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\n\"Laugh, Clown Laugh\" released in 1928, stars the legendary Lon Chaney as a circus clown named Tito. Tito has raised a foundling (a young and beautiful Loretta Young) to adulthood and names her Simonetta. Tito has raised the girl in the circus life, and she has become an accomplished ballerina. While Chaney gives his usual great performance, I could not get past the fact that Tito, now well into middle age, has the hots for the young Simonetta. Although he is not her biological father, he has raised her like a daughter. That kind of \"ick\" factor permeates throughout the film. Tito competes for Simonetta's affections with a young and handsome 'Count' Luigi (Nils Asther). Simonetta clearly falls for the young man, but feels guilt about abandoning Tito (out of loyalty, not romantic love). The whole premise of the film is ridiculous, and I find it amazing that no one in the film tells Tito what a stupid old fool he is being (until he reveals it himself at the end). The film is noteworthy only because of Loretta Young, who would go on to have a great career. While I adore Chaney's brilliance as an actor, this whole film seems off to me and just downright creepy.
\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 a great admirer of Lon Chaney, but the screen writing of this movie just did not work for me. The story jumps around oddly (I've since learned that the film is missing a section), and characters appear and disappear with irritating suddenness. Some of the intertitles are overly explanatory (e.g., \"why, you're not a child anymore!\"--cut back to picture for a long, slow beat--\"you're a woman!\" yes, we got it the first time) but there are a few talking sequences that beg for explanations that never appear. (Let's hear Luigi and his blond girlfriend's argument, please!) The plot, which involves incestuous desires (figuratively if not technically) was disturbing to the point that it was hard to watch. To the writer's credit, this issue was treated as a problem, and a May-December match is not portrayed as the right-and-good inevitability of some Mary Pickford films (e.g., \"Daddy-Long-Legs\"). Chaney gives a good performance, as usual, but I think he has been better-directed in the past--he overdid it a few times here, IMHO. I did enjoy the clown sequences, and was very impressed at the stunts. Loretta Young was charming, though astonishingly young. The film has its moments, but so far, it's my least-favorite Chaney picture.
\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\nZiab la ta'kol al lahem is an awful movie.This is only a superposition of scenes without a clear link.Acting is also very bad, despite the presence of a good actor like Ezzat El allayli. But something is really astonishing in this movie, talking about sexuality, emancipation of women, nude scenes are very rare in Arab cinema,even in this days. I really congratulate the director and the actors for their courage. We want to see more of this style in Egyptian movies, but with better quality. The reasons that led me to vote this film as an awful one are not only scenario and acting, but also the lack of prfessionalism. This movie look like an amateur one.We can see a lot of errors in the screen. If you want a good arab movie Ziab la ta'kol al lahm is not the one recommended.But if you wish to encourage the uncensored movies in all the arab world watch it and make your friends and your family do the same.
\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 Egyptian Movies has A Lot Of Filmes With High Level Of Drama Or Romance Or Comedy Or Action Even Sports... \"Ziab la Ta'Kohl AL lam\" Was banned In Egypt Because It Content Nudity (Full Frontal Female Nudity) And This Kind Of Nudity Is Prohibited In The Egyptian Movies.. When I Saw this Movies I Felt Down... Fool Story.. Nude Actress.. Bad Action.. Some Horror & Awful Colors.. Dear Friend.. If You Wanna See A great Egyptian Movie...Simply: Stay Away Form \"Ziab la Ta'Kohl AL lam\".. We Have Great Movies In Egypt... We Have A Great Actors Who Won A Global Wins Like: Omar El Sheriff Or Gameel Rateb.. We Have Great Directors Like \"Yousef Shahin\" So Believe Me Pall.. You Don't Need To See 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\nI never heard of this film til it played as part of a Robert Mitchum retrospective at the National Film Theatre in London. Almost 60 years on the cast list looked tasty to say the least with seven names - in addition to top-billed Mitchum - in the public domain; Charles McGraw, not long off The Killers, Barbara Bel Geddes, long before Dallas and arguably still better known as the daughter of Theatre Set Designer Norman, Walter Brennan, who needed no introduction, Frank Faylen, the sadistic male nurse in The Lost Weekend and the much nicer small-town mensch in It's A Wonderful Life, Robert Preston still a decade away from Harold Hill in The Music Man with Tom Tully and Phyllis Thaxter making up the numbers. Alas, most of them were wasting their time. I looked in vain for any 'signature' scenes given that it was Robert Wise on bullhorn. By this time he'd made around a half dozen films and had still to find a style. The story is our old friend the range war and Mitchum must have thought it was barely a cut above the Hopalong Cassidy oaters on which he'd cut his teeth. There are no new twists - if you don't count the unbelievable scene when Mitchum accuses Preston of sleeping with Thaxter to gain information about her father's plans to move his cattle. This is perfectly true but how did Mitchum KNOW? We've seen or heard nothing to indicate how he discovered it. On balance not a lot to be said for 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\nLets put it this way. I actually get this movie. I get what the writer/directer was trying to do. I understand that the dialog was meant to be dry and emotionless. I understand that the plot was supposed to be non-climactic and stale. That was what the writer/director was going for. A very very very dry humor/comedy. With all that understanding, I still think the movie sucked. It seemed like the writer/director was trying to recreate Napolean Dynamite with this movie. It had all of the same features. Even the main character behaved similar to Napolean. But Napolean Dynamite was actually funny. Its script worked. This movie is not. It has no purpose. Well, let me rephrase that. Its only purpose is to rip off Napolean Dynamite and try to capture that look and feel. Too bad it didn't work.
