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 was hoping that this film was going to be at least watchable. The plot was weak to say the least. I was expecting a lot more considering the cast line up (I wonder if any of them will include this on their CVs?). At least I didn't pay to rent it. The best part of the film is definitely Dani Behr, but the rest of the film is complete and utter PANTS.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOkay. So there aren't really that many great movies around. Recent gems like American Dream, The Straight Story and even Toy Story 2 don't normally come so close together. But boy (!) does this film counter-balance the quality.
I have NO idea what these people thought they were doing. Are the financiers in this world so easily convinced to fund such a crock of ****? I can just see it now...
Producer - \"So we've got Joe Fiennes. He's cute as a button and was pretty good in Shakespeare in Love. And we've got Rhys Ifans, who isn't cute but was cool in Notting Hill. We'll mix in a really mediocre score, a few forgettable post-Britpop tunes, hemlock root and lizard brains and hey presto you've got the worst film of the new millennium.And believe me, it's gonna be a hard job to make anything as bad as this in the next thousand years.\"
The Bank - \"I like it! Any unnecessary sex? Bad camera movements? And what about the worst accents this side of Devil's Own?\"
Producer - \"Yeah, we got plenty of those.\"
The Bank - \"Sounds great, where do we sign?\"
Please.
\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, what to say...
Having seen the film I still have to wonder what the hell the point of it all really was?? V.Dodgy camera moves in the courtyard at one point... I had to look away from the screen, I was feeling physically sick... Round and Round and Round.... You get the idea...
VERY VERY Strange accents at many points.... \"Those that should know, know\"
Unless your getting in for free, or being paid to watch it, or your partner is about to make you paint the house or something.. then forget 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\nThere have been some low moments in my life, when I have been bewildered and depressed. Sitting through Rancid Aluminium was one of these.
The warning signs were there. No premiere (even the stars didn't want to attend) and no reviews in magazines. The only reason I sat through the film was in the hope that I might catch up on some sleep.
Nothing in the film was explained. The narration was idiotic. I cheered at one point when the lead of the film appeared to have been shot, then to my growing despair, it was revealed that he hadn't really been shot dampening my joy. I sincerely hope all involved in the film are hanged for this atrocity.
There were some positive aspects, mainly unintentional moments of humour. For example, the scene in which the main character, for some unknown reason feels the need to relieve himself manually in a toilet cubicle, while telling the person in the next cubicle to put his fingers in his ears.
My words cannot explain the anger I feel, so I shall conclude thus.
Rancid Aluminium: for sadists, wastrels, and regressives only who want to torture themselves.
\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 have not yet decided whether this will replace Anaconda as \"The Worst Film I Have Ever Seen\".
Even if you ignore the dodgy accents, low production values and appalling camera work this film has absolutely nothing going for it. I only went to see it as I had read the book and wanted to see how they would work the complicated plot into a 2 hour film.
The simple answer is - they didn't. Characters appear with little to no explanation as to who they are and then proceed to play no valuable part in the narrative. Even the main characters act without reason so that by the time the film reaches it's climax you don't care what happens to any of them.
I can accept that books occasionally need to be rewritten to fit into films and that it is perhaps unfair to judge this film against the book it was adapted from. But after my friends and I came out of the cinema I had to spend most of the journey home explaining what was supposed to have happened.
They even change the true meaning of the books title \"Rancid Aluminium\" by squeezing it into yet another piece of pointless voice over just so they can allow the film to have a cool title.
A real mess of a film from start to finish.
\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 absolutely the dumbest movie I've ever seen. What a waste of a splendid cast. That's James Cromwell as the ignoramus playing deputy. I could go on and on, but I would obviously be spending more time on this review than anybody ever did on the script. The only thing this movie is about is us vs. them and how to revel in profane slapstick beyond any reasonable human being's tolerance. This is one of the 10 worst movies I have ever seen -- and I LOVE James Garner.
