empathielabs/imdb_v0 huggingface dataset:
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI love killer Insects movies they are great fun to watch, I had to watch this movie as it was one of my Favourite horror books by Shaun Hutson.
I have met him and I wish I did listen to him as this movie was terrible like he Said it was,after he said that I was still dying to see how bad it was.
The plot: People are dying mysteriously and gruesomely, and nobody has a clue what the cause is.
Only health worker Mike Brady has a possible solution, but his theory of killer slugs is laughed at by the authorities.
Only when the body count begins to rise and a slug expert from England begins snooping around does it begin to look like Mike had the right idea after all.
This movie as the most overacting you ever see a movie! Slugs in this movie are fast (Then normal) and it looks like they fast forwarding the scenes!
This movie is nothing like the book at all, the book was ten times scarier, ten times gory and had a lot more story to it!
I didn't like this movie at all! As I am huge fan of Slugs the book and second book called Breeding ground! Both of books are Great
Read the book then watch the movie, you may like more then I did Give this 2 out 10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is a mildly interesting late 80's gore fest featuring some nasty slugs with a taste for human blood. If you can get past the ridiculousness of the whole thing you might actually get some minor enjoyment out of this. The acting is awful and the plot is simply there to hold the movie together between gory slug attacks, but the movie isn't a complete waste of time. The special effects are actually quite good, and the gore is well done. It reminded me of the remake of the Blob, probably because of the sliminess of it all. All in all, you could certainly do worse with an hour and a half of your time, but I wouldn't suggest seeing this movie unless you've got a strong stomach and are into this sort of thing.
\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\nMike Brady (Michael Garfield who had a minuscule part in the classic \"The Warriors\") is the first person in the community to realize that there's murderous slugs in his small town. Not just any slugs, mind you, but carnivorous killer bigger then normal, mutated by toxic waste slugs (who still only go as fast as a normal slug, which isn't that frightening, but I digress). No one will believe him at first, but they will. Oh yes, they will.
OK, killer slugs are right above psychotic sloths and right below Johnathon Winters as Mork's baby in the creepiness factor. So the absurdness of it all is quite apparent from the get go. The flick is fun somewhat through and is of the 'so bad that it's good' variety. I appreciate that they spelled out that this was Slugs: the Movie as opposed to Slugs: the Children's Game or Slugs: the Other White Meat. Probably not worthy of watching it more than once and promptly forgetting it except for playing a rather obscure trivia game. Director Juan Piquer Simón is more widely known for his previous films \"Pod People\" (which MST3K deservedly mocked) and \"Peices\" (which is quite possibly the funnest bad movie ever made)
Eye Candy: Kari Rose shows T&A
My Grade: D+
DVD Extras: Merely a theatrical trailer for 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\nThis could have been a rather entertaining film, but instead it ranks with other duds like Leeches and Rest In Pieces at the bottom of the cinematic food chain. Had they played this flick tongue-in-cheek, it could have been a very entertaining film, like Re-Animator or Dead ALive, but Juan Piquor Simon plays it tongue-in-cheek in spots but straight more often.
The premise of this film is a small community that is besieged by mutated slugs. There is an abandoned toxic waste dump near a sewer line that mutates the slugs into aggressive, meat-eating monsters - albeit monsters that move slowly and can be squished under your boot. Health Inspector Michael Garfiled and two accomplices are the only people that seem willing to fight the slugs while the sheriff and mayor think they are crazy. The climax is a laugh riot - unintentional at that - which makes you scratch your head as to how stupid (actors and screenwriter) the scenario of destroying the slugs is.
STORY: $$ (No new ground charted here. Simon seems to play the gore elements tongue-in-cheek but the dialogue is straight. Had Simon worked with a clever script - one with plenty of one-liners and eccentric characters, this could have been a cult film).
VIOLENCE: $$$ (You won't be letdown here. We get plenty of exploding chest cavity scenes as well as a grand head explosion in the middle of a fine Italian restaurant. The blood and guts, that many horror film watchers enjoy, is in full swing here. You also get corpses of people who have been picked clean by the slugs and plenty of slug smashing scenes).
ACTING: $ (Wow! Michael Garfield seems to know that this script is a stinker and he delivers his lines with a facial expression that suggests he knows how preposterous this film-making endeavor is. Kim Terry, as his wife, does an adequate job even though she does little beyond the hold-your-face-while-you-scream bit. The \"teenagers\" were all horrible actors - no exceptions. Man, this film could have used Bruce Dern or Jeffrey Combs!)
