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\nThey had such potential for this movie and they completely fall flat. In the first Cruel Intentions, we are left wondering what motivated the lead characters to become the way they are and act the way they do. There is almost NO character development whatsoever in this prequel. It's actually a very sad story but this film did nothing for me. It was as if they left out good writing in place of unneeded f-words. And the end makes absolutely no sense and doesn't explain anything. The writing was just terrible. Another thing that bothered me was that they used at lease 3 of the EXACT SAME lines that were in the original. Such as \"down boy\", or the kissing scene, and a few others I can't remember. I was not impressed at all by Robin's acting, but Amy did a great job. That's about the only thing that reconciled 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\nBasically, Cruel Intentions 2 is Cruel Intentions 1, again, only poorly done. The story is exactly the same as the first one (even some of the lines), with only a few exceptions. The cast is more unknown, and definitely less talented. Instead of being seductive and drawing me into watching it, I ended up feeling dirty because it compares to watching a soft-core porn. I'm not sure whether to blame some of the idiotic lines on the actors or the writers...and I always feel bad saying that, because I know how hard it is to do both...but it was basically a two-hour waste of my life. It literally amazes me that some movies get made, and this is no exception...I can't believe they'd make a third 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\nCruel Intentions 2 is bloody awful, I mean uber-bad. Words can not explain how bad it is, but I'll give it a go anyway.
The plot of Cruel Intentions 2 is very similar to the first film. Sebastian (Robin Dunne), is kicked out of a private school and is forced to move to New York. There he decides to make a fresh start and just a life a normal life and settle down. Unfortunately he has to deal with his step-sister Kathryn (Amy Adams) wants to drag him down. Sebastain starts to fall in love Danielle (Sarah Thompson), the innocent daughter of the Headmaster of the school. Kathryn wants Sebastain to just sleep around with the whole school which had been describe as a 'whore-house'. Kathryn also wants to get revenge with Cherie (Keri Lynn Pratt), who humiliated her during the school assembly. Kathryn wanted to make the freshman into the biggest slut in the school, a similar sub-plot to the first film.
Cruel Intentions 2 is basically a cancelled TV-show, which was turned into a prequel. There are so many problems with the film. It is poorly written, unfunny, and badly acted. Luckily for Amy Adams that the show never took off because now she is a fairly big actress. Whilst Cruel Intentions had a sense of realism and can been seen to be set in the real world, Cruel Intentions 2 is set in sitcom land and as described on amazon.co.uk 'a randy version of Saved by the Bell'. There were some dark themes involving sex and drug use in the first film, but in Cruel Intentions 2 tried to make it funny and some of the ideas in the film shouldn't be, such as Kathryn having an affair with a teacher. Other ideas also don't work such as the secret society where all the popular kids meet to discuss the downfall of other students. The film also had a major problem of sexualised 15/16-years-old. I know that teenagers do have sex, sometimes a lot, but when done on film or television, is treated very seriously. One famous sense was when Daneille encourages Cherie (who is around 14/15 in the film) to simulate sex on the back of a horse to the point where she has a orgasm. The idea of turning a girl around 14/15 into a slut is just very wrong with me, and shouldn't be made into a subject of comedy. The jokes in the film fall flat, whether if it's a verbal gag like 'she goes all moist when she sees you' to a visual gag where Sebastian pushes Kathryn face first into mud.
There is a lot wrong with this film, which I don't have time to go into, but I say it should be avoid. Just watch Cruel Intentions, whilst not a classic, still is a decent film and treats the subject matter well.
This film is just a pervert's wet dream, having school-kids having lots of sex with each other.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI watched this movie at 3'o clock in the morning, a time in the day where I am usually very open when it comes to movies. But still I think it wasn't good, this movie wasn't good at all. The reasons why are many.
The acting isn't all that good, and time after time situations occurring in it reminded me of a poor 90's Chevy Chase comedy. I mean, come on, like the handcuff situation, and the poker situation amongst the servants... This movie was so obviously based very much on the first one, and thats OK. But if I hadn't seen the first one before seeing this, it would have sucked even worse. Like the ending, it came very suddenly, and I felt like I got no closure what so ever... Sebastian changed very suddenly, and this This movie seems like it was made solely to explain nr 1, and like no time or effort was used on making anything else good. The score is the same as in the first one, and it didn't feel like a movie at all...
