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 see that someone already thought of a similar analogy, which was similar to the first thing that came to mind after I watched this movie. They said that the ingredients were there but there was no plot. Besides the sexual scenes which bordered on child-porn (which I feel could have been edited out or been presented more suggestively in nature rather than graphically, I would liken this movie to a recipe that's been torn in half. It's kind of like being handed a list of ingredients, with no directions on how to put them together into a finished product. From the start, character development and story development are lacking...unfortunately, many times in this monotonous drivel we are teased with bits of plot and we think \"Ahh-OK...finally we are going to find out something more about WHY this scene is going on...or...WHO this character is...or maybe we are finally going to get to know and appreciate this character more...or understand and get involved more with this inter-character relationship...etc.\" But no such luck! On the contrary, many times I was tempted to just turn it off more than once but stuck it out when the carrot was dangled, only to find that whatever mini-plot within whatever mini-plot (and that poorly presented) was just a ruse. Why I stayed with it till the end is a mystery, other than usually IFC has better selections and they gave it 2-1/2 stars (another mystery). It's not that the characters aren't likable to SOME degree, or that you can't identify with them or their humanness at all...it's just that this could have been so much better with just a little more effort. I notice this was shot around Santa Cruz and find myself wondering if it was someone's film school project. I wish I could have given this a better review but honestly it was a frustrating and disappointing waste of an hour and a half.
\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\nVisually disjointed and full of itself, the director apparently chose to seek faux-depth to expand a 5 minute plot into an 81 minute snore-fest.
The moments that work in this film are VERY limited, and the characters don't even feel real. How could you feel invested in a main protagonist who was made so surreal?
Substantively AND stylistically, it all feels like a quirky dream sequence. Jarring irregular camera work, awkward silences and gaps in action, and what's with the little spider image crawling across the screen? Whoever thought of that needs to go back to film school. It added no meaning, just cheese, and didn't even stylistically work with the rest of the film (assuming the film even had a style, which is a close call). What a flop.
\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\nhad some lovely poetic bits but is really just an artsy-fartsy toss-together with no direction or resolution. how do these people get through film school? who gives them money to make this crap? could have been so much more, fine lead actor, and i always like Fairuza Balk, but come on, the alt-rock metaphor of just staring vacantly unable to find anything compelling is just so tired, and it sure doesn't make for good films. the director needs to go away and live life for a good long while and not come back to the camera until they really have something to say. this is like the throw-spaghetti-at-the-wall school of art-making, just juxtapose a bunch of earnest imagery and hope hope hope like hell that poetry emerges. that can work, if the director actually has any kind of vision, or has a brain that knows when it's in the presence of potential, but here it's just space filler, of no consequence. i felt the lazy ending coming moments before it hit, and was yelling \"you lazy bastard\" at the screen when the credits popped up.
\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 read the half dozen other user comments on this board and it seems as though the opinions vary greatly. I have to agree with those who found this movie to be awful. It pains me to write that since I would have hoped this would have been great, or I wouldn't have bothered to see it the other day. I like supporting indie cinema, especially if they are gay-themed, but this movie is almost too much to tolerate. Those that walked out, as I considered doing after about three minutes, probably didn't mind shelling out $11.00, or just figured it was going nowhere, fast, and not going to improve. Maybe I am slightly more optimistic than they are..either that or they didn't pay to get in in the first place.
Logan is bored. He's a klutz. He's gay. I'm okay with that. The problem is that because the main character in a movie is bored does not necessarily mean that the movie about him has to be boring also! There are ENDLESS scenes of this kid just laying around like a load of laundry, re-establishing everything that you already learned in the first scene, and the second scene, etc., etc...Nothing or no one goes anywhere. NO ONE says anything even remotely insightful or funny or interesting. Probably most appalling of all is that I didn't feel the slightest bit of empathy for Logan. That in itself is a major accomplishment. He didn't grow, he didn't change, he didn't learn (there is no one to teach him anything), he DIDN'T DO ANYTHING, and neither did the movie! Scene after scene of the same thing do not a movie make.
Additionally, the title makes no sense at all. 1/10.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWow, I hated this movie. The subject matter should have resulted in a really fine film, and the lead actor was definitely sensitive and talented enough to handle the topic, but the script - if there even *was* a script - is a mess. This is less a movie than a random slide show that goes nowhere. I'd say it goes nowhere fast, except that it's actually the longest 81 minutes you'll ever sit through. As I've mentioned, the lead actor is good. So is Faruza Baulk (SP?), as his sometimes-harsh-but-ultimately-loving-and-accepting mother. The film makers have a lot to answer for here, because this is a mess. A real shame,because I really wanted to like this movie, but it's basically out-takes from a movie that never got made. Skip this one - it wasn't even worth the $6 I shelled out for pay-per-view.