\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 isn't a bad movie... but it's the type your girlfriend makes you watch. The story isn't bad .... it just makes the hour and a half seem so long. It's hard for me to trash this movie because I really do like the idea of it but it was just to long and thin on story... too bad. The main character never really seems to change all that much from beginning to end . I mean goes through something \"life changing\" and he can barely break a smile. I really thought Mac was really good. His weird quirkiness kept the movie from being a complete disaster. Maybe I just don't \"get\" this film. If anyone can explain it to me I'd love to be informed.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIn my life I have seen many great and awful movies. I am not an expert in professional reviews, but I have definitely something to say about this one. Firstly, these actors are the worst I have seen... Their acting is so unreal that you even want to throw away the DVD in the first 2 minutes. I think that these actors were not interested in the quality.
Another awful thing is about these dialogs - they are so lame. You sometimes feel uncomfortable when you hear them. It seems that your 14 year old son could act better. I feel that this movie had a budget similar to the cost of my 14 year old European car...
Please, if my message reaches you - save your 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\nWilliam Shatner in small doses is tolerable. Unfortunately, instead of leaving his character as a minor irritation, and in that moderately amusing, it has been seen fit to enlarge his role and overdo it. Just as occurred in the original Star Trek series. I guess I will never understand American humour, which frequently goes 'over the top' to get the message through. I vote with my feet. I no longer watch the show, which is a shame, because the rest of the cast were good. It is pity that Shatner's overdone role also, affects James Spader's performance. But the majority demonstrate the way society is going, I guess. I don't travel the same routes. Frank
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI don't think this is too bad of a show under the right conditions. I tolerated the first season.
Unfortunately, this is a show about lawyers who aren't really lawyers. God forbid anybody actually go to law school based on these shows, which I had heard was the case when I watched some interviews of the show. It just made me gag a bit.
That aside, Spader and Shatner, who are supposed to be the stars of the show, are the most annoying. While this might be a compliment in some situations, it's certainly not here. Their constantly harassing the women on the show is funny at first. But since that's what they're doing literally all the time, I've realized that this is as deep as the show is going to get. Trying to intersperse some serious, dramatic, and even tear-jerking moments in the middle of this mockery of a real show fails to compensate for the progressive loss of interest I've been experiencing trying to enjoy the show.
Alan Shore's flamboyant and gratuitous \"public service announcements\" where he spouts off his opinions do not impress. Denny Crane is just annoying. I was embarrassed for him and for the writers of the show for Crane's speech wearing a colonial outfit.
I'm giving two stars because there are moments where I thought the show's attempts to deal with some contemporary issues were done with care.
I think the show's writers became aware that the sexual harassment displayed by Denny and Alan was getting overbearing even to those who were more inviting of them from the start. The thing is, I don't care if the sexual harassment treatment in the show is done well, but I just felt that the writer was insulting me with artificially implanting sexual banters all over the show in the hopes that my libido will keep me coming back for more. I'm not a teenager anymore, and I think this show is promising if its goal wasn't to cater to the lowest common denominator to get ratings.
Of course, I'm writing this after I realized that it's really not gonna get much better than this. It's a shame because it's one of those shows I'd love to love.