NUDITY: $$ (Two teens get naughty in bed before they get dispatched - in a poorly done scene - by a horde of slugs that crawled into the girl's bedroom. Both male and female nudity here).
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAll you really need to know about this movie comes after the opening scene, where a guy falls into a lake and gets eaten. Then they start rolling the title credits: You see \"Slugs!\" in big letters, followed shortly thereafter by \"The Movie.\" WHEW! I was worried I had accidentally tuned into \"Slugs: The Musical\" or \"Slugs: The Game Show.\" Anyway, from there the movie deteriorates into a kill-fest. You see a guy cut his hand off because he had slugs in his gardening glove, two people get attacked by slugs while having sex, and a girl falling on her back in an underground passageway get stung to death by killer slugs. It's a pretty silly movie, falling in the \"so-bad-it's-good\" category. It also is shot so poorly with such grainy film that you're shocked to learn it was made in 1988 (my guess was 1974). I'm VERY surprised it has received as high a score as it has here, because most people here don't give those types of movie any love. But if you want a movie that tries to be scary but ends up being laughable, this is one of your prime candidates.
\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\nOk, where do we start with this little gem? Mutant slugs begin to take over a small New England (?) town. Only one man can stop them... and that man... is Mike Brady! Now, if that wasn't laughable enough, stay tuned.
The footage of the slugs is what's known as stock footage. No matter who the slugs attack or where they are, the same shot of piles of slugs oozing everywhere is shown. Keep in mind, this singular shot occupies at least half the movie.
The acting in the movie was knock down, drag out, steal your wallet, punch your girlfriend, kill your dog, BAD. I'm sure there's worse, but you're going to be hard pressed to find it. The only gem was... you guessed it.... MIKE BRADY! He must have taken a few night classes at the YMCA, because he was the best in the bunch.
As for horror? This film is not to be taken seriously. There isn't horror! They're slugs for crying out loud. The entire rising action could have been avoided with a salt shaker or two. Only watch this film in a MST3K type environment, otherwise I can see some major damage to the brain.
\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 all of low budget history. this movie has to be one of the worst. True ther are some humorous sides to the movie, but in general it was just plain awful. I just can't understand what person could not out run a bunch of slugs. I mean they have to be one of the slowest creatures on the planet. The only part worth while in this movie is the close up of a slugs attempt to bite the finger of a man. This was rather amusing.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nis seismic activity with little or negligible results on the surface. So in that respect, IMDb's average voting score is spot on.
A Spanish film made in the USA with third or fourth rate actors giving a kind of \"Falcon Crest\" dimension to the whole affair is a wonderful way to waste your time, as well as wasting the money of those who backed the project financially.
The slugs involved are originals from Asturias, northern Spain, but as they were not allowed into the United States, plastic ones had to be made. However, chopping them up in the lettuce being used for making the evening dinner-time salad contrasts rather weirdly with Parisienne music as well as a rather tatty array of other US forgotten hits (or misses if you have no idea who was responsible for composing it). The actors involved were also a rather tatty array, just suitable for a low-budget film which might be categorised as horrific, horrifying, horrible or just simple awful.
As a result, the outcome is negligible on the surface, undetected underground, and about as attractive as Chapter 17,000 of Coronation Street or the latest news from Baghdad.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nJust kidding! This was one of the worst movies I have ever seen! It was so bad though, that it was hilarious. My friend and I purposly rented it because it looked so bad. Cheesy old horror flicks are always good for some laughs. The plot stunk, some of the voices were dubbed, the quality was horrendous. But I sure had a blast watching it!
\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 not even gonna waste time on this one; it's not funny, not scary, practically unwatchable and only occassionaly gory(the FX suck though(no pun intended)). This is a disclaimer; WATCH AT YOUR PERIL! Ask yourself 1 question; Are slugs scary?
\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 this is a pale shadow of High Fidelity, which was a witty and wonderfully acted film with several truly winning character turns. Watching the Detectives has none of that.
The premise of a video store geek swept off his feet by a quirky mystery woman is a good one but is never fully or adequately explored, thanks to a very weak script and the miscasting of the leads, not to mention the lack of any real visual story-telling style. I mean, this film is centered around MOVIES, yet is itself incredibly uncinematic! That's a major failing right there.
But the main problem is we simply don't care about the main characters because the script and the actors (Murphy and Liu) fail to make them true or sympathetic in any real way. So the film just becomes a series of episodes involving two people who seem, well, not terribly interesting.
Oh, yeah, another thing: For a romantic comedy? It's not funny. And the romance isn't terribly romantic, either.