\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 haven't actually finished the film. You may say that in this case I have no right to review it, especially so negatively. But I do, only because I stopped it on account of I couldn't watch anymore...I got over halfway, and I only got there by promising myself something good was just around the corner. This film is so tiresome, so lackluster that I was actually insulted. I haven't read many of the other reviews, so I'm not sure if there are other homosexual teens who have suffered through it, but I am homosexual, and I did go through \"similar\" revelations, day dreams, issues etc etc. There were maybe two moments where I actually felt this film could go somewhere, where I felt it may have some inkling of meaning, or relativity, but these hopes were dashed the moment the next set of cliché-ridden narration came on. I mean, just look at the quotes on the IMDb page. Unfortunately you're not able to hear the scratchy play back, nor the echo-ey fades if you're just read the quotes, because they are just too painful/ridiculous/stupid to miss. I did give the film three stars, and all three of those stars go to the films cinematographer who did a fantastic job attempting to transform Archer's tired \"concepts\" into something watchable. Mind you, I pray he wasn't the one who decided to include all the long shots of TV closeups...another unnecessary cliché already over done in films such as Korine's Gummo... I think it is extremely fitting that this film premiered at Sundance (only because Archer had connections in the festival via volunteer work he did, by the way...) because Sundance seems to be the one festival where cliché heavy drivel like this is still accepted as \"arthouse\". No, it's not art house, I'm afraid it's just plain s**t-house. Do not watch.
\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\nAbout the only thing I liked about this film is that there was JUST enough in it to keep me in my seat to the end... I kept thinking that maybe in the NEXT scene things would gel... Alas...
Those who like Gus Van Sant's films - especially his later ones - will probably like this. Personally, I find van Sant's films to be dull, pretentious and facile. Well, he was an executive producer for this film, so it is no surprise that the film could almost have been made by him - although personally I actually liked this better than van Sant's latest efforts (e.g. Elephant).
Contrary to many here, I did not think the film was difficult to understand or disjointed, I thought that above all it is a film that wishes to portray a certain mood - the mood of an adolescent moving slowly into the adult world - but so slowly that the changes are barely visible if at all. But I feel that the problem with the film is that \"mood\" is not enough... and not only that, but that the mood painted here is, to my mind, incorrectly chosen for the story that is supposedly happening. The dream-like quality, so closely linked to nature, is beautifully captured here, but it is a mood which belongs much more to a much younger child, one who really still does get totally caught up in watching nature unfold (waves on a beach, grasses and flowers, spiders etc). The rhythm of the film reminds me of my summers when I was about eight or nine. There is a LANGUOR to the film that is in opposition to what SHOULD be a very tense time in an adolescent life. When you are caught up in a crush on someone - or being the object of bullying at school - you are anything BUT languorous! There are only two moments that truly worked for me in the film...SPOILERS HERE - first when Logan drops the groceries and his mother throws a bit of a fit. The frustrations of an adult dealing with a klutzy kid - especially with no father present - seemed real to me.
The second, and ONLY part of the film with any tension to it, were the scenes where \"Leah\" (Logan's re-creation of himself) phones Rodeo and tries to seduce him into phone-sex. The first reason I liked it is because the person who did the voice-over of \"Leah\" was the most convincing actor in the entire film. (It made me think of Claire Danes from My So-Called Life ...the voice even sounded like Claire.) She and Rodeo had the only scenes that seemed totally believable between the kids. And what I especially liked was the fact that Rodeo only pretended to play along... it was perhaps the best moment in the film as - finally! - we got some character development.
All in all, a somewhat misplaced effort... we will have to see what he does in his next film before we can really say much about the director's possible talents. In the meantime, if he can get away from van Sant's influence, it might do him a world of good. Who is this director anyhow - one of van Sant's boy toys?
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n\"Wild Tigers I have Known.\" It will only be showing in big cities, to be sure. It is one of those films SO artsy, that it makes no sense what so ever, except to the director! I HATE those! And all of those oh-so-alternative/artsy people try DESPERATELY to find \"metaphors\" in what is EVIDENT horseshit.
