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\nI'll keep this short; thanks to Greg for helping me to put this succinctly: Captivity is about a guy who drugs a girl's drink, imprisons and tortures her, then poses as a captive to have sex with her. That is the single twist and punchline of the film. It's torture as slow motion date rape. And, it's not even a good movie. It's not so bad it's good; it's just bad.
It should also be mentioned that among critics, there is a \"spoiler code\" that they dare not break, even though some were tempted to on this one because it is so vile. Why NO ONE had the cojones to step up and say, \"this is garbage, and this is why,\" is beyond me.
Don't give your money to these poop-peddlers.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhen thinking about Captivity many words come to mind. Among them are: uninteresting, unentertaining, unsuspensful, unsexy, unfathomable, and unwatchable.
I used to hate those movies from the mid to late nineties that were basically ripoffs of Scream but these new Saw knockoffs are beginning to make those films look like classics. They still pander to the same demographic that those other movies were so successful at doing, but now they add a new level of degeneracy that make the twelve to fourteen year old girls they're aimed at feel like they're hardcore AND hip.
This movie is a load of boring crap! What the hell has happened to Larry Cohen? His name hasn't been attached to anything good since 1993! Even so, I was still surprised to see that he had anything to do with something THIS bad! Was anyone surprised when the movie's love interest turned out to be one of the psychopaths? Did anyone not know it when they first saw him? Only someone who has never before in his or her life, ever seen another 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\nIt's one of those dramas that's so bad that it almost hits the point of being very funny, the script is absolutely dire, direction appalling, lighting purely armature, the only thing letting it down from a true so bad it's good feel is that the sound design is only quite bad; it adds no suspense to the story although trying hard, but doesn't at least destroy any speeches. There's continuity problems of seasons of out door shots throughout. And finally last but not least the acting is appalling. For a professional production it very much has the feel of a university media project you have to feel sorry for the sorry for anyone who had to put their names to 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\nFrankly I'm rather incensed that on the basis of the dazzling reviews attributed to Steven Smith I wasted nearly two hours on his debut offering. Have they all been written by his pals? The action clunks along, the music is irritating and over used, the script is simply dire and the actors (with the exception of the gardener) mediocre at best. I do think we should support the efforts of a young filmmaker but saying it's brilliant when it's not will surely only encourage him to make the same mistakes again i.e. continuing to write his own scripts and using the same actors for another venture. Yes, it's his first film, low budget etc. - I get it, but it's also out there for members of the public to purchase and it's just not up to scratch.
\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\nHappened upon a copy of this. Not mine and if I had spent my own money on this I'd be finding those responsible and demanding it back! All I can say is this would be a terrible student film. Any understanding of the medium of film is absent. Acting is god awful, the story would have been rejected from the original Twilight Zone series as unoriginal and lame, and the change in tone of the lead character's reaction to the 'ghost' is laughable.
I can only agree that the 'glowing' reviews of this film are from friends and family. I'm afraid it's not even entertainingly bad.
Amateur in the extreme!
Avoid! Avoid! Avoid!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'm basing this on my observations of one episode I saw last night (9/27/06). I don't think I'll be watching again. The acting was totally wooden, the plot completely predictable, the ending totally unrealistic -- I mean who would believe a 30 million dollar judgment for the death of a recovering drug addict with terminal cancer? The lead actor (Victor Garber) seemed so uncomfortable, almost embarrassed in his role -- perhaps he realized how bad the writing was!! I fully realize that the drama offered this season is pretty poor, but they can surely find better writers. Maybe they are outsourcing the writing to India or China!! I'll bet we won't be seeing this one next season!
\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\nTo be honest i had heard this was pretty bad before i decided to watch it, but i'm never one to let others influence my viewings, in fact i'm more likely to watch something out of defiance!. Bullwhip had one thing going for me before the viewing anyway, the fact that Rhonda Fleming and those gorgeous eyes was in it had me interested right away. The picture isn't very good, and is in fact very morally dubious, all the characters are corrupt and shifty in one way shape or form, all motivated by greed or egocentric victories, this is all well and good if the surrounding film can do justice to a bunch of despicable people and create a taut climax shuddering picture. Sadly it doesn't, and as the finale fills your eyes with sugar you can't help shouting out that you have been cheated into watching a pretty bad film, nobody in the cast come out with any credit, with lead man Guy Madison painfully wooden in the extreme.