\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 wanted to like this movie because the critics have been unkind
to it (to say the least)... but it was terrible. Really terrible. Badly
acted, a witless script, cack handed direction... Watching this film was
like watching a car crash- you want to look away but you keep staring
because you want to see how messy it's going to get. Well, the car is
wrecked and there are no survivors. On the plus side, the cinematography
was nice, made me want to go on holiday, if only to cleanse myself from
this unholy
\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\nand forget this. Completely. If you really need to see Madonna act, rent \"Body of Evidence\", at least Willem Defoe is in that one.
In this film, while the sets are beautiful, you may want to mute the dialog. You won't miss anything. Bruce Greenwood is wasted, Jeanne Tripplehorn is a prop, and Madonna is so awful, it becomes amusing. Why they had to butcher the original film into this mess, I will never know; guess they thought it was \"bankable\". Madonna, as an actress, certainly is NOT.
If you rent the original film from 1979, though, you will enjoy it, and the actors in it can actually act. 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\nNo doubt, when Madonna and Guy Ritchie married, it was because they both thought it would help their movie careers. If you've been through the ordeal of watching \"Swept Away,\" then you know at that level it was a match made in hell. After nearly 20 years of trying to become a respected actress (or \"octress\" as she might have pronounced it in \"The Next Best Thing\"), she still can't get out of herself long enough to turn in a performance that anyone with taste could even call decent. And that's the thing that makes people dislike her so much on the screen: that gut feeling that her ego is so inflated that it prevents her from being able to just let go and connect with her audience. If there's any justice in this universe, she just blew her last chance.
\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*May contain spoilers*
I bent over backwards to be fair to this film. I knew it starred Madonna. I knew it lasted a whole week in theaters. I knew it got a lot of bad reviews. I wasn't expecting a deep and thoughtful examination of class, culture and sexuality like we got in the Italian original. The benefit of the doubt lasted a whole ten minutes.
Madonna plays a rich, pretentious, nit-witted Gorgon who goes on vacation with her henpecked husband and flippant friends (the brunette woman is as bad as Madonna, exhibiting some really dumb facial expressions). Adriano Giannini plays the ship's first-mate who the Madonna character delights in humiliating and treating like dirt in every scene they have together. Why is she such a bitch to him? Simply because the plot requires it so that later when the two of them get marooned on a deserted Mediterranean island the tables will be turned and he will teach her a lesson. Just as inexplicable is how they fall in love despite having nothing in common and having abused each other for two-thirds of the movie.
\"Swept Away\" is a silly, simplistic, superficial movie from beginning to end. Madonna gives a typically wooden performance. There are many dumb scenes: Madonna singing and dancing atrociously at the demand of Giannini, a fantasy scene with Madonna and a lot of scenes where he slaps her and kicks her in the butt. Guy Ritchie does his \"stylish\" editing which is laughable here. The film contains some of the worst dialog I've heard in a major movie in several years. The ending is sappy and implausible. It's basically \"The Blue Lagoon\" meets \"Overboard\" minus the nudity of the former and the sense of humor of the latter.
Maybe Madonna's ego is so big that she insists on continuing to prove herself as a competent actress. Please give it up, Madge, for our sake as well as yours. This isn't her worst movie though. That distinction still belongs to \"Shanghai Surprise\". She hasn't made anything worse than that...yet.
\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*** WARNING! SPOILERS CONTAINED HEREIN! ***
This is a semi-autobiographical look at what might happen to Madonna if she were ever to be stranded on a deserted island. There's absolutely no challenge to Madonna in this role, and it shows. She's just Madonna playing Madonna, and she can't even get THAT right. I know what you're saying, you're saying, \"How do you know this is what Madonna is really like, you've never met her!\" Correct, I haven't, but we all remember \"Truth or Dare\", don't we? I know Kevin Costner does.