They should have handled the situations with more style and class, but they didn't, and therefore, this movie turned out 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\nThe first Cruel Intentions, the original, is my favorite movie of all time. It was an absolute masterpiece. So how on earth could they make a sequel so downright bad. Sarah Michelle Gellar was perfect in the first movie. In this one, Amy Adams sucks. She is terrible. And couldn't they have found a chick who actually looked like Sarah Michelle Gellar? At least the same hair color!!! i mean come on. Robin Dunn isn't as bad as Adams, but he is absolutely terrible when compared to Ryan Phillipe. The Sebastian in the first film is devious, deceitful, and much more evil than the Sebastian in the prequel. And what is up with the story line. It basically goes like this...
1- Sebastian has a bad rep at his first school, so the movie says, although it mentions nothing about him and his dating life, and how he has been with girls 2- Sebastian moves to New York, and just suddenly decides he's going to turn himself around. He \"falls in love\" with Danielle (might i remind you that in the original, Sarah Michelle giller says quote \"you broke up with THE FIRST PERSON you ever loved because i said to- so how can he have been in love in the prequel???). And he's all nice and charming, and all \"good person\", as he turns down sex from the chick his dad was doing.
3- He does a complete 180, and ends up in a threesome at the end of the movie, and then seducing Cherry.
I mean, its terrible. And i loved the first one so much. I haven't even seen the third one yet. I hope to god its better than this prequel.
\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 so-called prequel is just a badly made remake to to a better version of Dangerous Liasons. The plots are identical as is most of the script. I loved the book its based off of, and I loved the first movie, but I'm not even going to bother with the 3rd movie. The pointless banter between the two main characters in the prequel was completely predictable and unoriginal, and...I just can't stress how bad the movie was. If you don't want to take my word for it, just watch it, and you'll see what I mean. If you've read a review that says that 'If you likes the first one, you'll like the second one' the only reason that is is because IT IS THE EXACT SAME MOVIE! Although the plot is not even as good. They took so many lines from the first movie, Its hard to tell which movie you're watching.
\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 mad anyone made this movie. I was even more angry I lost valuable minutes of my life sitting still to watch this. I could have had a wax job and been more entertained. At least Cherri makes me laugh before it hurts. I was a bit confused at first but then I caught on and realized what was going on. By this time the film was half way through, and Yes I am a procrastinator but I always want to see things through until the end. So I stuck it out I watched it all. Not only are the actors not as attractive as in Cruel Intentions, they just aren't convincing. I've seen my nephew cry for attention more convincingly than the supposed lust portrayed on screen in this movie. If you like bad movies with bad acting watch 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\nFrom the very opening scene you will notice just how hard they tried to mimic the very smart and powerful 'Cruel Intentions', and how flat it landed. You'll also notice what a terrible choice they made by casting Robin Dunne as Valmont... Then in the second scene, you meet the two best things in this movie, Amy Adams and Mimi Rogers as Kathryn and her mother. That is, if you can get past the fact that Kathryn wasn't blonde in the first film... Then the movie goes on, you see the cheap romantic story from miles ago, and you notice Sebastian has already met an Anette in the past, here called Danielle, and a Cecile, here called Cherie... How original is that for a prequel. Then it turns into a low budget 'Wild Things' type of film with lots and lots of oh-my \"twists\". As I mentioned, Robin Dunne was a very bad choice. Not that he is a bad actor, he's good.. He just doesn't have the charisma Ryan did. Amy Adams, who is in my opinion one of the most talented young actresses of our time, once again delivers. But with all the talent in the world, there is no way one could save this trash. As a whole, this \"movie\" feels like a 'Beverly Hills, 90210' episode. The score has been stolen from 'Cruel Intentions' and 'Jawbreaker'... Yes, they used the score from JAWBREAKER... Couldn't they at least leave that one alone?! You'll want to pass this one. If you want more Cruel Intentions, watch Stephen Frears' Dangerous Liaisons.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhat can I say about Cruel intentions 2? Well, I can say in all honesty, I will only watch this film again if I am fastened to a chair and have my eyes opened clockwork-orange-style.
The film 'stars' Robin Dunne (No, I never heard of him either), whose awful impression of Ryan Phillipe made me cringe throughout. In a case of terrible casting, Dunne attempts (and fails) to carry off playing a handsome charismatic, charmer. Since the actor is not handsome, nor charismatic nor charming, the character is left wholly unbelievable. Amy Adams, (she was in an episode of buffy one time), tries to pick up where Sarah Michelle Gellar left off and bring scheming Katherine to life... However, Adams is not that good a an actress and her performance was flat and lacking in any real emotion, often she looked like she was reading cue cards just off camera. There were two good actors in the film however, Barry Flatman (Saw 2 & Saw 3) and Mimi Rogers (Mrs Kensington in Austion Powers), made very good and entertaining performances as the parents of Sebastian and Katherine and are the only reason why I rated the film as a 2, not a 1.
