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\nWhen someone remakes a classic movie, the remake is always unfavorably compared to the original. Also, there's a chance that the remake is so radically different that it is just too unfamiliar to audiences.
Well, the 1973 TV version of \"Double Indemnity\" has almost identical scenes and dialogue as the 1944 original. The main difference is that the remake just seems to have no energy at all. Fred MacMurray was great as the lecherous, leering insurance agent Walter Neff in the original; Richard Crenna just seems world-weary and tired. Edward G. Robinson brought great manic energy to his role as MacMurray's boss Barton Keys; Lee J. Cobb, a fine actor, appears almost bored with the proceedings. Samantha Eggar is all wrong as the conniving, back-stabbing Phyllis Dietrichson; while Barbara Stanwyck was just superb in this wicked role, Eggar is overly polite and mannered and just seems way out of place.
Robert Webber, in the old Richard Gaines role as Robinson's boss Norton, and John Fiedler taking the Porter Hall role as the crucial witness, bring some life to the movie. In particular, Webber recreates the Norton role well in a 1970s context.
However, after the movie starts, the whole thing just sort of lies there, without any life or electricity. This is one film that never should have been remade.
\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\nUtter dreck. I got to the 16 minute/27 second point, and gave up. I'd have given it a negative number review if that were possible (although 'pissible' is a more fitting word...). Unlike the sizzle you could see and practically feel between MacMurray and Stanwyck in the original, the chemistry between dumb ol' Dicky Crenna and whats-her-face here is just non-existent. The anklet becomes an unattractive chunky bracelet? There's no ciggy-lighting-by-fingertip? And I thought I'd be SICK when they have a mortified-looking (and rightly so, believe you me) Lee J. Cobb as Keyes practically burping/upchucking his way through the explanation of his \"Little Man\" to Mr. Garloupis. No offence to the non-sighted, but it looks as though a posse of blind men ran amuck with the set design of both the Dietrichson and Neff houses. The same goes for those horrid plaid pants that Phyllis wears. And crikey, how much $$ does Neff make, that he lives overlooking a huge marina? This, folks, again, all takes place in the first 16 and a half minutes. If you can get through more of it, you have a much stronger constitution than me, or you are a masochist. But please, take some Alka-Seltzer first, or you WILL develop a \"little man\" of your own that may never go away. Proceed with caution, obviously.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAs a big fan of the original film, it's hard to watch this show. The garish set decor and harshly lighted sets rob any style from this remake. The mood is never there. Instead, it has the look and feel of so many television movies of the Seventies. Crenna is not a bad choice as Walter Neff, but his snappy wardrobe and \"swank\" apartment don't fit the mood of the original, or make him an interesting character.He does his best to make it work but Samantha Egger is a really bad choice. The English accent and California looks can't hold a candle to Barbara Stanwick's velvet voice and sex appeal. Lee J.Cobb tries mightily to fashion Barton Keyes,but even his performance is just gruff, without style.
It feels like the TV movie it was and again reminds me of what a remarkable film the original still is.
\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\nMurder and insurance fraud take an adulterous couple to \"the end of the line\"...
TV was visually vulgar back in the early 1970s and this truncated, made-for-TV knock-off hurt my eyes. It can't possibly compare to the 1944 Billy Wilder Film Noir classic as anyone in their right mind ought to know -sight unseen- but that doesn't mean this update should be seen as a separate entity, either. Although based on the original Paramount screenplay, there's over half an hour cut out and the director's bland indifference makes what's left imminently forgettable. With rare exception, the younger generation wasn't interested in watching old black and white movies on TV back in 1973 (still true today, alas) so this lurid, compelling tale was new to the overwhelming majority of viewers; then as now, ratings rule and cashing in was its only reel raison d'etre. Gus Van Zandt remade Alfred Hitchcock's PSYCHO for similar reasons and if these redux led to the seeking out of the original films or novels, so much the better. I loved the James M. Cain source novel enough to tune in back then and I enjoyed this time capsule curio the second time around for the longish hair, halter tops, turbans, ugly decor, and lush auburn locks of \"guest star\" Samantha Eggar, who didn't try too hard. In addition to recognizing a few of the incidental cast from a childhood spent in front of the boob tube, Lee J. Cobb was able to hold my interest as a world-weary, tired-looking Keyes but Richard Crenna's affable and inoffensive Walter Neff only reminded me of Bill Bixby on a bad day. Improvement upon the original was, of course, never intended in a rush to make a buck but, instead of a mindless retread, a new adaptation of the novel would have been a novel idea. Cain's book differs somewhat from its celluloid incarnations and the horrific shark fins in the moonlight ending is killer. The completist in me is thankful this speeded up \"Me Decade\" update was included as part of the DOUBLE INDEMNITY DVD extras but the experience not only made me long to see the original, it had me nostalgic for any episode of the better-made COLUMBO TV series. I also flashed back to a very good 1973 ABC TV Movie Of The Week that I haven't seen since its initial airing: John D. Macdonald's LINDA starring the beautiful Stella Stevens as a ruthless femme fatale who murders her lover's (sexy John Saxon) wife and then frames her mild-mannered husband for the crime and, if I remember correctly, there's also an open-ended ending. Like DOUBLE INDEMNITY, it was needlessly remade with TV movie queen Virginia Madsen as the titular vixen and Richard Thomas as the milquetoast husband.