You would think, in the year 2002, that Madonna might have learned something, one way or the other, from the \"crossover\" ladies that have also made their way across the silver screen. For goodness' sake, hasn't Madonna seen \"Glitter\"? Mariah Carey showed the film world HOW IT IS DONE!!! Mariah kicks Madonna's trashy butt to the curb in beauty, talent, screen presence, charisma, characterization, you name it! All we see from this glimpse into Madonna's world is she's the only one in it.
If there's one thing to be said for Madonna, it is that she's consistent. When she was an MTV darling, she set the world of women's fashion back 20 years. Now, in film, she has set women's roles in film AND society back 20 years, by glamourizing all the most hated, horrible, reprehensible, odious qualities women have been reputed to have locked away inside them, qualities they have been so desperately trying to prove they really don't possess.
***HERE'S THE SPOILERS!!! DON'T READ ANY FURTHER IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW...***
Here's the one good thing I will say about this film, and I really was impressed by it. They didn't go for the \"Hollywood Ending\" - Madonna's character lives. In the typical, happy Hollywood ending, Madonna's character would have died on the island, and her long-suffering, oppressed, whipped husband would have been free to finally settle down with a good, decent woman, a woman who would be the exact opposite of his deceased wife, and they both live happily ever after. But in this extremely depressing conclusion, she is rescued, and once more, this poor victim of a husband is once again saddled with his demon of a wife, and his life will once again become a living hell.
*** HERE ENDETH THE SPOILERS ***
\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 the (mis)fortune to see this film at a showing in the US. Having reluctantly sat through the entire abysmal thing, I am shocked to have seen so many good reviews here on IMDB.
The original film was a turkey, but an interesting one. It fitted into that early seventies, post 1969 revolution thing; this film just stinks of....... , well, nothing really. It's that bad.
Imagine a badly done perfume commercial - see what I mean ?
Madonna never could act, and has been an embarrassment on the big screen for years. She looks worse and worse with every one of those years, increasingly coming to resemble a skinned meerkat.
Guy Ritchie, who has built his \"reputation\" on Lock Stock, could never direct either - his movies are shallow, badly cut, fashion shows. He doesn't disappoint here either; he wisely cast his wife as the star of this debacle.
Please people, take little heed of the good reviews this movie has received from other posters below. They are quite obviously business plants.
Don't encourage Ritchie to humiliate himself further by giving him 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\nIt's not my fault. My girlfriend made me watch it.
There is nothing positive to say about this film. There has been for many years an idea that Madonna could act but she can't. There has been an idea for years that Guy Ritchie is a great director but he is only middling. An embarrassment all round.

\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI don't know what some of you are smoking, but i suspect it's potent.
To call Swept Away awful would be an insult to the very concept of terribleness. The acting is hideous and i'm not picking on Madonna here, we all know she's useless, but someone should have warned everyone else that her ailment is contagious. My back literally hurts from cringing so much at poorly delivered lines. The editing is so sloppy, it beggars description. The photography and composition (which in this era, competence should be a GIVEN for any film with a budget) are astonishingly inept, even the lighting is horrid and unnatural looking. These are BASIC elements of filmmaking, if you can't get them right, you should seek another line of work. It's as contrived as a grade 3 production of Snow White, except nowhere near as well made or interesting.
The original film by Lina Wertmueller is a wonderful satire and metaphor, superbly acted and written, featuring breathtaking visuals - you can practically taste the sea salt and feel the windswept sand in your hair. The sexual tension feels real and immediate...those of you who found Guy Ritchie's version deplorable, should see it, it really is one of the landmarks of world cinema.
Those of you who thought the remake is some kind of masterpiece should have your heads examined.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhatever possessed Guy Ritchie to remake Wertmuller's film is incomprehensible.
This new film is a mess. There was one other person in the audience when I saw it, and she left about an hour into it. (I hope she demanded a refund.) The only reason I stayed through to the end was because I've never walked out of a movie.