The film itself is a poor version of the original, with such lows as carbon copy's of dialogue and mimicked scenes which lacked the originality of the previous film.
I think that as a TV show, it might have worked, but if it had been recasted with people who could actually act in the main parts.
\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
When I first started watching this movie last night on Cinemax, I was shocked that it had been made. Cruel Intentions, in my opinion, was one of the best teen-oriented films made in years. This prequel had certain things incongruent with the original. (Sebastian's father married into wealth, then why does he have a rich Aunt on long island?)
Then I found out today that it was not really intended to be a new movie, but rather a television series, Manchester Prep. After hearing that, it made sense to me that it wasn't the same as the movie, just as Buffy the Vampire Slayer is different in TV form.
I think that Roger Kumble most likely added the ending that this movie had, AFTER the series wasn't picked up by Fox. It just seems like something that would happen too fast (Sebastian becoming the male version of Katharyn) and I just don't know where they would go with the next episode, since it wouldn't be leading to the 1999 Film (Which the newer ending is directed right towards.)
One thing I didn't like was that it suggested Sebastian and his father had married into the wealth, which isn't typically looked good upon in this area of new york, and sine Katharyn's mother was just an adult version of her, it didn't seem like something a woman in her position would do, marry a man not of her social class.
As a prequel this is fairly lame. But I would have been interested to see where this had gone as a series.
\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\nAlright normally i am not as harsh on sequels especially if the first film is done well and was ultimately a good movie. As for 1999 i feel that one of the top five films was Cruel Intentions. It had everything a great movie should have except for an original story, being adapted from a novel it was still damn good. On to Cruel Intentions 2 which was supposed to actually just be the opener for a series based on the film called manchester prep. Which must not have happened. Actually after seeing this trifle of a film i can understand. Before the thing started i was like at least the writer and director Roger Kumble did this one also. Well 1 minute into this movie i was disappointed. It starts off with a rehash of the opening of the original with a different twist sebastian instead of putting the shrinks daughter's naked picture on the net he puts the schools principals wife in the school directory naked. This would have been alright if the lady was not like 50. And basically the rest of the movie is a wannabe carbon copy of the original. Which i understand the if there is nothing wrong with it leave it the way it was. But you can not do that with a movie. This actually being a prequel i gave it a chance just to see how they turned out like they did in part 1. But with Sebastian being more or less just a prankster and Kathryn being a herself and turning sebastian into the sexual predator he was in the real story, this movie had no foundation to it. Whoever did the casting on this thing was way off. They could have at least tried to get people who looked like the original cast but no, they just hired a bunch of not even really good looking actors. I am using this term although i dont know why. They for sure didnt do any in this movie.
All this movie is a bunch of one liners that dont even match the wit that the original had, well some of them did but that was just because they were from part 1. Another bad point was in part one you could understand the need for them to act out for attention because there was no involvement from teir parents this one had them in it and they were poorly used, as if to show why the kids are like this. It didnt work though. The best thing though about the original was that the cast had chemistry they took you into this world. The on screen tension that was there made the film what it was. This thing Really ruins the experience of the first one stay way from this.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI was willing to go with the original _Cruel Intentions._ It went along with the plot and stayed true to the characters of one of my favorite stories. However, this movie was, in my opinion, a crummy rehash with essentially the same story line and no clear character choices. I didn't honestly care what happened to any of them. The strongest part of the original story (Les Liasons, not CI) is the characters and their interactions, not the events themselves. I wasn't clear until I read the IMDB that this movie was meant to be a prequel, especially since the title includes a number \"2,\" I expected a sequel, but then determined that it must be a companion piece. Over all, I must say that this movie read, to me at least, like a soft porn version of Les Liasons. I was not impressed.
\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 like \"The Disney Channel after Dark.\" Take out the \"aren't we naughty\" language and themes and you are left with dialogue and plot devices that insult the intelligence of anyone who doesn't describe \"Saved by the Bell\" as quality television. The dialogue so laughably cliched and knowingly dirty, one might think the screenplay was the product of locking Aaron Spelling and Joe Eszterhas in a room with orders to produce an amalgam of every bad script each had ever had a hand in creating. If that was Roger Kumble's intention, mission accomplished.