\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 could have been a good episode but I simply had to turn it off. The British representation was horrible to watch. Have the makers ever set foot in Britain prior to filming? At least set foot in England?? I don't think any British person have had such an accent apart from a comedy skit of The Royal Family! Also with the 2 English boys... well I don't think any English boy has acted, spoke or dressed like any English kid in the history of the British nation since Prince William and Harry's preteen public appearances. To American film makers.. There is more than 1 country in the UK. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.. meaning more than 1 culture! I can handle some stereotyping but this was so bad I could not watch it. Fire looked cool though!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI watched Phat Beach on cable for a while and I sort of enjoyed it. The fat guy is the best character, as he seems to be a nice guy. The rest of the characters are just various stereotypes of young men and young black men. I like to watch these low budget movies that capture a period of time because they are almost like a documentary of the year's attitudes and fads. Phat Beach is also funny because the low-budget babes in this movie are strictly home-girls. Most low-budget movies have that \"local babe\" quality, and you can tell the babes in this movie were the local strippers and underwear models for JC Penneys. Some of them had so much cellulite hanging from their bikinis that it was funny to watch how the \"youngsters\" went wild over what was essentially some really over-used, high-mileage skank. There were some cuties too. That is the charm of these low-budget crappy movies. You will see a lot of doggies, and some real cuties! I checked up on some of them at IMDb and seven years later Phat Beach is their only credit. Too bad. It would be interesting if someone ever managed to do a \"Where are they now\" book on all of the cuties that have appeared in the history of movies and then were never again to return. What happened?? There are probably one or two young people in almost every movie who seem to have a lot going for them and yet years later when you see the movie again on TV you wonder \"what ever happened to X?\" Anyhow, this movie mostly blows, but it has some funny moments.
\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\nWatching this movie was the biggest waste of time and 2 bucks for rental in my life. If nothing catastrophic happens before I die, this will be the biggest regret of my life. Who ever even thought about this movie, or financed deserves a kick between the legs, because that's where they were thinking when they made this movie. It's about an overweight guy who is a hopeless romantic, and writes pretentious drivel that tries to pass off as poetry. He joins his amorous friend in a trip to the coast. Where they meet girls and such. Only the fat guy doesn't get a girl. Skin flicks don't annoy me, I take 'em for face value. But this movie tries to be more than a skin flick. It's about Fat guy looking for love in some girl, but then meets another bikini silicone girl that enjoys his poetry. He finds his talent for volleyball which gets money for his family and impresses the ladies, only he has his lady anyways. The dialogue is super-horrible for even a C movie. It supports a ton of black stereotypes, no character development, it's a glorified porno movie, without any porn in it. Never ever watch this 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\nIs nothing else on TV? Are you really bored? Well, then watch Phat Beach. However, don't rent it and definitely DO NOT buy it. That would be a big mistake.
I watched this on TV and found myself laughing at certain points. I did not laugh long and I did not laugh hard. However, there were subtle jokes and comments I laughed at. If you are looking for an extremely funny \"hood\" movie then watch Friday. If you are looking for a powerful emotional movie (something that this movie tries at..kind of) watch something like hoop dreams or Jason's Lyric. If you are lookin for some good black \"booty\" go watch a Dominique Simone porn flick, because the nudity in this movie is nearly non-existent. However, if you have nothing better to do and this is on cable, go ahead and watch it. You will be slightly amused.
