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\nPlay Mystery Theater 3000 at home with your friends! Rent this movie for the laughs! The acting is poor, the sounds is terrible and the fights are ridiculously unbelievable. I thought the movie was a joke until I looked it up on IMBD. I can't wait to rent the sequel, China O'Brien 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\nI caught this movie on FX last night, and as I was sitting there watching it, it occurred to me that it could quite possibly be the worst movie ever. Bad acting, bad cinematography, bad sound, totally unbelievable fight sequences, stupid characters. All these made it up to be the most laughably bad movie I've ever seen. It was so bad, I was enthralled by it's sheer lack of anything semi-competent that I had to keep watching... and they made a sequel!
\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\nJim Carrey is one of the funniest and most gifted comedians in film today. With his hyperactive spontaneity and his rubber face he can just go crazy, and we love him for it. He has the ability to make mediocre comedies (ala Ace Ventura), and turn them into decent comedic outings. Or, in the case of 'Liar Liar', make them some of the most hilarious contemporary comedies around. Carrey has also proven himself capable of tackling dramas. He was excellent in both 'Man on the Moon' and 'The Truman Show.' The guy is remarkable.
Then comes 'Bruce Almighty,' an ideal vehicle for Carrey, and a premise that should have worked; Carrey, after complaining about God and how his life stinks, is enabled with God's powers. However, the script is pure recycled garbage. Now, no matter how bad a script is, Carrey's improvisation alone sometimes makes an unfunny scene funny. The problem is that there are very few opportunities for Carrey to be unleashed because so much of the comedy relies on silly special effects, only some of which are amusing. Carrey is rarely able to improvise because he has to work around the special effects. The writers apparently thought that all these special effects and superpower sequences were funny, because the rest of the movie is simply filler giving Carrey nothing else to work with besides a whiny character who is absolutely humorless. He seems more like a 5-year yearning for our attention, wanting the viewer to find what he is doing funny, when it's really just annoying.
I have always enjoyed Jennifer Aniston on 'Friends' and she was superb in last year's 'The Good Girl.' She too has a gift for comedy, but with the script as linear as it is, she is simply given the part of the bitter girlfriend. She comes across as nagging, grumpy, and there is no chemistry between the two stars.
'Bruce Almighty' should have been a comedy that works. But it doesn't even have the guts to tackle the subject matter that it's making fun of; religion. A few minor giggles (his internet is Yehweh), but instead it's just turned into a comedic superpower comedy. Not to mention that it's tone shifts from silly to heavy-handed, and even black comedy at times. The movie fails on nearly every level. That's not to see it is entirely devoid of laughs, but it's close. Any movie that feels the need to incorporate scenes of a dog peeing to get it's laughs has problems. But hey, if you find pee jokes funny, go for 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\nWhy did I go to see this film? Honestly, because Jim Carrey was in it and in the past he has made hilarious movies that have made me cry with laughter, so do you really blame me for expecting that again? Additionally, the premise, the funny trailer, his co-star Jennifer Aniston's involvement, and the fact it was a massive hit stateside encouraged me.
However, as my \"one line Summary\" suggests, I was Disappointed. For various reasons;
Reason 1: It wasn't funny. In a 2hour movie, I laughed for about 5-10minutes...all together, the rest of the time I sat thinking \"I really should have got some ice-cream\". I admit that maybe it is wrong to judge Jim Carrey on his previous films, but what does he really expect when he makes Gem's such as 'The Truman Show' , 'Liar Liar' , 'Me, Myself and Irene' , 'Dumb and Dumber' , 'The Mask', and the 'Ace Ventura' films then produces, in Bruce Nolan's own words, such a mediocre film?
Reason 2: Jennifer Aniston's role was criminally underwritten. I mean hello! She's been around in the public eye for about ten years now, and in this film she gets about four lines to say. Wrong.
Reason 3: One word - Cliché
Reason 4: A casual deployment of specifically American References - Jimmy Hoffa, Walter Cronkite 'sweeps week' - is a clue to the film's specifically home-grown appeal. \"A teenager says no to drugs and yes to an Education - that's a miracle! Want to see a miracle soon? Be the miracle!\" God tells Bruce, a heavy handed sentiment that seems to have gone down a treat in the US, but might face tougher resistance in markets that retain an inkling for subtlety. Additionally, I still go to school, and that statement suggests me and all of my friend's are miracles...or maybe it just means we have brains?