There was NO plot, no story, no moral, no chronology, and nothing amusing or even touching. To me, it was a bunch of scenes thrown together that had nothing to do with one another, and were all for \"show\" to show how \"artsy\" and \"visual\" they could get. It was an ATTEMPT at yet ANOTHER teen angst film, but missed the mark on every level humanly possible. Then the credits roll! I was waiting for it to make SENSE! I was waiting for \"the good part.\" I own about 60 independent films in my DVD collection, many of which could arguably be called \"art house\" films. This will NOT be amongst them. You will be very angry at yourself for paying to see this film, much less ever buying it on DVD.
\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 would think that a film about a young person's coming to terms with his burgeoning homosexuality would be anything but boring. Think again. This production should be bottled and sold as a cure for insomnia because it's about ten times as potent as any sleep aid on the market. It's almost as if the film maker *considered* making a movie, but got lazy and decided instead to run a series of random (and randomly BORING) images and go-nowhere scenes, throw in a couple of actual scenes featuring actual acting, pretend that good lighting ins't important in the film-making process, and wrap it up under the auspices of an \"arthouse\" film. This is exactly kind of crappy product that makes it easy for a lot of traditional film-makers to poo-poo the indie film movement, and which keeps the general public from more easily embracing indie films.
If you're interested in films covering this subject matter, you'd be much better off tuning in to some of the great short films available at Logo's website or renting Get Real. Better yet, read Stone Butch Blues. Whatever you do, skip this long-winded piece of dreck.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAs a lesbian, I am always on the lookout for films relating to gays & lesbians. However, with this kind of crap out there--it would be enough to discourage any audience.
I kept waiting for something to happen--anything!--a story to develop, or just for it to make some kind of sense. Neither occurred. It was just meaningless scenes, unconnected in any way with anything. The film failed to conveyed any kind of story or depth to the character.
After an hour or more of this nonsense, I simply turned it off.
Don't waste your time on this absurdity.
1 Star - and it doesn't even deserve 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 really must have caught a different film from the rest of the commentators on this site because at a screening of the film last night the audience was so mortified by the dialoge that (I'm not even kidding)half walked out. Shot as if the filmmaker thought he were approaching some daring new territory by presenting a homosexual coming-of-age story, the film utilizes David Lynch inspired visuals with Fassbinder inspired acting. The performances in this film are so dull and bored that I figured one of the actors was going to pass out by how uninspired they seemed to be by the script. What's worse is that it's colored like an episode of Miami Vice. I don't know who this director thinks he is; maybe he has pretensions of the surreal like Bunuel, Jordowsky, etc. But the problem is that all of the afore mentioned directors display a level of erudite sensibility that is sorely lacking here. I could understand the meaningfulness of this film about ten years ago, but when we've got masterpieces such as Bad Eduction, Mysterious Skin and Show Me Love why bother with this cinematic turd? There is nothing new to be seen 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\nI am very surprised by the positive comments because there were four of us that saw this at one screening and we all walked out. We personally felt that it was painfully slow to watch and couldn't sit through the whole movie. And we really tried to stick with it. In particular, those in the group who really wanted to like it because of their personal experiences with sexual orientation alienation in the school years depicted didn't like or identify with it at all. :(
That said, it is great to see that this film really resonated with a lot of people here on the boards and with reviewers. That's the beauty of the subjective art form of film. :)
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIn The Lost Son, a private eye searching for a missing man stumbles upon a child prostitution ring. This film incorporates all of the worst stereotypes you could imagine in a worst-case scenario that exists only in the minds of Hollywood, the press and AG John Asscrap. If you get a chance to see this, you'd be better off getting lost yourself.
\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\nFor Daniel Auteuil, `Queen Margot' was much better. For Nastassja Kinski, `Paris, Texas' was much better. The biggest disappointments were from Chris Menges (`CrissCross' and `A World Apart' cannot even be compared with this one), and Goran Bregovic for use of a version of the same musical theme from `Queen Margot' for this movie (Attention to the end of the film). If this was an American pop movie, I would not feel surprised at all; but for a European film with more independent actors and director, a similar common approach about child abuse with no original insight is very simple-minded and disappointing. There are those bad guys who kidnap and sell the underage people. There are those poor children who hate people selling them and wait to be saved by someone. And finally, there is that big hero who kills all the bad guys and saves these poor children from bad guys. Every character is shown in simple black and white terms: the good versus the evil. Plus, from the very beginning, I could understand how the story would end. Is this the end of the history of child sexual abuse? I believe that the difficult issue of child molestation and paedophilia is much more complex than how it is portrayed in this not very original movie. I think this movie was not disturbing, but very 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\nI really, really didn't expect this type of a film outside of America. How anyone can take the subject of sexually abusing children and turn it into a \"thriller\" is just sick. Auteuil (whom I had previously admired) going around like some sort of child-saving Rambo was ignorant and insulting to all the children being sexually exploited around the world.