***3 out of 10***
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is the worst movie ever made. The acting, the script, the location, everything! I would have given it a little chance if there were attractive women in the movie, but even they were bad. You would think that a movie with the word \"beach\" in it's title would have good-looking women in it. Wouldn't 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\nA mediocre Sci-Fi Channel original picture. A little squirmish, but not much. The nuclear powered submarine U.S.S. Jimmy Carter is on a mission deep below thick frigid ice near the North Pole when it is attacked by giant super charged electric eels. A member of the crew (Simmone Jade Mackinnon)thinks she has devised a way to communicate with the monsters, but is not given much chance for vague reasons. Also among the crew are:David Keith, Mark Sheppard and Sean Whalen. This movie could have been somewhat better if the eels/monsters were not so cartoonish.
\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\nDeep Shock plays out like a TV movie: a whole cast of commercial-quality actors, a poorly designed creature to be the \"bad guy,\" and a script that is more full of technical, political jargon and importances than it knows what to do with.
I checked out the movie because of the creature (I love to see what filmmakers have in mind for their designs in these cheaply made videos), and right off the bat, I got disappointed because the creature on the box was not the one in the movie. The actors I expected because of the type of film it is (really quite generic and not thought out past a certain point). The music was typical, not-thought-out action symphonic music.
I liked the design of the computers and technical equipment, along with the mini-sub design. The movie even flowed really well, with guiding screens letting you know which set you're watching the story unfold in. But there isn't much of a story here anyways.
This movie gets a 3/10 stars IMO. The boring search and destroy mission to blow up the North Pole and these creatures protecting it...kinda lame. Even lamer is the tagged-on love relationship between two of the characters that you don't see coming. Chalk this one up to being a movie which tries to get actors' careers off the bench and into a video. Don't bother.
\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 has to be the cheapest film made in 21st century. It is all the way low quality, but at the end it falls below... everything. All the cheap tricks - like flashing and darkness - are used to hide those crappy computer effects.
All the actors are below average, especially the main character Anne Fletcher (Simmone Mackinnon). There is a scene, where Anne is asked: \"Why you seem so careless?\" The correct answer is, because she can't act. No matter what happens (the world is about to be destroyed, her friend is dying, she is fired), she has the same stupid grin in her face.
It is not only the movie, which is B -quality. It is also the back cover description (at least in Finland). The text mentions things like Lorica Gray -vessel, Capital -vessel and main character Garrison Harper and Anna (not Anne) Fletcher. The description sounds like a different movie, both featuring character called Fletcher and sea monsters
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI don't get this. The movie obviously has a pretty good budget. It has very good cinematography. It has nice pacing, good editing and pretty good directing too. Then WHY OH WHY didn't they hire someone to do a final rewrite of the script so it would not be so damn cheesy and WHY OH WHY did they hire such lousy actors that can't act their way out of a paper bag? This movie could have been good. At most times it LOOKS good and FEELS good but in the end, you realize that the movie was no good at all.
So I would say it's a good production but a bad movie. Too bad actually.
And eels? Come one, really!
\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\nDeep SH.. is more like it! The eels are just cartooned in over the film. Think \"The Incredible Mr. Limpet\" meets \"Leviathan\". Very tacky.
No character or relationship development. So called \"romantic\" scenes very corny and predictable. An interesting idea, but a poorly written script and LOUSY special effects make this a definite must-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\nActually had to stop it. Don't get me wrong, love bad monster movies. But this one was way too boring, regardless of the suspenseful music that never leads you anywhere. The actress had too many teeth and that moment when she makes contact with one of the beasts, was way too obvious a cliché. This film totally betrays the cover on the DVD which looks pretty interesting. From the cover one expects a giant monster, but you get these cute not as gigantic as expected electric eels. Moved on to watch another film called The Killer Rats but that's another review. Deep Shock was really crap, a big shame considering the fact that it looks pretty high budget.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis was one of the worst movies EVER!!!!!!!! It was so bad, I was laughing through the WHOLE movie! The plot was SO cheesy; especially the end. This movie turns from an end-of-the-world-disaster to save-the-eels! I mean, c'mon! And I swear...I think they use SOCK PUPPETS for the eels! And there was this horrible kiss scene in the middle with the two main characters who happened to be divorced. How predictable! It was SO terrible that my mom, my sister, and I couldn't finish it, and when we DID finish it, it was about a year later! The second time we watched it and we finished it this time, we did MST3K-like comments throughout the movie.
Summary: Only watch this if you're a movie basher! Make hilarious comments, watch this at a sleepover for laughs, and I mean HUGE laughs. Also watch for mockery. The metaphor that explains this movie: This movie is a very shallow field full of cheese and sock puppets!