In this film there are enough funny Carrey moments to make you chuckle and prevent Bruce Almighty from being a total calamity, but you are advised to start revising your expectations downwards.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI was seriously looking forward to seeing this film because it seemed truly promising from the coming attractions: Jim Carrey with Godlike powers was an idea that most definitely worked for me. As a huge fan, I was sure he'd be supremely in his element with such a promising premise, and what could go wrong? Yesterday, my bubble got burst big-time, boys and girls, because I saw the movie.
The first act (where it's set up that he hates his life, he's a disgruntled employee and a majorly unhappy camper with an ax to grind against God) is serviceable, the second act (where he's summoned by God via telephone and receives Powers Almighty) is GREAT - Carrey gets to have fun with his new 'toys' and it's a pleasure to watch, really funny. But the third act is wretched beyond belief.
The rot starts setting in after the dinner scene between Bruce and his girlfriend Grace (Jennifer Aniston, who comes off EXCEEDINGLY well in this movie considering her part is merely a plot device; even her NAME reeks of unsubtlety) - she thinks he's gonna pop 'the question' but instead, he tells her (on bended knee, yet) that he's finally getting his news anchor job, and isn't it so exciting?
She doesn't think so. She wants him to marry her, see, so she winds up leaving him, see, even though she still LOVES him very much, see, and the rest of the film is spent banging us over the head with one pathetic, beyond-heavy-handed spiritual-sounding cliche after the next, until by the end I was praying, too. . .for it to be over.
I didn't mind the lack of subtlety in the first two acts (one example - in the 2nd act, after he gets his powers, Bruce prances into the room singing \"What if God were one of us, just a slob like one of us\", blah blah blah), and I was even willing to overlook the amazing amount of contradictions being hurled at us (for openers, Morgan Freeman - a/k/a GOD - tells Bruce he can't violate anyone's free will but he does this, a lot). Those choices were forgivable - this is a Jim Carrey comedy, directed by Tom Shadyac - it aint The Remains of the Day.
Or rather it was SUPPOSED to be a comedy. When the script writers lose track of that (in the dreaded act 3) and try to turn the proceedings into some sort of (gag) Message Movie, what we get instead is hell on earth. Bruce realizes the error of his selfish ways, he realizes that GRACE is his saving - have to say it - grace, and that his priorities in life had been severely misconstrued. All this could have been conveyed in a far less heavy-handed way, however. The film didn't have to go into the dumper to make these points. Unfortunately, the writers and Shadyac apparently had no idea how to resolve the story in any sort of clever, light-handed way, so they went the bang-'em-over-the-heads route in hopes that we wouldn't notice. They even tacked some surprisingly unfunny out-takes at the end, in the further hope that this would lessen the bad taste. It didn't work for 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\nThe plot of 'House of Games' is the strongest thing about it: a successful author and psychologist is conned by a gang of grifters, but in discovering the wicked part of herself that enjoys the thrill of what they do, she finally gets her revenge. That's about the pitch: but someone has to take responsibility for it coming across as being acted by puppets. It has to be the director Mamet: Lindsay Crouse has had a varied and pretty steady TV and film career, so she can't perform this badly all the time. She's supposed to go from uptight, cool, controlled professional to calculating, wicked fast lady having fun, as shown by the change from beige trouser suit (which she seems to wear for three days straight, including underwear) to floppy floral sundress. But everyone seems to be speaking their lines the same clipped, precise way; I imagine Mamet wanting to make sure not a syllable of his scintillating script got missed. The effect is unsettling and spoils the atmosphere of mystery and suspense he is presumably trying to create. At times 'House of Games' loses any connection to how human beings actually behave or talk, and becomes just a mechanism to spin out the plot. The clunky vibes'n'oboe faux-jazz soundtrack doesn't help either. The ultimate result is that the only entertainment to be had is in guessing the outcome, and the sooner you do that the sooner you will get bored with the robotic, two-dimensional performances. And they smoke 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\nThe effect achieved in this story about a psychiatrist who becomes involved with con artists is so mannered that I have to assume that that was the desired intent. The sets are artificial and at no time did I not feel that I was watching a movie. It seemed like the actors were just reading their lines, rather than responding to one another. While the film has elements of early film noir (except that it is in color) the approach is so exaggerated that I almost have to conclude that it is a parody of the genre.