Not even the lovely Rhonda can make me recommend this to anyone, 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\nThis is a well-worn story about a man who marries to escape the hangman's noose, then sets about \"taming\" his reluctant bride. It manages to be sexist and racist at exactly the same time. We never find out, for example, why a woman who won the respect of an Indian warrior is completely unable to fight back against her erstwhile husband. Or why the members of her team are so eager to get a \"real man\" in the saddle when she seems to have been taking care of things just fine on her own. This only made sense in fifties Hollywood.
There's a really stupid scene where she horsewhips him and he actually catches the whip--the second time--then yanks her off her horse. Never mind that the first time probably would have lost him an eye, which would make it pretty hard to grab that whip! Then, he prevails in a fight against her Indian bodyguard where he spends the first two thirds of it getting beaten to a pulp. That's some second wind. Later, he successfully negotiates with some bloodthirsty Indians (as they all are in these flicks) after they reject her now she's his \"squaw\". Never mind that he has zero diplomatic skills and she's been negotiating with them for years. And the way he keeps rejecting her attempts to seduce him just to keep her keen and keep her from getting a hold on him--yeah, right. Like the women are just throwing themselves at him all the way down the trail.
Finally, neither of the leads is convincing in their roles. Madison is just a jerk who gets unrealistically lucky. Fleming flips her hair and scowls a lot, but is totally unconvincing as a fiery tomboy. The only reason you'd root for her is because you want to see Madison get tied to a runaway horse and dragged over a cliff before the film's end. The way that Madison tames Fleming is so predictable and has so few obstacles that it will irritate the heck out of you if you see women as anything but blow-up dolls. Even if you do see them as dolls, the total lack of suspense will bore you.
Total waste of time. Even the scenery's kinda dull. Give this one a big 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\n\"Don't bother to watch this film\" would be better advice, if you like Marilyn Monroe in her other roles. This was a huge disappointment considering the great cast, not just Marilyn.
The story was just nothing, certainly nothing like described on the VHS box, of course. There simply was no suspense, precious little excitement and too many dull spots, most of them trying to show why \"Nellie\" (Monroe) was so messed up. This was not a good role for Monroe, even though I didn't need to see this character to know she could act. \"Some Like It Hot\" alone was good enough evidence for me. But this role just didn't fit her and it's no surprise it wasn't one of her more popular films.
It's also too bad a film had the waste of the talents of actors like Richard Widmark, Anne Bancroft, Elisha Cook Jr., Jeanne Cagney, Donna Cocoran and others.
Summary: it's not entertaining and entertainment is the name of the game.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nNow I'll be the first to admit it when I say something that may be blasphemous or unfair, so I would like to apologize in advance for my ranting about how much I disliked this movie.
That about sums it up too. I disliked this movie. To be more specific, I disliked the concept of this movie. The cinematography was good. The mood was nice. And the acting was satisfactory.
However, the story is fatuous, unacurate and misleading. It is also offensive.
I am a quarter Cree Indian, and for some reason I feel insulted, on a personal level, by the nature of Whitaker's character. First of all, he's a black guy. And this isn't a racist remark, I swear. The thought of a White, Hispanic or even Native American swinging a katana on a rooftop offends everything that the katana represents. The katana represents the soul of a Samurai, imbibed with the souls of his ancestors who guide and protect the Samurai. For Ghost Dog to use his guns instead of the Katana is also an insult to the blade and the souls inside, and where the heck did he get a Katana anyway? It must be one of those replicas, which insults the Samurai caste even more.
Also, Ghost Dog showed no honor. Near the end of the movie, he shoots a bodyguard in the back through a window and then assassinates a man by shooting him in the face through a faucet drain. Not only is this a cowards way to kill an enemy, it's more like a ninjas way; silent assassins; a group that samurais deny exists, but hates none-the-less.
Then he tries to kill his boss, when he finds out his boss is a baddie. You know what a true Samurai does when he learns his master is proven bad or dishonorable? He kills himself, to prove that he would rather die then lower himself to the level of his doggish master.
Everything about the character was a giant contradiction to the real code that all Samurai adhere to: Bushido.
So, we have great cinematography, good ambiance and so-so acting encompassing a satiricle plot and premise, (which unfortunately is the most important aspect of it) , making it an unsatisfactory overall film, and an insult to everything a honorable bushi(samurai) holds dear.
2.5/10 Bleah
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSpoilers
Well, the one line summary says it all. Melville´s \"Le samurai\" is the original and there are elements of \"Leon\". And they are better - much better!
In the \"Samurai\" Alain Delon is a lonely warrior / professional killer who keeps a bird in cage and is stealing cars for his jobs (with so much suspense in these scenes!). Even the end is exactly the same: the samurai seeks death in dignity and is getting shot with an empty gun in his hand. The world has changed he realizes and there is no place for the samurai in it.
