empathielabs/imdb_v0 huggingface dataset:
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis was truly dreadful! It had a terrible storyline, was poorly acted, and was like an amateur remake of evil dead but not nearly as good.
It took all my tenacity to make it through this one, it's a good job I didn't have to visit the toilet else I doubt I would have come back! This one makes Hammer House of Horror look like a big screen Hollywood epic.
The only value to this movie was the never ending supply of beautiful women. Not a bad one among them!
If you want to letch with your friends after a night on the beer then this one's for you ... else avoid it like the plague!
\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 master of cheap erotic horror, Rolfe Kanefsky, finally makes a movie that doesn't go straight to the Playboy Channel. \"The Hazing\" borrows heavily from everything that came before it from Nightmare on Elm Street to Evil Dead, but still manages to do it with enough humor to make it watchable... just barely. The characters are cardboard, the dialogue is wooden, the story is paper-thin and the actors couldn't act their way out of a grocery bag. Put that all together and you have a pulpy ball of mulch for a movie. Sometimes, when I'm bored, I like to eat paper. Watching this movie is a lot like that. Chew on it for 90 minutes and you're left with a weird taste in your mouth and no nutritional value.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nNot exactly a new story line, but this romantic comedy makes the concept work. A young man(John Cusack) and a drop dead gorgeous woman(Kate Beckinsale)keep meeting by chance and wonder if they are meant for each other. Although both are promised to others...oddly enough they still feel that their soul mate is out there somewhere. A little sappy in some places, but viva la love. Being a romantic I am almost obligated to be riveted. My favorite scene is where Cusack is on the ground and snow starts falling. The finale is almost too sweet, but most deserving. This is not one of Cusack's deeper roles, but who in the hell could not be smitten by Beckinsale. Notable support is provided by Jeremy Piven and Molly Shannon. John Corbett plays the worst role I've ever seen him in. On the other hand Eugene Levy is quirky and funny. Watch this with your soul mate.
\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, for crying out loud, this has got to be the LAMEST movie I've seen all year, and I'm sorry the normally awesome John Cusack was even involved in this brainless, twitty piece of Stupidity. Where Sleepless in Seattle delivered what amounts to be the same message, albeit on a more subtle, somewhat more mature level, Serendipity delivers it with a sledgehammer, and then proceeds to pound it into your psyche for the next tedious hour and a half or so (and that's an hour and a half of my life I'll never get back again, thank you very much!!). It's bad enough the main characters of this movie have the emotional maturity level of fourteen-year-olds (actually I've known better fourteen-year-olds...), except maybe for Jeremy Piven, who was enjoyable enough. Just the first 15 minutes or so of the movie where Kate Beckinsale's character plays that annoying silliness of a game about throwing all sensibility to the wind (literally) had my best friend and I irritated beyond belief. I told my husband Rockstar had more intelligence, and at least, the characters in Rockstar weren't half as dysfunctional as the idiots were in this \"Serendipitous\" mess. It's annoying to watch protagonists who seem to have no clue about choice in their lives, and feel they're nothing more than puppets to destiny and the whims of fate. How utterly tiresome. I'm sure this movie will be more likely enjoyed by those who'd rather not engage in the chaotic messiness of making more complex life choices and then responsibly living with the consequences. After all, here's a movie where our hero and heroine live happily ever after only after wreaking havoc and misery on two other people's lives (namely their respective fiancées), not to mention other relatives and friends, just to get there.

\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWow, I can't believe people consider this a 'good' movie. Now, I have seen much worse, but there are much more romantic/funny comedies with John Cusack.
This is a mediocre film at best. While the acting wasn't terrible, but not great, for a romantic comedy, there was little passion, little romance. There were many loose ends that don't show up or are not addressed. Unfortunately, the main characters do come off as complete cowards. They don't know themselves well enough to realize that they don't love the people they are engaged to. How do we know they aren't in love? By the utter lack of remorse both characters have for leaving their finances. I can think of few things more romantic than the continual escape from commitment that these two show.
The movie doesn't even end with a wedding scene, more than likely both will get cold feet and drop each other like hot potatoes once a commitment is nearing. This movie is really about two people who can't commit to anything, unlike Cusack's previous characters, who were more than willing to make a deep commitment (Loyd in Say Anything, Martin in Grosse Pointe Blank, etc.).
The greatest failure of this movie was the complete lack of any twists turns, or anything of interest. When the movie ended, I felt like they had failed to include a climax to the story, which basically fits the whole movie: boring. No suspense about whether the two will end up together, no joy when they do, no consequences to their actions.