\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\nHORRID!!
The special effects make the TV version of \"Tremors\" look real!
No one in the cast can act.
Kind of like the '62 \"Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea\" meets the cartoon ocean going electric eel cartoons.
\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 show had great episodes, this is not one of them. It's not a terrible episode, it's just hard to follow up \"The man that was death.\", \"All through the house\", and \"Dig that cat, he's real gone.\"
This episode is about a couple that has just been married Peggy (Ammanda Plummer) and Charles (Stephen Shellen). In the first five minutes you find out that Charles only married Peggy for her money. The two go on their honeymoon and their car breaks down on a dirt road and they have to seek refuge in an old abandon mansion. Charles soon finds out a secret of Peggy's family...
In my opinion you should watch this episode, but just don't expect the same feeling as the rest of the episodes in the first 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\nSlim Slam Slum is a sad and disappointing picture. There is absolutely no reason to this sorry excuse for a picture. Don`t go there, what ever you do, don`t. Watch TV-Shop for 10 hours straight instead. That way you will be slightly amused.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI have never seen a movie as bad as this. It is meant to be a \"fun\" movie, but the only joke is at the start, and it is NOT funny. If you like this sort of movie, then you may just be able to give it a vote of 2. If it had the necessary votes, it would truly belong on the bottom 100.

\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 a crappy movie! The worst of the worst! This movie is as entertaining as a dead slug. No-talent-what-so-ever-actors, stupid plot. Who wrote this script?! Was there ever a script for this goofy movie or did the director just accidentally press the record-button on his camera and then decided to make the film up as they went along? Is this meant to be a kids movie or a comedy or what? My friends younger brother is in the 6.th grade and him and his classmates just did an amateur-movie for their school-project which outdid this geeky movie.. This is by far the worst film I have seen in my life! There is just no excuse for this flick!
\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 danish movie \"Slim Slam Slum\" surprised me to be the worst movie i have seen to this date. I didn't think that it was possible to top my list of bad bad b-movies but this one deserves the gold. It's not funny. It's bad acting, It's bad filmed and the storyline is bad. The only positive thing i can say about this movie is it has three girls in it. I truly believe this flick has the potential to knock of the other danish movie \"Stjerner uden hjerner\" as the badest danish film ever made! And that's truly something. Congratulations in advance!
\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 Godfather Part I was a stunning look inside the fictional Corleone family and how an innocent young man was all but forced into circumstances he never wanted to have a part of. The Godfather Part II shows that young man's acceptance of his new role, his desensitization of character, as well as his complete loss of all innocence as he dives deeper and deeper into a life of crime. The first two parts of this saga of this transformation of Michael Corleone make for one of the greatest tragedies in cinematic history.
Then, along came The Godfather Part III. Michael Corleone is now the aging Don of the Corleone family. He shows remorse for his previous actions not through subtle behaviors, but by trying to use his powers for good and admitting all his wrongdoings and regrets to others. Very cliche and uncharacteristic of the complex character that is Michael Corleone. Michael's plans to use his powers for good are derailed by an ambitious young disciple and his enemies. Michael's daughter is eventually a casualty of the ongoing mob wars and her death predictably leads to Michael realizing that his entire life as Don has been worthless for he has failed in the one thing that was the reason for putting himself into the position he was in: protecting his family.
The Godfather Part II ends with Michael Corleone reaching the lowest of the lows: having his own brother killed. Before Part III was made, the Godfather saga was an emotionally riveting tale of an innocent young man's journey into darkness with the unbelievably tragic end of Michael forgetting his roots and abandoning the one thing that has always mattered most to him and those around him: family loyalty. Part III paints the picture of Michael as a man who is and always has been just a victim of circumstance. This greatly corrupts the meaning of the first two films.
The Godfather Part III is a horrible mess of a film that never should have been made. The only solution to the problem that is this final installment of The Godfather movies is to pretend that it does not exist and that the saga actually ends with Michael's shockingly horrible act of having a member of his own family killed.
\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 dislike this movie a lot. If you've read the Puzo's books, or at least have watched very closely the two first movies (specially the first one), you're going to agree with me.
Compared with the Corleone's saga presented by Puzo's novel, the script of this film is, sometimes, even ridiculous. The characters and the relationships among them are distorted. The story ends up reaching nowhere, although it appears to go to some direction during the movie.
