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\nPossible Spoilers, Perhaps. I must say that \"Cinderella II: Dreams Come True\" is one of the worst movies ever made. First of all, the movie was made during the height of Disney's sequel rampage. It was created around the same time as \"The Little Mermaid II,\" \"The Jungle Book II,\" and \"Peter Pan II,\" all of which were disservices to their original film classics. (Disney also made \"The Hunchback of Notre Dame II\" and \"Atlantis II,\" but I'm going to drop that topic because their original movies were never really classics in the first place.\") Let me go ahead and say that I am an avid supporter of good Disney films, and I absolutely adore the original Disney \"Cinderella.\" The sequel to \"Cinderella,\" however, was a waste of time. The character of Cinderella in the sequel was so very unlike the original girl that I grew up watching. In the original, Cinderella was kind and loving. The new Cinderella had very out-of-character moments with current-era phrasing like, \"I'm going to do this banquet my way!\" Let me also tell you that new Cinderella (as I have affectionately named her) says, \"Ewww!\" That is the anti-Cinderella. I try to find the best in people, but in the sequel, Anastasia, one of the stepsisters, is good! What the heck? Why? They made it all out to be like Lady Tremaine and Drizella are just horrible family members for poor little Anastasia. My question to the world: did the people at Disney watch the original \"Cinderella\" when making this sequel? Well, it surely doesn't seem so. If I remember correctly, Anastasia was just as abusive to Cinderella as Drizella and Lady Tremaine. I am all for redemption and forgiveness, but there was no point of redemption for Anastasia in this movie. In the first one, Anastasia was evil. In the second one, she is good. One just can't leave a story like this. I hope Disney realizes that this movie, among other movies, is shaming Walt Disney's name. Perhaps now that Michael Eisner is gone, things will start shaping up around the House of Mouse.
\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 original is a relaxing watch, with some truly memorable animated sequences. Unfortunately, the sequel, while not the worst of the DTV sequels completely lacks the sparkle.
The biggest letdown is a lack of a story. Like Belle's Magical World, the characters are told through a series of vignettes. Magical World, while marginally better, still manages to make a mess of the story. In between the vignettes, we see the mice at work, and I personally think the antics of Jaq and Gus are the redeeming merits of this movie.
The first vignette is the best, about Cinderella getting used to being to being a princess. This is the best, because the mice were at their funniest here. The worst of the vignettes, when Jaq turns into a human, is cute at times, but has a lack of imagination. The last vignette, when Anastasia falls in love, was also cute. The problem was, I couldn't imagine Anastasia being friendly with Cinderella, as I considered her the meaner out of the stepsisters. This was also marred by a rather ridiculous subplot about Lucifer falling in love with PomPom.
The incidental music was very pleasant to listen to;however I hated the songs, they were really uninspired, and nothing like the beautiful Tchaikovsky inspired melodies of the original.
The characters were the strongest development here. Cinderella while still caring, had lost her sincerity, and a lot of her charm from the original, though she does wear some very pretty clothes. The Duke had some truly funny moments but they weren't enough to save the film, likewise with Prudence and the king. As I mentioned, the mice were the redeeming merits of the movie, as they alone contributed to the film's cuteness. I have to say also the animation is colourful and above average, and the voice acting was surprisingly good.
All in all, a cute, if unoriginal sequel, that was marred by the songs and a lack of a story. 4/10 for the mice, the voice acting, the animation and some pretty dresses. Bethany Cox
\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'll just put it out here, that was the Worst sequel to a classic Disney film I've EVER seen. In 1950, Disney released what I hail as one of his greatest films of all time. Now Take away the great songs, add a poor plot that resembles that of a lost TV show. \"Put it together and what do you get?\" the biggest load of Crud I've ever seen. After i saw this, I thought it was all over for Disney. Cinderella should've ended with, \"and they lived happily ever after.\" not this garbage. This film did not deserve a sequel like this. I thought it would be like \"A twist in time\" which was moderate but better than this. Also, What do we care of Anastasia? She switched sides like Iago did, but it didn't help anyone.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI've got a question for those who thought of this idea. Why? What made them think to make a second movie of this. If memory serves, didn't Cinderella end with \"They all lived happily ever after\"? I'm pretty sure it did, or it was implied. Wait a minute, if they all lived happily ever after, how could there be a sequel? Unless they were trying to make the most boring story in history, there couldn't be a sequel. I mean sure, they could have Cinderella singing about nonsense for two hours, but why? A movie that ends in \"happily ever after\" can not have a sequel; if it does then they don't live happily ever after! Something's got to go wrong which causes problems with the first ending! Why? That's not right, it's evil. That's my final word on the matter.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI've always thought that Cinderella II was the worst movie I've ever seen, (followed by Peter Pan 2, and some other sequels like The Lion King 2 and the Hunchback of Notre Dame 2). All these movies are made with the same idea; because the movie has no plot, they try to make up for that by filling it with jokes. I'm not saying the jokes are bad, but they make up most of the movie. The first time I saw the movie, I would have given it a 1/10. But now I think about it, most kids don't care how good the original movie was, they just care that the movie is entertaining. I still think the movie was a bad sequel, but that doesn't mean it's horrible. Now I think it deserves a 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\nI grew up watching the original Disney Cinderella, and have always loved it so much that the tape is a little worn.