It is sad that people are so blind to the shoddiness of this movie, that they simply rebuke any criticism with 'Everyone is too Cynical!'. Criticism of this movie is not cynicism, simply unbiased examination. There are many other better romantic comedies, even ones with Grace Kelly, or Eva Marie Saint.
If you think this movie is great, try these movies, you hearts will explode: The Princess Bride, Say Anything, Grosse Pointe Blank, High Fidelity, Keeping the Faith, Charade, Rear Window, North by Northwest, or There's Something About Mary (which is a good examination of idealized romance vs. today's society).
\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 years I remember reading about this show \"Trouble With Tracy\" in the TV Guide. CFTO-TV Toronto every Saturday morning at 6 am! I lived about a two-hour drive north of Toronto and we couldn't get CFTO, but you know how it is - we always want what we can't have.
Well, I knew what I wanted and what I wanted was to see what this \"Trouble With Tracy\" was all about. Did it have a beautiful girl in the starring role? Was there nudity? Was there suspense? Was it a comedy? It would've been fine if there was some promotion of the show. At least I could've known what I was missing. But, NO! The mystery drove me bonkers, until CTV affiliate CKCO built a re-transmitter in Wiarton, Ontario and began to broadcast \"Trouble With Tracy\" at the same time as CFTO....Saturday mornings at 6 am!! One Saturday morning I got up and turned the TV on at 5:59 and at last I got to see what \"The Trouble With Tracy\" was. Yes, the \"Trouble With Tracy\" was that it was Canadian content and stuck in the harmless 6 am spot so no one would ever see how awful it was.
Talented Canadian Actor Steve Weston died a few years afterward, but many would argue he effectively \"died\" the first time he appeared on this show. When I saw it for the first time that cold Saturday morning and fell despondent back into my bed, part of me died, too.
\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\nCRIME BOSS is directed by Alberto De Martino; an Italian crime drama partially filmed in Hamburg, Germany. An easily forgotten movie. Even in spite of a good car chase sequence, this flick seems to lumber on almost aimlessly. A new Don takes over a powerful Mafia family and finds himself fighting for his own life. Unwritten laws and ethics of the Mafia code make it hard to trust in anyone especially when millions of dollars are at stake. Brutality and violence breed the same in return. This can not be put on a shelf with the real gangster epics. Just the look of the film brings back memories of American drive-in fare. Even the popular American actor Telly Savalas can't boost the calibre of this crime drama. Antonio Sabato also stars with:Paola Tedesco, Guido Lollobrigida, Serio Tramonti and Piero Morgia.
\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\nKojak meets the mafia. Telly Savales is one of those guys from the past that seems pretty forgettable. I never thought that his show was all that great. This is his one dimensional characterization of a crime boss, with very predictable results. If you take the car chases and the general rambling out, there isn't much plot development or action. I find mafia movies to be dull because I have no respect or interest in common criminals and their actions. Hollywood, and in this case, the Italian cinema, treat these guys as heroes. I saw the film and in a few days I won't remember much about it. Lots of shooting, innocent bystanders dying, betrayal, and that sick loyalty. The film is photographed pretty well and the acting is decent. But the dubbing is so bad (due to voices that just couldn't come out of those bodies), that I almost started looking for Godzilla approaching the bay.
\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 review of 'Freddy Mercury The Untold Story,' theatrical release, Chicago Int. Film Festival, 2007 One of the phoniest, uninspired and most tedious biographical documentaries I have seen. If the film I saw in a movie theater was originally released on TV, I would plead with its producers and distributors to not fool a paying audience with the false promise of a cinematically worthy documentary feature. Even as a made-for-TV documentary, the sentimental piano solos accompanying interviewees sitting in front of flower arrangements in hotel rooms and the pompous, pseudo-literary narration rang more true of a sleepapedic bed Infomercial. The only redeeming aspects of this \"The Untold Story of Freddy Mercury\" -- or, uhm, was it \"The Untold Story of Princess Diana\" are the original concert, video and TV footage -- unabridged Freddy Mercury and Queen. Testimonial interviews with irrelevant eye witnesses with insights, such as: \"He was a free spirit,\" (really.. I thought Freddy Mercury was a company man...) belittle those Freddy testimonials, by Brian May or Montserrat Caballe that shed new and affectionate light into Mercury's complex life and character. And... what up with the Harry Potter-like boarding school segments? How did the interview with the first girl-crush (\"...who now works in a travel agency\") and members of Freddy's first school band contribute to what I really want to know about Mercury? Vital milestones of his personal life, his sexuality, his artistic style and growth, Queen, the band remain unexplored. These filmmakers don't ask a single, provocative question, nor do they engage in independent or visionary research of their subject, instead delivering a tedious montage of politely clean and vastly empty comments about an enigmatic and brilliant rock legend, who doesn't deserve to be remembered by this History Channel biography your grandparents can doze off to on a Sunday night.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nYeah, I \"get\" Pasolini and his milieu, but at the same time, I feel his \"Decameron\" is largely overrated, and more than a little disturbing. Overrated because the supposed \"realism\" he introduces (milling crowds, crumbling architecture, etc.) are mooted by the absurd and downright goofy way that the characters behave. In the pursuit of realism, Pasolini utilized many non-actors, but their deer-in-the-headlights stares and painfully awkward line delivery gives the whole a terribly off-kilter and inconsistent feel. And frankly -- many of the toothless, misshapenly-featured people are painful to look at.