It is understandable that different times should be expected for the Corleone's saga in the 90's, and that we would not gonna find things the way they were before. But, in the other hand, I don't know why they had to copy some dialogues from the other movies, in contexts when they didn't fit. Why this? It sounds like those poorly made sequels that just try to copy the original film's qualities.
What will never be understandable is the fact that Mario Puzo, Coppola and Al Pacino joined together to make this. A man who directed pieces like Apocalypse Now and Godfather has to be forgiven for almost anything he does in cinema until he dies. So does Al Pacino, for being the actor he is. But Mario Puzo shouldn't have written this. How come? He damaged all his previous work. What a shame, my friend. The Puzo's novel \"The Last Don\" is a 90's story about the mob, and it is great. We can never tell the same about the plot for the Godfather III.
\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\nYears ago I saw The Godfather and it made a lasting impression on me, the atmosphere of the movie was first class, the acting memorable and the storyline a classic. Recently I bought the Trilogy and after watching Part 1 again I looked eagerly to viewing Part 2...... I was so pleased to realize early on into Part 2 that here was a fitting follow on to the great Godfather movie, again everything was just about perfect and I could not wait to see Godfather III ........ WRONG!, I wish I'd stopped at II. The storyline was not good, it seemed to me like a story made up just to have a story, the characters were weak especially the daughter. Pacino's protege was a weak character that would have been eaten alive in Godfather 1 or 2. Then scenes such as, Corleone being invested with all the trappings of the Catholic Church with full choir, the assassin on horseback riding away into the sunset, the unseen helicopter machine gunning of the meeting (where the 'goodies' get away and everyone else is shot),daughter and 1st cousin rolling bits of pasta across a board, the pathetic shooting on the steps ..... Corleone stuffing sweets down him with orange juice for diabetes (a man of his intelligence and guile isn't ready for an emergency?)... NO it was not good and with the best will in the world I wont be able to watch it again. But I'll watch 1 & 2 many times down the years.
\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\nAny person with fairly good knowledge of German cinema will surely tell that numerous films about a young girl having troubles with her mother as well as her boy friend have been made in the past.If such a film is shown to people again,it would surely click provided if it has something new,fresh and captivating for today's challenging audiences. This is also true for German film maker Sylke Enders as her film's principal protagonist Kroko has been mistreated by everybody around her including her mother and boyfriend.She is bold enough to face any punishment as she has tried her hand at all kinds of criminal activities including shoplifting.Kroko was originally shot on DV to be blown afterwards to 35 mm format.Its technical virtuosity does not hamper our joys when we learn that Kroko would like to become a policeman as she feels that she is averse to the idea of becoming a run of the mill hairdresser.If someone were to state a positive aspect of Sylke Enders' film,it may well be Kroko's involvement with handicapped people as a result of a punishment.It is with Kroko that we learn that punks are human too with their unique joys and sorrows.
\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 movie is not a comedy; unless you really force yourself you can hardly laugh. Secondly, the movie is slow and boring. The acting is not bad but not special. There is a Lucky Luke comic about two families (one with big noses and one with big ears) fighting each other in a small town... you will laugh much more if you read this instead of wasting your time with this movie. Religions and dogmas are not the best source to make a good comedy and this movie does nothing more than confirm this rule. There is a similar subject comedy '' The home teachers'' ; this had some good moments. My final comment is: do not waste your time and money to watch this uninspired and boring 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\n'Baptists at Our Barbecue' is the best film ever made. Now, that I got your attention with that horribly inaccurate statement that should be a hanging offense if spoken, let me begin my short overview of this tacky, offensive, pretentious and boring hunk of junk I guess you could consider a movie. First of all, the low budget of this stinker is totally obvious based on the very poor and inexperienced direction of Christian Vuissa, and the tacky, overly preachy, whiny and stilted screenplay by F. Mathew Smith. I really despise the fact that it sends a very pro-Mormon, and sort of anti-every other religion message. Yes, the story is about a small town half full with Mormons and half full with Baptists. It shows all the main and role-model characters being Mormon, and being so nice and perfect, yet they are being picked on by the evil, conniving and very judgmental Baptists. It shows how beautiful Mormons are and how cold-hearted and ignorant Baptists are, instead of showing a little solidarity like would be appropriate and realistic. I'm a part of neither religion (I'm actually an atheist), but this offended me, along with another countless amount of Baptists most likely. It shows the Baptists as being very unopened and unwelcoming to the Mormons, and the Mormons being very accepting, when again, in reality there is a mutual like/dislike between them. Sorry, I didn't mean to go off on a rant.