But I sat through this piece of junk thoroughly flabbergasted that Madonna and Ritchie could actually think they made a good film. The dialogue is laughable, the acting is atrocious and the only nice thing in this film is the scenery. Ritchie took Lina's movie and turned it into another \"Blue Lagoon.\"
This is a film that you wouldn't even waste time watching late night on Cinemax. Time is too precious to be wasted on crap like this.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nGuy Ritchie's noble effort is beat up, knocked down, raped, kicked around, shot, stabbed, spit upon, punched, sodomized, and abused and left for dead by Madonna's dreadful performance. Her acting was very reminiscent of a graduate from the Al Gore School of Dramatics and Public Speaking. Guy Ritchie did do a somewhat noble attempt to remake this, and if you exclude ALL of the scenes that his wife was in, it's a fair movie at best. I think that the best acting job ever, had to be Guy comforting his wife that her performance was good enough not to re-shoot. If you have an opportunity of watching Swept Away or clipping your toenails for 89 minutes...go for the extended pedicure.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film story is bad enough, which can happen in real life. I'm very can not understand when they show us this bad film. I say it was bad because there is some reason. 1. if Madonna was rich and can do everything she want, then why she falling in love with that bad man. 2. How can the story script is so weak? She was so rich, can do everything she want, but not dare to divorce her husband that is very impossible.
The words I LOVE YOU, it doesn't meant anything in this 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\nThis picture reminds me of a Keneth More picture from 1957 called The Admirable Crighton\" whilst on the boat he was a servant and on the island he became the master and upon being saved reverted back to servant. Madonna did OK in some movies however this one doesn't fire. If there is any picture that show Madonna can't act it is this one.
I am not sure whether this was a subtle copy of \"The Admirable Crighton\" but it sure looks like it and if thats the case then Hollywood must be running out of ideas and that is sad. to provide a platform for actors to improve their career profile and just on that this fails in every corner and detail.
The plot is loose and the acting is mediocre. The script should have been put thru the shredder before taking it on location. While many here have canned Madoona for all her acting I think that in films like \"A League of Their own\" was quite good and enjoyable and \"Who's That Girl\" showed a quirkiness of Madonna's style not shown before or afterwards. Other Madonna films are not as enjoyable and I would have liked a to see a Madonna Animation series with the character from \"Who's That Girl\" I like the music from these two films however \"Swept away\" remains at the bottom of the pile here and will remain so.
everyone has a bomb right?
\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\nAKA: Mondays In The Sun
I have no idea what I just watched. Three men wander aimlessly and drink, grousing about everything and at everyone in their path. This is supposed to be a drama, but what it is, is a total waste of film, without a single redeeming quality.
I have read reviews touting the performances herein as \"wonderful,\" \"beautiful,\" and \"heroic.\" I'm afraid I cannot agree, unless these men were supposed to come off as the dumbest most ignorant proto-humans who ever walked.
All in all? This was not a movie. It wanders throughout and loses everyone but the audience. I've watched this three times, and cannot for the life of me see what anyone sees in this garbage. There is nothing profound here, whatsoever. It's crap.
It rates a ZERO/10 from...
the Fiend :.
\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\nQuentin Crisp once stated that when things are shown too beautifully, one is a romantic. When things are show unbearably grim, they are realistic. And when something gets the ironic treatment, they're spot on. Unfortunately for Leon de Aranoa, he falls into the second catagory. This director has obviously tried too hard to make a Spanish \"Ken Loach\" type movie, without being able to capture the comedy, and warmth between the characters, that elevate Loach movies from merely being 'depressing'. Los Lunes al Sol, is just that, only depressing. Things are unrealistically grim. The characters ultimate moments of misery all reach a climax at the same point, and if the glum story isn't enough, Aranoa washes the tale over with a visually grey and grimy colour palette. The films was ridiculously over-rated at the Goyas. A movie that shows empathy for the weaker citizens in society, in this case unemployed harbour workers, does not automatically make for a good movie, even though I would be the first to sympathize with the fates of these people. This movie only manages to make me grow disinterested in their fate. In 21st century Spain, unemployed people do not live like beggars, and the public transport ferries have decent restrooms, and it's hard to come across a bar with so few punters and such little happiness to be encountered in it. Leon de Aranoa obviously doesn't have a clue about working class Spain, and does it no favours. Pretentious is the only conclusion I can draw. The scene where the men watch a football match for free, has been directly copied from a film which deals much more 'realistically' with the subject of the 'poverty' trap, namely \"Purely Belter,\" which is afar more engaging, humorous, and yet sad.