So avoid it. Even at its 90-something minute running time it's just not worth sitting 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\nLucy Alexis Liu and Cillian Murphy are both excellent actors, who can certainly rise to any acting challenge put to them.
Unfortunately 'Watching the Detectives (2007)' offers only one to both actors and audience alike: not to fall asleep during a mind-numbingly boring, very predictable and unimaginative story.
'Watching the Detectives (2007)' tries very hard to be funny, but the comedy is forced, extremely poorly directed and embarrassing to the verge of complete ridicule.
After a third of the film still nothing that may capture even the most willing audience, like the director's friends and relatives, is even hinted at, not to mention actually happening.
I'm pretty sure everybody who liked it faked it or had to fake it like Neil's ex-girlfriend did when he showed her an old B&W film she couldn't care less about. 'Watching the Detectives (2007)' is nowhere near category B, it falls somewhere between Q & R, like -Questions? and -Repress the questions! The director knows what he's doing! Well, if his goal was to bore the viewer to death, he has done a very good job!
'Watching the Detectives (2007)' was a complete waste of time for Lucy Alexis Liu and Cillian Murphy, bur PLEASE don't let it be a waste of your time!
Rating: 0 out of 100.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAt one point, Violet (Lucy Liu) tells Neil (Cillian Murphy) that why she constantly seeks out for an adventure. She said \"because I'm bore-phobic\". It mean that she can't really get on with her life by doing some mandatory activities. Well, I think her reason and the way this film go is very ironic. Because \"Watching the Detectives\" is a cheer boredom.
Have any of these characters actually doing something exciting for once? Neil is a geek who runs his own very small video rental shop. He and his other geek friends usually hang out around the shop and watching movies together while debating about them afterward. But Neil's life is completely turned around when Violet walks into his store. She's an eccentric woman who hides a little secret from him. Anyway, after some dates, they decide to see each other. The problem is Violet is a person who keep doing prank jokes on Neil and can't really doing something normal, whereas Neil is completely opposite to hers. The question is. Is they are going to be in love at the end? You bet.
\"Watching the Detectives\" is a cliché romantic-comedy to its core. And they made it even worst by pretending to be something else. From the first couple of set-up, we know that Neil is pretty laid-back guy who didn't really commit to anything. And then, Violet enters the scene, looking all weird and annoying. So at this point, we all know that we're going to sit though all meaningless situations to find out how they're going to end up in the end. Is it worth waiting for? I would say no.
As I said, they tried to give something more for the audience. \"Watching the Detectives\" is trying to talk about commitment. To observe how far people go to reach for something they desire. We knew in the end that insane things that Violet has done is all the test how far Neil is ready to go to win her heart (or whatever). Well, I think it is completely bullshit. This movie will end pretty quick if Neil just said to himself \"Forget about it, that girl is one of a nutjob !\" After collaborating with many great directors recently (Danny Boyle's \"Sunshine\" and \"28 Days Later\", Ken Loach's \"The Wind That Shakes the Barley\" and Neil Jordan's \"Breakfast on Pluto\" to name a few), it's pretty weird choice for Cillian Murphy to make a movie with one of Broken Lizard comedy troop, Paul Soter. By all means, He's not bad (as usual), but such a talent actor like him shouldn't be wasting his time in the movie like this. On the other hand, Lucy Liu is dreadfully awful as Violet. Her acting is a mess. I mean it's all over the place and so over-the-top. Tony Montana would have been proud.
The last but not least mistake that movie made is a completely irrelevant title. You simply can't really connect a dot between the plot and its title; and then you will end up thinking that it makes no sense at all. In short, \"Watching the Detectives\" is pleasant if forgettable motion picture that you might have a chance to catch it on cable TV so quick that you couldn't imagine.
BloodyMonday Rating: 1.5/4
\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 a film straddling the prequels and the \"real\" Star Wars trilogy would tax even a great film-maker....Mr Lucas is not that film-maker.
To portray the fall of a good man into darkness needs a good actor...Mr Christensen is not that actor.
The first 60-80 minutes are overwhelmingly boring with only a few pockets of yet more light sabre fights but there is a lack of edge because you already know which main characters survive to the original Star Wars.
Count Dooku (Christopher Lee) has a very fleeting role here and about the best idea is to have Jar Jar Binks silent!