Given that the presentation had no appeal to me, I was at least expecting an engaging story. Usually I am pretty slow on the uptake when it comes to stories with plot twists, but you could see what was coming here within the first fifteen minutes. By the time of the, \"Gee, I forgot the $80,000,\" moment, I thought to myself that this thing is truly ridiculous. For a psychiatrist with stated experience in gambling addictions to behave so stupidly is beyond belief. If at any stage she had behaved like a normal intelligent person, the whole story would have fallen apart.
This wooden production left me cold.
\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\nBy far the most important requirement for any film following confidence tricksters is that they must, at least occasionally, be able to pull one over on us, as well as their dumb-witted marks, the cops, the mob and (ideally) each other. But this film NEVER pulls this off. Every scam can be seen coming a mile off (especially the biggen!) Neither are they very interesting, intricate or sophisticated. Perhaps Mammet hoped to compensate for this with snappy dialogue and complex psychological relationships. If so, he failed. The lines are alright, but they're delivered in such a stilted, unnatural, stylised way that I thought perhaps some clever point was being made about us all acting all the time... but it wasn't. As for the psychological complexity, the main character's a bit repressed and makes some ridiculously forced freudian slips about her father thinking she's a whore, but she gets over it. I really liked the street scenes though. Looked just like an Edward Hopper painting.
\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\nHere's a review for people like me. This movie sucks from beginning to end. I threw popcorn at the screen and resorted to entertaining myself a la MSF2000. The plot hinges on chance happenings and relies on stupidity from people who are supposed to be smart. The lead falls for a con man and it doesn't occur to her that she might get conned????? And she's rich???? And she's a famous psychologist????? COME ON, people. She enters the bar at just the most convenient moment when everyone is assembled to talk about conning her??? That was so staged that it felt like slap in the face to even half-witted movie viewers. Rain man would have been insulted. I also admit that I despise Mamet dialogue with the kind of passion that some people have for meat-eaters, war-starters, and fur-wearers. My hatred is so complete that it defies logic. But I'll give it a shot. That it's not supposed to sound real is fine. I don't care. It's that everyone talks the SAME. Mamet can't create characters; all he can do is foist his voice on us relentlessly through different actors. No wonder his actors are so wooden. They're confused about everyone being the same character. (However, his later films do improve.)
\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 had potential, but what makes it really bad is Lindsay Crouse's acting. I've never seen her before in anything else and maybe there are some Crouse fans out there that like her in something else, but her performance in this movie is bad.
Her delivery is robotic. When she delivered her lines it appeared that she was trying to make sure she had the lines right and was simply reading off the list in her head. So, her voice has very little inflection. I can't believe someone that bad at acting was given a lead role in a movie. She has to know somebody in the biz.
Now I hate to be this mean about her, but the comment has to be \"this\" long and her performance is what sticks out more than anything else.
However, I liked where the story was going so I continued to watch it. The first part of the script has the makings of a good movie. But the end was disappointing as well. Maybe if her acting had been better, I would have liked 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\nThis is the first Guinea Pig film from Japan and this is the sickest, in my opinion. A bunch of guys torture a girl for several days before finally killing her. And at this point, I will say that these films are NOT real! They are faked horror films which try to be as realistic as possible.
The scenes are sickening but also unrealistic in many cases. For example, when they kick the girl in the floor, we can clearly see how they kick and stump the floor near the girl! And how stupid this looks! The sound effects are also unrealistic and don't make sense. Other scenes include animal intestines thrown on the girl, the girl exposed to loud noises for many hours, the ripping off of fingernails, worms placed on the wounds in the girl's body, the eye pierced and mutilated in horrific detail and stuff like that. Very sick and mean spirited film and has absolutely nothing valuable or cinematically significant. This first entry is the sickest and most amateurish Guinea Pig, although it is not as bloody as the next part, Flowers of Flesh and Blood, which tries to be as shocking as possible.
Guinea Pig: Devil's Experiment is perhaps the sickest thing I've seen and the closest thing to snuff there is. This is still (of course) faked s(n/t)uff, the only difference to genuine \"snuff film\" is that no one dies or hurts for real in this film. I cannot recommend this to anyone since thi s is so s****y and repulsive. They who consider this is a great horror film understand nothing about cinema and the real meaning of it. I watched this as a curiosity (as the other parts in the series) and now I know how insignificant trash these are. They work only in shock level and that's not too valuable cinematic achievement. Devil's Experiment is perhaps the sickest film I've seen and Mermaid in a Manhole (Guinea Pig 4) is perhaps the most disgusting film I've seen. So these are pretty extreme in my book, but that's all they are.