What's doubly depressing is that the stunning and ground-breaking film \"Happiness\" came out the year BEFORE this film. Menges and his cohorts should be ashamed of themselves. It's admirable to read some of the comments by the more intelligent viewers out there. They were able to see the shoddy and ridiculous handling of this topic. Those of you who think this is great cinema display a disgusting amount of ignorance and you need to watch \"Happiness\" to open your minds to the true horrors of pedophilia.
Do you think your child is more likely to be kidnapped and sold into sexual slavery or be molested by a neighbor, teacher, friend or even a relative? Hmm...I wonder. If they are going to make a film about international child slavery of whatever kind they owe it to everyone to make it realistic and emotionally involving instead of this button-pushing crap. 1/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFirst of all let me say the first 20 minutes are great, the monster looks superb and the CGI is reasonably done. It's a shame then that the rest of the movie is such a disappointment,
******** SPOILERS BELOW ********
From the opening scene we can see this movie is anti-American, normally this sort of stereotyping wouldn't bother me (we Brits get enough from Hollywood) but here it's not subtle about making the Americans brain-dead morons. It goes past the point of realism and your left wondering if a Yank has raped the directors mother.
The grieving scene was really poor and the part of the movie where it starts going downhill.
Here we are introduced to the Olympic medallist Auntie and drunk Uncle who walk into the memorial and start blaming the father for his daughters death, then hitting him before they all start rolling around on the floor crying. Hardly realistic bonding at a time of crisis!
The whole virus sideline is ridiculous. If the Americans know there isn't a virus, why are they wasting time, money and resources investigating? The US government agent orders the brain drilling of an innocent Korean for nothing, making the Americans look evil (or stupid), it wasn't helped by the fact this guy was cross-eyed for comical effect.
The movie is about hunting the monster. US and Korean special forces are assigned to finding the creature although through-out the movie they are invisible. The only people hunting the monster, in the whole of Korea, is the main family and some random tramp who appears at the end to save the day! Naturally a few US/Korean agents try to stop them along the way.
The sister was only included in the movie so she could make the vital shot at the end. It was clichéd, you knew it was going to happen but to make it worse she does bugger all until that part! and my final annoyance, how the hell did that kid survive at the end? the monster had been swimming with it's head underwater for about 5 minutes! why didn't the monster eat the kids in the first 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\nDon't be deceived as I was by the 'glowing' reviews quoted on the DVD box. \"Wildly entertaining.\", \"a seriously scary freakout.\", and the worst of all, \"ON PAR WITH JAWS.\" This movie is none of the above.
Normally I don't bother with writing bad reviews for films but I can't believe this one is resting at a comfortable 7 on IMDb. It doesn't deserve it.
After a so-so opening daylight attack by a monster created by, what else, chemicals dumped by lazy scientists, this movie goes absolutely nowhere and it goes there sloooowly. Basically and improbably, a girl is snagged by the monster (I'll give them points for a good creature design but this ain't no WETA creation) and her semi-comical family spend an hour-and-a-half tracking her down...in the sewers surrounding the Han river. Their search lacks any suspense-again, someone called this on par with Jaws?-and by the time they find her you realize it was all pretty much pointless. Other than that, a big bulk of the movie is committed to a government quarantine that culminates in one funny scene involving a guy spitting in a gutter in front of a crowded bus stop.
Blech. This was bad. I'm not kidding. You want to see a rotten monster movie? Rent Deep Rising. At least you'll save 30 minutes 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\nWhat a terrible movie. Rotten tomatoes had a good rating for this too. don't be fooled by the positive comments; It wasn't scary. It wasn't funny. It wasn't clever. It won't even hold your attention. I just wasted 2 hours of my life viewing this crap-fest. the computer generated monster was interesting to see the first couple times. after about 15 minutes it no longer entertained. the dialogue was terrible, must be a translation thing. another negative that stood out was the idiot Americans. 3 were portrayed and they were all lacking character, intelligence and judgment. Now I will write a couple of lines to pad this since we have to have 10. The employees at the video store should have slapped me for bringing this title to the counter.