\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\nChrist, oh Christ... One watches stunned, incredulous, and possibly deranged, as this tawdry exercise in mirthless smut unfolds with all the wit and dexterity of a palsied Galapagos tortoise. Can such things be? Does this movie actually exist, or was I the unwitting guinea pig of some shadowy international drugs company, sipping my coffee unaware that it had been spiked with a dangerous hallucinogen? I've seen a lot of films, and a lot of bad films, but nothing prepared me for this; by the end of it I was a gibbering, snivelling wreck, tearing at the carpet with my teeth like a dog, clawing at the walls, howling till my lungs were sore. I pleaded desperately, frenziedly for mercy (to whom this appeal was made, I don't know), and longed with burning desire for the soothing balm of Ozu Yasujiro. Sweet Weeping Jesus, the memories... sometimes they come back to me. When I'm at my most vulnerable, when I'm least able to handle them. I shudder, I break down in tears, I bite my fingernails till my hands are slathered with blood, but I can't quite banish the awful flashbacks from my mind. I'm haunted. I'm damaged. I'm a shell of a man.
The other user comments here suggest that I am not alone in having undergone this terrifying experience, which can only mean one of two things: a) the film does, in fact, exist, or b) I am but one victim among legions of an international conspiracy of truly sinister proportions. What is quite mind-boggling is that some people seem to have enjoyed their ordeal, or at least have not been left traumatised by it. Perhaps they're part of the operation. God damn them, the maniacs! God damn them all to Hell!!!!!!
\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 review also contains a spoiler of the first movie -- so if you haven't seen either movie and want to but don't want the spoilers, please don't read this review!
While this movie is supposed to be about Christian and Kathryn meeting for the first time, the movie is a poor copy of the first Cruel Intentions. The actors that they had portray Ryan Phillippe's Christian and Sarah Michelle Gellar's Kathryn are very poor substitutes indeed. Neither can pull off the smarmy, snooty rich-kid attitude that the original actors did. It's absolutely appalling that some of the dialog was verbatim -- not so much between Christian and Kathryn, but if you listen closely enough you'll recognize it. There are also inconsistencies in the plot - if this were truly the first meeting of Christian and Kathryn, then why is it that Christian fell in love with a girl at the end of the movie? He supposedly was supposed to be in love for the first time in the original movie (with Reese Witherspoon's character).
Also, the tie-in with the photography/\"You could be a model\" comment at the end was totally lame and didn't add anything at all. Overall, this movie was a waste of time. I can't believe they made a Cruel Intentions 3.
\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\nThere is a reason why certain films go straight to video and of course the obvious reason is that if its too naughty for theater audience then release straight to video. Of course it really wouldn't be fair to the films that are good and yet they are also released straight to video. This one is not an exception although the film has good actors or at least actors with potential: Amy Adams (am Oscar nominee and talented actress), Robin Dunne who deserves better or at least a better agent, and Sarah Thompson who deserves roles that are a departure from teen melodramas. The film is also misstated: this film takes place before Cruel Intentions so therefore this film is actually a prequel and rather stupid one at that. This was a waste and its really a film that is in the same level as soft core porn and pay-per-view masturbation films. Fortunately for the actors, hopefully they will be able to erase this from their resumes. So if you are looking to see something naughty, but don't have the courage to buy porn then rent this film as a starter.
\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\nWho actually created this piece of crap this is the worst movie i have ever seen in my life it is such a waste of time and money. I hate it how they create low budget sequels featuring D-Lister actors and a storyline so similar to the 1st one.
I found this movie in the bargain bin sitting right next to Wild Things 2 and Death To The Supermodels for $2.99 what a fool i was to actually think that this could be good instead i watched in disgust as poor acting stereotypes ripped of the storyline and script from the 1st one.
Whoever thought that this straight-to-video production was actually even a half decent film you must be on crackd or something because I think what pretty much most of the people who've seen this film thinks WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!!!!
\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 think this is probably one of the worst movies I've watched in a long time.
Trying to get the 'same characters' with different people is *such* a bad idea. If they couldn't get Sara Michelle G. and Ryan P. in this one, they should have just cut their losses and said to heck with it. Instead they get NEW actors that are horrible at what they did. I seriously felt like I was at a High School or (bad) College play with the lever of acting these people put forth.
Where do they get some of these people? Was this their first movie? It sure seemed like it.
This movie also parallels the original in a few lines of speech. I had just got done watching the first one and popped #2 in. I was all excited to get to watch the second one and it ended up being the worst show I've seen in a while. I don't hardly EVER *EVER* turn off a movie, but this one definitely went off after about 30 - 40 min.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOkay, let me break it down for you guys...IT'S HORRIBLE!