And Pasolini's \"Decameron\" is disturbing (to me at least) because of the casual and prevalent homosexual content. Not because I'm prudish or homophobic (I'm neither) but because the emphasis that Pasolini places upon homoerotic images and situations is contrary to the neo-realism he otherwise espouses, so it comes off as gratuitous and forced. One can almost hear him say \"Ooh--I've got to stick a cute, naked boy in this scene!\" At times it seems that Pasolini is trying to play up the homosexual angle to thumb his nose at critics, and at other times because he enjoys that aspect himself, regardless of what his audience might prefer.
The disjointedness of the 9 or 10 different stories in Pasolini's \"Decameron\" struck me as being a failing of Pasolini as a storyteller, rather than being an aspect of neo-realism. He seems to get bored with each story and so he wraps them up rather unconvincingly and with little conviction. Even the Pasolini's final line of dialog in the film, which some people seem to find pithy (\"Why create a work of art when dreaming about it is so much sweeter?\") -- to me, it just makes me wonder why Pasolini would bother making a film if he felt this way? In my opinion, a far better-crafted film (and with MORE homosexual content) is Fellini's \"Satyricon\". It is also full of bizarre-looking people and absurd situations, but it succeeds because of its pacing, direction and strong storytelling whereas \"Decameron\" fails by those same elements.
\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\nThough the title may suggest examples of the 10 commandments, it is a definitely incorrect assumption. This is an adaptation of 9 SEEMINGLY unrelated stories from Giovanni Bocaccio's 14th century \"Decameron\" story collection.
Set within a medieval Italian town's largely peasant population, it is a diatribe on the reality of sex (and its consequences) within that world and time. A realistic view of Life within this world, it sometimes feels like a journey back in time.
Given the depicted human element of its time, one can also see the more adventurous side of morality in its protagonists - as well as the ironies of Life, at times. Or it may also be viewed as a general satire of the Catholic Church's rules.
Nothing terribly special, but definitely interesting if one comes with no expectations or assumptions.
\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 tragedy is that this piece of rubbish was part of my curriculum while I was studying cinema. So imagine how I was forced to watch it in complete. Believe me going through hell is much much easier. Our professor told us that this is some film ???, but he never thought that we'd disagree or assume the apposite. I don't think that there is any gods on earth, we're only humans, so all the filmmakers, therefore they CAN make mistakes, bad movies.. Or very bad too. The main problem wasn't that art, by all means, is susceptible to endless points of view, but that a lot of people just don't get it, that every single human got his own genuine taste, his own opinion, hence what I suppose it the greatest movie ever made, can also be your worst one ever, and how that is right both ways, but how many people can understand this correctly?. So my professor believes in this movie, and simply I don't. However, the only way to evaluate this \"thing\" is by measuring it by its original intent to show us different kinds of old folk stories or whatever to catch on this society's mentality, imagination, and nature. To tell you the damn truth Mr. Pier Paolo Pasolini as the scriptwriter and the director made it too unbearable to watch in the first place. The movie is so UGLY. I can't stand this, so how about analyzing it, then discovering the potential beauty in it !! It's beyond your mind hideousness, and strangely not for the sake of the movie's case or anything, it's for the sake of the unstable vision of (Pasolini). His work is so primitive to underdeveloped extent. The deadly cinematic technique, the effective sense of silliness, and the incredible horribleness made everything obnoxious. Look at the atrocious acting, the unfruitful cinematography, the awfully poor sets, .. OH MY GOD I've got the nausea already. It can terminate your objectivity violently as watching this movie is one true pain like taking the wisdom tooth off by a blind doctor. There are dreadful nightmares which could be more merciful than this. So originally, how to continue THAT just to review it fairly ? Actually, you don't. As this very movie doesn't treat you fair at all. There is really memorable scene in here where some boys are peeing into the eye of the camera (!) I'm trying to connect some things like that with Pasolini's end as murdered.