\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\nMONSTER - He was great; I loved the special-effects which created this monster which looked like an updated version of \"The Creature From the Black Lagoon.\" The scenes with this beast roaming the land and capturing people ranged from good to jaw-dropping.
SOCIAL COMMENTARY: Much of the story takes place in the quarantine area as the doctors (under orders from the government) state that SARS-like disease is out there. In a nutshell, we get the familiar government cover-up story. You know, I expect this Liberal paranoid mindset with Hollywood films always painting our government as corrupt, but it looks like the Koreans are copying the format, and it's very tedious. In here, it takes away from the excitement and suspense of this \"monster.\" It just drags the film down. The main family featured in the film has to watch from a distance while the young girl in their family, presumed dead, was hauled off by the creature.
MORAL: A typical \"don't pollute the water\" message because this is what can happen - a horrible mutated monster. This used to be the anti-nuclear bomb message from the 1950 when radiation caused giants ants, spiders, fish or whatever in those schlocky sci-fi films. Now its \"environmental issues\" that are the focus.
THE HUMOR This was mostly stupid. I normally laugh at slapstick but this wasn't funny. I don't know if the Korean sense of humor is that pitiful, or the film was purposely trying to be ultra-corny with a take on the old \"Godzilla\" movies. Let's hope it's the latter.
TRANSFER - The video transfer was good. This was a sharp-looking picture and sound was decent with a lot rear-speaker crowd noise. I watched this in Korean with the English subtitles. That might have been a mistake as the Korean guttural voice sounds got annoying after a half hour.
OVERALL - This had a promise but turned out to be a big letdown and even boring in too many spots, which is inexcusable for a modern-day monster film. Two hours was WAY too long for this story. How this film drew record crowds in Korea I don't know. They must not have much in the way of films to enjoy and support.
\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 already know that critics and some audiences say that it was a satire, there were numerous political and social messages, the names make refer to some other names etc. It might be. I cannot realize such things (I don't want to do anyway) because I am not interested in, I am interested in 'cinema'. As for the movie itself, again it is said that the movie is clever and dramatically powerful. I could not see anything which we don't see in monster movies except the scene which takes place in a office in the second half. Yes, that scene says somethings about humanity, but it does not make the movie brilliant. The movie is entertaining (mildly) and exciting in some moments or scenes, but no more than that. As for the biggest flaw of the movie, it is visual effects. It was just shocking, I could not pull myself together for a while, because I had expected a realistic monster, because it is not one of the old Gojira movies, it was made in 2006, but it was not. It is like if you don't believe that there is a monster, you cannot care about. If you agree with me about this, I highly recommend you Cloverfield that is extremely realistic. The design of the monster is not interesting, but at least planned, there is an effort. Dramatically powerful critique. Some critics talk about it as if it is a Kurosawa movie. Yes, it is rather a drama than a thriller or action, but it should not mean that it is dramatically powerful. I don't want to compare The Host with other monster movies, but I try to mean that The Host does not do something that other monster movies do not do. By the way, may be some people call the movie masterpiece because of their sympathy for Asian cinema. Yes, I like Asian cinema too, but this is the fact.
\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 by far one of the worst movies I have ever seen in my life. I gave up to watch it after an hour and regretted that hour a lot. the acting is horrible and there is almost no plot. my guess is that someone came up with a strange shape of an animal and started to make a story around of it. borrowing some ideas from movies like Resident Evil and Aliens doesn't result in a movie like them. if this going to be a top Korean movie, I'd rather won't bother to see even a Korean movie trailer...
By the way, this movies is a good reason to believe that not necessarily a high rating means the movie is promising. I think every Korean who has internet for online gaming rated this movie over the 8, even though has no clue what it is about.
\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 only was he invariably annoying to listen to, but he had NO jokes. I swear, some fobby Asian guy telling yo momma jokes would've been funnier than Leary's crap. (Well, maybe funny for a couple minutes but at least I'll be able to laugh at least once!) Leary claimed he stopped taking drugs during one of his \"jokes\"... apparently he was still high on something; he was just some crackhead imprecating rants mostly drug related. One of his jokes was something like, 'I wouldn't use crack, especially having the same name as between my ass' - Oh man, how did he come up with that one?! I swear the only guy that needs to shut the f**k up is Denis Leary. Thank god I didn't have to see him live. This guy totally sucks.
If you're easily amused by swearing, and \"jokes\" where you can come up with yourself, then waste your time with this junk.