\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 is painfully slow and has no plot. It conveys the lives of a group of laid off boatworkers. One of the older ones is sincere in his attempt to get a job. There may be some social commentary here, but, it is muddled as nobody is painted in a very sympathetic light.
I do not understand why it had a 7.8 when I decided to watch it. I watched the whole tedious thing and built expectations for a huge redeeming payoff. No luck. The IMDb rating has always been such a good match for my tastes. Anything above 6.5 was worth watching.
And my wife says Javier Barem does not even look good in this movie. He's not my type, so, my agreement does not mean much.
Sigh. I give it a 1.
\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 romanticised and thoroughly false vision of unemployment from a middle class \"artist\" with a comfortable upbringing... It is clear that the writer-director never suffered unemployment directly and certainly has no personal experience of it. If you had to believe this absolutely ridiculous story, unemployed men of all ages behave like teenagers, have no anger, no fear, no frustration, etc. All the characters live trough the day by carrying pranks, boyish jokes. They do never look for work, the do almost never experience rejection or anguish, etc. Living on the dole is just about like a summer vacation from school... Ridiculous. Specially if you compare it with contemporary masterpieces from the likes of Ken Loach, etc.
\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 move is slow, plodding, cold, dark, and without a plot or hope. It follows that tried and true European formula that they love to subsidize, that is never seen, but that the critics think makes an \"important point\".
The movie is valuable if nothing more than to show the huge difference in the thinking between Americans and Europeans regarding employment. In this movie the men are still nursing their wounds from years ago and feel it's the government's duty to provide them with work. Whereas in the U.S. we know we have to go out there and create value for someone.
Spain never looked so backward!
\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\nGadar is a really dumb movie because it tells a fake story.It's too unrealistic and is a typical sunny deol movie that is aimed to bash Pakistan.The movie's aim is to misguide the viewers so they can think that Pakistan and it's government is bad but trying to hide their own flaws won't work.And all the songs and music of the movie are all bad.Most likely the Sikhs will love th movie cause they are being misguided.The movie sucks and sucks with power. I think only Amisha Patel was good in the movie. If i can give 0 out of 10 I would but the lowest is 1.Please save 3 hours of your life and do not watch this stupid boring movie .Disaster.
\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\nGadar is an example of one of Bollywood worst overrated movies ever. Directed by Anil Sharma, who prefers making period related movie gives a rubbish movie. The songs were boring and ain't the kind of song you want to listen to in your car, full volume. Sunny Deol is famous for making daft movies, where he beats up a 100 bad guys on his own. He even kicks a metal jail door (Indian) and kicks a moving car far away (Teesri Aankh). I can give another 50 examples of disgraceful action by Sunny Deol. But I'm sure most people know this already. Sunny gives a pathetic performance once again repeating the same type of role. A guy claiming to be fighting for his countries piece, by using violence. Amisha Patel is hands down dead sexy with an amazing body that i would love to bone. But even she couldn't save the film from being a disaster. Instead of wearing sexy clothes like she usually does, in this movie she doesn't. Maybe cos she was playing a Muslim, but she doesn't act like one in the movie. Overall, this is a poor show all the way, I'm sure it will appeal to some people, who love seeing the Bollywood actor beat up 100 guys. Give me a break.
\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 warning against anti-semitism is well-meant and may have had its purpose at the time, but it is made without the slightest notion of how to make a film. The director has no idea about mise-en-scene; the cast varies from bad till even worse.