Another aspect of 'Baptists at Our Barbecue' I didn't much care for, was the acting. The performances are very amateurish and unnatural, especially from the female lead Heather Beers. Miss Beers stumbles her way through her part without any passion or feeling for her role, and I wasn't too much impressed with Dan Merkley, who's the main character in this lackluster of a motion picture, but I have to say he's way more talented or shows more talent in this film then Heather Beers. Whoever played the town sheriff was awful also. Although there is maybe a tiny laugh deep within the film, it is full of clichés. For example, the main character, Tartan (Merkley), finds solace with a Native American who always gives him the best advice on things relating to a tribal way of life - how cliché is that? To make the situation even more of a pathetic cliché, Tartan buys the poor, lonely heathen a puppy dog. Ugghhh!
If you want my advice, stay as far away from 'Baptists at Our Barbecue' as you can. I saw it on the shelf and thought it would be a cute and interesting little indie about religion. All I got was a, well, piece of crap. Grade: D-
my ratings guide - A+ (absolutley flawless); A (a masterpiece, near-perfect); A- (excellent); B+ (great); B (very good); B- (good); C+ (a mixed bag); C (average); C- (disappointing); D+ (bad); D (very bad); D- (absolutley horrendous); F (not one redeeming quality in this hunk of Hollywood feces).
\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\nGenerally, I've found that if you don't hear about a movie prior to seeing it on DVD, there's probably a good reason for it. I hadn't heard about this movie at all until I was in a Blockbuster the other day and saw it on a shelf. Since all the good movies had already been rented out (the ones I wanted to see, anyway), I figured I'd give this one a shot.
It's really not much different than other movies in the genre, such as The Singles Ward or the R.M. If you're into those type movies, you'll probably enjoy this.
However, if you're not a mormon, this movie probably won't appeal to you. There's no way to avoid the overtly religious (mormon) message contained within, and at times it comes across as sappy and cheesy. Ultimately, if you don't fall within the mormon demographic, you're probably better off watching something else.
Admittedly, there were some very funny moments in the film, but I didn't think that it was enough to salvage the movie overall.
\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 concur with everyone above who said anything that will convince you to not waste even a briefest of moments watching this amazingly amateurish movie. Very poor acting, offhand production values, utterly pedestrian direction, and a script so inept and inane it should never have been written, let alone produced. Even Hollywood \"professionals\" apparently go to work just for a paycheck, although no one should have been paid for this bad work. Careers should instead have ENDED over this inconsequential drivel.
OTH, there is something fascinating about watching something so jaw-droppingly bad. And Chad Lowe is terrifically and consistently bad.
\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 in the middle of the night, when I was flipping through the channels and there was nothing else on to watch. It's one of those films where you stop to see what it is - just for a moment! - but realize after twenty minutes or so that you just can't turn it off, no matter how bad it is. One of those movies that is somewhere in between being so bad it's good and so bad it's, well, just plain BAD, it's worth seeing just to experience the confusion of realizing that it's both! Great middle-of-the-night fare, if only for the fabulous tennis drag. Don't even bother asking yourself why nobody can tell that Chad Lowe is so obviously male, because logic does not apply.
\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 wish that when making a comedy, the people actually tried to make it funny. This is a film that you can sit through, but nothing is special about it. After watching it, you will say that it was alright. It was not boring to watch, but gave the audience no jokes to laugh at. Entertainment should mean that you actually get something more than an o.k. story. This movie wanted to be \"Tootsie\", but instead it failed.
I gave it a 1 out of 10.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie was on the Romance channel, and I thought it might be a goofy 80's movie that would be enjoyable on some level, so my brother and I watched it. Boy did it suck. Boy gets crush on girl--correction, his *dream*-girl (apparently there is a difference; and I'm surprised he realized she was his dream girl--he was smitten with her from over 30 feet away. I guess that just goes to show the power of dream-girls), boy ends up masquerading as a female to be near dream-girl (creative in the sense that it's a far-out plan, but un-creative in the sense that there are probably better solutions one might think up), awkward situations ensue, a match is made (all of which takes seems to take place around late afternoon--either the location was somehow responsible for this odd lighting, or the actors had to wait until they got off of their day-jobs to come to the set; I suspect the latter). Very clumsily done, very pathetic. It's almost never even amusing *accidentally*, so there really is nothing to redeem it. Unless you're interested in seeing Chad Lowe's early days, before he finally got his piece of the pie with his role as the HIV-positive gay guy on the series \"Life Goes On\", or Gail O'Grady who was on NYPD Blue and probably got to stare at Dennis Franz's buttocks). But those are unlikely motives--I'd say \"systematic derangement of the senses\" would be a more justified purpose. I'm surprised I watched it all. I guess it's the kind of thing where, halfway through, you find yourself *still* watching due to some morbid, self-flagellistic inner-issue, and think you might as well finish it so you can tell your friends and family that you actually sat through such a horrible movie, on the off-chance that it'll garner you some sympathy for the questionable state of your mental health. Can *You* Take the Challenge?