If Roger Kumble did such a fancy job on the first Cruel Intentions then why did he do such a bad job on this. I'm sorry but this movie is stupid, true it may have improved if its series was ever aired but lets be realistic...this movie a crock! A lot of bad acting *NOTE The Shower scene* \"Kissing Cousins\" ?????? What kind of line is that? \"Slipery when wet\" ?????????? Can we say DUH-M! This movie had effort, I'll give you that, but it was too stupid! They even tried to make it funny by giving the house servants stupid accents which actually....WASN'T FUNNY! It was pathetic. Not to mention that they made everyone in the this one look Absolutely NOTHING like the original cast. It's as if they made them look different on purpose or something! I like watching it when I'm really really really board which doesn't happen occasionally. For those of you who did like it...Okay, what were you thinking? Could you possibly choose this movie over the other one which had great acting and the fabulous Sarah Michelle Gellar? A movie is gold if it has Sarah Michelle Gellar in it, DUH! But this movie doesn't, no offense Amy Adams. Oh, yeah since when does Sebastain have a heart????? UGH!
\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 seen this movie today for the first time and I never heard of it before, probably because of it's poor message.
First of all, the directing itself is quite good, the actors played well and the CGI (I'm not a fan of CGI) is magnificent. But that alone doesn't make a movie. No story at all, no message behind beautiful exploited talents.
Or do I have to make people remember, the art of a director is not only your vision but to know how to tell a story. And this is what's missing the whole 7 minutes.
There for a simple 4 rating.
\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\nFriz Freleng's 'Speedy Gonzalez' was the second cartoon to feature the title character after Robert McKimson's 'Cat-tails for Two'. In that cartoon, Speedy has been an ugly little creature with a big gold tooth but by his second appearance the famous design had already been adopted. Despite looking significantly more handsome, Speedy never developed into much of a character. A big hat, tremendous speed and a bad Mexican accent do not a classic character make and that's pretty much all Speedy ever had going for him. Nevertheless, the cocky little mouse proved enormously popular and went on to star in many shorts including some truly abysmal films from the studio's latter days. While these early Speedy shorts are better than those later atrocities in which he was frequently (rather oddly) paired up with Daffy Duck, they still leave much to be desired, relying on predictable gags usually based around a similar chase formula. In this self-titled episode, Speedy is recruited by some other mice to steal cheese for them from the local factory which happens to be guarded by Sylvester the cat. Although he brings the extra weight of a star turn to the cartoon, Sylvester's role here could just as easily been filled by any other generic cartoon cat. His personality is sapped by his being forced into the predictable. undemanding role of pursuer. This was always a problem in the Tweety cartoons too but Speedy makes an even duller adversary thanks to his detestable cockiness and the blatant impossibility of his capture. Poor old Sylvester would be forced to appear alongside Speedy for many years to come. Despite it following a pretty basic formula and featuring minimal laughs, 'Speedy Gonzalez' won an Oscar and a thoroughly undeserving star was born.
\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\nSeriously, I've read some of the reviews on this film, and I have to ask, were you people watching the same movie.
Yes, I give the set directors a lot of credit for being able to recreate 1930 vintage Los Angeles, but so what?
None of the characters are likable, the story seems aimless, Karen Black is simply not a very good actress. Donald Sutherland is just icky. (and his character \"Homer Simpson\" makes me wish for the animated version. D'oh!) Then you had the creepy child actor, the creepier Billy Barty, and so on.
This is one of those films cinema buffs love and the rest of us look at each other and go, \"What the heck!\"
\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 propaganda film for the Palestinian \"cause\". If you were expecting an unbiased documentary on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you will need to look elsewhere. If you are an anti-Semite (or merely an anti-Zionist---nothing wrong with advocating the destruction of a country, right?) or uncritically in support of Palestinian goals (e.g., mass murder, the destruction of Israel), this is the documentary for you. Should make for an entertaining evening on college campuses around the UK and US. However, any informed and intellectually honest person would be outraged at the sheer number of lies presented in this video. I just hope those who truly are unaware of the situation aren't corrupted by this anti-Semitic filth.
\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 movie has only one flaw, unfortunately this flaw damages all credibility of the piece.
It starts with the condemnation of the Israeli occupation of disputed territories. It fails to address the reason Israelis are there. Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Jordan attacked Israel. This is why Israel \"occupys\" their land, because those countries lost it in a war they started.