The great Austrian comic Hans Moser is wasted. In his part he ends in an asylum for the crazy, that is designed as a set from Das Kabinett des Dr. Caligari; one wonders whether the makers had all their mental capabilities.
The restored copy I saw (Dutch Filmmuseum) gives the impression that some scenes were not put into the right place, but may be the original editing was bad as well.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nan acted/manipulated documentary about one of the most darkest places of guatemala. portrayed as a fun, secure... but sad place, were a bunch of sex workers get to play in a soccer team, assembled in what seems like no more than a week! the documentary's main focus is to prove that society repels this kind of \"workers\", even though no solution to these poor women is ever achieved, except that the people who documented this,made them some sort of \"stars\" (just like the title says so) in exchange of being exploited for making this realityshowlike documentary. it does have, however, its own documented reality... but, that sadly has nothing to do with the main storyline. i would not accept to see it again; but i would recommend it for general cultural purposes only.
\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\nRichard Dix is a big, not very nice industrialist, who has nearly worked himself to death. If he takes the vacation his doctors suggest for him, can he find happiness for the last months of his life? Well, he'll likely be better off if he disregards the VOICE OF THE WHISTLER.
This William Castle directed entry has some great moments (the introduction and the depiction of Richard Dix's life through newsreel a la Citizen Kane), and some intriguing plotting in the final reels. Dix's performance is generally pretty good. But, unfortunately, the just does not quite work because one does not end up buying that the characters would behave the way that they do. Also, the movie veers from a dark (and fascinating beginning) to an almost cheerful 30s movie like midsection (full of nice urban ethnic types who don't mind that they aren't rich) and back again to a complex noir plot for the last 15 minutes or so.
This is a decent movie -- worth seeing -- but it needed a little more running time to establish a couple of the characters and a female lead capable of meeting the demands of her role.
\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\nStörtebeker is truly one of the worst TV mini-series ever made on this planet.
The acting is unbearable and the historic background is mostly nonsense: Just two examples: Visby was shown as a village of three houses. Instead, it was a major city at this time, it's best days already passed by. Secondly, Hamburg would have never been the city taking care of pirates in the Baltic Sea. Hamburg had no access to the Baltic Sea, the major town at that time was Lübeck.
But worse than all that: The directing! How can a dilettante like this guy be allowed to direct a movie like this? Impossible! There was not a single believable scene it, the fights were ridiculous and I could not suppress laughter at most stern scenes.
I can't understand at all how a major television station could be so incompetent.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nHow can a major German TV station broadcast a mess like this? It's amazing how the main actors avoid every acting talent - Even the well-known Gottfried John is acting very poor - especially in the double murder scene - how amateurish.......! The screen plan is very , very extended - perhaps to fill out 2 parts of the movie. Be careful not to fall asleep while watching! The set is obviously very often a blue screen, f.g. the scenes on the ship with unreal sea in background...! In the German version the sound and the dubbing is very poor - probably reason: different languages of actors - but: other international productions do handle this much more professional. Advice: Do NOT watch - it's a diabolic waste of time!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is a fascinating film--especially to old movie buffs and historians (I am both). During the first half of the twentieth century, sadly, Black Americans were usually not allowed into White theaters. As a result, theaters catering to Black audiences wanted to show films reflecting the Black experience and showing Black actors. In many cases, the films were essentially similar plot-wise to standard Hollywood fare, but with a much, much lower budget--and usually horrid production values. You really can't fault the film makers--they just didn't have the money and resources available to the average film company. As a result, they had to make due with a lot less--including an over-reliance on stock actors that were seen again and again, no money for re-shooting scenes and a need to get the films done FAST! This film tried very hard to be a Black version of a Gene Autry film--starring Herb Jeffries instead. Jeffries was a light-skinned man from mixed ancestry and he starred in several similar cowboy films. In each, he sings a little, fights a little (though VERY poorly) and loves a little--everything you need in a cowboy. Believe it or not, Jeffries is STILL alive at age 96.