Accordingly, I was excited to see that Cinderella 2 was coming on TV and I would be able to see it.
I should have known better.
This movie joins the club of movie sequels that should have just been left alone. It holds absolutely NONE of the originals super charm! It seems, to me, quite rough, and almost brutal, right from the (don't)Sing-a-longs to the characterization.
While I remember the character's telling a story through a song, this film's soundtrack was laid over the top, and didn't seem to fit. Jaq's transformation into a human is a prime example: Where he was walking around eating an apple and adding a few little quips in here and there, he should have been dancing around and singing about how great it was to be tall! And in the ballroom, there's old barn dance type country music. It's as though the writers forgot where and when this story was set. The upbeat fiddles certainly didn't fit.
Even the artwork and animation in Cinderella 2 isn't up to scratch with the original. The artwork in this film seems quite raw and less detailed. And we see part of Cinderella's hoop skirt, which doesn't feel right.
The movie itself could have been it's own story, I think that it should have been just that. I wouldn't say that I hate it, but I believe that it had many shortcomings. It seems to downgrade in a significant way from the beloved Cinderella original.
\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 you are under the age of 6 or 7, then you're going to really enjoy this movie. My youngest daughter is glued to the TV when she watches it. As an adult, I can't stand it!! I'm all up for sequels....when they have a decent storyline. But this is nowhere near up to standard. Please forgive me for slating what is after all a kid's film, but when you have to sit through it nearly every day when your kids who love it so much, you'll understand why. My daughter would watch this film over and over again on the same day if we let her.
I've given this film 4 out of 10 purely for the fact that it keeps my youngest entertained.
\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 had the displeasure of watching this movie with my girlfriend, who, like me, is a fan of the first. This movie down right sucked! It lacked the magic of the first. You could actually understand every word the mice said, the animation is crappy, the palace is much much different from the first movie, there's new characters that were never mentioned before and were terrible, luckily the Prince didn't have many lines which kept him from sounding stupid. Basically its like The Lion King 1 1/2 except its different stories all told by the mice. The reason I'm giving this a 2 out of 10 is because the songs not sung by the characters were the most enjoyable.
\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\nAssassin Hauser's (John Cusak) mission is to whack a Mid-Eastern oil minister, whose name happens to be Omar Sharif (Neikov), in the country of Turaqistan which is run by American interests. Hauser poses as Trade Show producer to allow him to get to Omar.
Sometimes a satire can be so overdone it becomes most annoying. Here it does too much: the government, politics, music, war, people not generally accepted by society, and did I mention \"war.\" And, that is what we have here - a most annoying movie that borders on a very bad nightmare brought to life. I am still asking myself why I continued with the DVD. Also, there are so many Cusak family members in this that John Cusak appears embarrassed by the family just being there, or is that just me?
It used to be that a John Cusak movie, while a little offbeat, was, in the end, rather good. Not here. Believe that John Cusak had a hand in the writing and producing of this mess. Make of that what you will.
There is too much going on in the movie accompanied by constant gun-fire, bombings, and shouting that you really cannot focus or was that the point? Probably. It just takes too long to set up the hit, which is largely forgotten until the last 15-minutes. In the meantime we have meaningless banter among all in the cast. And, chemistry between John Cusak and Marisa Tormei? I don't think so, but you know: the boy  girl thing and they needed something to take up more time.
Yes, for what they were supposed to be, (offbeat and annoying) the performances of Duff, and Kingsley were good. But, when I saw Dan Aykroyd's character, in the beginning of the show, sitting on a toilet taking a dump, I knew the rest of the show would go to the tank as well. I was not wrong. I am sure some will sing praises of this effort, but if a rose is still a rose by any other name so, too, is a mess
I now remember why I continued with the DVD. I was hoping that the story would somehow level out and save itself. Never did.
Violence: Yes. Sex: No. Nudity: No. Language: Yes.
