empathielabs/imdb_v0 huggingface dataset:
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film is pure 'Hollywood hokum'. It is based upon a novel called 'Not Too Narrow  Not Too Deep' by Richard Sale, which may or may not have been interesting; it would take research to find out! The story in the film takes for granted many incidents and much background which obviously existed in the novel but are nowhere to be seen in the film, so either the film was savagely cut or the screenplay was a mess from the start. There is not one millisecond in this film which is remotely realistic, either in terms of events or characters. It is pure Hollywood fantasy in every respect. Two well-known actors, Paul Lukas and Peter Lorre, are so under-used and wasted that there was no point in their being in the film at all. They must have been thrown into the mix in the manner in which one adds a sprinkling of chopped chives to an omelette, hoping that the flavour will be enhanced. The film is a ponderous attempt at producing a 'morality tale', and is so corny that it is laughable. The story concerns some hardened criminals imprisoned in French Guiana who want to escape from their French colonial prison through a jungle (very much a Hollywood set jungle, with a rubber snake). Naturally there has to be a woman in the story, so Joan Crawford hams it up as a down-on-her-luck tramp who for some reason becomes irresistible to Clark Gable, one of the escaped criminals. Crawford in escaping through the jungle wears high-heeled shoes and keeps her makeup fresh. Gable flirts and grimaces and makes mawkish expressions, crinkling his brow as was his wont, smirking and looking suggestively at everybody, which was his manner of acting. It is hard to treat such a character as a hardened criminal when he is always trying so hard to be Clark Gable that surely he hasn't any time left to be a thief. (Attention-seekers are by definition too busy to steal and unsuited to a task which requires that people NOT see them.) The whole escapade is so ridiculous that it can only be regarded as light entertainment. An attempt at religiosity and 'depth' is made by injecting into the story a mysterious 'angel of mercy' who voluntarily walks into the prison and pretends to be an inmate. He helps in the escape and accompanies all the criminals and ministers to their various deaths, helping them to find 'peace' in their last gasps. This character is played very well by Ian Hunter, who retains throughout a convincing air of secret knowledge, smiles enigmatically, makes cryptic prophetic remarks, and has a small spot trained on his face to give him a heavenly glow. The theme is meant to be redemption. You might call it the Donald Duck version of 'Hollywood Goes Moral and Gets Heavy'. For real depth, Hitchcock's 'I Confess' of 1953 shows how it should really be done. By contrast, this piece of trivial nonsense shows just how bare the cupboards of Meaning were in Tinsel Town, and that when they went rummaging for something that might mean something, all they could come up with was, you guessed it, more tinsel.
\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\nHollywood always had trouble coming to terms with a \"religious picture.\" Strange Cargo proves to be no exception. Although utilizing the talents of a superb cast, and produced on a top budget, with suitably moody photography by Robert Planck, the movie fails dismally on the credibility score. Perhaps the reason is that the film seems so realistic that the sudden intrusion of fantasy elements upsets the viewer's involvement in the action and with the fate of the characters. I found it difficult to sit still through all the contrived metaphors, parallels and biblical references, and impossible to accept bathed-in-light Ian Hunter's smug know-it-all as a Christ figure. And the censors in Boston, Detroit and Providence at least agreed with me. The movie was banned. Few Boston/Detroit/Providence moviegoers, if any, complained or journeyed to other cities because it was obvious from the trailer that Gable and Crawford had somehow become involved in a \"message picture.\" It flopped everywhere.
Oddly enough, the movie has enjoyed something of a revival on TV. A home atmosphere appears to make the movie's allegory more receptive to viewers. However, despite its growing reputation as a strange or unusual film, the plot of this Strange Cargo flows along predictable, heavily moralistic lines that will have no-one guessing how the principal characters will eventually come to terms with destiny.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI watched this with a growing sense of unease. Why would God, in the shape of Ian Hunter, help these particular people in their attempted escape from Devils Island ? And what was he doing there in the first place ? I mean, I know God works in mysterious ways, but helping thieves and murderers and prostitutes find redemption, forgiveness and changes-of-heart in such a godforsaken location.... In any event it is hardly a likeable movie. Whatever Gable had by way of charm is missing in this portrait of a thoroughly selfish man, Crawford is as endearing as ever she was i.e. to me, not at all, and the whole look of the film makes it seem as if it was made 10 years before.Compared to contemperaneous films like \"Stagecoach\" and \"Mr. Deeds Goes to Town\", this looks prehistoric.