Delon is not killing so many people like the Ghost dog. But I guess Jarmusch liked \"Leon\" very much or even \"Desperado\" by Rodriguez. So he added this, too. And let me guess: the girl will become a professional like Ghost dog (like Natalie Portman in \"Leon\")?
So what was Jarmusch thinking after all? Where is the unique, the original thought in this movie?
I can´t see the point in making carbon (celluloid) copies.
A 4/10 rating by Macaulay Connor
\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 remembered the title so well. To me, it was a Flora Robson movie with Olivier and Vivien Leigh in supporting roles. And it had Vincent Massey's voice from behind whiskers. Well Flora Robson was great. Her next signature, for me, would be \"55 Days at Peking\". The same role but with different sumptuous gowns. And the same voice. As for the Armada, it was a subtext. I like black-and-white films. Was everything done in Elizbethan times at night? It was talky and difficult to fathom, at times. I couldn't tell which was the love interest. Was it the Spaniard or was it Vivien Leigh? And I do not believe that Elizabeth I would have been the brilliant strategist to recommend that fire ships be sent against the Armada. Apparently it worked for the Empire, but not for the script. This might have been more accurate, historically, but Bette Davis had more engaging scripts. And I missed daylight!
\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\nOther than the great cinematography by the marvelous James Wong Howe in the battle scenes, this film is a true stinker.
This is the second film that I've seen in recent days directed by Alexander Korda. The first was Charles Laughton's \"Rembrandt.\" It was so lousy that I shut it off. This one I'm afraid is not very much better.
Flora Robson is as ugly as ever as Queen Elizabeth. Perhaps, her performance as the virgin Queen was good for 1937 standards but when you compare it to that of a Helen Mirren, it is absolutely no match. In robotic fashion, Robson states her lines. Her battle message to the English troops is so lackluster in spirit.
Even a dashing Laurence Olivier can't save this utter piece of boredom.
Future wife Vivien Leigh is in a supporting role here and she doesn't really convey anything here. To think, that Scarlett was 2 years later!
It's a shame that history with the Spanish Armada is made out to be so boring in this film.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFirst of all, this film can be divided into three segments. A promising opening, with the ambushing of some cavalry by the Cheyenne. This is followed by what can only be described as a long boring middle section, with the totally miscast Candice Bergen and \"Soldier Blue\" traveling together to reach the safety of an Army garrison. Miss Bergen spews forth inappropriate four letter words every time she opens her mouth, and looks like she just walked out of a 1970s Jack Nicholson movie. I mean she maintains zero interest, with zero believability. The third and final section involves the totally gratuitous slaughter of an Indian village. This is so obviously overdone to lay on the anti-war propaganda, that it comes across as simply long, outrageous, and contrived. Not recommended. - MERK................................ Jacobe (comment above) Here's an idea. Why don't you actually watch the movie you are commenting on, instead of chirping your liberal nonsense. This is not a political site, it is for reviewing films. - MERK
\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\nSoldier Blue is a movie with pretensions: pretensions to be some sort of profound statement on man's inhumanity to man, on the white man's exploitation of and brutality towards indigenous peoples; a biting, unflinching and sardonic commentary on the horrors of Vietnam. Well, sorry, but it fails miserably to be any of those things. What Soldier Blue actually is is pernicious, trite, badly made, dishonest rubbish.
Another reviewer here hit the nail on the head in saying that it appears to be a hybrid of two entirely different movies. What it is basically is a lame, clichéd, poorly acted \"odd couple\" romance - Strauss and Bergen overcoming their prejudices about the other's lifestyle and falling in love (ah, bless) - bookended by two sickening massacres which wouldn't have been out of place in a Lucio Fulci splatter flick.
There is no excuse for the repulsive, prurient, gore-drenched climax, in which cute little native American children are variously shot, sliced, dismembered and impaled in loving and graphic close-up, and large-breasted native American women are molested, raped and strung up - no excuse, that is, except box office. (The massacre itself, whilst repulsive in its misplaced intention, is very badly staged and shot; a bunch of actors lying around with bright red paint smeared on them, intercut with a few special-effects sequences of beheading/dismemberment - dismemberments, incidentally, which utilised real amputees in their filming. Now that's what I call exploitation.)