The film also claims that Israel has defied the U N by not complying with Resolution 242. Problem is, 242 was rejected immediately upon it's inception by.....the palestinians, making it void.
Many films are put together well, and can really show footage that changes minds, but remember, when watching anything, believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see.
All participants in this film are known critics of Israel, and some have made many antisemitic public comments, removing any possible credibility to their words.
All participants are in dire need of a actual history lesson taught objectively, not by some palestinian sympathizer.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt's been said several times - not least by me - that watching an Eric Rohmer film is like watching paint dry; it seems that Monsieur Rohmer resents this (he doesn't deny it, but then how could he, he just resents it) so much so that his new movie, which may also be his last, Inch Allah, is set so far back in time that it's like watching woad dry. Those wonderful people who gave you the Nouvelle Vague, Cahiers du Cinema have already named it one of the best films of 2007 so that should give you some idea. Reality is not high on Rohmer's agenda so that in 5th Century France we have at one extreme a château that would not be out of place in the Loire valley whilst the only other dwelling we see is a rude wooden hut. The story involves nymphs and shepherds and as he often does Rohmer has cast it with unknowns who just happened to be passing so that the overall effect is that the annual class play at a school for Special Needs pupils was captured on film by accident. One is almost tempted to say 'Come back Godard, all is forgiven' but even this woeful production can't make me utter those words.
\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 do I begin to review a film that will soon be recognized as the `worst film of all time' by the `worst director of all time?' A film that could develop a cult following because it's `so bad it's good?'
An analytical approach criticizing the film seems both pointless and part of band-wagon syndrome--let's bash freely without worry of backlash because every other human on earth is doing it, and the people who like the film like it for those flaws we'd cite.
The film's universal poor quality goes without saying-- 'Sixteen Years of Alcohol' is not without competition for title of worst film so it has to sink pretty low to acquire the title and keep a hold of it, but I believe this film could go the distance. IMDb doesn't allow enough words to cite all the films failures, and it be much easier to site the elements 'Sixteen Years of Alcohol' does right. Unfortunately, those moments of glory are so far buried in the shadows of this film's poorness that that's a task not worth pursuing.
My impressions? I thought I knew what I was getting into, I had been warned to drink several cups of coffee before sitting down to watch this one (wish that suggestion had been cups of Vodka). Despite my low expectations, 'Sixteen Years of Alcohol' failed to entertain me even on a `make fun of the bad movie' level. Not just bad, but obnoxiously bad as though Jobson intentionally tried to make this film a poetical yawn but went into overkill and shoved the poetry down our throats making it not profound but funny . .. and supposedly Jobson sincerely tried to make a good movie? Even after viewing the 'Sixteen Years of Alcohol' promotional literature, I have trouble believing Jobson's sincerity. Pointless and obnoxious till the end with a several grin/chuckle moments (all I'm sure none intentional)spiced the film, and those few elements prevented me from turning the DVD off. So bad it's good? No. It had just enough 'I can't believe this is a serious movie moments' to keep me from turning it off, and nothing more.
Definitely a film to watch with a group of bad-movie connoisseurs. Get your own running commentary going. That would've significantly improved the experience for me. So bad it's Mike Myers commentating in his cod Scottish accent on it as it runs, to turn this whole piece of sludge into a comic farce \"Ok dare ma man, pass me annuder gliss of dat wiskey\".
\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\nRounding out the 1929-30 all-talkie \"Our Gang\" release schedule, \"A Tough Winter\" features two storylines. First, Wheezer and Mary Ann, home alone on a wintry day, decide to make some taffy. Little Wheezer relays the directions to Mary Ann from a radio cooking show. The problem: Wheezer relays information from different shows and Mary Ann ends up putting soap in the mix! Funny moments occur when the rest of the Gang shows up to pull the taffy - and end up getting it all over the house!
The second storyline deals with Stepin Fetchit, a neighbor/handyman of the Gang, and his interactions with the Gang.
\"A Tough Winter,\" to my knowledge, has never been shown on television, although it is available on home video. The reason for this is the Stepin Fetchit characterization which shows a shifty, sly, and slow-moving character. \"Our Gang\" producer Hal Roach called Fetchit a \"skilled comic\" and used this \"Our Gang\" entry as a pilot for a Fetchit comedy series that never saw the light of day. Understandably, Fetchit's characterization is offensive to many people today, which explains why the film has been shelved.