The general plot was indiscernible from an Autry picture--complete with anachronistic items such as telephones out West! The problem is that despite its similarities, the low budget shines through. Stymie (from the Li'l Rascals) flubbed a few lines but they just left it in, the fight scenes were totally unchoreographed and were among the worst ever put on film, there were some odd plot holes, there was no background music (leaving the film strangely quiet) and the acting was pretty awful.
Now this does NOT mean that the film isn't worth seeing--only that it abouts with technical problems that prevent it from being scored higher. One reviewer, oddly, scored this film a 10! How this can be with all the problems is beyond me. However, I can understand a person liking the film despite its many problems. The plot is generally pretty good, the characters likable, the musical numbers excellent and you know that the people making the film tried so darn hard AND it's a very important piece of American history. But a 10!?
By the way, in an odd bit of casting, the very tall, lean and almost white-skinned Jefferies is paired with short, dumpy and exceptionally dark Mantan Moreland....as his brother!! Also, Spencer Williams may be familiar to you. He played Andy on TV's \"Amos 'n Andy\".
\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 have to agree with most everyone's opinion that this show was poorly produced as well as written.The acting was not much more above the lower production values however I feel an actor can only rely on the material provided to them and make the best of it. In keeping with this thought I feel it is important to point out that one actor has risen and persevered well beyond this campy to tasteless production to have become a respectable and quite talented performer.I am referring to Laura Harris a Canadian born actor who has etched her way through many poorly produced shows and movies to find a place on the HBO hit \"Dead Like Me\" where she plays the role of Daisy Adair and to her credit she handles this role in an efficient manner.I remember having a typical boyhood crush on the young actress during this series where she played Ashley a soft spoken yet intelligent 7th grader.I felt as though if anyone might \"make it\" from this series it surely would be Laura Harris and true to her nature she did excel in the acting field to win the respect of many producers who now recognize her for her talent as well as unique Nordic blond allure. If you ever do have the opportunity to view this series I recommend that you have something epic to watch after wards such as the 'Godfather' or perhaps 'Beaches' in order to remind yourself that there is after all a great deal of true production integrity and value out there and that this series is only a low-budget reminder of what Laura Harris can simply state about her time on the show and I bet she would quote many a young actors words of defense by saying \"It's a start!\"
\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 U.S., very few films have been made about Rome that were not set in the time of Julius Caesar or shortly thereafter. Hollywood's sword and sandal epics mostly have a Christian theme, which makes it difficult to get into earlier Roman history (Spartacus was probably the first exception to this rule, and encountered some resistance in Hollywood because it did not have Jesus in it).
It's interesting to see at least one picture that not only takes place before the time of Caesar and Christ, but is set when Rome was only one city among many on the Italian peninsula, and had just ousted the hated King Tarquin and formed the Republic.
However, this is not a historical film; it's peplum, and while the production values aren't rock bottom, the acting and characterizations are cardboard. I can only imagine what the dialogue was like in Italian, but with wooden English dubbing it's very campy. I got a few good laughs out of it at first.
I haven't seen many films of this genre, having missed most of the Hercules movies of the 60s. It's amusing up to a point, but as the film goes on, it gets somewhat boring.
One thing's for sure: if I'd seen this movie when I was ten years old, I would have loved it. At that age, I went for anything with Romans and swordfights in it. So at least, this flick brought back some childhood memories.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt's hard to imagine that anyone could find this short their favorite if they have seen most of their shorts, but I know that humor is VERY subjective. I have seen all of their sound shorts (by far the best of their stuff IMO) and I found this one of their weaker efforts.
In the year this was made (1930) Stan and Babe made 15 shorts and one feature. They were extremely popular and their boss Hal Roach took full advantage by keeping them working constantly. In addition, this was a time of experimentation for the writers and Stan. I would say this was an experiment that really did not work. As someone else said, it does not play to their strengths. Too much dialog and plot.
The best part of this one for me is the largely improvised sequence with Stan as Agnes the maid and the great Thelma Todd talking about \"girl\" stuff.