\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\nBoston legal has turned its tail and is headed for the barn door and th pig slop it has created! When this show first aired almost four season back it was a humorous slap at the legal system which all actors seem to take pride in portraying. It was funny, diversified, and to some extent factual. The characters portrayed were acceptable and to an extent real in their portrayals. The sexual comment and activity were limited and humorous. Julie Bowen is and was beautiful as in other series she participated but is now dragged to the lower depths of Media programming of sex and violence. Julie is an excellent actress and needs a more stable platform than this \"production\". Rene Adjurdubois Is an excellent actor who has from the days of \"Benson\" to this production held his own in the field of entertainment, always showing the humor and respectful acting of the production. Captain Kirk \"is\". Funny and humorous is Candace Bergan and is to be admired for her continuing in this production and is a good actress. James Spader, there is no doubt in his acting ability, however he should go back to his XXX origins such as \"Crash\" as it appears he has much talent and inclination in that direction. We ask that this series be trashed as it already is and its really starting to smell!!!
\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\nWe purchased this series on DVD because of all of the glowing reviews we had seen here. I gave it three stars because there can be little doubt that sometimes the acting, directing and writing are brilliant. In fact they are so brilliant we did not see the propaganda that was being transmitted so smoothly on the series. If one watches it with discernment, one will see the entire litany of the radical right wing beliefs being promulgated by the Fox (Faux) News Network. To avoid giving away any spoilers I will refrain from pointing out all of the dozens of specific instances. A brief look at the plots found here on IMDb will disclose that everything from torture to gun control to the right of a network to provide \"Infomercials\" and call them news is justified with cute plot twists and impassioned speeches given by some of the best actors in the world. We watched many shows and finally gave up in disgust when they justified torture using Attorney General Gonzales as a shining example of why all kinds of torture should be used in the name of protecting all of us. The series also manages to demean male and female gays in subtle ways by using them as plot devices depicting evil people. All in all the complete litany of the radical religious right wing.
No doubt the popularity of this program will be used by future historians as proof that America lost its way in the early part of the this century. As a student of history myself I would characterize this program as being in a league with the propaganda produced by Goebbels for Hitler and some of the propaganda produced by Hollywood for the American audience during WWII.
So if you want to use this as a teaching tool to help your students understand how subtle propaganda can be then by all means do so. Just be sure to purchase an inexpensive used copy so you can avoid enriching the ultra right wingers at Faux Network who produced this travesty.
\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\nUtterly predictable silly show about a man who has killed his wife by mowing her down when driving and claimed he had blacked out. Why was he still driving a car? Why did he still feel able to drive a car having killed his wife with one? This question has not occurred to the writers. The story then witters on about a psychologist and her failing marriage which is tied into the failing marriage of wife-killing blackout driver. An omniscient mother and one dimensional child are thrown in for good measure, and the whole builds up to a predictable denouement and crashing finale. Are police psychologists so easily taken in? Deadful writing that the actors do their best with, but they are doomed to failure. This is on a par with a Harlequin Romance. Don't waste your time watching this one unless that's what you are aiming for.
\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\"I thought I'd be locked away in a padded cell and they'd throw away the key\" (Thus is a paraphrased snatch of dialogue from \"State of Mind\".
One wonders in what tangled forest Paula Milne and her co-writer found the magic mushrooms they must have eaten, to create this feeble \"whodunnit\" and bring such rubbish to our screens. A padded cell should indeed be left available.
Niamh Cusack did her best, (as did the other actors) but surely her talent deserves a better vehicle than this. The height of absurdity has been reached, and this particular \"State of Mind\" is best buried and forgotten, and certainly not just \"placed in a box and locked away in a drawer\".
\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\nWhatever happened to British TV drama? From John Major through Tony Blair, the focus of the genre appears to have shifted from social realism to smugly normative women-focused tales about the piddling domestic problems of nice middle class professionals.
(Or perhaps TVNZ doesn't buy the good stuff? Please let that be what it is...)
The writer's long career in soaps probably explains why the dialogue is made up mostly of stale clichés. Niamh Cusack's performance is strong on meaningful looks, each held by the director for at least half a dozen beats longer than they deserve. Baleful looks, however, are a poor substitute for depth of character, if the writer has failed to provide such material for actors to work with.
Of course this is theoretically a thriller, about a murder investigation; but that's not as important as the central character's failing marriage and its attendant problems. Is Cusack's character's husband a complete bastard? Will her son be utterly traumatized by the marriage break up? Making these the central issues isn't a sign of insight -- it indicates a profoundly narcissistic identification by the writer and director with a character who should be getting on with her job.