\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 I am generally a proponent of the well-made film, I do not limit myself to films which escape those boundaries, and more often than not I do enjoy and admire films that successfully \"break the rules.\" And it is quite true that director Pasolini breaks the rules of established cinema. But it is also my opinion that he does not break them successfully or to any actual point.
Pasolini's work is visually jarring, but this is less a matter of what is actually on the screen than how it is filmed, and the jumpiness of his films seem less a matter of artistic choice than the result of amateur cinematography. This is true of DECAMERON. Pasolini often preferred to use non-actors, and while many directors have done so with remarkable result, under Pasolini's direction his non-actors tend to remain non-actors. This is also true of DECAMERON. Pasolini quite often includes images designed to shock, offend, or otherwise disconcert the audience. Such elements can often be used with startling effect, but in Pasolini's hands such elements seldom seem to actually contribute anything to the film. This is also true of DECAMERON.
I have been given to understand there are many people who like, even admire Pasolini's films. Even so, I have never actually met any of them, and I have never been able to read anything about Pasolini or his works that made the reason for such liking or admiration comprehensible to me. Judging him from his works alone, I am of the opinion that he was essentially an amateurish director who did not \"break the rules\" so much by choice as by lack of skill--and who was initially applauded by the intelligentsia of his day for \" existential boldness,\" thereby simply confirming him in bad habits as a film maker. I find his work tedious, unimpressive, and pretentious. And this, too, is true of DECAMERON. It is also, sadly, true of virtually every Pasolini film it has been my misfortune to endure.
\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\nUwe Boll has done the impossible: create a game adaptation that stays at least somewhat true to the game; he has turned a game full of antisocial and offensive content into a movie full of antisocial and offensive content. So, as an adaptation, it's a success.
Unfortunately, it's still Uwe Boll we are dealing with here, so don't expect the movie to be actually any good. while it does have it's moment, \"Postal\" wears out his welcome very fast and becomes a pain to sit through.
At its core, Postal is a satire on the United States, as done by a twelve year old kid. Boll seems to think that offensiveness is linearly proportional to comedic value: the more offensive, the funnier, and the more exaggerated the funnier. This results in a movie that sets new levels of tastelessness while being extremely hit and miss. Yes, some gags do work but it seems to be pure luck. High points include the director satirizing himself, and people getting hit very violently by trucks and other vehicles. Low points include..well pretty much everything else.
After the initial surprise wears off, Postal simply becomes a bore to watch. Yes there is a good joke every and good point ten minutes, but everything else consists of hordes of annoying characters shooting and chasing each other all over the place for what seems to be an eternity.
This probably would have worked as a short movie, but it's just not enough content for something that lasts over 90 minutes (although it feels twice as long). There are nice ideas and nice tries, but they get hopelessly lost in endless and pointless action scenes and content that is offensive just for the sake of it 4/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'm not going to waste my time writing an essay and waste your time. I would like to say, however, that all those who are uptight about this movie even being made are being totally ridiculous. Johnnymacbest, you can't play that card, and I mean the nationalism patriotic card, to make people not watch this movie. this is a movie that expresses its free will in this country (oh yea i played that card)even though the director is German and deserves a slap on the wrist every time he reaches for a camera, but the world is full of controversy, and its the same thing you've heard before, like the GTA controversy. It's a comedy, laugh and be disgusted, not disgusted all together, its dark humor and obviously you don't have the heart to take it, the past is past, yes people remember those who were lost but its time to move on, that was !!!7!!! years ago. You can still watch this movie and have good moral values.
Besides I'm insane, and who needs a soul?
\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 this is gona be short and sweet review...Something the movie should have taken a practice ina nd made its life shorter and sweeter than it was.
This movie is $^@%. There's a good reason there was a petition with over 40,000 + signatures ALL demanding Uwe Boll stop making movies from franchises people liked. Blood Rayne being a biggie there.
The jokes are good...if you've never heard them a THOUSAND times before. THe acting is descent but u can really only blame the script for that. I even a few moments wonder if they're even using a script.
The movie has little to NOTHING to do with the original games. HELLO if you've played the games u know the main character has no real motivation outside homicidal urges like mass murder because he stubbed his toe or simular. There's way too much story for such a stupid movie. like I said. I WOULDN'T even steal this movie. ANd for the person who says this is ' Funniest movie of 2007'..........need to take a look around, the news is better than 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\nI saw this movie at the Edmonton International Film Festival, with the great Dr. Uwe Boll in attendance.