\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\nFunny how many of the people who say this is far superior to Romero's version tend to be very young (judging by their other posts). What we have here is a slick, action packed, gory and \"Whoopee\" filled 2 hour MTV video. Frantic editing, pop-video camera work, \"cool\" music blah blah blah
Actually it ain't bad compared to other recent remakes (Chainsaw Massacre was a total disaster)... pretty good acting all round, totally predictable in the \"who will die next\" stakes and a total cash in on the Dawn Of The Dead name that will generate plenty of revenue alone by fans of the original who will go and see it out of curiosity...
Don't remakes of classics get on your nerves? Can they REALLY not come up with something original? Why remake Dawn Of The Dead? The things that made the original special (the middle segment kids think is so boring is supposed to be slow to show how when you get everything you ever wanted you still ain't happy) are totally missing. This is an action flick, plain and simple. The faster the better. If you are into action flicks (and as this, the 2004 version is well done) fair enough, but for anyone who likes a little substance to their films... get ready to sigh (again)...
Watch the cinemas over the next few years as we get The Godfather series remade by whoever the most fashionable Pop director is at the moment, and Star Wars remade, with all the kids saying how the new version is miles better cos the old version is slow and boring and holds a camera shot for more than 5 seconds...
Not bad, but in 10 years they will still be discussing the Romero version, not this pap
\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 I went and saw this movie, I had great expectations. But I had so wrong. This movie was exactly as every other horror movies. It's a virus, zombies etc. Exactly as Resident Evil and many, many other movies. But the difference with this, and other movies, is that the story is very week. It's bad actors and boring music. The photo is OK but the rest is total crap. Don't see this \"horror\" movie, go and see the Ring 2 or any other movie who's much more of a story. I hope they will stop making horror movies who has a virus and the virus spread and make people to zombies. We have seen enough of that. The only good thing in the movie is when they are standing at a roof and shoot famous, infected celebrities.
\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 horrible movie. I cannot believe i wasted 90 mins of my life watching this re-make. Please tell me why Ving Rhames and Mehki Pfifer starred in this film? Mehki Pfifer is great in E.R and Ving Rhames probably didn't know what he was doing. I feel terrible for them. The music background i must say did not fit AT ALLLLL with the story and it's amazing how you can find these directors who have absolutely no lives in creating a well and balanced film. I hope that in the future no director as horrible as this one was, could ever distroy such a great classic film. This film should not have been made in the first place. An advice to everyone who has seen it, please tell me that i'm right because i couldn't possibly be the only viewer who did not enjoy it.
BOOOOOO!!!!!!!! -10 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\nThe plot is about a female nurse, named Anna, is caught in the middle of a world-wide chaos as flesh-eating zombies begin rising up and taking over the world and attacking the living. She escapes into the streets and is rescued by a black police officer. So far, so good! I usually enjoy horror movies, but this piece of film doesn't deserve to be called horror. It's not even thrilling, just ridiculous.Even \"the Flintstones\" or \"Kukla, Fran and Ollie\" will give you more excitement. It's like watching a bunch of bloodthirsty drunkards not being able to get into a shopping mall to by more liquor. The heroes who has locked themselves in, inside the shopping-mall to avoid being eaten by the hoodlums outside, are not better either. Even though they doesn't seem to be drunk, they give the impression of being mentally disabled. Save your money instead of spending it on 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\nJust don't bother. I thought I would see a movie with great supspense and action.
But it grows boring and terribly predictable after the interesting start. In the middle of the film you have a little social drama and all tension is lost because it slows down the speed. Towards the end the it gets better but not really great. I think the director took this movie just too serious. In such a kind of a movie even if u don't care about the plot at least you want some nice action. I nearly dozed off in the middle/main part of it. Rating 3/10.
derboiler.
\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 the hell is this? Its one of the dumbest movies I've seen. I don't understand why people on this site love it so much. Its senseless &nudity for no reason. Its worst then Resident Evil. I strongly don't recomend it unless you want to watch chessy, bad acting crap. Watch real horor movies such as Stephen King's It, The Shining, Jurassic Park(kinda horor), JAWS, etc. Leave this crap for a rental when there is nothing else to rent. It is bad as Crudy vs Gayson. Attack of the Killer Tomatoes is better then this crap.
Oh wow flesh eating zombies. How many damn zobie movies do we need. SKip this one.