Lynda La Plante knows how to write this stuff so that it feels as if it matters and involves viewers other than housebound neurotics ; evidently Paula Milne isn't up to the task.
\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 own 2 home entertainment stores and I've seen a lot of bad movies in my time but this one was so bad it compelled me to register here and comment on it. How bad was it? Let's just say that Sofia Coppola deserved an Oscar for her performance in Godfather III when compared to Giada Colagrande's in this movie.
It was robotic and uninspired. Her lover has just died one month prior to her arrival at the 'Rubber House' he had given her. Once there, she discovers he has cheated on her throughout her relationship but none of it seems to register with her. Within a day, she starts a relationship with Leslie, (Dafoe) the caretaker of the house. Even though she is married to Dafoe off screen, her scenes with him were cold and unemotional.
If there was a plot, I missed it. Not even Willem Dafoe could save this movie from the amateur, cinematic train wreck that it 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\nThis title seems more like a filming exercise than a film that should have been released to be seen by the public. For Dafoe and his wife it must have been fun working together in a film for the first time, without taking into consideration that people might actually watch it. I felt like it was 90mins wasted as I waited anxiously for a plot to develop, or even begin.
Try to fit this film into a genre and you won't, because it lacks a beginning, middle or ending. I've seen 'arty' movies before and this doesn't even come close to being arty, abstract or original, it just seems to me to be completely pointless.
I think it speaks for itself when the only persons that rated this film a 10 were the under 18 age group. No doubt for the constant pointless erotic scenes that the film was insistent on throwing at us. That is if you can call it erotic. It certainly didn't have taste.
\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\nPredictable, told a thousand times story with the usual drama in between, a couple of pretty raunchy sex scenes intermingled with some character paranoia, 70's style incidental violin horror music that is comical at times, i couldn't help chuckling to myself.
I usually like Defoe, and it has to be said that the acting is not all that bad, the \"plot\" develops at a reasonable pace and does keep you guessing from time to time. Its just that it's all too predictable, i felt like i was watching a made for TV drama instead of a new movie. Maybe thats the style the directors wanted, but it has to be said that the review i read on here before i saw the movie could only have been written by someone involved in its production.
Don't expect too much, and if i could wind the clock back i wouldn't have gone to see it at the cinema. I would wait for the bargain bins at your video shop, I'm sure it wont take long.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI am a huge Willem Dafoe fan, and really sought out this film (I had to get a Region 5 Chinese DVD of it!). But, it is truly one of the worst that I've seen in quite a while.
The acting (except for Dafoe) is horrible. Dafoe and Colagrande BOTH wrote and directed this ( though he isn't credited as a director), and they have NO discernible talents for writing or directing. (Stick to acting Willem; Giada get out of the business, PLEASE!)
Absolutely nothing happens. Except a series of completely unconvincing, totally without believable motivation, acts by these two people (that just met) in this house. Colagrande's sleepy, I couldn't care less expression practically NEVER changes. And the sex scenes are downright lame. I actually cringed twice at one of them. Yuck! They're definitely not the least bit erotic, and yet are the only time the film isn't putting you to sleep. Then, it's busy repulsing you.
Just awful.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI saw this movie today at the Haifa Film Festival in Israel after hearing rave reviews, but I guess the critics were just sucking up to Willem Defoe and his wife (the director) who were present at the festival. It is definitely the slowest movie I have ever seen with numerous pointless, ridiculously long scenes of nothing. Besides Defoe who was decent, the acting of the two and a half other people in the movie, Defoe's wife Giada included, was ridiculously awful (how they cast the part of the salesgirl at the bakery is beyond me). This movie is pretty much plot less with a lame attempt to be abstract and off the wall. The only scene that stirred any kind of reaction in the crowd was vulgar and came from nowhere as if just to add some kind of shock value to the dullness that is this movie. Sorry for being so harsh, but really this movie is a precious waste of time and money. I appreciate good indie cinema, but this movie is not worthy of moviegoers' 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\nOnly one thing could have redeemed this sketch. A healthy gunfight between the happy couple, the exotic model at the delicatessen, and the old-timer from the motel who was (it would have turned out) secretly watching from the woods and had been aging rent-boy to the guys when they'd shared the rubber house.