Although there are some funny moments both with Fetchit and the taffy, \"A Tough Winter\" is a plodding and meandering effort. If one positive came out of this film, it was that the Hal Roach Studios grew confident and experienced in making talkies. The sound in the film is good, and some of the sound effects used are very funny. For this reason, this film in part paved the way for the excellent 1930-31 \"Our Gang\" films.
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 Hal Roach comedy short, A Tough Winter, is the ninety-ninth in the \"Our Gang/Little Rascals\" series and the eleventh talkie. Bascally a showcase for black comic Stepin Fetchit who gets special billing here, we see him going to his shack where the gang hangs out. Farina retrieves a love letter from the mail for him and is told by Stepin to read it since he can't read it during the day as he goes to NIGHT school. It happens to be from his sweetheart in Tennesse so now Farina has to have his ears stuffed with cotton since it's too hot for him to hear! In another room, Weezer relays instructions to Mary Ann of making taffy from the radio but because he keeps running back and forth to the kitchen, he misses the lady announcer's segue to rice pudding and Spanish tamale confusing Mary Ann with additions of Tabasco and Lux! After the concoction is completed, Jackie and the rest of the gang help themselves with the awful tasting but very sticky substance as everyone gets stuck on the walls as a result. As they all try to clean the mess, Stepin works in the basement on various pipes and electrical outlets that mixes variable appliances' functions such a telephone that vacuums, a vacuum that rings, and a refrigerator that plays music! The End. What I've just described portends the meandering nature of this \"Our Gang\" short that served as the pilot for a potential Stepin Fetchit movie short series. It's just as well that it never took place as Fetchit's characterization of the lazy Negro was amusing only in small doses and would be considered highly offensive today. Many of the scenes I've just described are good for some laughs though the final sequence was so confusing that the results were just too blah for me. So in summary, A Tough Winter is a curio worth seeing at least once. By the way, Stepin's real name was Lincoln Theodore Perry.
\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 wasted cast.
This is one of the most disappointing films I've seen.
Usually Roger Ebert does not let me down, but I feel cheated after seeing this movie.
The only thrill is seeing Elizabeth banks in her bra. That is a sorry statement about this movie. It held so much promise, but it was like dry humping a transvestite.
This is self absorbed tripe.
I cannot express deeply enough my bitterness at having sat through this movie, and hope I can forewarn you of the same disappointment.
\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 thought they should have called this movie \"Whites\" instead of \"Heights\". Godawful...the kind of film that makes people hate New Yorkers. People who are so self obsessed and think their lives are so important...give me a break. Such a lily white cast that Glenn Close was the most ethnic character in it, this film was crying out for someone real to come in and steal it...and so they introduce, get this, a character even whiter than the rest of the cast (I thought he was an albino at first)who's supposed to be Welsh!I'm still trying to decipher that accent! Intellectually dishonest...this movie is the kind of film that's able to fool so many people into thinking it's worthwhile because it has the trappings of something more ambitious. Better to fill the theaters with MI5-10 than with this pretentious crap...must have been a better play because you can't fall off the floor.
\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\nPam Grier stars as Coffy. She's a nurse who seeks revenge, on the drug dealers who got her sister hooked on bad heroine. Like any 70s Blaxploitation flick, you can expect to see the racist bad guys get their just desserts.
There were scores of these films made during the 70s, and they were really demeaning to both black and white audiences alike. This is mainly due to the vicious racial hostility in these films, and the degrading, stereotypical characters. Especially the female characters.
Other common threads between Coffy, and other films of its type, include brutal violence, corrupt cops, car chases, a generous abundance of nudity, and sex-crazed gorgeous women. Not to mention urban ghettos populated by drug-dealers, pimps, mobsters, and other criminal scum.
Pam Grier, was the undisputed queen of 70s Blaxploitation heroines. She was magnificent, being both tough-as-nails, and drop-dead gorgeous. Like in her other films, Pam outshines the other characters, in Coffy. In fact, Pam is so charismatic on screen, that these sorts of films are unwatchable, without her as the main character.
If you like Pam Grier, you're better off seeing her other films, like Foxy Brown, or perhaps Friday Foster. These films have much less empty sleaze, than Coffy does. Pam's character in Coffy, degrades herself way too much to get the bad guys. Pam's characters in her other Blaxploitation films, don't stoop as low to get revenge, as Coffy did.
I'd say, only watch Coffy, if you're unable to see any of Pam Grier's other films. Otherwise, Coffy is a waste of time. Only Pam's talent as an actress, makes viewing Coffy bearable.