\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 really wanted to like this, but in the end it's a poorly made film with too few laughs.
The politics are spot on, it's gonna offend the hell out of republicans but that's what it's designed to do. That alone gives me reason to chuckle.
The problem is, it looks like it was made in a REAL hurry (like about a week). And it contains a stupid subplot about some bimbo singer, which seems to be completely off topic.
Turiqistan is obviously Iraq, or Afghanistan, or any other number of countries the US has f**ked with since the 50s. The humour is a little dark (amputees dancing with prosthetic legs made by Tamerlane corporation) but it IS on the mark, especially with the corporations cashing in on the reconstruction (\"democracy lite\"!)
However like a lot of satire criticising the US, it seems terribly heavy handed and laboured. I guess it's running counter to so much bs propaganda so it has to bludgeon people over the head to make a point. Who knows. I prefer more of a nudge, wink approach - a bit of subtlety. But that's just me.
Anyway I might watch it again, perhaps I missed something.
I'm hoping \"W\" is more on the 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\nWar, Inc. - Corporations take over war in the future and use a lone assassin Brand Hauser (John Cusack) to do their wet-work against rival CEOs. A dark comedy satirizing the military and corporations alike. It was often difficult to figure out what exactly was going on. I kept waiting for things to make sense. There's no reason or method to the madness.
It's considered by Cusack to be the \"spiritual successor\" to Grosse Point Blank. I.e., War is more or less a knock-off. We again see Cusack as an assassin protecting *spoiler* the person he's supposed to kill as he grips with his conscience. To be fair, John Cusack looks kind of credible taking out half a dozen guys with relative ease. The brief fights look good. The rest of the film does not. It's all quirky often bordering on bizarre. War Inc's not funny enough to be a parody, and too buoyant for anyone to even think about whatever the film's message might be, which I suppose might be the heartless ways that corporations, like war factions compete and scheme without a drop of consideration given to how they affect average citizens. Interesting, but the satire just doesn't work because it's not funny and at its heart the film has no heart. We're supposed to give a damn about how war affects Cusack's shell of a character rather than the millions of lives torn apart by war.
John Cusack gives a decent performance. His character chugs shots of hot sauce and drives the tiniest private plane but quirks are meant to replace character traits. Marisa Tomei is slumming as the romantic sidekick journalist. There really isn't a lot of chemistry between them. Hilary Duff tries a Russian accent and doesn't make a fool of herself. Joan Cusack just screams and whines and wigs out. Blech. Ben Kingsley might have to return the Oscar if he doesn't start doling out a decent performance now and again. Pathetic.
It's not a terrible movie, but in the end you gotta ask \"War, what is it good for?\" Absolutely nothing. C-
\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\nEven the first 10 minutes of this movie were horrific. It's hard to believe that anybody other than John Cusack would have put money into this. With a string of anti-military/anti-war movies already being destroyed at the box office, it's almost inconceivable that a studio of any kind would want itself associated with this script.
At first, it may have seemed like some kind of politically motivated derivative of Grosse Point Blank with Akroyd and Cusack(s) all over again. But only about 90 seconds into the movie, it becomes obvious that this is a talentless attempt at DR STRANGELOVE.
I liked so many of Cusacks movies that I thought I would risk seeing the DVD of this one. I have to say that I don't know if Cusack is sane enough for me to even watch another feature starring him again unless somebody else can vouch for it. Cusack seems to be so irreparably damaged by his hatred for George Bush and the Iraq war that he is willing to commit career suicide. Tom Cruise was never close to being this far gone. Not even close.
\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\nQuite possibly the worst movie that I have ever seen. When has Hollywood ever made a successful movie that attacked Republicans? Why don't they learn. The Dixie chicks haven't. These Lefties live in their own elite bubble interacting among themselves; oblivious to the fact that most of America is much further right than they are.
The best Hollywood productions are not partisan and are rarely political at all.
Dan Akroyd's imitation of Cheney was bad.
I would have thought Cussack could have landed better movies.
It wasn't funny.
\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\nJust utter trash. I'm a huge fan of the Cusacks, this being the sole reason I watched this movie, but the only reason I can see for their presence was the reprise, in complete and depth less quality, their exact roles from Grosse Point Blanc. Apart from that, the films' role as a political satire fails miserably as being too obvious for even the most moronic out there to serve any purpose. And to bill it as a satirical satire would be just plain insulting even to chimps. Imitation is, apparently the highest form of flattery, but seeing as though this is nothing near Grosse Point Blanc and in the same league as meet the (watch if your a moron) Spartans in terms of political satire, lets leave well enough alone and let this one fade into the obscurity it absolutely deserves.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWith this cast and budget you will expect more.