In the process, they could have blown that freezing shack to smithereens, resolved most of the snags; such as the \"whore bitch\" ode on the windscreen, the reason why the protagonist had \"no friends,\" as well as explaining his coolness under pressure from bloody tampon, incessant phone calls . . . and that crawl-space chic, the green thumb, and his attraction to the simpler life. Quite the technician with the human body, though. Ex-abortionist? Morgue attendant? A bit of a heartbeat would have been nice.
It was fun watching these people move around, I guess, but Eleanora's silly Italian games were suffocatingly stereotypical while the caretaker had been to too many yoga classes: a dick, a mind, and a pick-up truck about summed it up for him. I also wished they could have had a bit more luggage: Eleanora is ready to go after putting some black underwear into her nifty red suitcase and the caretaker just needs a cardboard carton there at the motel.
Trifling matters, you may well say. I agree, although the niggling bits just didn't add up right in this rush job. Good owl-wrangling, though, and I really felt cold all the way through.
\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 understand wanting to make a movie that is edgy and different. I understand the previous reviewer comments that this is a miss-understood movie. My point is as soon as this movie ended my first comment was: \" this is what happens when a rich princess wants to be a movie star and has no talent\".....she uses daddy's' money to make a movie she wrote, directs, and pays for.....obviously to close to the movie to realize there was no character development and no directions such as a beginning, middle and ending.....the voyeur part was good and edgy but what was the point? I saw a women go to a house, find some pictures, screw the caretaker, come out side on a very cold night (not believable) to check on noise and runs over her caretaker lover....movie ends......some one educate my ignorant arss?? I really want to know what the point is....what was the directors' vision.....why no development of the dead lover? Why no background on the caretaker? What is the point of the night vision? What is the point of the lipstick on the car? Why a dead caretaker? Why tell us about an escaped mental patient/peeping tom? What's with the urn? Oh and the lamp is that suppose to signify whose' house this is? Territorial? Why? Why would the caretaker feel like it's his house? that aspect was never pursued......as for William Defoe...I rented this movie because he was in it and known for edgy characters.....write back and do tell me what I need to learn....I am just a mom in middle America who loves movies....Chris....
\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 the worst i've ever seen.
It doesn't seem to have a plot but the time you realize this is far beyond the beginning of the movie so you have to watch the shut for a long time to recognize the total incompetence of the director, aka the sloth that plays the tampon chick in the movie, and we do not believe the Willem Dafoe in this movie, he's a clone, because the real Dafoe, like we know from \"apocalypse now\" and \"the boon dock saints\", would never agreed to such a script.
Duh, (Da)foe wrote this bill shut together with his twenty years minus baby. This movie starts with the credits of the two main characters, Dafoe and Colagrande, and then the two script writers, Dafoe and Colagrande, and then the director, Colagrande.
Bottomline (the story); Widow meets guy, guy bangs widow, widow smashes windscreen with guy who banged her.
Title in Netherlands; The black widow (different title, same bullshit).
DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!! It's a total waist 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\nI too like Dafoe as an actor but i wasted a few hours of my life actually watching this film, I still cant believe i managed to watch it in its entirety. Was there actually a point to the film?, and the ending, well, Im glad i never paid to see this awful pointless piece of pathetic excuse of a film!
Im not sure without hunting the facts out but is Dafoe married or seeing the awful actress in this film in real life, if so was it an attempt to kick start her career?, if so im afraid it must have failed..
I post this in the hope i can actually put someone off watching this film, even if 1 person takes heed of my comments and decides they would much rather watch paint drying i will feel i have made some good in the world, if only i had had the same advice...
\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 poster who called this \"Plotless and pointless\" literally took the words I would have used in my subject line. The only thing I'd add is \"passionless.\" For a film made by a real life married couple and featuring lots of graphic sex scenes this movie manages to make what should be a sultry situation into one beyond ice cold. Dafoe and Colagrande look bored during the sex scenes, and the viewer might as well take a Valium and have done with it. Also, please, the women in the audience have seen WAY too many used tampons in their time, and any guy who is turned on by seeing Willem Dafoe pull a bloody tampon out of his wife's vagina really needs to get therapy.