No the film only picks up with the Chancellor turning on the Jedi and has one great (overlong) sequence at the lava falls
\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 trying to decide if jumping into a wood chopper would be more enjoyable than this dreck. It finishes the destruction of what was once a classic couple of films. With Jedi, Menace, Clowns and Sith we have the death of Lucas' career. He wants us to swallow the Annakin is Vader nonsense? I never believed it was true. This film vindicates those feelings. The story hasn't worked since Phantom Moron, and each new film just piled the crap on until all that was left was a toy parade. I have to go. I know where some new rocks to throw are. You want spoilers? Here they come. Luke and Leia are NOT related. Vader is NOT their Father. Duke Countoo should have switched sides while he still could. Yoda has less verbal skills than Yogi Berra. His advice has never been any good to anybody. Obi Wan lied to Luke for the first two films. Annakin didn't build C3P0. He found him in the desert and lied to his Mom about putting him together from scratch. Chewbacca has fleas. This whole mess with Vader and the fall of the Republic can be blamed on that stupid b***h Amma-Lamma-Ding-Dong. If she had any brains she wouldn't have come within a light year of Annie, but she had told do what George Lucas wrote for her. What a dope!
\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\nLudicrous. Angelic 9-year-old Annakin turns into whiny brat 19-year-old Annakin, who somehow seems appealing to Amidala, 5 years his senior. Now 22-year-old Jedi warrior hero Annakin has a couple of bad dreams, and so takes to slaughtering children, his friends, and the entire framework of his existence because a crazy old man convinced him a) his precious wife might really die, and b) only he can prevent this. Ludicrosity squared.
I think the people who like this movie are not paying attention. The story is ridiculous. The characters are unbelievable (literally, not the perverted sense of \"fantastic\", \"wonderful\", etc.).
Obi-wan Kenobi was the wise and kind anchor for the entire series, but in the climax, he hacks off Annakin's legs, lets him burn in the lava, and leaves him to suffer. Doesn't anyone think that's a little out of character? Not to mention it was pretty stupid to take a chance on him living, as it turns out.
I was expecting at least a story that showed consistent characters with plausible motivations. None of that here. The story could have been written by a 10 year old.
Oh yeah, the CGI is pretty cool.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFirst let me preface this post by saying that I am a fan of the original Star Wars MOVIES...I don't read the books, play the games, wear the underwear or eat the cereal (if there is one). I am simply a fan of the films.
With that being said, I struggle to see how people are giving this movie such high praise. Taking this movie by itself, and not comparing it to it's terrible predecessors (EP 1, 2), I don't understand how you can say this is an amazing movie. For all of the terrible shortcomings in the script - cheesy dialogue, contrived scenes (ie R2 suddenly being a badass, and long CGI intense chase scenes that have little human touch), HORRIBLE acting, and noted plot holes...how is this good? There was no real internal dilemma within Anakin; it just seemed like a switch was flipped and he was evil all of a sudden. I was not interested in the movie until the last 20 minutes or so (which by the way was ruined by the \"NOOOOOO!\" Frankenstein scene). When you BOMBARD the screen with intensely amazing CGI effects and fill in the gaps with absolutely atrocious one-liners when more could have and should have been said, this is NOT A GREAT MOVIE. For a film with such a \"dark\" tone, there was too much levity in the speech of ALL characters.
I close with a question: From the beginning to the end of the film, was there really a sense of urgency and importance for what was actually about to take place?
\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\nRevenge of the Sith starts out with a long action sequence that is impressive without being terribly exciting, then gets really boring for the next hour and fifteen minutes, with the same horrible dialogue and dull machinations that have plagued the rest of the prequel series. The only thing that improves the proceedings is the slow--and I mean slow--build-up to what we know will be the birth of Darth Vader. And when that finally comes, it's pretty all right. Not great. Not even good. But pretty all right. This movie is being vastly over-praised because it does not suck to high heaven like the previous sequels. Instead it's just turgid, dull, and routine. But you have to say, wow, those CGI environments are really impressive at times. Bu the lightsabre fights? They're all a blurry mess. I think the dark side took hold of Lucas when he started these prequels and no one noticed. This will make a ton of money, but thank god it's over, this once-worshipped franchise has been beaten down enough. I saw the 12:01 show, and after it, I heard a group of very small kids say, wow that was awesome! But everyone older than eight all grumbled the same thing: I fell asleep in the middle. It was kind of boring. I just thought seeing the birth of Darth Vader would be better. So said we 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\nThis kind of storytelling is unacceptable The only reason this film is anywhere above the 5 stars out of 10 line is because it's got George Lucas behind it, and it has the words \"Star\" and \"Wars\" in its title. That is an insult to aspiring filmmakers, and many others out there who have made clearly superior films with superior story, writing and acting, but did not get the credit. This is a travesty.