The film is, simply put, very, very bad. And no, not in the usual Uwe Boll \"so bad it's actually entertaining\" way, but just plain bad. The plot concerns a man who leads a terrible life (because of a past criminal record, apparently), can't get a job, and with an awful 900 pound cheating wife. This man turns to his cult-leader uncle in a plan to steal a truck load of toys that contain the bird flu virus. Al Qaeda also has designs on stealing the toys, and what follows is just under two hours of completely incomprehensible sex and violence.
The acting is awful (except for Dave Foley, who really tries, despite it all), the jokes never rise above children being shot in the chest in slow motion, and people taking a poo. It's supposed to be satire, but I'm not sure of what.
Think \"Airplane!\", but done by the creators of South Park, and without any jokes.
\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 I could i would give ZERO stars for this one, but unfortunately i have to give one...
There is no single scene I could laugh about... but the game didn't make me laugh either. So if you're some ill retarded folk, go to your local cinema, watch this movie and give it 10 stars, like some people here already did.
but for me... in a movie where children are shot dead to achieve humor... good taste goes over the edge... this was the third time i wasted my time to see a Boll movie and it was definitely my last!
0/10... i'm ashamed of being from the same country as Uwe Boll!
PLEASE PLEASE KEEP HIM FROM MAKING MORE MOVIES!!!!!
\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 watched this movie at a Sneak Preview screening and I'm glad I didn't pay for it. This movie is just disgusting. Its full of dick and fart jokes and takes no pride in the action sequences(such as the shootout in \"Little Germany\"). I made a little list of things I enjoyed in the movie.. and a lot of which I didn't agree of.
1. Dave Foley's penis. 2. The fart jokes. 3. The Poop jokes. 4. The Dude was a pussy. 5. No Gary Coleman. 6. The Talibans 7. Again making fun of Bush.. WE GET IT HE'S AN IDIOT.. move on. 8. The Dude has blonde hair. 9. The Plot. 10. The killing of minors 11. Uwe Boll was in it. 12. Most of the cast were just outrages and out there.
Now the (few) good ones
1. The Dude uses a cat as a silencer like in the game. 2. Lots of action. 3. Crotchy made a return (and a cameo of the maker of Postal) 4. Uhm.. I didn't have to pay for it. 5. There are a few \"what the ef\" moments
Boll did it again. He made another crappy game into movie adaption. Kudos to you, Mr Boll. 2/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nToday, I wrote this review in anger at Uwe Boll and Hollywood.
Hollywood has produced movies based on one of the darkest days of our nation. 911 changed everything. It changed our perception of security. It changed our understanding of the evil of man and humanity. Most importantly and devastatingly , it changed our world.
However, I can't not stress how utterly repulsed, disillusioned, and angry I am at the careless, blatant ignorance of Hollywood seeking to make a lucrative profit out of death and destruction. This film and those like it are bound to cause controversy amid word-of-mouth among moviegoers and critics alike; most surely to be echoed by the mainstream press. Hollywood has sunk to a new low. Even lower than the low-down bastards who perpetrated the most barbaric acts of savagery and unrelenting cruelty. Behind it all is Uwe Boll. I am very angry at this movie. How dare they disrespect the memories of families of those lost? How dare they mock the lives of the brave men and women who risked their lives to save those trapped in the doomed towers on that fateful day of infamy?!?!? How dare they try to satirize and at the same time capitalize on a national tragedy in the mist of a mourning and weary post-911 world?!?!?! How...dare...they?
To those who have the gall to even think of seeing this morally appalling travesty, I say this with a heavy heart with all my strength: Remember. Think back to that day and ask yourself whether or not you are a sane and moral person. Think back to that day, ask yourself whether or not this film is a disgrace and dishonor to the lives lost on that day. Think back to that day of the outcry of families of loved ones. Think back to that day of the lives lost on those two planes. Think back to the further carnage it caused following the attacks.
Ask yourself if you have a soul.
Think. Remember. Respect the memories of the lives lost on 911 by not seeing this film at 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\n>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> With their no holds bar cruel offensive humor, sure enough to offended anyone, you would sure think this would be a laugh riot! ............wrong. Worest movie since Open water. Don't be to surprised if you completely miss this movie upon release date as I'm sure it wont do very good at all at the box office. This movie had a lot of Potential but fell to little to short. No enough character development, awkward actors and The upside of this movie was nudity. Boobs. Amazing. If I had to see this movie again, I myself would go POSTAl. <<<<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<
\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**SPOILERS**KHAMOSH is totally unrealistic, lacks a plot, and was basically only made to see stars portray themselves. The most suspenseful scene in the movie was when Shabana Azmi is in the shower and then we see her TV playing the shower scene from PSYCHO. This movie actually expected users to believe that Naseeruddin Shah's character has a good enough memory to remember where certain shots were fired and how many!