John Cusack has made a number movies that border on the strange, yet still work. Neither he, his sister, nor Sir Ben could do anything to save this travesty of trite poorly written garbage.
The movie is nothing more than a series of sight gags and poor ones at that. The plot goes nowhere, the writing is contrived, senseless and the characters paper thin. If you think of a movie as being three dimensional where the story and characters bring a depth to the imagery, this stinker comes across as flat as steamboat mickey.
Dan Akroyd's appearance in this brought back memories of another truly awful movie, 1991's Nothing but Trouble. Frankly this movie is the type of project that kills careers and gets agents fired.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFirst things first: I'm not a conservative. And even though I would never refer to myself as a liberal or a Democrat, I was opposed to the war in Iraq from day one. I think it's safe to say John Cusack and I would probably see eye-to-eye on politics, in fact, I'm sure we'd become drinking buddies if we ever got to talking about how great Adam Curtis' BBC docs are. My point is this: don't discredit this review by thinking I'm not a part of the choir Cusack is preaching to in War, Inc. There's no question WI's politics are tailored to appeal to my demographic, but the problem is, the tailoring is substandard and the the film Cusack co- wrote, produced and stars in, fits worse than a cheap suit.
As they say \"the road to hell is paved with good intentions.\" Cusack, his co-writers, director Joshua Seftel and even the actors involved, no doubt had every intention of making an anti- war film every bit as biting and funny as Robert Altman's M*A*S*H, unfortunately for the viewer, they ended up with one as unfunny and unintelligent as Michael Moore's Canadian Bacon.
The current state of US politics, foreign policy and the war \"effort\" is already absurd and, as a result, tragic, pathetic and, regrettably comical -- just watch The Daily Show and see for yourself. The bottom line is: you can't write material as funny as what the Bush administration provides us on a daily basis, so why try to compete?
The main problem with WI is that it feels it was put together in a hurry. To get it done, Cusack basically cannibalized Grosse Pointe Blank (one of his best films), changed the setting and crammed in a shopping list of ideas lifted from the collected works of Naomi Klein. Most of these ideas are rammed down your throat in the first twenty minutes of the film and what makes them so obnoxious is none of the jokes or gags or deliberately obvious references to Halliburton, the Neo-Cons and the US occupation of Iraq, are imaginative, clever or funny. The writers are so blinded by their \u0010own dogma they felt that by simply referencing these issues the film would be funny and subversive. The trouble is...it isn't. By now these ideas are yesterday's news and unless you've been living under or rock or are so blinded by ignorance, denial and sheer stupidity (read: a right-wing Christian), these jokes insultingly simple.
Perhaps WI would work if it was more nuanced, subversive, offensive and fattened up with detailed research/insights into the Occupation. As it is, the jokes and sight gags are all surface and are so bad, with so little finesse, subtlety or satirical wickedness, they did little more than make me groan. Homer Simpson once said \"It's funny 'cause it's true\" and The Daily Show proves this every night; War, Inc. however proves that just because it's true doesn't make it funny. The bottom line: hyperbole isn't required when it comes to lampooning US/Neo-Conservative politics...it's already a big enough joke.
http://eattheblinds.blogspot.com/
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film tried to be too many things all at once: stinging political satire, Hollywood blockbuster, sappy romantic comedy, family values promo... the list goes on and on. It failed miserably at all of them, but there was enough interest to keep me from turning it off until the end.
Although I appreciate the spirit behind WAR, INC., it depresses me to see such a clumsy effort, especially when it will be taken by its targets to reflect the lack of the existence of a serious critique, rather than simply the poor writing, direction, and production of this particular film.
There is a critique to be made about the corporatization of war. But poking fun at it in this way diminishes the true atrocity of what is happening. Reminds me a bit of THREE KINGS, which similarly trivializes a genuine cause for concern.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI wanted to see an action comedy with a satirical twist (as this film was touted) but this one failed me miserably. For me, the plot was a bit confusing to follow and I rapidly lost interest. I feel so sorry for John Cusack, Joan Cusack, Ben Kingsley, Marisa Tomei and Hillary Duff for getting involved with this movie. I'll remain a fan of all of them but only time can heal my feeling over this one. The one thing I can say positively about the film is that Hillary played Yonica's character so well that I didn't even recognize Hillary; it took me a few scenes to realize that it was her. Luckily I rented it for $1 through Red Box; had I paid to see it in on the big screen, I would be really fuming!!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI guess I am coming late to the party. I just saw this 1995 version of Bye Bye Birdy on Sky TV. I didn't know it existed and was fully prepared to see the 1963 film version when I turned it on.