First things first. The story. Anakin's evolution? There is none. Apart from a little make-up around the eyes, and a little yelling, there is none. He becomes young, stupid, cocky Anakin Skywalker to Darth Vader in a single blow. The only thing consistent about Darth Vader in the original series was his intelligence, how good he was at almost everything he did, planning, fighting, you name it. The only consistent thing about Anakin that is perceived in the prequel trilogy is his consistent stupidity. He even loses his body because of a bout of stupid cockiness.
What part of the Emperor Palpatine telling him legends of the Sith does not point to the Emperor being a Sith? Unacceptable!
The fight scenes used too many digital doubles. Everyone's flying all over the place like teddy bears in a make-believe doll house. Count Dooku, Emperor Palpatine, Anakin, Obi-Wan, almost every fighter had a rubbery digital double jumping around.
In one specific fight scene, Obi-Wan and Anakin in the climactic battle, they both actually stop in the middle of parries and ripostes, to twirl their sabers a few times while inches apart. I realize the fights are choreographed, but that just got me shaking my head in disbelief and disgust.
The writing was awful. All the dialogue was of tremendously low quality. The good actors like Ewan McGregor and Natalie Portman did the best they could with their lines, but that just wasn't enough. I can't say enough bad things about this film. Too much special effects, plot holes bigger than the centre of the universe, and absolutely no insights into any of the characters. This is the biggest mistake of this film: nothing new is offered. We know the rough picture of everything, all Lucas did was colour it in.
We knew Anakin lost his limbs. We knew Luke and Leia are brother and sister, we knew Luke is Anakin's son, we knew Obi-Wan and Yoda go to exile, we knew everything. Nothing new is offered in this film. If that's all the fans wanted, then that's fine, Lucas couldn't have gone wrong.
But when Anakin finally becomes Darth Vader, and he asks after Padme, and hears she is dead, he reaches out his arms awkwardly and screams \"Nooooooooooooooooooooo.\" That scene screamed B-movie all the way, and I was half expecting Darth Vader to go \"DANGER WILL ROBINSON, DANGER\" at any time. That is what this is. A B-movie, disguised by a huge budget and a ultra-loyalist fan base that will settle with anything now that the first two movies have pulled their standards down to the pits of the Earth.
\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 disappointment... admittedly the best of the prequels, but the story is weak, the plot is rushed and the end result is just a collection of set pieces, poorly realised and tacked together amateurishly. There are numerous continuity errors that clash glaringly with the original films, and the emergence of Darth Vader was handled so terribly that what could have been a legendary moment in modern cinema is now instead a cheesy goof that will be ridiculed for many years. I won't complain about the abysmal dialogue, as this is Star Wars... the original three films had style, cult feeling and cracking stories, and the strange dialogue added charm. The prequels were shallow attempts to make more money, and this lack of love shows in spades. Utterly disappointing.
\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\nWell, I guess I'll have to be the one to say \"The Emperor has no clothes.\" When I saw this show listed for PBS last night I was both hopeful and apprehensive. I loved \"Morse\" (even going so far as to buy the complete DVD set) and felt that, while I always liked Kevin Whately's Sgt. Lewis character, the show WAS John Thaw, period! After watching the new \"Inspector Lewis\" (as it is billed here), I am more convinced then ever that I was right...Whately is fine (even though he looks awful (both badly aged and too fat), but he simply doesn't have the charisma to carry the show as did Thaw.
And as for his \"sidekick\" Fox, well...perhaps the reviewers here from England can understand what he's saying, but I for one mostly could not.
As for Ms. Innocent...all I can say is that I miss James Grout.
I'm sorry to say that they should have left \"Morse\" rest in peace.
\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\nMovie didn't have much plot and was uninteresting. Basically you spend a lot of time watching people paint. Also it's very difficult to hear or understand the dialogue -- partially because of the accents, but also because words are mumbled.
\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\nAmericans have the attention span of a fruit fly and if something does not happen within the span of a typical commercial, we tend to lose interest really fast.
I found out an exciting fact from this film: someone has to paint high tension utility poles and do it on a schedule! And guess what, they really would like to be doing something else (the viewer has similar feelings).
Surprisingly, when I was bored watching late night infomercials and decided to actually watch this film, I found the characters to be interesting and highly engaging.
I just don't usually watch that much late night TV, so I can't recommend this film, unless watching paint dry is your idea of an exciting two hours out of your life.
\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\nBilled as a kind of sequel to The Full Monty, about unemployed men in Sheffield, this movie is a fake.