Forget all the pap you've heard (including the ludicrous commentaries that begin and end the movie) about this being a \"protest\", an indictment of American brutality towards the native peoples. This film doesn't give a stuff about the plight of the Cheyenne; had it done so it would have featured some involving native American characters, would have led us to get to know and to care about the nameless, faceless innocents who get slaughtered at the climax. Instead what we get is the silly white bread romance of Bergen and Strauss (lousy actors both, in this at least), with plenty of blood, guts and severed heads thrown in to attract the curious.
Which is a terrible shame, because there is a movie to be made about the Sand Creek massacre, about all of the real life massacres the US (and Britain, and all so-called \"civilised\" nations) have participated in over the centuries (Iraq?). this just isn't that 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\n**Spoilers contained**
I'd heard from various sources that this film was controversial and that the ending in particular was horrific. What I didn't expect was the complete change in tack with about twenty minutes to go. What starts off as a typical cowboy/indian western suddenly descends into a very dull romantic 'comedy' about Honus (Soldier Blue of the title played by Peter Strauss) and Cresta (Candice Bergen) who escape an onslaught of the cavalry by the Cheyenne. The majority of the film then focuses on these two mismatched people hence the romantic comedy bit. Donald Pleasance then turns up and abducts them both for no real apparent reason. They then escape and both turn up (separately) at the cavalry base on the eve of an attack on the Cheyenne base. As Cresta used to be married to one of the Cheyenne chiefs she escapes the cavalry base and joins up with them. So far so ordinary. Then comes the ending. After enduring well over an hour of poor acting involving a cliched will they/won't they get together storyline, the movie then transforms into over the top exploitation involving among other things a decapitation and a child being shot in the back of the head. Similarities can be drawn with the Wild Bunch at this point of the film but the Wild Bunch kept the same tone throughout and didn't resort to extreme gratuitous violence. In some ways, Soldier Blue reminds me of Frank Perry's Last Summer which also completely changed tack for a shock ending. I didn't hate Soldier Blue nor find the ending particularly disturbing but just found it to be pretty dull with an unnecessarily violent ending. If you want to see a film with a truly disturbing slaughter of the innocents, I would recommend Elem Klimov's Come and See.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA badly-acted two-character comedy-drama abruptly transmogrifies into a weren't-we-awful-to-the-Indians polemic, with lousy special effects, exploitative use of nudity, and ugly violence. It's as sincere as a politician's handshake, as obvious as a car salesman's pitch, one of the worst movies in the history of the universe. Absolute and utter dreck.
\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\nSTRANGER THAN FICTION angered me so much, I signed up on IMDb just to write this review. STRANGER THAN FICTION is a surprisingly complex, touching and thought-provoking movie until the very end. Once you suspend multiple lapses of logic (why didn't Will Ferrell hear Emma Thompson's voice 10 years ago when she fist started writing her book? \"The phone rang. The phone rang again.\" How could she not know it's him calling? etc.), the movie challenges one's thoughts about mortality, fate, and sacrifice.
The brief history of literary themes provided by Dustin Hoffman should especially entertain former English majors. And Maggie Gyllenhaal is always a pleasure, even though Will Ferrell might just as easily be an ax murderer as a bumbling soul. Her quick trust of him is a mighty big leap of faith.
Ah, but the ending. Until the very end, I would have given 9 out of 10 stars to this movie. The movie as a metaphor for life's journey, as a tribute to the notion of 'writing true,' as a reminder that great literature is either comedy or tragedy, but not both, is outstanding. The entire movie leads the viewer to understand and accept the moment of Will Ferrell's fate. And no matter how endearing a character he may have become, we know full well why we will accept the ending. The last act occurs, the screen goes white, the credits roll. A profound and powerful end to an almost perfect film. An end that would have been debated for weeks.
NO!!!!!!!!!! No credits rolled. Say it isn't so. Say Hollywood didn't tack on another 10 minutes of crap that completely undermined the integrity and heart of the movie. Dustin Hoffman got it right when he said, \"It's no longer a masterpiece; it's OK.\" An apt review of the movie. Except to me, it wasn't even OK. I was so offended about the betrayal of 'writing true,' about the decision to pander the film that I actually burst into angry tears explaining this on the ride home from the movie. I don't often cry. I could care less about most movies, but I am still angry about this one.
My questions for Zack Helm, the writer, are this: did the original movie end when the screen went white? And were you forced by the vapid movie powers-that-be to tack on an ending unfaithful to the core of the movie? Or did you tack that maudlin ending on yourself? I've read you're brilliant. I hope your original script ended the movie the first time.