I played Albert a long time ago and I am thinking of putting on an amateur production of the show because I remembered it as being so much fun to do. I was not impressed with this newer version. It just wasn't enough fun. It was not colorful. It lacked the exuberance of youth. The lighting was bad. No one seemed to mention this fact. This is not a moody musical, it is bright and up beat. The lighting decision was a poor creative choice.
Bye Bye Birdy is a farce, a comedy of errors. I got no sense of that in this version. The lighting was awful and it dulled the overall performances. The dance numbers seemed anemic as well. We do have music videos these day. At least the dance numbers should have measured up to some of the best of those, or how about some of the best of Broadway. The choreographer was asleep at the wheel it seemed.
Although all the actors were supremely talented, there were some really bad casting choices. Vanessa Williams is not Latin, and with so many talented Latin performers out there, wouldn't it have been more correct to cast one of them in the role of Rosie. Vanessa is African American, lovely and talented, but bad casting. Jason Alexander's effort was astounding, he always does intelligent work, but he just wasn't Albert. He was miscast and I think that is obvious to most people who see this version.
The medium of film is not the medium of stage. There needs to be translation from one medium to another. The exuberance and the flash of stage musical must be TRANSLATED to film. There is no merit being faithful to a stage script when it is being filmed. The spirit, the essence of the production must be brought forth. To me the 1963 film production of Bye Bye Birdy was bright and lively, while the 1995 production was as gloomy as the lighting and as lackluster as the dance numbers. It turned out to be an unfortunate waste of effort by many really talented people.
\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\nIn my humble opinion, this version of the great BDWY musical has only two things going for it - Tyne Daly and the fact that there is now a filmed version with the original script. (OK Vanessa Williams is good to watch.)But to me that's all there is. Most of the cast seem to be walking through the show - Chynna Phillips has no idea who Kim really is and no wonder people walk over Harry McAfee when it's played by George Wendt who looks like he'd rather be back on a bar stool in Boston. Jason Alexander is passable, but that wig has to go and I saw better dancing in Bugsy Malone. As I mentioned, it's good to have a version of the stage script now, but I hope the young out there, who have never seen a musical, DON'T judge them all by 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\nNeedless remake, and it can't come close to capturing the charm of the original. The extreme length causes more than a few yawn inducing parts. This version is ridiculously politically correct. The film lacks style, and mostly it lacks talent, not just with the acting, but the direction, sets, costumes etc. are all below par. It has a blatant disregard for period detail. Vanessa Williams is the only cast member that shows any flair, Tyne Daly isn't too bad. They should have left well enough alone. The singing ranges good (Vanessa Williams) to poor (everyone else). Watch the original 1963 version and skip this one. There is not much here to recommend.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhy? Because for one reason, there has never been a more adorable scene in any film than Ann Margret singing \"Bye Bye Birdie\" at the opening. She reprises it again at the ending, too (in a different mood!). Both wonderful. Rent it and see. Even if that's all of it that you watch. You'll agree, I'm sure.
Everything about the original was so excellent it just didn't need a remake, sorry! Jason and Vanessa gave commendable performances, as well as Tyne and Chynna. In fact, all the actors and singers in this new version were giving their 'all,' but it's like trying to improve on \"Casablanca\" -- it just can't be done! It's even annoying finding yourself comparing the two mentally as you try to appreciate the remake, and it just falls short, through no fault of the actors.
\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\nJason Alexander is a wonderful actor, but it's ridiculous to cast him as a cuddly romantic lead. The fact that he dances so well, croons so effectively, and throws himself into the part so completely somehow just made him seem all the more creepy. In his more cutesy moments (with the girl in the train station, in the final number with Rosie), I couldn't take my eyes off him he was so repellent. You keep expecting him to drop the nice-guy act and start snarling. Vanessa Williams was the real star, the only performance that was better than the 1963 movie. By the way, if you see a production of the stage musical, the 1963 movie and this 1995 movie, you'll see three versions that have more revisions (different songs, same songs assigned to different characters and in different situations) than any other musical I've ever seen.