I think the key to the film (if there is one) is the restaurant scene where a waiter explains to the perpetually sleepy-eyed Dafoe what a \"deconstructed jambalaya\" is. (All the ingredients of the dish still separate rather than simmered together.) This movie is a \"deconstructed thriller\". All the elements are there: spooky, isolated house, dead spouse,creepy violins on the score, weirdo caretaker who comes and goes as he pleases, auto accident deaths and near deaths, characters with a secret past. Basically every thriller cliché you can think of, but NOTHING comes together. Everything just sits there and never meshes into a coherent plot or even an artsy mood piece. At the restaurant, Dafoe passes on the \"deconstructed jambalaya\". Prospective renters of this mess would do well to leave this deconstructed thriller on the video store shelf.
\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\nItalian-born Eleonora has inherited from her deceased lover Karl, an ultra-modern and isolated house in the middle of the woods. It's winter and she meets the mysterious caretaker Leslie, who eventually ends up not only just looking after the house, but also that of Eleonora, as she tries to adapt to her new surroundings and a growing attraction between the pair.
What was I expecting? A thriller indeed, but it wasn't quite so. That's just the advertising on the package for ya! I'm quite perplex about everything. The title, the story and the motivation. So how to classify it? Well, this wooden character drama is more a enigmatically moody romance bound-story of alienation, possession and dependence twisted into a complicatedly passionate relationship of two masked individuals. Co-writer (along with William Dafoe) and director Giada Colagrande's art-house film is just too clinical, distant and calculated with its mysteriously metaphoric story, which it leaves you questioning what does it all really mean although when its sudden conclusion materialises, you'll thinking why should I actually care. What we go through feels aimless with ponderous exposition of dead air that focuses of insignificant details and images. Sterile dialogues can contributed to many awkward developments, but more so make for an leaden experience, as it never delves deep enough. Like it believes it does. The sexually salty activities filtered in just never convince and are far from erotic. They are kind of a bump in the already sluggish flow. The base of the plot makes for something interesting and fresh, but it's never fulfilling and I thought there'll be more to it then all of this dreary lingering. Colagrande's direction is professionally stylish and suitably gloomy to want she imagines, but everything feels like it's in slow motion and can get caught up admiring the same views. Most of the action stays at the one location the house. Camera-work is potently taut, but the sullen musical score can get a bit ridiculous when it goes for some dramatically stabbing music cues that served little sense and purpose to the scenes. Giada Colagrande plays it sensually and William Dafoe sleep walks the part. He looks dog tired! While Seymour Cassel, pokes his head in now and then.
Just where is it heading, is anyone's guess. Well, that's if you can wait around for it. I think I'll give it the benefit of the doubt, as it's definitely not what I was expecting from this Indie film.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI watched the DVD (called BLACK WIDOW in the U.S.A.) and felt afterward that it was, indeed, a truly awful movie. But they must have cut quite a bit out of the original film, or I missed a lot. The sex scenes had very little vulgarity and no nudity (not even a breast), but I've read several other comments on IMDb.com mentioning the vulgarity and something about a tampon. I did not see anything like that, just a bad, boring film with unlikable characters and a trite, sophomoric plot. Giada Colagrande is either paralyzed from the mouth up or Botoxed to the gills, and nary an expression touches her face. And her name makes me think of super-sizing a beverage at Taco Bell: \"I'll have the Cola Grande!\" It was actually kind of fun it was so bad, I got to play like I was in my own Mystery Science Theater 3000, noting things like the fact that Dafoe's skin is too big for his face. It's really like silly putty!
\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\nJane Russell proved to be a delightful musical-comedy performer in the similarly titled \"Gentlemen Prefer Blondes\" but, sadly, this film squanders those skills. There is a budget, and nice Paris photography, but the film just doesn't work. Ms. Russell seems to be playing Marilyn Monroe. That leaves nobody to adequately play Jane Russell. Some of the other players are WAY out of their element.
There are several embarrassing scenes; most of all, be warned: there is a musical number where boneheaded African cannibals \"cook\" the brunettes in a pot, after Alan Young sings in a gorilla suit.
This is an interesting, at times embarrassing, waste of resources.