* outta ****
\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
Worst. Movie. Ever.
What was the purpose of filming this remake (aside from turning it into a 90-minute informercial for the movie's soundtrack)? Zombies that *run*??? I guess the director never watched the original \"Dead\" films, which show stiff-limbed (from rigor mortis) creatures shuffling/shambling toward their living prey.
And how, exactly, did the survivors know which boat in the marina belonged to the recently departed Steve?
1/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI was so eager to see this one of my favorite TV shows.I saw Universal trademark followed with a newly acquainted title and theme song which still impress me.Computer animation on some scenery like a solid title name\"The Jetsons\" or a dimension view of a spaceship approaching an amusement park and more made this version splendid and fantastic.Shortly after that till the end...I couldn't believe my eyes!!!!How lucky I was that I could forget all I had seen.Just songs by Tiffany and its theme song in new arrangement were in my head.Anyway,I wish to see this space-aged family (also The Flintstones and Yogi Bear) in all graphic computer design as Toy story or Bug's life.The best style for Hanna-Barbera's in my opinion.
\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 all for the idea of a grand epic of the American Revolutionary War. This ain't it. (And for that matter, neither was the Emmerich/Devlin/Gibson THE PATRIOT. But I digress.)
I saw this film at a publicity screening at the old MGM Studios (now Sony) just before it came out. The audience had high expectations for this expensive period piece, written by veteran Robert Dillon, directed by the esteemed Hugh Hudson (of CHARIOTS OF FIRE fame), and starring Al Pacino.
But it didn't take long for people to start squirming in their seats, whispering derisive comments about Pacino's horribly misconceived accent -- he was supposed to be an American frontiersman of Scottish ancestry(!) -- and that of Nastassja Kinski, who was supposed to be recently emigrated from England(!!). Then the story started and it all went downhill fast.
Motivations were muddled, dialogue was atrocious, events had no historical or political context. What there was of a plot lurched forward on absurd coincidence; by the second or third time that alleged lovers Pacino and Kinski stumbled into each other it had become a bad joke. Donald Sutherland gave an unhinged performance as a British officer/pederast. His accent was all over the map too. I guess there weren't any English actors available.
Lots of people left. Those who stayed tried to stifle giggles, then openly guffawed. I stuck it out -- I figured that at least the battle scenes might be good. I was wrong. Inexplicably, Hudson chose to film them with hand-held cameras, not even Steadicam, the jerkiness giving a misplaced newsreel 'authenticity' which ruined the sense of scale.
There was a semi-famous TV reviewer in the audience a few rows ahead of me: (the late) Gary Franklin of Channel 7 Eyewitness News. I could tell he was peeved by the behavior of the rest of us. And sure enough, on his TV segment the next day he gave the film a '10' on his notorious 'Franklin Scale of 1 to 10', while remarking churlishly about the louts who'd disrupted the screening the night before, who clearly didn't know art when they saw it. What a buffoon.
After this disaster, Pacino didn't star in another film for almost 4 years. Hugh Hudson's career never recovered. You can't say I didn't warn you.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI can't figure Al Pacino out. I watch him in the Godfather, Scarface, Carlito's Way, and I think I am watching one of the greatest actors of the last thirty years. Then I see him in Two for the Money, Any Given Sunday and Revolution, and I wonder what the guy is thinking.
I stumbled on Revolution a few nights ago, and thought I would invest the next two hours on this. Here is a news flash: Want to get prisoners to talk? Force them to watch this over and over...they'll confess to anything.
I won't rehash the plot since there is no coherent plot, but it does take place during the American Revolution and Pacino plays an uneducated peasant who does not want to get involved, but ultimately does. While he has no money, no education and dresses like a caveman, a very hot Natasha Kinski falls in love with him for no apparent reason, since they have only two minutes of dialogue together.
Quite frankly, if \"Al Smith\" starred in this movie, instead of \"Al Pacino\", it would have ruined their career. The script was horrible, but Pacino's demotivated performance and obvious fake accent made it even worse. Donald Sutherland's role was laughable. I really can't describe it. Natasha Kinski is a main character, but has like 5 lines in the movie. In fact, nobody speaks much in this movie.
One of the most laughable premise in the movie is how Al Pacino and Kinski have this uncanny knack to continually run into each other on the battlefield. Its like the entire Northeast is a Starbucks. \"Hey, funny to see you here again, on ANOTHER battlefield 100 miles away...see you in a few months\".