\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 the most boring nonsense I have seen in a long time. The plot was full of irrelevance, and the acting was the worst I have seen in a long time.
To make it worse, camera angles that made me feel sick were used , the incidental music was terrible and drowned out the dialogue (maybe not a bad thing then), and the shots of San Francisco looked as if they had been stolen straight out of the city tourist board's promotional video.
Oh, and the obligatory sex scene was not even half well done. Better lighting next time, please.
\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\nReed Diamond plays a man suffering from amnesia who's been in a mental asylum for over a decade after he was found wondering the back roads with blood on his hands. The doctors want to test out an experimental new drug that'll return his lost memories if it works. But when the drugs give him hallucinations of a demon, he chooses to escape instead. While outside he befriends a young boy whose stepfather (Greg Grunberg) mistreats his mother, won't let her near the darkroom in his basement & acts suspicious in general.
While the general 'mystery' of the film is a tad easy to identify way before it's revealed, I found Mr. Diamond's acting to be enthralling enough to keep my attention throughout. (In the interest of full disclosure, I've been a huge fan of his since Homicide and his brief, but extremely pivotal, role in The Shield up through Journeyman & Dollhouse) Not a great film nor a good one, but serviceable enough. Although I did like it better than the previous films that I've seen from Director/writer Michael Hurst (Room 6, Pumkinhead 4, Mansquito)
Eye Candy: one fleeting pair of boobs in a hallucination
My Grade: 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\nThe story idea is excellent. Unfortunately, the execution lets it down.
The movie lacks pace, for one thing. It should be an exciting ride, but it is slow and more than a little boring.
I think the problem's mainly in the screenplay and editing. There aren't enough obstacles and reversals to ratchet up suspense, and there are scenes which don't really move the story along very effectively.
The producers should have seen this in the screenplay and insisted upon a major rewrite. Unfortunately, when the producer is also the writer and the director, this evidently ain't gonna happen.
Much of the acting seems kind of flat, and that is down to the director - all the actors have been quite competent in other projects.
It's a shame, because with better writing, editing and direction, this could have been a really good thriller.
\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\nThat might be a bit harsh for me saying that, but sadly so far in his directing career its true. Just have a look at what he as done so far. They barely make it past the 3 star mark.
Why did I watch this movie? 2 reasons. Lucy Lawless and Heroes star Greg Grunberg. Lucy was outstanding in this movie, her performance carries the whole movie. I do hope she gets a \"blockbuster\" and breaks into the bigger league of actors, she clearly has the skills. Greg was not so impressive, typical TV acting style.
The movie is oddly categorized as a horror. The only \"horror\" is short flashbacks, and they last a max of 2-5 seconds with a little blood in them. I personally would call this more a \"drama/thriller\".
But no matter how interesting the story actually is, bad directing, editing and acting (appart from Lucy) destroys it. You get no real connection to the actors, something which is very important in a story like this one. You just sit there watching feeling nothing. Its like watching a bad TV soap....actually I think the TV soap would be more interesting.
My advice: Stay away from this movie...or better yet just stay away from anything Michael Hurst is involved with.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis was such a waste of time. Danger: If you watch it you will be tempted to tear your DVD out of the wall and heave it thru the window.
An amateur production: terrible, repetitive, vacuous dialog; paper-thin plot line; wooden performances; Lucy Lawless was pathetically hackneyed.
Seriously flawed story, completely unbelievable characters. The two worst concepts in film and t.v. are: (1) the evil twin, (2) amnesia. There are no twins.
The plot \"twist\"? Outrageously simplistic and obvious - like watching a train coming down the track in the middle of the day on the prairies. It doesn't even resolve properly. The evil is not punished for the original crime.
Please, please, please - don't watch this even if its free and your only other choice is to go to a synagogue.