As someone born in Sheffield, and still with links to the city, I was extremely disappointed by this film. Someone said it could have been set in Oklahoma, and that just about sums it up for me. This looked like a romantic view of northern England made for the US market. Probably many Americans - and many southern English people - don't realize that Sheffield is a big city of around half a million inhabitants, with a sophisticated urban culture. In Among Giants it was depicted as some dreary dead-end semi-rural small town, where everyone in Sheffield seemed to drink in the same old-fashioned pub, and where the people's idea of a party was line-dancing in some village-hall lookalike. This was a small close-knit community, not a metropolitan city.
The working-class Sheffield men were totally unlike their real-life counterparts, who are generally taciturn and communicate with each other in grunts and brief dry remarks. They don't chatter, and they certainly don't sing in choirs.
Even the rural settings, supposedly in the Peak District, looked alien to me. I recognized a few places where I used to go hiking, but some of the aerial shots of pylons stretching out over a bleak landscape reminded me more of Wales. Indeed, in the credits at the end I spotted a reference to Gwynedd, Wales. The Peak District is, in the summer, crawling with walkers and tourists in cars. It is situated between two big cities. It is not some kind of wilderness.
As for the notion that a young woman could fall in love with, and lust after, Pete Postlethwaite, that was ludicrous, and could only have been a male dream. Her reasons for becoming his lover were never made apparent. None of the men was shown as having a partner or families; they existed in a vacuum.
Anyone wanting to see a film about unemployed Sheffielders would have been led astray. This Sheffield existed only in the minds of its middle-class writers and film-makers.
It was a gigantic fake!

\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 apology for a movie is about absolutely nothing! Rachel Griffiths must have needed the money. The film must have been made on a very low budget, because the lighting was non existent. I made a vow if I ever see Pete Postlesumthingor other I'll commit suicide. I'd be happy to know if there was 1) a plot or 2)a script. My biggest regret is I wasted my time watching this rubbish.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf my memory is correct, when this movie was released it came across as something of a comedy - a funny look at the adult entertainment industry. If that's what it's supposed to be, it doesn't really work. It just isn't that funny. Setting that rather significant (since this is called a comedy!) failure aside, since I have no personal knowledge of the subject matter, I'll avoid comment about the authenticity of the story - which deals with the goings on behind the scenes in a Toronto massage parlour, except to say that - if this is true - the life is pretty dull.
For over an hour, this movie really doesn't give us much of anything except some background knowledge of the main characters. Conrad is the newly hired manager of the massage parlour whose basic job apparently is to make sure the girls aren't giving \"full service\" - a euphemism for actual sex. As for the girls themselves, Betty's goal is to buy a parlour of her own so that she can run her own business, Cindy is an illegal immigrant to Canada working to support her family back home and Leah is - well, Leah is a somewhat strange, undefined character with a nipple fetish - true - who seems to be in the business because - well, because she's in it! I have no idea what her character was about. Those three may well fairly reasonable composite characters who accurately represent the motivations of the women who get involved in this business.
The movie meanders about and doesn't offer much until the \"twist\" reveals Conrad to be the bad guy. We should have gotten to that point sooner. The only thing truly interesting here was that part of the story - Conrad's secret plan and the revenge plotted against him by the girls. That plan for revenge was pretty good, and you're grateful when it comes out because basically up to that point you're wondering why you wasted your time with this. Had the story been more focused on the revenge, this might have actually been a fairly funny movie.
The performances from the 4 leads were all OK, although I didn't think anyone came across as outstanding. All four characters were a bit shallow. Cindy was a sympathetic character, and so was Conrad for a while, although he turns out to be the bad guy of the movie. Given the subject matter, there's surprisingly little nudity (and what there is is restricted to one scene.) In fact, there even a certain air of innocence around a lot of this. As for the overall quality of the movie, it's a low-budget effort, which shows, although you expect a certain griminess, I suppose, of a movie set in the context of a body rub parlour, so that's forgivable. It certainly says something, though, that this was released 8 years ago now and is still the only credit on writer-director Soo Lyu's resume and - given the normal lack of depth in the Canadian film industry - that it wasn't even deemed worthy of being nominated for any Genie Awards - the Canadian version of the Oscars. 4/10 - and I'm being a bit generous with that.
\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 afraid this one is pretty dreadful, despite several good performances and generally competent acting-for-the-camera direction. It's a first and last attempt by writer-director Soo Lyu. \"Rub and Tug\" (2002) is one of the unfortunate by-products of Canada's program to promote home-grown film-making. While the program encourages worthwhile efforts like \"New Waterford Girl\" it opens the door for untalented novices like Lyu who did not have to aggressively pitch this project but was green-lighted without an adequate examination of her script or her credentials.