***SPOILER BEGINS***
At the end, the killer spills his guts to Shabana Azmi long enough to allow Naseeruddin Shah's character to run up and shoot him!
***SPOILER ENDS***
It is a little humorous (only a little) in the beginning to hear the director and cast members throwing insults at each other and hearing Shabana Azmi exclaim, \"Oh sh-t!\"
Overall, a baaaaaaaaaaad movie!
Rating: ** out of ********** (2 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\nWow You guys are way too nice!!!Corny,Corny,Corny That is how I feel about that film.It started well with a good idea , A guy (Edward Asner) escape from Jail dressed as Santa,a bunch of kids find him and believes his the real Santa so the Fake Santa enlist the children to help him find a bag of stolen money.the film is like a Christmas version of \"Whistle down the wind\". The movie start well but gradually it becomes Cheesier and Cheesier to the point that at the end it becomes ridiculous and you just cant take this film seriously. For example you get the Scrooge type character called Sumner (Rene Auberjonois) who's a total Douchebag who treat his young son like a pile a rubbish ,he treat his son so bad that he don't even buy him decent clothes,the poor kid wears Jeans with Holes in it! but a 45 second scene with Fake Santa visiting Sumner and by the end of the film you get the guy all happy singing Christmas Carol and giving his neglected son a hug...yep that is how Corny it is... I'm all for feel good movie especially during Christmas and I am a big fan of seasonal TV movie but this one is way too over the top for me,it is a shame because it started well but the second half of the movie is trowing a supernatural element to the film that just don't match with the rest of it. It's not totally bad,there are some solid acting , especially from the children but there are plenty of better Christmas film around.
\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 wonder who was responsible for this mess. The jokes wouldn't have worked for gilligan's island. If this had gone to series, would there have been jokes about Auschwitz, or would Eva have to replace her oven, only to have Adolf suggest the kind that seats 50?? Another post compared this show to I love Lucy. The problem with this is that Lucille Ball was a genius at physical comedy and bizarre situations, and this mess was just plain badly done and an insult to my intelligence.
After the damage the Nazi's did to England and the number of people they killed, I would think the very concept of a comedy about Hitler would seem repugnant and most normal people would have killed this concept before any episodes were produced.
\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 may be the worst show I've ever seen. Aside from the tastelessness of having a sitcom about Hitler, it just isn't funny or entertaining in any way. It is very similar to a 1950's sitcom in its cornball humor and contrived situations, but while it can be well done like in I Love Lucy, it's just not funny here. I think the show was based around the novelty \"look, it's Hitler as a bumbling sitcom figure\" but it just fell flat in every regard. The guy playing Hitler is so hammy that its hard to sit through that alone. I wonder what could have possibly made the network think this was a good idea to air. I thought America had some tasteless show, but the Brits had us beat this time. America would never air a sitcom about Hitler, although we did have that show about Lincoln's slave, The Secret Diary of Desmond Pfeiffer. Chances are you'll probably never see this show, since it only aired one episode and will probably never be released on DVD.
\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\nExcept for the Brady Variety Hour, this was some of the hokiest television I've seen in a while. The video production qualities weren't too bad, but the overall look and feel were unmistakeably early 80's. And Marie Osmond looks like she did battle with the Avon Lady.. and lost big time. WAY too much eyeliner.
It was kind of embarrassing to watch veterans Danny Kaye and Eric Severeid take part in this. Even more interesting was watching Alex Haley talk about the African Pavillion in World Showcase that would be opening 'in about a year.'
As of this writing it is 17 years later and it hasn't opened yet (Unless you count Disney's Animal Kingdom.) All in all though, for all the shortcomings, this still an interesting visual piece of Disney history.
\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\"A young woman unwittingly becomes part of a kidnapping plot involving the son of a movie producer she is babysitting. The kidnappers happen to be former business partners of the son's father and are looking to exact some revenge on him. Our babysitter must bide her time and wait to see what will become of the son and herself, while the kidnappers begin to argue amongst themselves, placing the kidnap victims in great peril,\" according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.
That acclaimed director René Clément could be responsible for this haphazard crime thriller is the real shocker. Despite beginning with the appearance of having been edited in a washing machine, the film develops a linear storyline. Once you've figured out what is going on, the engaging Maria Schneider (as Michelle) and endearing John Whittington (as Boots) can get you through the film. There are a couple of female nude scenes, which fit into the storyline well.