I am required to give this one star by IMDb, since there is nothing here for a negative score.
\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 promising: my favorite actor in a historical drama during the Independence war. It had memories from \"Dances With Wolves\" for the big prairies, Indians, military fights & from \"Barry Lyndon\" for the British & candles lights atmospheres...
Unfortunately, the script is awful: the continuity of the story is lacking (cuts with \"5 months later\"; \"3 years later\") & the romance is so ridiculous that it's hard to believe in it: America is a big country but the characters kept bumping at each other; Above all, wait for the ending & you understand how to kill a story (imagine the same in \"Titanic\").
Sometimes, a bad script is saved by a brilliant filmmaker. Unfortunately bis, Hudson is a poor one. He has already committed \"Greystoke\" and i find again the same flaws: no dynamic in scenes, in editing, in scoring: it is long, dull, flat....
I knew that this movie was a disaster for Pacino's career: now i understand. Finally, this last movie for 2006 is in the vein of this year for me: A painful one...
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nRevolution is a terrible movie, I don't care if you're a history teacher, news writer, Al Pacino fan, there's no way this movie can possibly earn a legitimate '10'.
The key point to the plot is Tom Dobb (Al) trying to get money from a note he got for radical patriots taking his boat. Everything revolves around that note. Tom's son joins the army to make up for the note, making Tom join the army as well, they go on an adventure trying to get out of the army, years later the war is over and they can finally turn in the note for their boat. The End.
It had a few battle scenes, and they were pretty mediocre at best. Transistions between scenes used \"five months later\" and magically put the characters in some famous historical battle. The love story is a joke, and the movie as a whole is just hard to follow. So save your \"Notes\" and watch the Patriot 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\nDamp telling of the American Revolution.
When farmer 'Tom Dobb' (Al Pacino) and his son arrive in New York Harbor, they are immediately conscripted by street urchin Annie Lennox... Annie Lennox?... to contribute to the war effort.
After getting chopped down by bits of chain-link fired from British cannons, Tom and his son are promptly chastised by Continental Army sympathizer 'Daisy' (Nastassja Kinski) for 'not standing their ground'. Following this Kodak moment, a series of digressive chapters take place including Tom's participation in a 'foxhunt' in which he must carry a model of \"poor old Georgie Washington\" stuffed in effigy while running from a lace handkerchief-wielding English captain (Manning Redwood), and having a barbecue with a group of Iroquois Indians as they plan on the best way to sneak back into the fighting so Al and his ingrate kid can kick the crap out of British officer Donald Sutherland's butt.
Director Hugh Hudson presents a unique style of film-making and the atmosphere is as thick as the proverbial London fog, but the scriptwriter's painting of the redcoats as evil monsters once again reveals Hollywood's patented hatred of the British.
Steven Berkoff appears as an enlisted American soldier.
\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\nHistorically accurate? Hmm... Perhaps... if you squint, and light falls upon the subject just-so. But core accuracy is no compensation for a dismal, patchy and inconsistent plot, reams of cardboard dialogue and an unsatisfying conclusion. The principal characters are merely characterizations; embarrassing stereotypes that range from the 'enigmatic and noble' American Indians through to the 'stuffy but sadistic' British officers. A wretched and unworthy rendition of a fascinating period in American history. I want my money back.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI watched this movie also, and altho it is very well done, I found it a heartbreaker and would not recommend this to women who have small children.. The terror on this mother's face when she sees her child about to be run over by a train is truly heartbreaking. And the sad thing is--internally she dies. Eventually she goes back to the Applacian mountains. All the money in the world which she makes from making dolls does not conceal the grief she has. I remember her desperate face as she pulls money out of her clothes to try to have her child healed. I'm surprised this movie takes place in Detroit, because when I watched it I thought for sure the people had come to Cincinnati, Ohio. This also was a route for the poor from the mountains.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI've read all the rave reviews here and am impressed with the imagination of those who loved this film. I can't say that I found much to recommend it. The Leonard Cohen sound track is not only excessively heavy-handed but dreary beyond measure. The film looks authentic enough, but something's got to happen for it to work, and nothing much does: a cursory plot (not a real problem for me), not much character development, nothing thematically. It just slogs along. Flawed as it is, Cimino's \"Heaven's Gate\" has some moments of genuine wonder and is a film I'd sooner watch again. For a brilliant reconception of the West, HBO's \"Deadwood\" is much superior to \"McCabe.\"