I know Zack Helm will never see this review, and I've been unable to find a contact for him to ask myself. But, please, movie-goers, am I the only one who feels this way about STRANGER THAN FICTION? One good thing came from me seeing this movie: I doubly admire LOST IN TRANSLATION now.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA horribly pointless and, worse, boring film. Stranger Than Fiction has nothing new to say about anything, no characters beyond the most unimaginative stereotypes, and relies on a clunky central concept that is neither particularly original nor dealt with in a vaguely innovative way.
Will Ferrell is totally wasted in what he presumably hoped to be his answer to Jim Carey's Truman Show, and substitutes his usual shouting routine (admittedly very funny if you discount Talledega Nights) for, well, pretty much nothing.
Emma Thompson is no more than mildly irritating (that some reviews I've read here are talking her up for an Oscar nomination is laughable) whilst Maggie Gyllenhaal does a passable job with a very weak script that allows nothing beyond establishing her character as a former law student who dropped out of Harvard to become a baker because she liked making people happy. Please. That she ended up falling for Ferrell's 'character' is utterly ludicrous.
Marc Forster's attempts to jazz up the film using computer graphics only serve to highlight the uninspired the material he has to work with.
I had the choice of either going to watch The Prestige for the third time or seeing this. I wish I'd opted for The Prestige.
\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\nDick Foran and Peggy Moran, who were so good together in THE MUMMY'S HAND, return for this very minor Universal Horror offering. But this time, instead of having Wallace Ford as the comedic sidekick \"Babe,\" we get Fuzzy Knight substituting as a silly buddy named \"Stuff\". But the results are nowhere near as charming, and the scare level is virtually nil.
Dick is a businessman who gets the idea of spearheading a treasure hunt on a remote island inside a spooky old castle. Peggy is one of the gang who comes along for the ride. But there is a tall and skinny John Carradine lookalike in a black cape and big hat known as \"The Phantom\" who crashes the party in pursuit of the buried fortune himself.
This \"phantom\" is not very mysterious, and no effort is made to even try and keep his rather average guy face in the shadows to create any tension or spookiness. It's always nice to see perky Moran, but otherwise you can chalk this up as one of Universal's instantly forgettable misfires.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA lot of people seemed to have liked the film, so I feel somewhat bad giving it a bad review. But after sitting through 96 minutes of it, I feel I have to do so. Where the heck is the plot in this film?! I must have missed it, I was waiting for the storyline to unfold and nothing happened. Sure the ending was \"somewhat shocking\" but they didn't build up to it. I forgot who was who half of the time, so they didn't really develop the characters. The acting was so-so, most of the time it was believable, but I was able to see through it most of the time. So... without giving anything away, I must say that unless you like the actors in the film, there is no real reason to watch this movie. I could be mistaken, but I just didn't understand why there was so little, or too much of the film. I can't decide which one that would be, so I say judge for yourselves. I don't even know if renting it would be a good idea, the cost and all...
Plot: 0/10 Characters: 1/10 Acting: 2/10 Overall: 3/10 I feel like that's too high really, I am staying with my vote up at the top.
\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\nThey must issue this plot outline to all wannabe filmmakers arriving at the Hollywood bus station. They then fill in the blanks and set their story in whatever hick town or urban ghetto from which they just arrived. You know exactly what this movie is about from the opening shot, four young boys playing in grainy slow motion, accompanied by voice over narration. Next stop after the bus station must be to buy stock footage of four young boys playing in grainy slow motion. Once they're grown, it's easy to spot the writer/director among the four. He's the quiet, contemplative, long-haired one who is never seen without his composition book tucked in his pants. This means that his superb writing talent will be his ticket from Hickville to Hollywood. Only there's no writing, or directing talent on display here. And if you still can't figure out which one he is, here's a hint: The auteur and his character have the same middle name. It took over an hour to figure out that these twenty-something men were supposed to still be in high school. What looked like a prison was apparently a high school, the warden turned out to be the principal. Once more, the poor, misunderstood rebel can pound everyone in the movie into the pavement, murder and pillage, but is powerless to stand up to his alcoholic father. How about hitting back, kid, like you do everyone else? Numerous fist fight scenes for no apparent purpose. Howlingly bad dialogue. Many scenes badly out of focus. Cartoon characters keep popping up as bit players and extras, drawing unintentional laughs from the premiere audience. Overacting in the extreme. And if you don't quite get the self-important speeches, or the slow-motion scenes, just listen to the overbearing music. It will clue you in and what you're supposed to feel. Poor Marisa Ryan must be racking up lots of frequent flier mileage as she travels around the country working in these amateur regional films. The biggest sin is that the audience is supposed to feel sympathy for kids who gun down old ladies, run over puppies chained to a tree, rob and steal, all the while complaining about their sad, sorry lives. But if only we could get out of this hick town and go to college. Yeah, that's the ticket. Why is it that every twenty-something filmmaker believes that his life so far is so important, so interesting, that the world can't wait to see it onscreen? If this movie is as autobiographical as it seems, then the auteur better be looking over his shoulder for policemen bearing fugitive warrants.