\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\nAh, the infamous \"Guinea Pig\" series...I honestly have to say that I've been disappointed as a whole by this entire series (\"He Never Dies\",\"Mermaid in a Manhole\", and \"Flower of Flesh and Blood\" being the exceptions...and even those aren't great by any means...), but \"Devil's Experiment\" just plain blows. There is nothing realistic-looking going on here, other than the climactic (or perhaps anti-climactic, depending on how you view it) eyeball piercing scene. The victim appears to not really care what is going on and barely whines or whimpers while being subjected to \"hideous\" (more often sometimes \"hilarious\") tortures. \"Flower of Flesh and Blood\" is a more violent and gory depiction of fake \"snuff\" material, but that film also falls flat on the realism level. I applaud the Japanese for pushing the boundaries, and they've really come a long way over the past 2 decades to wear the crown in \"extreme\" film-making, but \"Devil's Experiment\" just doesn't hold up. Worth a look if you are a die-hard, if for no other reason than to see what the fuss is about, but I can only give this film an extremely generous 3/10 and that's only for the needle-through-the-eye scene...
\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\nDevil's Experiment: 1/10: Hardcore porn films fall into two categories those with a semblance of plot (Gee that is one lucky pizza boy) and those without (Anal Amateurs 36). Devil's Experiment falls solidly into the latter category.
It is of course the horror version of hardcore porn. An almost completely plot less 43-minute wait for the money shot. Shot on video in 1985 it consists of three relatively non-descript Japanese boys torturing one fairly unattractive Japanese girl. The tortures range from the banal (slapping her 50 times, kicking her a hundred), the silly (tying her to an office chair and spinning her around), the fear factor (a bath of maggots and sheep guts) and finally the money shot. (A well executed eyeball piercing).
That's it, no plot, no motive, just Blair Witch tree shots and torture. The girl looks bored and with the exception of yelling, \"no one expects the Spanish Inquisition\" during the office chair scene I was bored silly. Staring dumbfounded at the screen, waiting for the money shot. Just like hardcore porn.
\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 that I tinkle myself with glee at the sight of realistic blood shed, but when I put a DVD in expecting a bloodbath, and what I get is one bloody scene (the eyeball) at the tail end of asinine fake slapping, and spinning in a desk chair, I end up thinking \"well that's 43 minutes of my life gone forever.\" I wouldn't considers this or Flower of Flesh and Blood \"movies\" so much as an exercise of will; to see if you can sit through them. Flower of Flesh and Blood had a few tough spots to watch. The Devil's Experiment did not. It was at best, stupid, and at worst...well...really stupid. Perhaps my expectation were too high. I put the DVD thinking \"oh man, this is gonna be sick.\" After watching them fake slap the girl about a thousand times, I was watching it in fast forward.
Two kinds of people would be interested in this film. 1) People who seek out F'd up films just to see how F'd up it really is, or 2) horror completest. I sought this and the other Guinea Pig films for the latter reason, but even if I fell into the category of the former, this film wouldn't float my boat. As a matter of fact, I could imagine this film increasing one's blood lust...as in \"WOULD YOU JUST KILL THE B*TCH ALREADY!!\" So in conclusion, the only reason to own this film is for collection purposes. If you want carnage that traditional horror doesn't provide, get Traces of Death. Sure, that sucks too, but at least you'll get the blood and guts you expect.
The only reason I can see for anyone praising this crap is because they feel they're supposed to. No artistic merit that I can comprehend, no reason for it's notoriety, no nothing. Just a lame attempt to be shocking.
\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 recently watched the first Guinea Pig film, The Devil's Experiment, and I must admit to being disappointed.
This film is invariably included in any list of the \"nastiest\" films and maybe I was expecting more because of the hype. The truth is though, I don't rate it.
If I'd been watching it believing the opening text to be true (\"I found this tape...\"), I might have been a bit disturbed by it, thinking it was real. Even without the benefit of knowing it not to be real though, I think I'd have worked out that it indeed wasn't.
Throughout the film, the girl's reactions to what is being done to her just aren't what they should be. She should be screaming like a banshee in pain. The fact that she isn't means that it's obviously not real. I wouldn't want to watch it if it were real but if she were to be more convincing in her acting, the film would be more disturbing.
And then there are the notorious scenes: nothing affected me at all up until the scalpel in the hand. The hot oil, maggots and innards just didn't bother me. I'm not saying I'm \"hard\"; just that I wasn't able to suspend my disbelief, partly because of the girl's inaction.