\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 hadn't been forced to watch this for work reasons I never would have made it past the first 10 minutes. And even then I admit I fast forwarded through parts. The '63 film version was vastly superior in all regards. Yes, I've read this one is more faithful to the original play, but what a wise thing it was for the writer to change the script in '63! It's overlong, it drags, the songs that are in this version and not in the film version are boring and unimaginative. The version of \"Kids\" in the '63 version was very funny and a true classic of sarcastic parent humor. In this version the Kim is way too old, the Conrad is *absolutely horrible* to behold (when someone ripped his shirt off him I shuttered in disgust...the director of this version has no idea what sexy is.). This Conrad can't dance, can't sing (he can't even stay in tune) and is simply repulsive. If Elvis Presley had really been like that his career would have been over before it began. As for the other actors, well I kept waiting for Alexander's toupee to fall off as he danced and Daly was totally over acting as Momma. See Stapleton's performance in the film version to see the same role properly executed by someone who understands comic timing. This TV version is nothing but a total waste of anyone's time.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film concerns the story of Eddy as mentioned in the title and his homecoming to old friends in a seaside community. The plot involves the group of friends as it comes to light that Eddy left as a means to deal with death of a friend in which he feels in some way responsible. But this is inconsequential, as the choices made in the production are extremely poor and not fully realized. Screenplays not always need be 'chatty', but they should at least assist the development of the story. Here one line attempts such as \"he just took off\" or \"I know you don't have love in heart\" just do fully evoke something worth the audience's time. Also whenever the writer feels at a loss to where to go to next he cuts to a music montage of the protagonist walking through fields to some indie mood music. Talk about trying to hard. If you are interested in a good film, the type that gives quality and substance over just style then this is not the film for you.
\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 go to UCSB and take some classes with the executive producer, Alison Anders. She's a superb teacher and director so anything she put her name on, I thought must be pretty good. This film as a selection at the Santa Barbara film festival seemed like a good choice.
While this movie included some nice shots and cinematography, the lack of story and coherence really took away from anything the it was attempting to accomplish. My main problem was that this was someone's first film and you could obviously tell. Bad acting and an even worse screenplay stopped this film from getting off the ground. The soundtrack had some nice music that gave a sense of the main characters struggle to cope with the sadness that lead to his leaving and now returning the place he grew up. I just have to say that despite some of the better craft of the film, it's lack of story and performance really prevented it from being some good.
\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 in some aspects Seven Pounds is solid and interesting in some of its narrative style, Gabriele Muccino's project is rather mediocre. The movie becomes more and more sappy and manipulative as it move toward the end: hearts human and emotional, eyes physical and metaphorical. Seven Pounds is more of an amateurish imitation of Alejandro González Iñárritu's Amores Perros and 21 Grams, with lots and lots of flashbacks. The problem is the story is quite predictable from VERY easily on through the movie. That's too bad, because Seven Pounds could have been as authentically \"good\" if Ben and Emily had been put in the right hands.
\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\nQuite frankly it seemed like seven hours of boredom as well. What is it? What is it about Will Smith that I just can't stand any longer? I guess he just seems too hellbent on being taken seriously and obtaining an Oscar. I understand how bias this is, but unless he undergoes some new acting lessons I can't ever see him winning one. He's a huge name and is therefore generally confused with being a talented and diverse actor. He's just not. I give him credit for trying so hard, and being able to cry at the drop of a hat. That's about it.
Seven pounds was kind of an eyeroller for me, right from the start. The suicide 911 call didn't intrigue me in any way. I wasn't curious to know why he was calling in his own suicide. There were absolutely no surprises. The best I can say is that Will Smith and Rosario Dawson had some decent on screen chemistry. Also, I don't know her name, but the hispanic woman did an excellent job with her role as a scared and beaten wife. Woody Harrelson had very limited screen time, but I'd say he stole the show whenever he was on.
All in all, just an extremely run of the mill unoriginal plot. I couldn't help asking myself the whole way through why I cared about any of these people. Never once felt sorry for 'Tim/Ben'. He killed himself with a jellyfish? Was the only survivor in an 8 person accident? Geewiz..didn't see any of that coming...
5/10 is pretty generous.
\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 considered myself to be quite melancholy, especially when I watch a great touching and tear-jerking movies. But not for this one (which surprised me!) and it is also really surprising me to see how many people praised this movie so highly.
There are several disturbing facts throughout the movies: 1. Despite guilt-ridden Ben's real intention to save 7 lives to redeem his past, I find it disturbing that the film seems encourage this type of suicidal action. Some people may perceive this is a heroic action and some others think he behaves cowardly, in the end this was a disturbing action to me.
2. The movie story line is over-dramatized, but the logic is over-simplified. Medically, blood type match is required to be an organ donor. Toward the end of the film we learnt that Emily had rear blood type that limited her chance to get the donor within short time period. Nevertheless, it seemed that Ben had the rare blood type, same as hers which allowed him to be her donor and conveniently, despite the rarity of Ben's blood type, he was able to donate not only his heart, but also his kidney, his cornea and his bone marrow which in all cases require not only matching blood type but also tissue antigen.
