventually walks to the final violent confrontation is pathetic. The end of the film itself is Mamet-like smart, but disappoints from a human emotional perspective.
Joe Mantegna and William Macy give strong performances, but the flaws of the story are too evident to be easily compensated.
\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\nVery disappointing film. By the end I no longer cared for any of the characters. I did enjoy seeing Ving Rhames in a very small part, and William Macy was good as always, still not worth watching. It starts out strong and just keeps getting weaker and weaker. Insomniacs will like it as I am sure it will put them to sleep.
\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 displayed more racial hatred of Jews by David Mamet than I have
have ever encountered in an American film. The sterotypes are so over the top that my ability to continue watching died. I was so disappointed at Joe
Mantegna calling a bunch of men ,sitting in a New York Jewish center cleaning weapons ,heros that common sense prevailed and I stopped. I am deeply
disturbed at the concept that Jews are not Americans and \"different\". I suggest that Mr. Mamet is one of the causes of hatred not a healer of same.
\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\nPere is an idiot, but he is aware about it and acts in consequence. His life is totally boring and he doesn't know how to change it. When his last friend, Nicco, dies. He feels totally empty and he decides to go out to become drunk. When he is returning home, he crashes with a girl that puts advertisements. Although she ignores him, he fells in love and starts to follow her, obsessively. Well the beginning of the film is a bit slow, and can result boring for most people. However, as action begins, it is a little better (not much!, maybe, the best part is the 5 minutes of sex (almost 30 different scenes about it) that you can see in the middle of the movie; it is not good for the erothism, but for the funny and unexpected that is the scene. Probably it is the best of the film. Neither the actors nor the directing is good, and the results is a boring film that that can result funny for some people (not for me). All the film is based on absurd situations (idiot, as the film says), that have anything interesting. I like Ventura Pons, but I have to admit that this is not one of his best films (maybe his worst!), he knows to do it better.
\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\nLeave it to geniuses like Ventura Pons, the Spanish director, to convince the higher ups in his country to subsidize this misguided attempt of a film. The sad state of the film industry in that country is a product of trying to make a film out of such thin material. Most of the pictures that are made in Spain fall under two categories: those about the Spanish Civil War, that love to present past history as the writers deem fit. The other type of films show the viewer with a lot of gratuitous sex because the 'creators' don't have anything interest to say.
As the film opens we get to watch Pere's penis as he attempts to cut it off and place it in one of the platters at a party. Later on, Sandra will show all she has been given for the audience to admire. The story of Pere's attraction to Sandra, a married woman that seems to be happily married, is false from the start.
Our only interest in watching the film centered on an earlier, better made picture by Mr. Pons, \"Amic/Amat\", but alas, it has nothing to do with the mess we are punished to watch in this venture. As far as the comments submitted in IMDb, all the negative votes come from Spanish viewers, which speaks volumes coming from 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\nAlthough the actors do a convincing job playing the losers that parade across the screen, the fact that these characters are impossible to identify with had me looking at my watch a mere 20 minutes into the film (and more than once after that). The plot development is disjointed and slow, the verbal diarrhoea of the main character's only friend is practically insufferable, the base quality of most of the characters actions and the cavalier way in which they are treating is annoying.
It is typical of Ventura Pons to put forth crass psychologically handicapped characters. However, this faux sociological analysis is a big step down from CARICIAS or Caresses, where the characters maltreat and despise each other for well founded reasons that play out during that film. In AMOR IDIOTA we are forced to follow the meanderings of a truly subnormal intelligence as he stalks a severely depressed and detached woman. Supposedly this is due to his own depression but the script doesn't support that. I won't give away the rest of the story just in case there are any masochists out there Is he cured through his obsession or is the woman shocked out of her own depression through his unwavering attention? Even though I watched the whole thing I wasn't made to care even for a moment about either of them.