\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 read a couple of good reviews on this board for \"Mr. Scarface\", but for anyone uninitiated in the genre of Italian gangster films like myself, the picture will probably make very little sense. Indeed, after the initial setup involving the ten million lira scam, the picture devolved into a fairly routine revenge flick with a minor twist in the identity of Rick's (Al Cliver) character. The whole gang war plot got muddied up for me with the inclusion of Vinchenzo Napoli (Vittorio Caprioli), but as most other viewers commented, he's about the only one who gave this picture any life with his often ineffective attempts at violence. I found it somewhat unbelievable that Manzari's goons who chased Tony through the streets didn't actually stroke out before Tony even laid a hand on them. For all of his buildup as the title character, Jack Palance was wasted rather unceremoniously in an anticlimactic near finale, making the U.S. working title, \"Mr. Scarface\", rather moot. I've seen enough spaghetti Westerns to know that they don't all work; I guess in this case, my first look at a spaghetti gangster flick didn't quite make it either.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n- A small time hood tricks the local mob boss out of a lot of money. Of course the mob boss wants his money back and doesn't care who he has to kill to get it. The punk enlists his friend and an old mobster to help him save his life.
- If this sounds ridiculous, it is. The whole idea that this Izod-wearing, dune buggy-driving punk could hold off one of the most powerful mobs in Rome is just plain silly. His friend may be good with a gun, but he's up against a group of trained killers. The old mobster is little more than comic relief and no real help when it comes to the face off with the mob. There's also a sub-plot about how the friend's father was killed years ago by the mob boss, but there's little made of it and it doesn't help the movie any at all.
- The mob boss, Mister Scarface, is played by Jack Palance. I suppose he got the name because he has what looks like a shaving nick on his cheek. Palance is as ineffective as the rest of the cast, doing what he must to get a paycheck.
- I've seen some pretty good Italian crime/cop flicks recently, but Mister Scarface isn't one of them. Check out Syndicate Sadists or Revolver instead.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI am a big fan of Ludlum's work, and of the Covert-one books, and I had often thought how incredible they would be made into a film. Imagine my excitement, then, on learning that such a movie actually existed! The 'Hades Factor' being the first in the series seemed an obvious place to start.
From the outset the film was disappointing. Simple elements from the film such as Griffin's first meeting with Smith are needlessly different from the book, and much less exhilarating. Several characters are poorly cast, too. For starters Dorff is woeful as Smith. Not a bad actor, just an incredibly bad choice as he is far too soft, and fails to exhibit many of the features that are definitive of John Smith.
Re-naming, re-assignment and even omission of certain characters further degrades this film. For example the removal of Victor Tremont and the entire back-story of the virus, including the involvement of VAXHAM makes the entire point to the film somewhat hazy. Marty Zellerbach is a very large part of the book, and in the seat he takes vary much a back seat (not to mention that the film character shares nothing in common with the character in the book) is another big mistake.
Rachel Russel is presumably supposed to be Randi Russel from the book. Not only is she supposed to be the sister of Sophie Amsden (should be called Sophia Russel) but she is also supposed to work from the CIA, NOT \"Covert-one\". Which brings me to my final point, and I think one of the most important. COVERT-ONE doesn't even exist at this point! Not until the second book of the series is Covert-One devised by the president as a preventative measure against further biological terrorism.
To be honest I could go on all day. In short - if you like the books and want to see a good adaptation, I'm afraid you'll be bitterly disappointed. Even as an action movie it is thoroughly average, mainly due to very lack-luster editing and poor effects. The bumbled story line and dull-as-ditch-water script are the final nails in the very cheap coffin of 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\nIf Bob Ludlum was to see this mini series, he would have cried. This was complete waste of time and money. I have read the book and even though movies are not exactly what the book may be, CBS wasted time and money on this and it is embarrassing to claim that this was Ludlum's work.
May be the creator should check out the Bourne Identity with Richard Chamberlain and see how good that TV series was.
Poor Mira, Blair, Anjelica and Colm, why did they sign to stoop this low?
Horrible!!
\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\nAlfred Hitchcok is not my favorite director by any means but imagine what he could have done with this! The plot holds much potential for suspense. John Garfield is as almost always excellent and Raymond Massey is scarily cast against type. Nancy Coleman is not a very impressive leading lady but the supporting cast is large and very capable.
Yes it starts to sag fairly early. There are too many coincidences. And an important subject is trivialized by its being made into little more, in the end, than a love story.
It's fun to watch for Garfield, Massey, and the character performers. But it's not awfully good.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"