\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\nRobert Altman's downbeat, new-fangled western from Edmund Naughton's book \"McCabe\" was overlooked at the time of its release but in the past years has garnered a sterling critical following. Aside from a completely convincing boom-town scenario, the characters here don't merit much interest, and the picture looks (intentionally) brackish and unappealing. Bearded Warren Beatty plays a turn-of-the-century entrepreneur who settles in struggling community on the outskirts of nowhere and helps organize the first brothel; once the profits start coming in, Beatty is naturally menaced by city toughs who want part of the action. Altman creates a solemn, wintry atmosphere for the movie which gives the audience a certain sense of time and place, but the action in this sorry little town is limited--most of the story being made up of vignettes--and Altman's pacing is deliberately slow. There's hardly a statement being made (just the opposite, in fact) and the languid actors stare at each other without much on their minds. It's a self-defeating picture, and yet, in an Altman-quirky way, it wears defeat proudly. ** from ****
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOh God,what an idiotic movie!Incredibly cheap with fake special effects(the creature is played by one guy in lame costume)and stupid plot.All dialogues are unbelievably bad and these actors(HA!HA!HA!)...they're simply ludicrous.For example I have never seen so annoying characters like in this junk(these dumb kids or pregnant woman with his husband and many more).All in all,this is a great entertainment if you're drunk.Avoid it like the plague.Am I drunk?I don't think so...
\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\nBlue monkey is actually mentioned in the film but not in any way that makes any possible sense. At one point,some kids are wandering thru the deeper levels, exploring.
They begin to discuss what they'll find down there and one of them (a girl) says she bets they'll find a blue monkey.
Yes, thats it. Totally inconsequential to the story, the only sad connection to the title, and no idea why she would suppose she'd find a blue monkey in a hospital's basement.
I'm embarrassed for having remembered it but somebody had to remember I suppose!
\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\nNever even knew this movie existed until I found an old VHS copy of it, hidden deep in my dusty horror closet. The title on the box said \"Insect\" and the illustrations on the back made clear that it is just another insignificant and poorly produced 80's horror movie. They can surely be fun, of course, as long as don't expect an intelligent scenario and as long as you're not irritated by seeing a giant amount of cheesy make-up effects. Just about every important aspect that makes a horror movie worthy viewing is substandard here in \"Blue Monkey\"! The plot is ridiculous and highly unoriginal, the acting performances are painful to observe and there's a total lack of suspense. Following the always-popular trend of \"big-bug\" movies, \"Blue Monkey\" handles about a new and unknown insect species that wipes out the doctors and patients of a remote hospital. The makers couldn't be more evasive about the actual origin of this gigantically over-sized critter! All we know is that it's not from outer space and it initially crawled out of a tropical plant. Other than this, there's absolutely no explanation for where this new type of insect all of a sudden comes from! Like I said, don't get your hopes up for an intelligent screenplay. The first half of the film is entertaining enough, with some nice gore and the introduction of a couple deranged characters (an 80-year-old blind and alcoholic lady!) but the second half (when the entire hospital is put to quarantine) is dreadfully boring. It is also near the end that \"Blue Monkey\" begins to exaggeratedly rip-off older (and better) films. Approaching the climax, they apparently ran out of budget as well, since the lighting becomes very poor and the guy in the monster suit isn't very well camouflaged anymore. \"Blue Monkey\" is worth a peek in case you're really bored or if you really want to see every 80's horror movie ever made. Fans of B-cinema may recognize John Vernon (\"Killer Klowns from Outer Space\", \"Curtains\") in the small and meaningless role of Roger, who's in charge of the clinic.
\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 I first saw the cover of this movie (a giant bug chasing a few nurses) And the name \"Blue Monkey\", I knew I wasn't in for any big Hollywood movie. I was pleasantly surprised to see Steve Railsback in this cheese-ball flick, who always does a good job in whatever role he tackles.... The FX are pretty corny, there isn't too much of a plot, and I'm still not sure why this movie is called Blue Monkey, because there is nothing in this movie to do with monkey. But come on people, what did you expect?? It's not really as bad as it seems.... If you enjoy the old 50's style black and white bug attack movies, this one is basically an updated version, without the updates special FX
\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\nAll this dismaying waste of film stock needs is Count Floyd popping up every sixty seconds. Somehow they got Steve Railsback, Susan Anspach, John Vernon, and Joe Flaherty together on a set and couldn't get within five miles, about eight kilometers, of an actual movie. BOY does this thing suck. There isn't one original line, thought, shot, or effect from brainless opening sequence to brainless close. The magical, ethereal Susan Anspach of Five Easy Pieces - boring. Steve Railsback - boring. John Vernon - boring. The big bug - boring. If this is a scary movie, Buttercream Gang is a thuglife documentary.