If you can sit through all this prejudice, ignorance, betrayal, BAD dialogue, flimsy philosophy, etc the camera-work was pretty good and seems to be something inspired by the DOGMA group. The makeup also seemed to aim at showing these players in a raw and gritty light as it is the worst I've seen Cayetana Guillen Cuervo in any of her movies (while in person she is actually attractive).
I suppose if the idea is that we should be forced to see the lower strata of society so we can be grateful we are not part of it then Pons has achieved his objective. The barrage of nearly identical sex scenes was a proper waste of film (if the actors had been filmed but once in blue green clothing the background behind them could have been changed in the special effects studio for a pittance). True that I heard much of the male audience squirm in their seats during this but an objective viewing proves that was not the real aim of those scenes.
Save yourselves and watch something else.
\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 fails to offer anything new to a genre that has traditionally shown the cross cultural love story underpinned by the politics mid 20th century / pre-WWII India, where the British and their modern ways are bad and the primitive but honest and true Indians are good. Surely such clichéd depictions of the British are rather passé now.
Apart from the drama that fuels the second part of the movie the narrative is predictable, the acting is pedestrian and two-dimensional, and the directing obvious and unimaginative.
The story really needed to be fleshed out and would certainly have benefited from another half an hour of screen time to give the characters and narrative more depth and give the viewer something to feel some investment in.
All in all, rather uninspiring. Oh and Linus Roache just cannot do tragedy - going cross-eyed with emotional pain just doesn't work for 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\nDespite the mysteriously positive reviews and high rating, this is an awful movie. Awful enough, that l feel obligated to warn you how bad it is.
The movie is set in the final period of the Raj, during the time of India's fight for independence. What follows in the ridiculous plot just fills me with disbelief. What the characters do and how they behave just does not persuade me that the characters exist in that era.
For instance, would the young married Hindu housemaid from the local village have an affair with her married Englishman Master, knowing full well that discovery of the affair would likely mean utter social ostracization and shame if not mortal punishment? Unlikely, but still maybe. However, would the same young Hindu housemaid, in the conservative society of India of that era carry on like a half naked Britney Spears in heat, partake in hot outdoor sex during daylight in open view where they might be discovered at any moment? That is not only bloody unlikely, that is a retarded plot line.
Such idiocies combined with the poor acting, drove me to leave the cinema an hour into the movie, so i did not watch the second half of the movie. One could only hope the ending is of more intelligence than what i saw in the first half.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nLet me start by saying how much I love the TV series. Despite the tragic nature of a middle-aged man seemingly unable to pursue his dreams because of his overbearing, manipulative father, it was incredibly light-hearted and fun to watch in practice. In my opinion, it is without doubt one of the greatest British sitcoms of all time. The TV series has my 10 out of 10 rating without reservation.
This movie spin-off on the other hand is a true tragedy in every sense of the word. Hardly any of the essence of the TV show is transferred successfully onto film. This movie has a very dreary, depressing tone that almost moved me to tears on several occasions. Seeing Harold being beaten up in a pub (and not in a comical way) is not my idea of comedy but is most definitely one reason why fans of the TV series will not like this movie. The movie was painfully unfunny except for the scene where Albert bathes in the sink and is seen by a neighbour.
The romance between Harold and Zita is completely out of tone and it makes me wonder whether the producers of this movie ever bothered to watch the TV series. In the TV series, Harold always went after respectable girls, not strippers.
Albert's reactions to the remarks made against him by Harold's girlfriends were absolutely priceless in the TV series. In the movie, Albert says virtually nothing when such an opportunity rises.
Most movie spin-offs of British sitcoms tend to be quite dull, with the notable exception of the ON THE BUSES films (which in some respects were actually better than the TV series itself!). But, STEPTOE AND SON has to rank right at the very bottom of the pile, even below GEORGE AND MILDRED.
My advice - skip this one and see the second spin-off, STEPTOE AND SON RIDE AGAIN instead. It has a much lighter tone, is more faithful to the TV series, and is actually very funny.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"