\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 acknowledging some nice cinematography, I can hardly say anything positive about this movie. The single real issue is the protagonist's dilemma whether to remain with his childhood friends in the world of misery or to leave them and take up his own life. Abundant \"emotionally powerful\" scenes do not go with this plot and, because of bad acting, they also fail to create the intended atmosphere. The director only manages to introduce Anthony's dilemma and eventually brings an easy solution. The characters do not seem to evolve, although it is difficult to speak of any characters... perhaps except for Sonny. Beside him, actors do not get to play much and when some of them have to, they come off as self-indulging amateurs. I wonder what ruined the movie more: the superficial script, throwing away all the potential of the plot, or the bad acting, disturbing any appeal that might be left.
\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\nTotally ridiculous. If you know anything about poker, you will find it absolutely appalling but also entertaining because it is so clueless. The nerd who made this movie is obviously very religious and knows slightly about the game of poker, but I doubt he's ever played above 3-6. (I think he also knows nothing of golf.) Where to start. I've seen better productions in the Intro to Film class I took freshmen year of film school. The actors to watch in this movie are Queen Momma, Scotty Nguyen, and the loser who can never win at poker. Everyone else is as wooden as they come, like bad porn actors.
*Spoiler* The man the movie starts with in the opening sequence is the only reason the film got made. He is a railbird who doesn't play poker and never has a line of dialogue, but the actor is the man who obviously paid for the movie. I can't think of a more useless waste of money than this man shelling out for this pointless production. It's fitting that he had such a useless role.
There's very little poker in this movie. Most of the time is spent on useless side characters whose plots aren't resolved in the slightest. Queen Momma does have a show-stealing scene where she throws her loser boyfriend through a window and tries to shoot his brains out. Also the nameless Arabs in the convenience store also give brilliant performances when they debate whether to beat up or kill an older lady who robs them. Their subtle performances are easily among the film's highlights. It makes you wonder why they bothered getting all these white people to play the leads.
In conclusion, complete nonsense. Plan 9 from Outer Space has slightly more coherency. If you play poker though you might want to have a laugh. Also if you're Christian you might enjoy some of the heavy-handed religious conversation that pepper the movie like pointless pepper. I hate movies made by religious people. Especially ones who think they know something about things they know nothing about. It's sad that Jennifer Harman and Scotty Nguyen got involved in this travesty as I can't help but think less of them. They must be envious of Johnny Chan for getting in Rounders.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAs a poker enthusiast I was looking forward to seeing this movie - Especially as it had Scotty Nyugen in it.
Basically, Scotty Nyugens short spots in this film are all it has going for it.
The characters are unlikeable and annoying, the soundtrack is awful and the plot, well, there isn't one.
I honestly got a headache and found myself reading the barcode number on the DVD box after twenty minutes I was THAT bored. Its actually ashame that Nyugen was in this movie as otherwise I wouldn't have wasted $16 buying it off Ebay.
Take it from me - AVOID like 7 2 offsuit!!! Dire. :(
\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 writer/director of this film obviously doesn't know anything about film. I think the DP on this project was tied up and replaced with a monkey, because every seen was either too dark or had the hotter hot spots than the sun.
The story was awful, the characters were very one dimensional. For someone to have said that this film was made for poker fans and not film fans, that someone is kidding their self (it was probably the writer/director). No poker fan in this world likes this movie. Even your money man hates this project. To go into a casino and play a few hands doesn't give you the experience to write about poker. Keep your day job. And if it's playing poker, then you must be hurt'n.