The scalpel made me wince a little but the hammer to the hand just made the hand look rubber. And the final scene with the eye was again a little wincing but nothing more. I didn't want to look away and neither did I feel nauseous.
Perhaps it's because the film is twenty-odd years old, or perhaps I'm just jaded. The truth is, I didn't find this film at all disturbing.
It's the kind of thing you might expect to see playing on a loop as a modern art installation and as an exercise in stripping away characters, story etc. and just leaving the torture, it works on some levels. As a disturbing piece of film though, it didn't work for me at least.
I watched Guinea Pig with my wife, who is of the \"it's just a film\" bent and she wondered what all the fuss was about. We got to discussing why I watch these films and my reasons are many but include a desire to be affected by a film. She said that she didn't think any film could be so convincing as to disturb her and challenged me to do exactly that. I played her the fire extinguisher scene from Irreversible and she was indeed disturbed.
I'm not sure I have a point, other than that both of us were more disturbed by a scene in a non-horror genre film than any film thus far which sets out to disturb.
\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, how do you even rate a movie such as this one? Does it even have cinematic value really? It's a movie that tries to get as close to being a snuff movie as possible. Basically the entire movie is purely a bunch of guys torturing a young girl. Not very appealing and on top of that also not that realistic really.
It's obvious that the movie tried to be as realistic and shocking as possible. However the movie is just all too fake for that to work out as intended. The slapping and stumping is all soft and fake looking, as well as sounding. They are often just kicking into the floor, rather than into the girl, obviously. Also the way the girl responds to all the torments is pretty tame. I mean if this was real, surely she would had screamed it out. There is more moaning than screaming in this one though.
The movie is obviously low budget and it's a valor attempt at trying to achieve something shocking and realistic as well as original and provoking, with very limited resources. Don't really think this movie made much impact though at the time it got released, though it must had done something well, since a total of six sequels got released after this one.
Fans of shock and gore will most likely be disappointed by this movie, though there are still some fetish people out there who will get a kick out of this movie.
4/10
\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\nC'mon people, you can't be serious, another case of advertising snuff when it totally isn't! This isn't even remotely scary nor is it terrifying or depraved - it is just utterly terrible amateurish videowork, made for the next party to get the girls laid.
The gore is incredibly bad, even the eye-scene is far from making me want to puke but just making me want to take the camera and hit those guys over the head. The girl is just laying there rubber-faced, not moving at all. It would have been funnier to use a real doll instead.
One season of \"I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here!\" is more frightening than this one. Don't waste your time or your 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\nthis movie has no plot, no character development, and no budget. it really sucks to put it in short terms. Since there is no development for the movie, it really can't even be looked as trying to be artistic or trying to make a statement against torture. Which leaves two other reasons to possibly watch it. To be shocked or to get off on it like a sick little freak. Well it falls short here too. The girl's reactions just seem dumb. it's extremely easy to tell that it's fake (honestly professional wrestling looks more realistic than the crap they try to get by with in this movie. They throw innards on her, but she's asleep for most of it, so it's just kinda dumb. The only really kind of worthwhile part is the end when they quickly cut from scene to scene just before the needle goes into her eye. But honestly the girl is extremely ugly and everything is incredibly fake, with the exception of the eye. if you want a good movie about torture, go watch Hostel and Hostel 2. Not only do they both contain realistic violence, but there is also an actual storyline that draws you in and makes you care about the people. Plus the tow movies really work on a deeper level considering themes like American fears of foreigners, issues of morality, testing how far a person can go, human instincts vs. civilization, and many other things. Plus they are carefully written and contain some good humor when the story isn't focused on the violence. These are much better choices over this piece of crap
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie seems to have a lot of people saying it is one of the most brutal of all time. After having just viewed it, I can say it does not live up to those claims.
The idea of the movie is indeed demented. But overall, the execution wasn't at all cringe worthy. Even the final scene (the eyeball thing) isn't really that nasty. I was expecting something insane, instead it was of lower quality than gore put forth on films like the ultra low budget Violent Sh!t.
Any one wanting to see an actual movie will be disappointed, since there is no story whatsoever (though surely most people know this). Gore fans will be disappointed since, contrary to belief, the blood and guts here are few and far between. Not to mention the actress playing the victim might be one of the worst in history.