*** Gentlemen Marry Brunettes (10/29/55) Richard Sale ~ Jane Russell, Jeanne Crain, Alan Young, Scott Brady
\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 would have left the movie halfway through if I hadn't been with people who liked it. The movie is based on real incidents, but it's so over the top it didn't feel real at all. I have some psychological background, hang out with a lot of psychotherapists, and have known seriously crazy people, so it's not that I think people like this don't exist. But in the film, the only characters who seemed consistently human were Augusten's father (Alec Baldwin) and the young Augusten (Jack Kaedin). (Although Evan Rachel Wood was an intriguing diversion - very sexy with a wicked sense of fun). There were a few amusing moments, but the overall tone of the movie was grim, bizarre, and nasty. What a waste of an outstanding cast! As I watched them go through their turns, I just felt like I was watching an acting class. This was brought home during the credits, when a couple of people were shown just sitting there, not acting, not talking. Those few moments were more entertaining than the previous 2 hours.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nto make up a movie-going audience - I'm certainly stunned by the number of positive comments this wretched film has garnered here. I can't credit it, can't help but be suspicious, for that matter, of back alley payoffs to critics who are touting Annette Bening for an Oscar; the hole in the kitchen ceiling might be more appropriately attributed to her scenery chewing. She's a wonderful actress but this is an unfortunately unbalanced performance, lacking that essential quality film actors must master of catching the cadence of the screenplay and maintaining it for the duration of the disjointed madness that is a film shoot.
I don't really want to blame Miss Bening or most of the other performers (well, Gwyneth Paltrow has no excuse for her muzzy work), however, because this is a horrendous adaptation, a classic case of mistranslation (I am prepared to assume. I haven't read the book and don't think I will after this). The script launches us into the middle/muddle of unaccountable behaviour and extreme emotional angst spewing from mystifying characters who have developed relationships neither with us nor each other. It quickly becomes a grotesquely excessive tsunami-like assault that sullies characters and audience alike and left me like a survivor shaking my head at the detritus left at the end of each repetitive episode. Shock and awe would describe my reaction to frantic, bi-polar mood swings between ranting and oh-so-quiet sensitivity, the latter telegraphed by one of the most irritating, manipulative, droning soundtracks I've heard - that is, when all this isn't being set to ludicrously incongruous toons - period stuff, ya know, but chosen with an astounding disregard for the tone of the scenes.
How this fine cast got mixed up in this I don't know - I can't believe they saw the screenplay before signing. They certainly apply their skills with commitment - I felt so sorry for the wonderful Jill Clayburgh saddled with a cartoon bag lady costume and wig trying vainly to wrench something of significance from sketchy and clichéd dialogue. In contrast, somehow, Alec Baldwin rises above the material to deliver a consistent, nuanced, real performance. Can somebody give this man a lead role of substance, please? And how about Rachel Evan Wood - or Joseph Fiennes? You'd think the industry could make better use of him, and without appearing as hirsute as Elliot Gould in M.A.S.H.
My vote? A standup turd, all right, but no link with heaven.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI am a big movie fan. I like movies of all types. This is arguably the worst movie I've ever seen.
I get that it follows the book closely, which raises the point that not everything should be made into a movie. Especially since the authenticity of the experiences in the book have been called into question more than once.
These characters are not quirky, they are mentally ill. The things that happen are not funny, they are disturbing; especially considering they are supposed to be true.
This movie had the feel of The Royal Tenenbaums, another movie I hated, only Running With Scissors was even more dysfunctional and less funny.
I will never get those hours back. I wanted to wash my brain after 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\nThis movie contains no humor for anyone who has lived with a family member who has a mental illness. So many scenes reminded me too graphically of my own life experiences. This movie was the man's version of \"Mommy Dearest.\" It depicts both graphically and accurately the life many children of a mentally ill parent goes through. It also shows how easy it is for a psychiatrist to become corrupt and act like they are God.
Someone told me it was funny. No way, I say! It is sick humor at best.
The movie is so intense and depressing that my son and I had to leave the room. The best use for this movie is for people who don't understand mental illness or don't believe what we families actually do live through.
\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\nNot sure why this film was advertised as a wild, quirky, laugh filled comedy. There is not much in this movie that will entertain, nor amuse the moviegoer. Annette Bening (whose acting was touted as being Oscar worthy) comes off here as mannered, with her performance seeming routine. Brian Cox's character is confusing and irritating, and the lead playing Augusten  Joseph Cross  appears to simply not have the personality to carry his role. The best thing about the film is Evan Rachel Wood, but she is not enough to endorse this boring, unsavory film.