\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\nEven for a tired movie model as the nature vs. man cycle that prevailed so predominantly in the 1970s, ants falls miserably short of being even somewhat effective(though entertaining for reasons it was not intending). It is sooooo preposterous. Apparently these ants that are bulldozed near an inn have been eating poisonous waste for decades and have now adapted by emitting poisonous bites - hundreds of these bites being fatal. Watching actors of some notoriety clumsily fall amidst tiny black specks is painfully funny in a not-so-good-but very-bad way. So many scenes just look ludicrous: a boy trying to fall in a dumpster whilst being attacked, Suzanne Sommers crying out in horror while lounging in bed, Robert Foxworth and Lynda George breathing through pieces of wallpaper, Bernie Casey faking a gam leg, and the list goes on and on. The peril shown ranges from ants crawling from a drain to black lines of ants all over the walls. The cast for the film is not bad on paper, but none of these actors seem to believe in the material. Poor Myrna Loy has to sit in a wheelchair through this horror. I hope she found a good use for the money, for it is obvious that was the ONLY reason a woman of her pedigree would be in this nonsense. Although it is quite a bad film, it is watchable - once for me, and does have many of those seventies bad film qualities - start-studded actors embarrassing themselves, that made-for-TV feel, and the dreaded creatures of nature reeking vengeance on man. This time man must push his hand into a pile of ants to be affected. Really quite dreadful.
\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 there a book titled \"How to Make a Movie with Every 'Man vs. Nature' Cliché Imaginable\"? If not, Ants would make excellent source material for the chapter on killer insects. Ants doesn't have one shred of originality to be found at any point of its 100 minute runtime. I suppose the most surprising thing about Ants is that they actually stretched the film to 100 minutes. The set-up, the characters, the various sub-plots, the death scenes, and the way the ants are presented have been done before any number of times  and in most cases, much better. It's amazing that so many of these Insects on a Rampage films were made in the 70s because they're all basically the same movie.
And can someone please tell me what in God's name Myrna Loy is doing in this monkey-turd of a movie? A woman as talented and classy as Loy deserved better than Ants as one of her final movies.
\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 remember watching this movie when I was young, but could not recall the title to it then going through horror movies I find it and think to myself \"that is the title?\" This movie is a kind of combination disaster film/insect attack film with fewer notable stars in it. It is also somewhat boring too, as it has that television vibe to it where you can see the movie fade out for commercials and such. The plot has this sort of resort being invaded by ants. I think they were a bit disturbed by construction or something going on nearby, but do not quote me on that. The most memorable ant attack for me in the whole flick was the first one involving the kid who falls into the swimming pool after being swarmed and of course Summers attack scene too. What else stands out in this one is the very goofy ending where the survivors use cardboard tubes to breath through. In the end though like most television movies this movie is very tame and not very scary in the least unless you panic at the sight of ants.
\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 pretty worthless made for television movie that pretty much follows the killer insect script. Ants mysteriously turn into killer ants near a hotel. I think it is from the hotel food because the sewage from the hotel kitchen drains directly into the ant bed. There is a lack of suspense in this film and it is not scary either. Watching a bunch of ants sting their victims is not very terrifying.
Spoilers section The stupidity of the hero is near incredible. He is told that the health inspector that the ants could not be the hero. It has to be a mysterious virus. After the inspector says this, the hero takes his bulldozer and wrecks the huge ant colony. This disturbs the millions of ants and traps the people in the hotel.
End spoilers Overall, this movie is extremely lame. I don't understand why it got a DVD release when so many deserving movies have none. My only guess for the DVD release is that Suzanne Summers is featured in the film. This is a movie to avoid.
\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 another one of those 'humans vs insects/eco-horror' features; a theme that was popular in the late 70's. Only you can't really call it horror. There's zero suspense and no gruesome events. In other words: this movie is pretty lame. It's not that it's really bad or something; it's just very boring. A construction site near a hotel uncovers a big nest of ants. Later on we learn that, probably due to different sorts of pesticides used in the past, their bite became poisonous. Some people get bitten and rushed to the hospital and it takes ages for the residents of the hospital to figure out what's going on. Robert Foxworth figures it out first and then you can see him go berserk with a digging machine for what seems like several hours. Then they flee in the house, waiting to get rescued. And, man, you should see all the efforts they make for rescuing them. I won't spoil too much, but at one point they even use a big helicopter. All the time when I was watching this, I sat there thinking \"Come on, people, you all got shoes on. Just run out of the building. I'm sure a bunch of ants won't catch up with you.\" It's all pretty ridiculous.