\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\nFar from providing the caffeine kick you'd expect from a film that shares its name with the most energy-boosting of warm beverages, Coffy clunks about and never really rises above being just a ropey revenge tale. Indeed, if the movie was a cup of coffee, it'd be rather weak and watery, littered with a few undesirable dregs and lacking in a lingering aftertaste. Sporadically it hits the spot, but otherwise it isn't the hot action-drama it hopes to be.
Plot-wise, Coffy is a nurse who takes the law into her own hands and delivers hard justice to the drug-pushing, lady-pimpin', mob-suckers that hooked her younger sister into a depraved, sick state. Socio-political commentary on the plight of urban black youths in America is prominent in Coffy, and it makes for some thought-provoking stuff as Coffy crusades against the political corruption and white establishment racism that profits and acts as a parasite off the targeted Afro-American minorities. Sadly, the timely messages are undermined by the film's poor quality and lack of focus. Coffy's ideas are important, it's just that they are not well-aimed.
One of the plus points of Coffy is the presence of Blaxploitation icon Pam Grier. Grier goes at her role with gusto and makes for an appealing action heroine as she shotguns down the scum in her often spectacular acts of vigilante violence (how do you deal with a house full of hoods? Drive the car right through the front door!). It's just a shame that the storyline wavers on occasions, wasting time squeezing as much sexual exploitation as possible. The low budget can't have helped, but neither does the fact that for a Blaxploitation flick, Coffy lacks groove. Just as the issues are undermined by the lack of quality, consequently the entertainment and excitement are also skewered by moments of dullness and misdirection.
The total result is workmanlike and wooden. We get a hip heroine but not a hip movie. It's a shame as Coffy has its moments and should rightly be regarded as a key film in the Blaxploitation craze; it just never ascends above being an average, lukewarm number.
\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\nPoorly-made \"blaxploitation\" crime-drama aimed squarely at the black urban market of the early 1970s. Pam Grier stars in the title role, that of a nurse who becomes a one-woman vigilante after drug-dealing thugs make Coffy's little sister a junkie. Violent nonsense plods along doggedly, with canned energy and excitement; only Grier's flaring temper gives the narrative a jolt (she's not much of an actress here, but she connects with the audience in a primal way). Not much different from what Charles Bronson was doing at this time, the film was marketed and advertised as crass exploitation yet still managed to find a sizable inner-city audience. Today however, it's merely a footnote in '70s film history, and lacks the wide-range appeal of other movies in this genre. *1/2 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\nThe reason this is such a bad movie is because it is so very badly written, and this is entirely the fault of the hack novelist Robert James Waller, also author of Bridges of Madison County. The writing is bad because the plot is perfectly trite and the dialogue is wooden and implausible. A failing couplea blocked American writer and a pretty Mexican woman with a history of which she is ashamedare swept up by a strong, self-directed criminal, and after a few adventures (mostly terrifically violent) alternating with scenes that show the warmer side of the assassin, she leaves the impotent partner for the killer, who, bad as he is, sees her more clearly than anyone has before. Nothing can help this movie succeed, not even the seamed face of Scott Glenn as the killer, not the appealing latinity of Giovanna Zacarías as Luz, and not even the stalwart performance of Harvey Keitel as the CIA specialist assigned to track the killer down. A serious waste of time.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAn OK flick, set in Mexico, about a hit-man (Scott Glenn) who hitches a ride with struggling American writer and his Mexican girlfriend after a hit. He pays them to take him to the border  but things get out of hand.
It starts well enough, but quickly struggles and dies.
**SPOILER**
The eventual relationship twist is badly set up and difficult to believe. An absence of passion, and essentially no reasoning behind her leaving one man for the other, made it ridiculous - and the ending was predictable and dull.
**END SPOILER**
Harvey Keitel is the US agent on the hit-man's trail, but he seems a little confused as to how boring and slow the script 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\nTerrible!!! I don't want to be too negative but this film has an IQ of stupid monkey.What a disaster.I just couldn't believe how bad this movie is.The dialogs are just very strange and off topic,the camera work at times just horrible,the music at times like a soundtrack for Lawrence of Arabia,I just watched this film to see how much worse it can get.Some of the side kick \"actors\" are total disaster.Sorry but all my thumbs and toes and anything that can hang downwards on my body is falling to the ground. Harvey Keitle is a great actor but who knows maybe he is in financial crunch to take a part in such a fiasco film. . . . . this movie should have been presented to all the students in all the film schools just to teach them a lesson of how not to make a film
\n
assistant\n0
\n"