Seriously - every bad movie contains its own explanation of its badness. Usually it's in the opening credits - \"Written, Directed, and Produced by\" one guy. Or at the very center of the action is some bimbo so talentless that you know there's one and only one reason this turkey got made. Here, you don't find out till the very last of the credits, where the cooperation of about a dozen subfunctions of the Canadian Government is gratefully acknowledged.
Right now I'm watching MST's take on Beast of Yucca Flats to get the taste out of my mouth. Ghod, what an improvement.
\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, it would be some sort of cliché if i began with the bit about the title, so i'll wait on that. First, this movie made me wonder why kids do stupid things like wander around in labs and break bottles. Then i realized it, this is a movie with a message, that message is beat kids and things like this won't happen. Things like what you ask? Things like a giant insectish monster growing up and causing a bit of mayhem before dying in the typical \"kill the monster indirectly\" fashion. Now, as promised... Blue Monkey... has nothing Blue in it nor any Simian of any kind. Now it snot like i was cheated or anything. The picture on the cover had a giant bug/crab/idiot/thing on the front chasing some screaming nurses. That kinda happened but i wanted apes! having just enjoyed MOST EXTREME PRIMATE a few nights before(half drunk on Cask and Creame's brandy mind you) i was in the mood for more monkey hijacks 80's style. Not so much. If you like snow boarding apes or blue things this movie is not for you. If you like bugs and good reasons to hit kids, rent 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\nBlue Monkey (1987) or 'Invasion of the BodySuckers' as it's known here in the UK was a pretty boring horror movie about an old man who gets bitten in a greenhouse by some mysterious toxic plant!!!! The man gets rushed to hospital, where this worm like creature comes out of his mouth, of course this transforms into this insect monster and proceeds to go on the rampage!! Despite Steve Railsback and John Vernon being in the movie, i found it to be boring, with a flat predictable storyline, un-interesting characters, cheap special effects and lack of action!!!! Horror fans don't really need to track this rare movie down, you wont be missing much trust me!!! I give this movie 2/10.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAn older man touches a flower in his wife's greenhouse that seems to be wilting. He gets pricked by it, or bitten by something on it. He quickly becomes ill, and at the hospital spits out a large writhing white larva of some kind. A later attempt to resuscitate him with paddles results in a splatter of blood.
A cop is at the hospital because his partner got badly hurt in a shoot-out. Somehow the cop gets paired up with one of the female doctors, as well as an entomologist who is brought in. There are several young kids wandering around the hospital, who I suppose we're supposed to find adorable, but who are extremely annoying little brats. They happen to wander into the room where the specimen is being kept, and happen to dump a growth hormone on it. Horror movie logic would say they deserve to die for this, but they're never even in any danger.
The critter grows and starts breeding. People run away from it, and sometimes towards it for some reason. The hospital gets surrounded by military who are prepared to destroy everything if need be.
There are no really compelling characters in the movie, and most of the time it seems like people are searching around for the monster. It was fairly boring. Clearly it owes something to the Alien movies, with the monster being born inside a human and having several stages of its growth. There's also a character named Bishop, and the lead actress has Sigourney Weaver's hair.
\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 the worst MTV Movie Awards EVER!!! I barely laughed, none of the presenters were funny, the hosts really sucked, and the parodies weren't so great either. Why can't we go back to the good olden days when the show was a riot?
\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 usually check out the MTV movie awards to watch a witty, entertaining show that delivers a unique award show (Chewbacca winning a life-time achievement award as example). So this year was no different. While I'm not a fan of Justin Timberlake, Seann William Scott has always been funny-albiet stupid-to me. I've laughed at Stiffler in both American Pie movies, and even enjoyed him in Dude Where's My Car?. But the MTV movie awards were simply horrible. Nothing was coherrent, humorous, or entertaining. Justin Timberlake should stick to singing and dancing; he sure as hell can't act.