You don't mind the low budget because the shabby production design, bad lighting, poor audio, and dreary docu-style shot selection is consistent with the subject matter; the workers in Canadian massage parlors. But the dialogue and the plotting doesn't give the actors anything to work with, the editor much to assemble, or a viewer any mental challenge other than suspension of disbelief. When your story is this simplistic the last thing you need is a muddled storytelling technique; even though nothing happens, the movie is hard to follow and point-of-view impossible to pin down.
Don McKellar's performance as Conrad is several notches below his similar characterization in \"Exotica\". Lindy Booth's Lea is her standard quirky airhead; as always she is likable but here she is little else. Kira Clavell's Cindy is a pleasant surprise, a kind of Asian Shelley Duval. The only other role of any consequence, Tara Spencer-Nairn's street-wise Betty, more than cancels out her excellent performance in \"New Waterford Girl\". Her shallow performance in \"Rub and Tug\" should curtail any tendency to seek out other films in which she has appeared; unless you need further confirmation of \"Waterford\" director Alan Moyle's skill in working with young actors.
You quickly conclude that Lyu's reptilian brain cannot grasp concepts like plot complexity, so the need to insert a lazy and lame \"deus ex machina\" device toward the end is hardly a surprise. Still it could be worse, the listless story has so little internal logic anyway that the unlikely ending is not as painful as would normally be the case.
Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.
\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 silliest movies of the 1940s, an unbearable haunted house comedy with music starring Kay Kyser. Kyer, orchestra leader and radio-star (and eternal college fraternity goof-off), was sort of the precursor to Spike Jones, hamming it up for his guests and backed up willingly by his merry troupe of musicians. He's hired to play a birthday party in a gloomy mansion, the kind where poison darts imported from Africa are framed and hung on the wall. The shindig is beset with a creepy judge, a scary professor, an ominous swami, lots of giggly females, and enough bad jokes to fill three Bob Hope pictures. The songs (by Jimmy McHugh and Johnny Mercer) are nothing to brag out, and neither is over-confident Kyser, yukking it up with elbow-in-the-ribs material that turns 1940 back ten years. * 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\nI knew my summary would get you. How is this movie like a Pet Rock and Disco?! Well, unless you lived through the 1970s or 80s, you probably can't understand WHY anyone would like a New Coke or own a Pet Rock (and frankly, at least in the case of Pet Rocks, I STILL don't understand it completely). They're just a couple things that seemed to make sense at the time but really baffle the younger generation. The same can be said for Kay Kyser and his band. At the time (the 1940s mostly), they were very popular and had enough clout that the studio starred them with Boris Karloff, Bela Lugosi AND Peter Lorre in this film. Yet, if you didn't live at that time (it was well before my time), you wonder why anyone liked this sort of \"entertainment\". After all, Kyser and his band mates are incredibly obnoxious and their humor is very, very broad (i.e., unsophisticated and cheesy). Frankly, I couldn't stand their antics nor did I appreciate that there were just too many musical numbers in the film. Because of these factors, the great supporting cast was given a back seat and fans of these actors will probably be disappointed.
The film involves Kyser and the band coming to a mansion where a young lady and her wacky aunt live. Once there, the bridge is washed out and strange happenings begin. Eventually, it culminates in some attempts on Sally's life and a séance (of sorts). It's all played for laughs--and it's really not a horror movie despite the cast.
Overall, it's passable entertainment at best. As a Lugosi and Karloff fan, I sure felt cheated having to watch Kyser and his knuckleheads.
\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\nSolid comedy entertainment, with musical interludes, it generates a fast pace that carries proceedings along in zestful tempo through a maze of humorous and chiller complications. Boris Karloff, Bela Lugosi and Peter Lorre form a strong setup of sinister villainy. The script contains all the standard mystery film props-sliding panels, secret passageways, thunder and lightning and poisoned blow-darts. Karloff, Lugosi and Lorre go in for heavy leers and obvious melodramatics of the gaslit era. Kay Kyser and his band offered great entertainment for the people living in the 1940's who were trying to forget about the horror's of World War II.