Of course, lots of close-ups of crawling ants are shown throughout the whole movie. Ants in the garden. Ants in the garbage. Ants in the kitchen. Ants on the roof. Ants in the bedroom. Ants in the sink. And the best part: Ants crawling on people's faces while the actors are breathing through straws. But when you see groups of ants in wider shots, they indeed look like black rice the set designers glued to the wall.
One small surprise came near the end. No, it has nothing to do with a twist in the plot. It was just that Brian Dennehy made an appearance as a chief-fireman. Ehrr... What more can I say? This movie is called IT HAPPENED AT LAKEWOOD MANOR but the box-art of my copy read ANTS and the title during the opening credits was PANIC AT LAKEWOOD MANOR. There you have it. Now, since this is a made-for-TV movie from the 70's, I'll be once again extremely mild in my final rating. Now, THE SAVAGE BEES, another 'humans vs insects' TV-movie from 1976 was much better than this one. I even feel I have to go back and add a few points to its rating after having seen ANTS. Lacking suspense, action, thrills, shocks and creepiness, the only thing you'll be left with after seeing ANTS is an annoying itch.
\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 remember seeing this movie a long time ago on television. I remember the premise of the movie being about a bunch of hotel occupants being attacked by man-eating ants. What I didn't remember was HOW AWFUL IT WAS!!!
I recently caught this movie on television late at night. I'm sure it must have been a mistake because movies like this usually disappear from existance and are never to be found again! Suzanne Somers (at the pinnacle of her career playing Chrissy on 'Three's Company') plays a vacationer at Lakewood Manor. Constructions workers are installing a swimming pool outside and accidentally disturb an ants' nest. Or should I say, a *MAN-EATING ANTS' NEST*!! One of the workers actually gets attacked by the ants. One minute he's picking them off his clothes one by one, the next minute he's covered in them. The next scene shows a skeleton in the dirt.
If you thought that was pretty far-fetched, you should see Myrna Loy playing a wheel-chair bound resident who gets airlifted out of the Manor via helicopter! I could almost picture her thinking in relief that she was getting airlifted out of the movie!
The final scenes depict Suzanne, Robert Foxworth and a third guy sitting on the floor of a hotel room with their backs to each other, blowing through straws and covered in ants.
That's basically the movie. There's really no \"disaster\" appeal or \"big-star\" draw to the film. It was intended to be a 'grand-scale' television event at the time. Now, it's lucky if it gets dumped in a 4:00am timeslot on your local television station.
If you want to catch Suzanne Somers at her best, then watch an episode of Three's Company. If you want to see Myrna Loy doing anything to put bread on the table and pay the bills, then watch this movie.
0/10
\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\nPaint by numbers story and mediocre acting saved by some authentic color - and a few moments that are really wonderful and deeply felt. It does effectively capture the delicate transition of a girl into adulthood, and deals very sensitively and inventively with the cultural conflict the main family experiences.
Unfortunately this germ of a good movie is imprisoned in an aimless and extremely convoluted plot that manages to incorporate religious strife, a conflict over a road construction project, the sex life of secondary and even tertiary characters, a mysterious man who lives in the woods, a bunch of racist hooligans, at least three different carnivals, the intricacies of local church politics, and on and on and on. And all of that doesn't even include the actual central plot, which is only about the hopes, dreams, and frustrations of two girls (and their entire families) at the turning point of their lives. I was actually shocked when I realized the whole thing was supposed to take place over the course of one summer (and that so much movie got accomplished in 1.5 hours!)
Ultimately the movie is melodramatic, every plot point is predictable, major life altering events happen and then are forgotten about 10 minutes later...and some of those events are extremely distasteful. Most shockingly the fact that one of the characters is involved in a horrible crime (in a totally predictable \"twist\") and then is completely forgiven and the entire incident forgotten about from then on. Similarly, a secondary character is introduced solely to die a couple minutes later and provide another \"twist.\" It's all totally mechanical, right up to the ending that neatly ties up all the loose ends (well not all of them, just the ones the movie thinks you care about.)