3. Why the doctors allow Ben's organs being donated despite the jellyfish venom he used to kill himself?
I might be over-analyzing the whole story as after all this is just a movie. However, some disturbing facts outlined above hopefully will help you reconsider your plan to go to watch this movie. If you go for a soap-opera type of film, go for it. But it you go seeking for an intelligent entertainment, give this one a miss!
\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\nSEVEN POUNDS: EMOTIONALLY FLAT, ILLOGICAL, MORALLY DISTURBING
The movie was distributed in Italy as \"Seven Souls\". I was curious about the original title and, after some research, I found out that it refers to Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice, where the usurer Shylock makes a terrible bond with the merchant Antonio, who will have to give him a \"pound\" of his flesh, in case he is not able to repay his debt. Whereas the Italian translation makes Ben's plan something deeply human, characterized by human sympathy, the original one, though cultivated enough to remain unperceived by anyone, makes it, just in its reference to the flesh, something cold, rational, deep-rooted in the physical side of man. Unfortunately, I think that the real quality of Ben's plan is revealed by the original title: it'a a cold machination, aimed at \"donating\" parts of his body, but lacking any authentic human empathy, at least the audience is not given the chance to see or perceive any pure relation of souls within the whole movie. The only exception is the love-story with the girl, which seems to be a sort of non-programmed incident, to which Ben yields, but incapable of conveying true emotional involvement. I really didn't like the idea at the core of the movie: the idea that a person, however devoured by the pain for the death of his beloved and of other people he himself has caused, takes the resolute decision to expiate his sense of guilt through suicide: besides being improbable, it makes no sense. I would have liked, and I think it would have been more positive if, in the end, Ben had decided to abandon the idea of committing suicide and go on living, thus helping those same people, and maybe many more, just standing near them, and helping them through his presence. He wouldn't have saved their lives miraculously, of course: this would have probably caused more suffering, but I think it could have been more constructive from a human, and moral point of view. There are many illogical and disturbing things: the initial reference to God's creation in seven days (which, by the way, according to the Bible, are six!): what does it mean? And what about a woman suffering from heart-disease which prevents her from running and even from singing without feeling bad, who can have normal sex with a man who, feeling, as it should be, destroyed by the death of his wife and having donated organs and pieces of his body, doesn't seem to feel so much tried, both emotionally and physically, from his impaired condition? The movie is saved by good acting, but all the rest is pure nonsense, not only from a logical point of view, but also from a human and emotional 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\nWhat can I say about Seven Pounds...well I watched on a flight from Seattle to Tokyo and as that flight was long and boring the movie definitely didn't help. Will Smith's character Ben Thomas is almost completely unlikable even with his redemption in the end. The movie's two hour plus run time wastes most of the screen time with random garbage that just strings the plot along as slow as possible. In the movies defense Rosario Dawson's character adds a little life to the film although not much. I don't understand how anyone could actually cry during this film when all I wanted to do was turn it off. Also Will Smith kills himself with a jellyfish at the ended proving that killing yourself with a jellyfish is the stupidest way to die.
\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\nBrides are dying at the altar, and their corpses are disappearing. Everybody is concerned, but nobody seems to be able to figure out why and how this is happening, nor can they prevent it from happening. Bear with me. Bela Lugosi is responsible for this, as he is extracting spinal fluid from these young women to transfuse his ancient wife and keep her alive. Continue to bear with me. Finally, the authorities figure out that somebody must be engineering the deaths and disappearances, but of course, they can't figure out the improbable motive. Let's just ignore the ludicrous pseudoscience and move on... If you can get through the first twenty minutes of this mess, you will be treated to Lugosi whipping his lab assistant for disrespecting one of the brides he has murdered, explaining that he finds sleeping in a coffin much more comfortable than a bed, and other vague parodies of real horror films (the kind with budgets and plots). Anyhoo - a female journalist follows her nose to the culprit (and remarkably the inept police are nowhere to be seen!), and then the fun really starts.
The cinematography and acting are OK. There are a lot of well dressed, very good looking people in this film. The directing is fair, and the script is a little better than the material deserved. Nevertheless, this film fails to sustain the interest of all but the most hardened b-film fan. The best thing about it.... It does eventually end, but not soon enough.