I'm curious as to who the writers were for this show. Last year's performance by Jack Black and Sarah Michelle Gellar was extremly funny (The Lord of the Rings parody alone was worth watching the entire show), but this year was completly different. Did anyone understand Timberlake's comments regarding Luke Wilson and Kate Hudson (\"They're staring in a movie together, but have never met! Here they are...\") Where was the joke? Kate and Luke just went into their lame dialogue, never making a reference to the \"joke\" by Timberlake. And Seann was completly wasted as a talent, not even causing me to smile, yet alone laugh. And what was the point of Harrison Ford's one-liners? Did they make ANY sense to anyone? Perhaps the MTV writers figured the young viewers would only know the aging Ford as Han Solo, Indiania Jones, or the President from Air Force One. I'm baffled. And would someone tell me the deal with Adrian Brody? How old is this guy and how old does he THINK he is? The guy looks 30, trying to act 19 again....give it up, show some class (like in your best actor academy award speech) and act your age!
I give this show 1 star out of 4, simply because of the speech by Gollam for Best Visual Performance. This was very creative, extremely well done, and caused the only genuine laugh of the entire evening.
\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 Japanese have always had incredible ambitions in their fantasy movies. They have always been ready to destroy cities by huge plastic monsters coming from outer space and elsewhere. The problem is they have never had the money to succeed in making convincing special effects. This film, released in France under the title Les envahisseurs de l'espace, is no exception. Its ambition is to show three creatures from the giant octopus to the giant lobster trying to have the upper hand on the humans. It's extremely awkward and laughable, but well quite enjoyable too. After all, we do like these creatures and these films after all, don't we?
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nHow can such good actors like Jean Rochefort and Carole Bouquet could have been involved in such a... a... well, such a thing ? I can't get it. It was awful, very baldy played (but some of the few leading roles), the jokes are dumb and absolutely not funny... I won't talk more about this movie, except for one little piece of advice : Do not go see it, it will be a waste of time and money.
\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 completely agree with the other comment someone should do a What's up tiger Lily with this film.
It has to be one of the worst french films I've seen in a long time (actually along with Brotherwood of the Wolves, 2 horrendous films in a much too short period of time).
It's really sad because the cast is really interesting and the original idea kind of fun. Antoine DeCaunes in particular and Jean Rochefort being among my darlings, I was bitterly disappointed to see them compromised in such a poor film.
Lou Doyon is quite bad, as usual which goes to prove that a pretty face and famous parents can get you into the movies but they don't necessarily give you talent.
avoid this film, if you want to laugh watch an Alain Chabat instead or some nice period piece full of fun like LA FILLE DE D'ARTAGNAN.
\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 the first 20mn of Blanche(sorry I couldn't take more of it), I have now confirmed she does not.
Basically, this \"movie\" is an insult to the real french actors participating in this farcical piece of junk. It starts from a concept successfully used in French comedies (\"Deux heures moins le quart avant Jesus Christ\", \"La Folie des Grandeurs\",...): a historical movie with anachronic tone / dialogues. This can give brilliant results if supported by brilliant actors and a \"finesse\" of direction avoiding the dreaded \"heavy comedy\" stigma.
Unfortunately, the horsey-faced Lou Doillon ruins everything and Blanche, instead of a comedy, just turns into an horror movie. Horror to cinephiles who want to be puzzled and shocked watching fine actors such as Decaune, Zem or Rochefort struggling in the middle of this gaudy burlesque kitchy-prissy farce.
\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 went to see this a few days ago, and it's hard to forget that film...for the wrong reasons. This film is supposed to be funny, it's not, not a single laugh in the theatre( perhaps for josé garcia and gérard Depardieu ), and it's boring, boring, boring. It was even hard sometimes to understand what they were saying. They just talk to fast and don't open their enough for us to understand. I was with a friend and more than 4 or 5 times i caught myself saying after a line that was supposed to be funny \" what, what did he say\", and i'm french. I hate to say that, given the fact that i think good films are made here, but i apologise in advance for all foreigners who will go see the film ( if ever shown outside of France ).
We're deeply sorry for that cr@p. 2/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is one of the worst movies I saw! I dunno what are the reasons for shoting suck a crap. Don't waste your time watching this. Good actors, but extremely bad screenplay and dialogues. Hope there'll be no Blanche 2 :-) Avoid this movie by all means!
\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\nAvoid this one, unless you want to watch an expensive but badly made movie. Example? The sound is good but the dialogue is not clear - a cardinal sin in a French film.