\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 30 minute documentary Buñuel made in the early 1930's about one of Spain's poorest regions is, in my opinion, one of his weakest films. First, let's admit that 70 years later, Spain is much richer than it was then (and when I say this, I fully admit that wealth can bring problems of its own, like excessive individualism and consumerism, though all in all wealth it's a far better condition than the extreme poverty portrayed here). And if poverty receded in Spain it was not exactly with the sort of socialism that Buñuel favored, but with Western European style capitalism. But one of the most shocking things about the movie is this: in one scene, the narrator chides that in school, children are taught the value of Pi. Teaching math to poor people, the horror!. Buñuel shortsightedness is at its most glaring here, not realizing that it is access to the latest knowledge and technology what will help the poor overcome their situation. What is he proposing? That children are taught exactly what at school? Doesn't Buñuel understand that it is the lack of modern technology that has made them poor in comparison with other 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\nWith this film, Bunuel manipulates the viewer with all of film's might while stating clearly in the film that his work is one of 'objectivity'. Obviously, it is not. For one reason, many scenes 'shot by pure chance' are obvious set-ups (when that poor goat 'accidently' falls off the cliff, you can actually see the gun smoke on the right of the screen!). For another, his concealing of one important information: the Hurdes people were the way they were for a specific reason which is just hinted at in the film. That is, goitre, a sickness caused by lack of iodine (salt). This goitre is the cause of their cretinism and had Bunuel only took the time to make his research (heck, if he checked 'cretinism' in a medical dictionary he'd have found 'goitre') he MIGHT have ended up telling the truth about these people (still, doubtfully). Instead, with his film, he judges them constantly, talking about them as 'cretins', again and again, dramatizing the action, setting-up scenes to create the spectacle, all of this very unacceptable for a documentarist which claims to work for an all-mighty objectivity. Bunuel talks all the time in this film, not letting one word to the people he is filming. He talks FOR them and, even then, JUDGES them. This piece is flawed to it's roots, to it's ideology and it's a real shame it's considered a great film.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOne of the lamer wedding movies you'll see. Smacks too too much of its time period so it was out of date before it hit the theaters. The ethnic stereotypes are like a Henny Youngman joke, except they just aint in the least bit funny here. Molly Ringwald, well what else needs to be said. Give you a clue to the silliness, she destroys a $10,000 wedding dress, because \"It just won't be me\" makes it into this rag, with straps and puts on a top hat, and everyone smiles cutely at her moxy, rather than ringwalding her neck. Its a helluva a cast too, check out how heavy Ally Sheedy is. Wheeeew!
\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\nDull, flatly-directed \"comedy\" has zero laughs and wastes a great cast. Alan Alda wore too many hats on this one and it shows. Newcomer Anthony LaPaglia provides the only spark of life in this tedium but it's not enough.
One of those scripts that, if you were a neophyte and submitted it to an agent or producer, would be ripped to shreds and rejected without discussion.
\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\nAfter watching this on the MST3K episode, I have to wonder how many movies this film borrows from. It seems to combine elements of Logans Run, Farenheight 451, Final Sacrifice and at least several others. At one point I was really expecting Cris Makepease to call Lee Majors ROWSDOWER.
I wonder if the director has any clue how many holes there are in the plot. like the fact that, even though gas is unavailable, there is plenty of it in abandoned gas stations, and the stations are located close enough together to keep an F1 race car going all the way across the country.
\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 years ago, and I was impressed... but then again I was only 12 years old. I recently re-watched it and want that time back. This film is pretty bad. While I like Lee Majors, Chris Makepeace (watch My Bodyguard (1980)if you would like to see a GOOD movie that he was in... of Meatballs (also starring Bill Murray) for some laughs), and Burgess Meredith, this role does/did nothing for their careers.
Anyway, Lee Majors character, Franklyn Hart, is an ex- race car driver who plans on driving his race car (which he had in storage) across the country to California. One Problem: The government has outlawed all private transportation. I thought the concept was OK (not the worse I've heard of), but the execution failed horribly.
\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 juvenile, bland flick is strictly for teenagers in old mens' bodies, desperate to relive their hormonally challenged teenage years. How ? By burning up gas and equating a fast, reckless car (or plane) with freedom.
The plot borrows heavily from Mister Rogers' neighborhood (if it were run my an oil conglomerate) and Logan's Run (if it were heavily sedated and lacked a clear sense of style).
Starring Lee Majors and Burgess Meredith this film is set in a post-gas-crisis world in which an all-powerful government doesn't want you to (*ahem*) drive your car and burn gas. Sort of the opposite of today's Enron-and-Bush, oil-grabbing, SUV-pushing government.
This juxtaposition alone makes the film laughable. But wait...there's more. Although the film is set in the future, we're not shown any signs of future technology, beyond a return to bicycles, golf carts and horses. You will believe that the future looks... exactly like today. Same clothing, same suburban houses, same green lawns as today and when the film was made. There are no solar panels, no windmills, no concessions to alternate energy.
The acting is flat and flavorless. Even scenes which could have been gritty or moving, buddy-flick, honor, romance, horror... all fall flatter than a paper doll under a briefcase.