Regardless of what people say, this movie isn't that shocking, it just plain all out sucks. Avoid 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 just finished watching guinea pig - Devils experiment. I have to say that this movie, although having very good FX, better then I expected, was NOT a good movie. I honestly cant say that I enjoyed this movie at all. Of course It is effective in its way of being a shocking, realistic, twisted 43 minutes of torture, but I found it to be very boring (and not as gory as i hoped). And also I found that the torturers were very annoying, when they talked and loughed trying to sound tough all the time, that ruined it even more (and Im sure there's some people out there who will agree with me on that one). I have now seen guinea pig 1,2,3,5 and the best one out of those in my opinion is guinea pig 2 - Flowers of the flesh and blood. I wont say much more about Devils experiment, other than Great fx, descent acting from the girl, annoying fu**ing torturers, overall I give it 4 stars on account of the FX cos they are awesome.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA found tape about 3? guys having fun torturing a woman in several inhuman ways.
Yeah, spoiler.
First of all, the acting made this short not scary at all, the woman seemed to have orgasms, not suffering. Some of the punishments were so ridiculous! what's shocking about throwing some meat or spin her in a chair? If you are shooting a nonsense tape, at least make it good. The only part to remark is the end: the hammered hand and the pierced eye, the rest of the film is really poor. To end the boredom, the supposed story about the tape being investigated, extra bullshit.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI've seen other Guinea Pig films, like Mermaid in a Manhole & He Never Dies, and while they're pretty sick, they at least have a bit of a sense of humor to them (however dark). Devil's Experiment though, is nothing more than filming a bunch of punks submitting a young girl to many methods of torture and violence and there's no plot and no redeeming values to it whatsoever. It isn't remotely scary, except for perhaps the mind-set, but it's definitely disgusting and I certainly would not call it entertainment. Now, I'm not the paragon of good taste in films and I like my trash and sleaze, but this was too much for me, really. I'm all for disturbing, in fact, I seek out things that are disturbing whenever possible, but this was a bit much. The young woman is kicked, beaten, submitted to continuous noise via headphones until she drools, and then pelted with raw meat and innards and left hanging in a hammock out in the woods somewhere. If you think that sounds great, go for it, but it certainly put me off viewing any more Guinea Pig stuff. 1 out of 10, absolutely nauseating.
\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 installment in the notorious Guinea Pig series. A short lived japanese TV-show, that got cancelled after a psychopath admitted to being inspired in the killing of a young schoolgirl by the show. This short in the series is, like all the other films in the series, practically without any story. A group of guys have captured a young woman. They tie her down and proceeds to torturing her to death while videofilming her. They beat her, pour boiling oil over her, use pliers on her and finally, in \"loving\" closeup, push a needle through her eye. This is the most straightforward of all the Guinea Pig movies, and one of the first. It was probably this film, more than any of the others, that gave Guinea Pig the rumour of being snuff. They certainly gave inspiration to Nicolas Cage's movie \"8 mm.\". These movies have gotten quite popular in horror circles. They have progressed to more polished, but equally graphic movies like \"Naked Blood\". They probably fill the void left by the Mondo movies, that got slightly cleaned up and became reality TV. Not recommended, but will probably allure those who will see anything once, and wonder why afterwards, I know I did.
\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 have reached the ceiling of implausibility with this movie. Basically, Dinosaurs come aboard this ship piloted by some weird old fart named Neweyes(which I needed after I watched this movie). Apparently, Neweyes hears the wishes of children everywhere and decides that he should grant the wish of children that Dinosaurs be brought into modern times to be seen by everybody for shameless exploitation. The dinosaurs eat this stuff that makes them smarter(Too bad the screenwriters didn't have it). By the way, does it seem weird that out of ALL the wishes of the children in the world, Neweyes grants the wish of bringing Dinosaurs to modern times? Why not grant the wishes of kids to stop famine? Disease? War? I mean come on! Doesn't Neweyes have anything better to do with all this power he has??? Finally, when the Dinosaurs get to modern times they start singing, dancing and wrecking havoc(basically the kind of thing you might see on a bad LSD trip, I mean where else could you see a T-Rex playing golf and jumping on a balloon of Spider-man?). They end up in the circus and Neweyes Brother Screweyes(???) makes the kids that have befriended the dinosaurs sign a blank contract. Why? Why would kids sign a blank contract??? Screweyes says that if the dinosaurs take some...\"Brain-Drain\" That he will let the children go. The dinosaurs instead of tearing apart the evil Screweyes limb from limb, give in and agree to his terms. What?! This is stupid! They could have just menaced him, made him drop the contract, eaten it then walked off with the kids. I think the filmmakers were trying to show that violence is bad, which is a moot point when finally the dinosaurs escape and a bunch of crows envelop Screweyes and apparently completely eat him. Oh yeah, that's not violent at all! We're back makes no sense, it's not fun, it's goofy, it's stupid, poorly written and contains some of the biggest plot holes ever committed to film. Even for a kid's film... this is BAD.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nChildren love dinosaurs. It's somewhat part of their culture. But they've got The Land Before Time. The original. At least that movie had heart. This. This movie is just plain pathetic. Just because kids love dinosaurs doesn't mean you can just slap together any old story and show it to the children. This movie has no plot, the whole premise is stupid, and it's more by the numbers stuff. Not as soul sucking as Theodore Rex, but it's lightyears away from being a Land Before 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\nWhen I was a kid, I remember watching this while visiting a friend of our \"Uncle\" Phil. We're Back! A Dinosaur's Story is a silly cartoon about a dinosaur called Rex (voiced by the wonderful John Goodman). He tells a little boy dinosaur the story about how the dinosaurs came back to Earth to live. He explains that he was part of the thing that brought them back, along with some friends. The Doctor/Professor villain of this film I think might have been responsible for them being them back, but I don't care about him. The kids might like this, but personally it is just too cheesy. John Goodman was probably the only decent thing. Poor!