**** Wanted: Babysitter (10/15/75) René Clément ~ Maria Schneider, John Whittington, Vic Morrow
\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\nFrom everything I'd read about the movie, I was excited to support a film with a Christian theme. Everything about the movie was very unprofessionally done. Especially the writing! Without good writing a movie doesn't have a chance. The writer/director said in an interview that he didn't want to give away how the title relates to the story. Believe me, it was NO big surprise. I kept waiting for the teenage/young adult back-story to unfold, but it never did. As someone who has gone through a divorce, I was very disappointed. This movie would have been NO comfort to me when I first went through the emotional turmoil that divorce can bring to your life as a Christian!
\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\nDave is going through a divorce and his mind wanders back to his first love. \"Wanders\" is probably not the word. I should say he fixates on the past girlfriend. He recalls to the day when the relationship ended. The dream sequences only lack the hazy transitions. He fondly recalls their favorite songs and places they went. I'm not a counselor, but maybe this had something to do with the failed marriage???? Dave goes to a support group and meets up with a lady half his age (also divorced) who, instead of being \"turned off\" by his creepiness, starts to become interested in him. Did I mention how creepy Dave is? He sometimes refers to himself in the third person. He doesn't move his arms when he walks, either. It's just weird. Too make a long story short, Dave plots to hunt down Mary (the old gal friend) and kill her...err...I mean confront her. He does so. Which was really creepy. He believes her to be married, yet he STILL flies half-way across the country to meet her. He stakes out her house to make sure she is alone, before he \"drops in\" on her. He has an awkward conversation with her that ends with his sharing the gospel of Christ in about 10 words or less, and flies back to the new young girlfriend. We enjoyed the movie mostly for unintentional comedic value. I am still entertaining the wife with my Dave impressions....\"I heard another Dave & Mary song!\"
\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 was interested in seeing this movie because I knew it was Christian based. The director had a good idea/intentions when making this movie but it could have been better. I can understand why someone would still have feelings for who they believe is the greatest love of their life. However, I didn't understand why the director made his friends so insensitive, mean and rude. The main character kept apologizing to his friends when they were the ones mean to him. They weren't understanding at all and they used God as a reason to explain their behaviors. The main character, nor anyone else didn't know if the ex-girlfriend was divorced, still married etc but they were against him resolving old feelings that needed to be dealt with. His friends were suppose to be Christians and should have been portrayed as being supportive whether they agreed with his decision or not. So many times we do things in life where we don't apologize to those we have hurt in the past and when he was trying to do this they were all against him. The ironic part was his new female friend accused him of having stalking behavior for simply looking up an old friend, when she did a really odd thing to get a hold of his name, address and phone number...she seemed to be the stalker!. she didn't seem like a friend at all but was only looking out for herself. God is love...and I think God wants people to be with the person they were meant to be with and i feel the movie did a terrible injustice by making it seem like God doesn't care about true love...only that you stay with someone you made a bad choice with. We all make mistakes...it's all about what steps you take to make amends. Like I said the movie had potential but I was tired of the one-sided point of view being constantly repeated and jammed down the viewers throat by his so-called...well-meaning friends. This movie didn't hold true to the Christian belief of love but i give it a C for its effort.
\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 gave this more than a 1 because I did think there were some moral lessons in this story and it provoked some thought and comment from my wife and I. The acting and the dialogue were mediocre and I must confess I came out feeling like I had been beaten over the head with the God this , God that and Christ is our saviour stuff. The movie and the story line did not need it. If , as I am , you are a recovering Catholic or Christian avoid this one it will make you nauseous. The movie did a good job of demonstrating the thin line between being a good citizen and how someone could become a potential stalker focused on what might have been.
\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 watched the whole movie, waiting and waiting for something to actually happen. Maybe it's my fault for expecting evil and horror instead of psychology? Is it a weird re-telling of the Oedipal myth: I want to kill my father and mother and marry my uncle and compose musical theater with him? I didn't understand why certain plot elements were even present: why was the construction upstairs, why was there that big stairwell with a perfect spot for someone to fall to their doom if no one was actually going to do so, why have the scenes at all with the father at work, why have such a nice kitchen if you're only going to eat takeout, why would the boy want to be baptized and the parents be the ones to resist instead of the other way around. I see lots of good reviews for this movie...has my taste been corrupted by going up with 70s b-movies and old sci fi flicks?