\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 Poverty Row horror pictures of the 1930s and '40s depress the hell out of me. God knows I have nothing against low-budget films, but the ones produced in that period have such a dreary, shabby look about them--and, in the final analysis, just aren't very good. \"The Corpse Vanishes\" is slightly more entertaining than bottom-of-the-barrel dreck like \"The Invisible Ghost\" and \"The Ape Man\", but it's no classic. Bela Lugosi, long past his \"Dracula\" heyday, plays yet another mad doctor; the unbearable Elizabeth Russell plays his wife. They sleep in coffins because, as Lugosi explains to a doubtful young female reporter (Luana Walters), a coffin is much more comfortable than a bed. Ho hum. Angelo Rossitto and Minerva Urecal are also on hand, which might please hardcore fans of '30s and '40s films.
\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\nOnly the glandular secretions -- and please don't ask for any more details -- of young virgins can keep the rapidly deteriorating body and mind of the crazed old amateur horticulturalist's wife fresh and youthful. Since, like most people except those taking part in medical trials, virgins seldom give up their secretions willingly, Dr. Lorenz (Bela Lugosi) arranges for them to be abducted and preserved. He'll do the extracting himself.
What a great cheese ball of a premise for a low budget horror movie. If The Corpse Vanishes turns out not to be the Havarti of horror, as a plain limburger it leaves an interesting aftertaste.
Sure, the acting is almost awful except for the actors fortunate enough to be playing the crazed dwarf (Angelo Rossitto, who later played The Master in Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome); his crazed brute of a brother, Angel (Frank Moran), who grunts a lot and has a fetish for the virgins' hair; the crazed mother of the two (Minerva Urecal); the crazed wife (Elizabeth Russell), who sleeps in a plush coffin and, of course, the crazed doctor (Lugosi).
An enterprising young reporter, Patricia Hunter (Luana Walters) tracks down the doctor because of a strange orchid with a peculiarly sweet odor that had been worn by the victims. When the doctor and his wife invite Pat to stay the night, a raging storm immediately breaks out. That clue tells us some raging violence is about to erupt inside. Since it's well known that in Hollywood at this time all unmarried young women were virgins, Pat may have some unpleasant surprises to deal with. They include dark passages, a crusty laboratory where a near dead virgin is stored, a basement mausoleum and, later, a direct threat to Patricia's own glandular secretions. If she survives, what a story she'll have to give her editor.
If you sample this moist slice of moldy Velveeta (and why not? Don't be superior), don't judge Bela Lugosi by the company he keeps here. He had a huge impact in Dracula (1931), but my favorite movie of his is The Black Cat (1934). As Dr. Vitas Werdegast he's a sad, ironic man protective of his two young friends. When he finally takes a scalpel to Hjalmar Poelzig (Boris Karloff) and begins to flay the man alive, ah, well, it's a great scene.
\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\nJust looking at the sets, staging and editing it is easy to tell this project lacked a proper budget. Maybe Bela Lugosi is meant to take your mind off of things like that. Young brides drop dead at the altar after saying \"I do\". Their corpses are stolen by a renowned horticulturist Dr. Lorenz(Lugosi)and a couple of his freakish minions as his aging wife(Elizabeth Russell)needs injections of the glandular fluids of the young virgins to remain forever young...forever beautiful. An eager local cub reporter(Luana Walters)realizes that each missing bride wore the same rare orchid to the altar; an orchid in which Dr. Lorenz would be most knowledgeable. A typical horror movie storm brews making a visit to the Lorenz estate a bit spooky; especially with a dwarf and a slobbering hunchback on the premises. Other players: Angelo Rossitto, Tristram Coffin, Minerva Urecal and Frank Moran.
\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\nBrides are dying at the altar and their corpses are vanishing. No one knows why or who, but an investigative reporter (Luana Walters) notes that each bride was wearing a strange orchid and she goes to interview its creator, Dr. Lorenz (Bela Lugosi). Now Dr. Lorenz is a mad scientist with some strange habits, including sleeping in coffins and injecting his elderly wife (Elizabeth Russell) with the fluid of young brides to keep her young.
The Corpse Vanishes has an interesting premise and a short enough run time that it shouldn't be able to get boring. Unfortunately, while it starts off quite well, it does start to drag before the halfway point and gets rather boring with its clichés and predictable plot.
There are some good things about it-Bela Lugosi is charming and evil and performs brilliantly; Elizabeth Russell is also a beautiful, suave, aloof and very creepy countess; and I'm always a fan of Angelo Rossitto. Luana Walters is also convincing as the reporter here.
It maintains a bit of a Gothic atmosphere and the sets are decent.
But overall, it just didn't manage to hold my interest through the whole picture, and for that, I have to rate it poorly.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"