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n'Anita and Me' is a drama about growing up in multi-ethnic Britain, rather like 'Bend it Like Beckham', or more closely, 'East is East', with which it shares a 1970s setting. The tone is resolutely chirpy (in spite of the dour Black Country accents), but the film lacks 'East is East's vigour and the result seems rather thin and trite. Moreover, the portrayal of the film's central relationship, between an Asian girl and her white friend, is insufficiently deep to justify the way that the movie is structured around it. I have also grown tired of films where the hero years to be a writer, this is naturally often something that real writers have experienced, but hardly a fresh element in a fictional story. 'East is East' was fun and sharp; 'Anita and Me' seems obvious and dull in comparison.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI had high expectations following \"My Beautiful Laundrette\", \"Bend it like Beckham\" and (less so) \"East is East\". The histories of British Asians fitting into their adopted home has had many good runs on the big screen, as well as a number of excellent TV and radio series (Goodness gracious me, etc). This one falls flat. Inspite of a good start it rapidly went down hill.
Ultimately this was a horribly typical BBC effort, complete with strong regional accents, whacky over-acting characters, a \"those were the days\" soundtrack, and lots of \"issues\" in an attempt to be worthy.
I found myself cringing at many points during this film. The writing is predictable. Every possible cliche was dragged out and aired. In fact, I have trouble thinking of any cross-cultural/cross-generational devices that could have been used that weren't. The characters were thin and cliched: the eccentric non-conformist minister; the well meaning but ultimately racist old woman; the over weight, overbearing aunt; the pushy Indian parents; the working class neighbour; the 'wise' profound grandmother; the motorbike riding thug. The script was weak, with every chance to shock the audience with overt racist dialogue from the two dimentional racist white characters taken. And why it had to be set in the 70's (apart from needing an excuse for a 70's soundtrack) is a mystery. Possibly it make unbelievable characters slightly more believable to people born after 1979. I don't know.
Even these things aside, good acting could have carried this into respectable obscurity. Instead, the usual \"BBC comedy\" suspects were wheeled out to ham it up. \"Bend it like Beckham\" had far better comic acting (and serious acting, in fact) than this, with a virtually unknown cast.
In summary, a lazy cliched script, over acted, in a dull predictable story. Give it a miss.

\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\nAnita and Me seems to be little more than an excuse for Meera Syal, the author of the novel and screenplay, to air her prejudices, grievances and general antipathy towards the English. The general sentiment of Indian superiority over the English in this film is foul.
The English people in this film are portrayed as overweight, violent, foul-mouthed, promiscuous, engaging in child neglect, stupid, uneducated, racist, ugly, eating poor food, and dim-witted -- tellingly, only by turning to Indian culture can the local priest be \"redeemed\" at the end of the film.
By contrast, the Indian family are beautiful, clever, educated, can speak many languages, are caring and loving parents, and grammar-school fodder. The film is so insidiously prejudicial that I am astonished the BBC funded it at all. Had it been the other way round, an English family in an Indian community depicted this way, the film would have been seen as racist.
There were a few moments where my eyebrow shot so far up my forehead, I thought it would lodge in my hairline. First, the gossip scene between the women at the Divali celebration -- undertext: the English are dirty and promiscuous -- and the men -- undertext: English women are prostitutes. Second, the meal with Anita where Neema's family lie to her about cutlery -- undertext: the English are so stupid, you can make them do anything.
But the underlying contempt towards anything English -- even English weddings are an object of scorn -- is evident all the way through the film. The character of Anita was drawn so appallingly -- almost the fallen woman trope -- that I finished the film feeling angry.
This is not a \"Bend it like Beckham\" where the humour is focused on loving exaggerations of a community's behaviour and customs from somebody within that community, and is a film about two girls from different backgrounds coming together. Instead, Anita and Me seems to convey that a form of cultural apartheid is inevitable, as the English are almost an version of the Indian Untouchable caste, and this is underscored by a thinly-veiled series of attacks upon the film's \"other\" community: the English.
I felt Anita and Me is a hate-filled, grievance-based piece of work. On that basis, the BBC should not have funded its production.
\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 sure this was one of those \"WOAH!\" attractions in 1982 when Epcot opened, but now it's just silly. The film's message is cliché. The Circle-Vision is disorienting. And that awful song at the end is grating. And I really wish they'd install seats. After so much walking, all you want to do is sit down for a few minutes. And when you hear there's a film to see it sounds pretty glamorous! You get entertained while sitting down, right? WRONG! You're standing there for 18+ minutes leaning against a short little railing. Disney should make a newer Maelstrom like attraction to liven things up and replace this dull, lackluster film. NOT FUN. Skip it. In fact, skip Canada altogether unless you're eating there. Move directly to the United Kingdom.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"