Continuity is lacking-- the jet flown by Burgess Meredith's character changes colors and configuration from moment to moment as the filmmakers insult our intelligence with unmatched stock footage again and again.
The plot is as moronic and only half as exciting as a Dukes of Hazzard episode.
Even die-hard car-film and SF fans should avoid this film like month-old roadkill, unless you enjoy heckling Exxon executives trying to make a movie as empty as the hero's gas tank.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nStupid, mindless drivel about a jet assembled within hours by mechanics who have never worked on airplanes (piloted by Burgess Meredith) chasing a Porsche race car which runs on decades-old gasoline sludge, driven by Lee Majors, with Chris Makepeace as the runaway techno-wiz who can McGyver spare parts into a radio receiver which can pick up all frequencies simultaneously, and who somehow learned how to acquire and use chemicals to make high explosives in a perfectly peaceful society. As moronic as it sounds. Terrible waste of Burgess Meredith, but Chris Makepeace may at least be forgiven on the grounds that this was only his second film.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhere's Michael Caine when you need him? I've seen most of the many seasons of MST3K, but this rare pre-1st season flick (episdoe K-20) is easily one of the worst movies ever made. Three \"stars\", Lee Majors, Chris Makepeace and Burgess Meredith, struggle through the worst batch of cinematography ever, delivering lines which must have been written by a secret Dick Cheney-style workgroup composed of Exxon and GM lawyers trying to cut funding for mass transit and energy efficiency research. Looks like it was filmed in almost total darkness, possibly on Super 8. Makes Logan's Run look like the cinematic Sistine Chapel crossed with Shakespeare. I can't imagine watching it without the commentary of Crow and Servo since it's unwatchable even with it. Clearly what's needed in Hollywood is some sort of 401K which prevents the need for actors to take on bad movies like this in order to pay for their health care. With its \"rights to pollute and drive\" theme, by the end, I'm half expecting to see a Charlton Heston cameo where he delivers his \"cold dead hands\" speech. Lee, I could have forgiven you for this in 1989, but 1981?
\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\nWay back in 1967, a certain director had no idea about a galaxy, far away or near. He was trying to complete a movie with the title THX etc. this short is a remanufactured history of a certain George. i am sorry it has only cuteness to defend it. This is merely an advertising promo for the director, actors, et. al. It has little intrinsic artistic value. It is a brochure. The lead playing George, is very fine, as is the Leia character, and the ersatz Darth character. All else is plain commercial dross. What a waste. Still, it got the job done I guess. The rest of the movie is merely treading water to kill time I guess. a brochure only.
\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 months I've been hearing about this little movie and now I've seen it. I find it cute, cute how so many fledgling directors make movies where they combine other people's creative ideas in order to make their own one-joke premise of a movie. Troops, Swingblade, any of the million Blair Witch parodies come to mind. If all that these directors want is a foot inside Hollywood's door then they're doing the right thing and they should keep it up because combining plot outlines is how Hollywood makes films. How many times have you heard the phrase, \"It's Animal House meets Back to the Future\"; \"It's Wall Street meets Dead Poet's Society\"; or \"Shakespeare in Love meets Star Wars\"? I remember when independent films meant original and daring not safe and predictable.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is one very dire production. The general consensus has always been that while Princess Margaret may have been spoilt and pampered and may have revelled in the excess of luxury at her disposal, she was a very beautiful young woman. Here was the production's weakest point, the actress failed to get that across. It also appeared that the production budget couldn't stretch to a hairdresser - from the outset, the hair on the Princess Margaret character had a permanent birds nest in disarray look and looked as if she had been dragged through a bush. The actor playing the Duke of Edinburgh appeared to have prepared for his role by watching Rory Bremner imitate Prince Charles and was farcical.
The production was a flaw ridden, cliché ridden, embarrassing load of rubbish. I think all Daily Mail readers deserve a free DVD copy for Christmas!
\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, just by reading the title you would think that it would be a good movie. Well, at least I did. It started out good but became so boring after the first half hour. *spoiler*
It tells a story about a mother that is so desperate for her daughter to become a cheerleader that she will go to any lengths to get what she wants. The only problem is that her daughter's friend is the girl in the way. She always wins the competitions, therefore pushing the mother further towards \"eliminating\" her. After talking to a \"hitman\", the mother decides that the girl needs to be roughed up a bit. So actions are taken but she eventually gets caught.
The cast is awful and the movie drags on too long with nothing happening. Don't waste your time watching this.

\n
assistant\n0
\n"