\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\nHaving heard so many people raving about this film I thought I'd give it a go. Apart from being incredibly slow, which I don't mind as long as the wait is worth it, but it just isn't. As many others have said there are so many inconsistencies and so much of this film just doesn't ring true. The reaction of the 4 men switches from shock, horror on finding the body to complete indifference whilst they fish. Surely if they were the type of men that would go on happily fishing, then they would have just reported the body and said they had only discovered it after their fishing trip....why on earth tie the body to a tree, go fishing and then tell everyone you found the body 2 days previously? Its so hard to watch a film knowing that the behaviour of the main characters is so inconsistent. As for the rest of the townsfolk, well you'd think at least one of them might show some curiosity about who actually killed the woman! The body itself, naked except for the knickers....what scenario leads to that? If she was raped then why still the knickers? If she was raped with the clothes on, then why remove them afterwards bar the knickers? If she wasn't raped, then why take all her clothes off bar the knickers....leaving yourself with evidence to dispose of? I truly cant think of any realistic scenario that would lead to that other than killing someone to steal their clothes so you can fill up your jumble sale stall! Oh well its watchable but only just and only because, despite the poor script, the acting is strong.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nJust too many holes in this movie to be enjoyable AND WORSE OF ALL a bizarre almost Hollywood-like ending that is completely out of context with the rest of the movie (this is not a spoiler as you will never guess how it ends!).
YOu will also need to be thick skinned to all sorts of politically correct undertones. The conflict between whites and blacks was highly contrived and one sided. I didn't understand why the author had the local black communinity behave in such an unacceptable manner, is he / she trying to be racist?
A truly bizare movie. Only watch if you like to be really annoyed by holes in the plot and like to debate all the things that may or may not have supposed to have happened.
But on the positive side the filming and acting is excellent.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is an abysmal piece of story-telling. It is about an hour into the movie before we have much idea of what it is supposed to be about; the characters often mumble inaudibly; actions frequently seem to have no relation to each other; nobody seems to be concerned about who actually murdered the girl; a pair of spooky kids go swimming in waters that seem threatening but nothing happens; the Irishman gets punched in the face by one of his buddies for no apparent reason ... to continue would be as boring as the movie itself. The only half-entertaining element is the landscape photography; but anyone could point a camera at the Australian outback a get memorable shots. Overall - dreary, incoherent, pretentious - and downright annoying for wasting so much of the viewer's 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\nStewart Kane (Gabriel Byrne, VANITY FAIR) heads out with his local Jindabyne, Australia fishing buddies for a weekend of rest, recreation, and relaxation. But when Stewart discovers an aboriginal woman's body floating face-down in a river, things appear to have turned out for the worst. The largest casualty of the weekend is the men's commonsense. They don't hike out of the ravine, and instead finish their fishing weekend with some great catches. Then they head out and report the body.
The town and the men's lives quickly turn into a mess. The local media swarms them, and accusations of aboriginal prejudices rear up from the local natives. Stewart's wife Claire (Laura Linney, THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE) senses the deeper meanings of what her husband and his friends did, but has to battle with it through her own mental illness.
Amidst all this chaos is the life that was this young woman who is now a media spectacle, splayed out on a morgue slab. Her murder and subsequent dumping into the water are symbolic of what lay beneath the town of Jindabyne: a division of men and women, black and white, social and outcast.
The only other people who seem to understand some of what is going on are two young kids: Stewart and Claire's son who is being led around by a half-breed Aussie who's mother was killed also just a few years before. The young girl lives with her grandparents and is trying to let go of her mother the best way she can, and the discovery of a new body seems  strangely enough  a method in which to accomplish this (again, the underlying current of Jindabyne is surmised).
Everything and everyone in this Jindabyne township feels what lurks beneath its surface, yet none of them are willing to dive into the murky waters and take a look around (the symbolism here is seen when a nearby lake that is used for recreation and swimming is said to contain the old town of Jindabyne under its surface). None, that is, until Claire forces them to.
The movie is interesting if a bit too convoluted. There are far too many story lines that needed exploring and it just doesn't get done; too many loose threads. The acting was okay, but the filming was terrible. Wobbly cameras, grainy or dark shots, and just a generalized sloppiness hurt the overall production.
I enjoy symbolic films, NORTHFORK being one of my all-time favorites in that vein. But Jindabyne needed to peak its head above the turbid water so that it could see its own problems, which simply didn't happen.
\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 love the 80s slasher flicks and I remember when \"Silent Night/Deadly Night\" was pulled from our theaters, I was very disappointed, so I was very excited to see some of these on Fear.net. You Better Watch Out was what I've come to expect of these types of movies. The quality of the special effects were laughable by today's standards, the character development too long, but all in all it was laugh out loud funny!
The scenes where he loses it because Santa, aka dad, is feeling up his mom and later when the mob is actually shown lighting torches - not flashlights as you would in the 80s, but real torches! - really tickled my funny bone. However, the scenes where he was checking on the kids in his neighborhood gave me a creepy feeling of a different nature. I also enjoyed trying to figure out who some of these character actors were. It took me awhile to figure out that the main character was the lovable teddy bear on Brothers.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"