\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\nLOL! Not a bad way to start it. I thought this was original, but then I discovered it was a clone of the 1976 remake of KING KONG. I never saw KING KONG until I was 15. I saw this film when I was 9. The film's funky disco music will get stuck in your head! Not to mention the film's theme song by the Yetians. This is the worst creature effects I've ever seen. At the same time this film remains a holy grail of B-movies. Memorable quotes: \"Take a tranquilizer and go to bed.\" \"Put the Yeti in your tank and you have Yeti power.\" I remember seeing this film on MOVIE MACRABE hosted by Elvira. There is one scene where it was like KING KONG in reverse! In KING KONG he grabs the girl and climbs up the building, but in this film he climbs down the building and grabs the girl (who was falling)! Also around that year was another KONG clone MIGHTY PEKING MAN (1977) which came from Hong Kong. There is a lot of traveling matte scenes and motorized body parts. This film will leave you laughing. It is like I said, just another KING KONG clone. Rated PG for violence, language, thematic elements, and some scary scenes.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI was very disappointed in this 1970 film based on a Bernard Malamud story. This is basically a story of possible redemption, racial bias and the unfulfillment of life based on mistrust.
A black Jewish angel is sent to help a struggling tailor and his critically ill wife. If Morris Mishkin (Zero Mostel) will only believe in the angel (Belafonte), his wife Fanny (Ida Kaminska) will recover. The problem is that Morris has basically given up on life and just refuses to believe that Belafonte is an angel.
When he believes it, Fanny improves but in the end he has doubts and Fanny suffers accordingly. It would have been very nice if there had been an English translation in the last scene when a dying Fanny speaks to Morris.
Jan Kadar, who successfully directed Miss Kaminska in her Oscar nominated brilliant performance in 1966's \"The Shop on Main Street\" directs this film as well. Kaminska is reduced in the film to mostly bed scenes and her kindness in her speech really doesn't convey the desperate situation that she faces. She keeps calling for Ruthie, their daughter, who disobeyed them by marrying out of the Jewish religion. For most of the film, she does not realize the Angel's appearance in her apartment.
The scene in the pharmacy is muddled and the scene where the Angel's girl friend confronts Belafonte in their apartment, is memorable but all too brief.
We don't know why Belafonte is in danger and why he has died.
Those viewing this film must have left the theater in a state of depression and desperation.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI watched this on the tube last night. The actor's involved first caught my attention. The first scenes were attention getters. Some funny some sad. Good character development. I felt that the latter third of the film diverged. If it was not for the early part of the movie I would have stopped watching. I kept watching wanting to how how it tied together.
Unfortunately I feel that it never happened. I especially did not like the extend period that several of the character were talking yiddish (?). Was that the other shoe?
Would I recommend? No, I think not. As other reviewers mention much of the slang is dated (60's jive) but it was not too distracting. The ending totally turned me off.