The film disappeared quickly and it seems with good reason. I found some of the scenes distasteful (the scene with Brian Cox and his just utilized toilet rivals some of the worst scenes in 'You and Me and Everyone We Know' and 'The Squid and the Whale'), some embarrassing, and most of them unsettling. I found the whole experience a waste of time. Don't you waste your 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\nAbsolutely the most boring movie I have ever spent my money on.This was a wrong choice for all these great stars to waste their reputations on. Boring! boring! boring! Each character was portrayed in a less than inspirational way. No acting talent shown -just reading a part. Alec can play realistic characters normally, Gwynyth made herself look ugly for an unrewarding part, Annette needs advise on how to pick the movies she chooses to play in as do all these big stars who have left me disappointed at the way they have all allowed their talents to be smothered in a feature that leaves much to be desired in entertainment. \"Running with scissors\" leads the public to anticipate great acting in a film that suggests experiencing tension and deep emotion. There was not one moment when the cast was able to portray any interpretation of this onto the screen. Maybe it was the director's fault----whatever.
\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 film starts to slowly when we got to the cinema we thought it looked quite good but after about 5 mins we were all bored out of our minds and wondering what kind of film we had come to see, i don't like this film and wouldn't recommend it to anyone, the best part of the night was when the alarm and lights came back on because the project broke down because we thought we could all go home. this has to be one of the worst films i have ever seen we were all bored out of or minds and most of the people in the cinema actually RAN out of the doors at the end because it was so rubbish. i am surprised that no one walked out earlier than that. if you go and see it make sure you something to keep you busy, better still Don't go and see it at all.
\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 wonder how the actors acted in this movie. Annette Bening was really herself, half in and half out, was she faking or being natural? It didn't make any difference considering that even if she had been walking on the ceiling it would not have changed the pattern of the film. Brian Cox acted really well. I almost thought that he had always acted this way, tricky, dishonest, in a dirty surrounding where nobody really cared about hygiene. As for Gwyneth Paltrow, the question is what she was doing in this film.
This film is quite sickening and disgusting. Who would pay to see such a 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\nAs the front cover says \"The hamlet of our time, for our time\".
I had to study this filmed version of Hamlet directly after watching Keneth Branagh's version and it was truly a disappointing experience.
This version takes a different approach to several aspects of the play including sexuality; one very VERY homosexual Osric and an interesting interaction between Hamlet and Ophelia. I think for the time (60's) this was a very well done version of Hamlet but cannot compare to Branagh's complete version.
just a note... I found the video at my local video store (in Australia) and I'm actually looking for a Keneth Branagh DVD to buy if such a thing even exists. If anyone knows of one please tell me.
\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\nWilliamson's accent is tough to wade through. He speaks incredibly quickly, like he is in a rush to get through the lines. During the soliloquies he acts as if he is talking to someone, when he is supposed to be talking to himself. All that and his bald spot just annoyed me. He was just too old for this role. In reading other accounts of Williamson, maybe he got this role because he was mad and the director decided to do a bit of life-imitates-art or forced method acting. When the actors declare Hamlet mad you believe it! Marianne Faithful is a stunning beauty and could botch the role of Ophelia and still get a pass. The set is dark and foreboding but it does look as if shot in a real castle especially the scenes in the tunnels/corridors where the dead king shines as a great light in the sky.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI had to compare two versions of Hamlet for my Shakespeare class and unfortunately I picked this version. Everything from the acting (the actors deliver most of their lines directly to the camera) to the camera shots (all medium or close up shots...no scenery shots and very little back ground in the shots) were absolutely terrible. I watched this over my spring break and it is very safe to say that I feel that I was gypped out of 114 minutes of my vacation. Not recommended by any stretch of the imagination.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film deals with two ex-football players who are Fred Williamson, (Mack Derringer) and Gary Busey, (Lenny) who work as private eyes and meet all kinds of ladies and men with some bad backgrounds. Mack Derringer is approached by his ex-wife Vanity (Jennifer Derringer) who works at having sex talk over the telephone. Jennifer is being threatened by one caller who wants to do horrible things to her and she asks for his help along with several other ladies. Mack & Lenny have more time on their hands and often go to Miami, Fl. golf courses or hang out in a Sports Bar where all kinds of city things go on. There is lots of punches, killings and plenty of double meaning words that bring this film completely down to a big ZERO. Don't waste your time, this film cost me only 50 cents and that was too much.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\none of the worst films i have seen to date. Pathetic action scene and really bad acting also do not help. The only good point is Gary busey's parts but this does not lift the film very much. it lives up to its B film ranking and passes the test with flying colours. A waste of my money although i found entertaining to begin with its gets annoying after a few watches. i do not recommend this film unless you watch it for free or its a gift. ( a gift you can ask for the receipt and send back for a complete refund).
Really BAd.
1/10.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"