\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 acting in the film is really well done honestly, but the movie is so slow and so boring, as soon as it gets interesting everything slows to a major halt. I am glad to see Sam Rockwell in this, he did a great job, so did the other actors as I mentioned but man... this is one of the worst dragged out films I have ever seen. Now maybe in a short film form this movie would be good, but other than that, avoid it. This film has so much filler it makes a Twinkie cake jealous.
I never, ever, walk out on films, but watching this one at home with family, I walked out. Yeah, it was that boring. Apparently my comment doesn't have enough lines to post, so here's some more filler. I guess I was inspired by the movie I just watched.
\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 \"Joshua\" is extremely disturbing, and downright pointless. It actually makes me shudder to think there are people who would enjoy watching it. Without giving away the story it is about a young boy's reaction to his newborn sister, and that is just the tip of the iceberg. During the entirety of this movie the viewer is subjected to some of the most unsettling child behavior imaginable. Adding insult to injury, by the end of this movie there is absolutely no real outcome except the fruition of pure evil at the hands of a child no less, who outsmarted a whole group of dumb adults. There is no redemption, no justice served, and a whole group of adults who are not smart enough to see what is going on around them. Frankly, I did not enjoy watching this movie. It was extremely unsettling. Even for those who might enjoy horror movies, this movie could be too much. Despite the fact this movie was well acted, the story itself is so disturbing that watching it was equivalent to a 90 minute wait in a dentist's waiting room in anticipation of some painful dental procedure.
\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 did not enjoy the film, Joshua, at all. Perhaps it is because I saw another, much better similar film titled Orphan 2 days prior but perhaps it's really just because this film was not very good. I am going with the ladder. Sure, the plot of an evil child is not exactly original but that doesn't mean the film could not succeed. It could have been suspenseful and entertaining and chilling but instead it was slow building, boring, uneventful and really didn't leave me thinking anything more than 'that wasn't very good' when it was all over.
At the end, Joshua's motivations are revealed. I won't give that away but the reality is that he didn't really accomplish his goals since despite Vera Farmiga as his mother, Abby, disappearing about 3/4th through the movie, all arrows point to her returning home soon. She was committed to a mental institution because she was losing her mind but then Joshua's Father/Her husband was accused of tampering with her medication which tells the audience that the institution realized that she was indeed not mentally ill but rather was being dosed medically. So.. shouldn't she be coming home soon? Won't Joshua have failed? Won't his Mother be living with him and his sister and possibly his Father soon? I question the Father since his future is left open ended.
At the end of the day, I didn't care about the characters. The evil demon child Joshua wasn't really scary. The storyline moved slowly and when it picked up it was still boring. Suspense fell flat every single time. When it was over I couldn't believe I had sat through the whole thing.
4/10 just because the acting was good from the parents especially Vera Farmiga as the Mother but if you want to see a movie about an evil 'child' go see Orphan. Now that's a movie that took an unoriginal concept and created a brilliant 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\nThough not a fan of Sam Rockwell, I was surprised when I saw his name in the credits in the opening of 'Joshua.' Heck, I wasn't even aware he was in 'Joshua' until I started the movie. So it goes without saying, I was watching the movie on the basis of the movie, not the leads. A sort of 'Rosemary's Baby,' 'The Omen' or any other demonic kid movie 'Joshua' was billed. Unfortunately, it fell flat. Slow, incredibly slow, and flat. Yet, I continued on to see how this would all resolve, hoping beyond belief, the ending climax would shed some light on the subject. Okay, I admit, it did (a wee bit) but what a stale closing. And what a low-low budget movie, or at least that's how they designed it. A person falls  you don't see the drop, you see someone lying down in what appears to be blood. A person gets hit by a cab  you don't see it, you see someone complaining, holding a bike up. I'm not sure if this is called \"style\" or laziness or simply, lack of funds for special effects. We have a \"rich\" family with a crazy mom, a workaholic father attempting to balance everything, a kid  Joshua, who may/may not be the antichrist and a new born baby girl who cries a lot. She cries as much as we see how many days she's alive  and what was that about? Are there rats above or is it Joshua? Is his mother nuts? Is Joshua crazy? Is he merely jealous of the newcomer to the family? Is he going to grow up to be Michael Myers? Or does he drive his family to the brink? I don't think so. They were nuts prior, and no \"so-called\" acting could make me believe otherwise. Unfortunately, barely any questions were answered, barely any open doors shut. I'm sure that might have been the idea, but for Pete's sake, give me something. Anything. There are plenty better kid-gone-wild movies to explore. Joshua's more like the Mini-Me of the antichrist.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"