This film attempts to combine western, drug intrigue and ancien regime costume epic. What? Well, consider this. The cowboy music is hilarious during sword fights. Or how about the woman in her underwear, holding a knife and jumping up and down on the bed?
Someone should do a 'What's Up Tiger Lily' on this bomb. Rewrite the script and then either dub or subtitle it. Heck, it's almost that now. (BTW, Gerard Depardieu and Carole Bouquet, both known to American audiences, have roles.)
\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\nSorry, but every time I see a film wherein a woman sucker-punches a man and the man does nothing but cower, the film looses all credibility. So the new (female) Starbuck immediately tainted the plot before it even got off the ground (no pun intended). Dirk Benedict was so much more plausible as the sensitive hero-type than the new-age Kattee Sackhoff-- whose overacting will probably be henceforth lauded as \"a compelling, exciting, must-see, ground-breaking performance,\" by the politically correct new-speak of today's review copy editors; but in essence, it is just a tired, old image of a woman with a chip on her shoulder as big as a townhouse: the biggest cliché on screens today. I may give this series one more shot, but human caricatures alone will not keep me tuned in. As James Hilton once bemoaned, \"A story, please; just give me a story.\"
\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 fail to see the appeal of this series (which is supposed to be sci-fi). It's really just \"let's see what soap operatically happens this week\" and oh, the Cylons are involved through flashbacks.
The Cylon \"babe\" that keeps nailing the other guy is pretty lame, it's pretty obvious that T&A was added to the show. Every time she pops up I'm bewildered as to WTF is supposed to be going on. And don't even try to bullsh*t me about \"story arcs\".
It's a soap opera with some CGI thrown-in. This is not science fiction aside from the original premise.
This series is not everything it's worked-up to be. If you like trendy, edgy, dodgy, jumpy, vague editor-on-crack camera work, this show might be for you. Since nerds seem to be raving about this show, it's a clear indication that vocal nerds' opinions have been changed from Picard's TNG.
\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 yesterday seen the second part. And I must say, it was actually better then the first one. At the begin, I realized, It is actually a sequel, not a remake but not a good one. I do not like the old movies and series of Galactica, because the cylons saw like toasters (just as it was mentioned in this new movie) and were completely harmless for the old galactica. This movie turns the sides - the Humans were harmless but the whole movie was for me completely chaotic and stupid. Many scenes were unnecessary, for instance the story of the \"computer expert\" - completely a crap. If I were a scriptwriter I would leave him die in his house, killed by the cylon woman. And the evacuation from the planet? Oh, please if it would be bombed by 50 Megatons (why exactly 50 MT??) nukes, they would be dead killed by the radiation. And how is it actually possible that the big fleet of cylon was completely hidden before the attack? Aha, it was possibly this computer virus, created by the cylon - the script was probably written by ten-years-old school boy. The good side of the movie is, that the humans are at last defeated!! Really defeated, the population is near the extinction (children are dieing - two times explicit in the movie: 1. a baby!!! maybe one month old and a girl in age of max ten - what a violence...). And the bad-asses won and I think it is the first time in such sci-fi galaxy fight movie. I also appreciate the design of the cylons (not only of the humanoid cylon:-) a good job with these ships - I like the design of the ships by both of them - human an cylons. The human ships are a good never version of the old ones. And galactica - really pretty with these docks, I liked that. But this is all, only the design is not enough. The acting was really bad, the whole plot was expectable (only two things not - the human-cylon on the ragnardocks and the human-cylon at the end).The dialogs were trivial (and in the Slovak dabbing just stupid, but that is not fault of the movie). The whole movie looked like a pilot film for a series, but who would shoot such series? What it would be about? One star for the design the second one for the near extinction of humanity.
\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 most horrible retelling of a great series. It should not have been named Battlestar Galactica, because it's only the same in name alone. Too many changes to just have changes. You have characters turned from male to female, black to asian to cylon all in a way to \"attract female audiences,\" when there was already strong female characters that could have just been made stronger. Gone are the egyptian feeling. Gone are the quest for earth. The lack of cylons to go to terminator rejects takes away from the film, especially when one is made a fembot. Granted the original show had a lot of cheese to it, but it had a large following. They tried to hold onto this following but give the fans nothing to work with and basically spit in their face as they make it \"their own story.\" Changes are good, when they make something better, not to just make them.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"