\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 absolutely hate it when a film completely falls apart near the end, after you've already invested an hour into it. and that's what happened with this film. i was intrigued by its actors and the fact that malamud wrote its source story. I haven't gone to read that story but I cannot imagine that it ends like this film ends.Fortunately i didn't pay good money to see or rent it because my library had it. ohhhh such a waste of excellent acting (the wife in particular was so perfect).but milo o'shea as a Jew?!!!! now THAT was funny. I haven't researched into its making but it played like the director lost his marbles or died 3/4 of the way through the film. Before that point, a story and characters were developing,there were a number of neat plot points and there wasn't too much time wasted. but ooh that last 1/2 hour- if that wasn't the screwiest, most worthless denouement I've ever witnessed, I don't know what is. I just hate it when one's faith is so destroyed like that; it feels like an act of violence.
\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\nSomebody called Howard Koch a schlockmeister but he did write the screenplay for \"Casablanca\", didn't he? Or didn't he. Maybe there's more than one Koch slinking around in Hollywood, and I'm not too fond of \"Casablanca\" anyway. Wait a minute -- yes, there is another Howard Koch slinking around Hollwyood. That's the one who wrote \"Casablanca.\" No matter. I'll put as much care into this comment as \"Howard W. Koch\" put into this production, which is to say only a little.
You know what this sounds like? Somebody read Cliff's Notes on Shakespeare's \"King Lear\" and decided, since no original thoughts were aboard the Inbound Inspiration Express, to update it and Hollywoodize it with a happy ending.
There are differences. Lear decides to divvy up his vast estates between three sisters and before doing so, asks them how much they love him. Two of the sisters throw themselves at his feet and brown nose him to get at his money. The third is the good girl and refuses to go operatic on Lear. But in the play, Lear remains alive to regret his decision to give the two connivers his stash and deprive the honest girl. He winds up crazy and naked during a gale on the moors, putting flowers in his hair and hallucinating. Kids can do that to you. (Take my kid, for instance. After all the effort I squandered on raising him, does he show any interest in becoming a doctor or a lawyer? No.) In the end, everybody in the play dies.
In the movie, evidently, the good sister is morose and suicidal but when she tries to off herself, somebody jumps in and saves her, so the ending is, more or less, happy. That's the difference between Hollywood and a genuine tragedy, unless you define Hollywood as a tragedy sufficient unto itself.
\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 found this film to be an interesting study in cause and effect but little more than that. The basic plot follows the lives of a handful of people and how their actions (deliberate and otherwise) effect the lives of the others. The film's premise holds great promise but I feel it fails to deliver on its promise. Too much time is spent telling the audience about chaos theory and too little time actually showing it. As a result, I never got a true feel for any of the characters and never made a good connection with them emotionally. By the end of the movie, I had a \"so what\" attitude about all of them. A stronger direction in character development would have made this movie great, but as it stands it is merely so-so
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA missed train. A wrong phone number. An extra cup of coffee. What happens to those around you when you make a seemingly innocuous decision? Most people don't give it a thought as they absorbed in their own thoughts and actions.
\"Happenstance\" tells the story of the interrelations and cause-and-effect of the mundane as it pertains to a group of normal Parisian folk. It has all the components of what passes for contemporary theater, with the full cast of the dysfunctional and disillusioned.
There's a cheating husband, an illegal immigrant, a classic slacker, a pickpocket, a crazy grandmother, an annoying girlfriend, a selfish roommate, and a homeless man. Audrey Tautou serves as the erstwhile protagonist (in the sense that she's on camera as much as anyone else and opens and closes the film) and normal girl who just can't seem to find the right rhythm in her life.
She learns at the beginning of her day from a stranger on a train what her horoscope holds for her. What happens to her in the course of the day is told through various characters. Does the prediction come true? The concept is good, but the storytelling is flimsy. The connections from one event to the next are weak. There's better storytelling in 15 seconds of the Liberty Mutual insurance commercial where one person sees a good deed and passes it along to another than there is in two hours of Happenstance.
If you enjoy Audrey Tautou, then you certainly can sacrifice the time for this film, but you'll finish it dissatisfied and wondering what this same storyline could be if it were handled by a better producer and director.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe movie has one nude scene: A man sitting on the edge of the bed, with his exposed genitals smack dab in the middle of the screen. It is quite a long scene. What was the point? I almost think it was meant to be funny but we were watching it with my mother and it wasn't funny to have THAT staring at us for what seemed like a full minute.
The movie is cold. None of the characters are even likeable. Audrey Tatou is cute, of course, but her character is an unhappy girl.
I really would not recommend this movie. I had expected it to be charming and fresh but it was depressing. I wondered if the director was from a very upper crust, educated French family and he looks down on these characters.

\n
assistant\n0
\n"