If you really want to see the boys at their most creative and funny check out Blotto, or Brats From the same year.
They made so many shorts in such a short time that I think they can be forgiven for turning out a few less then par shorts. They made something like 108 films altogether. Very few (except for the ones made at FOX) were outright failures but there are some. County Hospital, Me And My Pal, The Live Ghost, The Fixer Uppers come to mind as essentially weak ones. But other then those I find something wonderful in just about all their shorts. Quite a record in my book.
If you have seen and enjoyed all their other shorts then by all means check this one out, but I would be willing to bet that this one was less then memorable to Stan and Babe.
\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 best Laurel and Hardy shorts are filled to the brim with mishaps, accidents and destruction, mostly caused by Stan, but with Ollie receiving the bulk (!) of the punishment-- see the great 'The Music Box' (1933) or 'Towed in a Hole' (1932) as some some classic examples.
Here, however, for some reason (is it because it was based on a sketch by Stan's father?) the boys play it 'straight' in a 'comedy' built around jokes and supposedly funny situations. It doesn't come off. It's merely another third-rate tedious 30s comedy, heightened only by the personalities of Stan and Ollie who never really display any of their trademarked gestures (Ollie's finger wiggling, Stan's blank stares, etc.) or comic abilities.
The film begins with them running from the police. Since we never see or know why, it's hard to believe or accept their fear of being caught, and thus hiding in Colonel Buckshot's mansion. The premise for the 'humor', Ollie passing himself off as the Colonel and Stan passing himself off as both the butler and the maid are never very engaging. They are not playing 'Stan and Ollie' in this film. Their parts could have been played by any of the pedestrian studio actors and it would be just as poor.
Stan could mime and make whatever he would do funny, but he doesn't get the chance to do any of that here. He's constrained by uttering too much dialog to 'move' the plot, but none of it rises much above the silly. We are treated to endless third rate comedy chestnuts such as the running gag of not correctly pronouncing Lord Plumtree's name, the \"Call me a cab! Okay you're a cab!\" joke, cops losing their clothes and being seen in long johns, and a non-sequiter ending of Stan and Ollie as the two parts in a painfully obvious horse costume as they make their escape on a bicycle for two, and James Finlayson is still doing his silent-era full body takes and Keystone Kop jumping jacks.
Stan and Ollie do much better in a situation comedy in 'Sons of the Desert'(1933) where we get to see them do what we love about them -- be themselves. In fact, 1932-34 seem to be their best years.
Since this film does not play to any of their strengths, why bother with it? I have to give it a 3.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nBecause some people, like me, like to know EVERYTHING about a movie even if they plan to see it, including the ending. Anyway, here's the ending as I remember it, because I couldn't have been more than 8 yrs old when I saw it for the first and only time on TV. But I'll tell ya, it sure scared the little kid that I was, and I thought about it for days afterward, and it still stands out in my mind to this day, even though some of the details are a little vague. Abe Vigoda was in this movie? I don't remember that! I didn't even remember that ol' Barnabus was in this movie, and I LOVED Dark Shadows. So, at the end, the lead character (Belinda Montgomery?) is lured by the Judge (Joseph Cotton, I'm guessing, even though I remember it as him being an old family physician or something instead of a judge; see how memory fades?) to the wedding place, which as I remember it is in a cavern of some kind? Maybe I've got that wrong; and Shelley Winters is there laughing, and the Judge has a cape on, and the camera angle is kind of looking up at him, and he throws back the cloak, and he has goat legs, and he announces he's actually her father, the Devil, and she's played right into their (the satanic cult's) hands, because the \"mortal\" guy she has fallen in love with (I guess that's Robert Foxworth) turns out also to be the guy Satan wants to marry her off to, The Demon with Yellow Eyes, and yep, sure enough, they show Robert Foxworth, and his eyes glow yellow. There are a lot of close-ups in the last few minutes of the film. Everyone is laughing and rejoicing, except for Belinda Montgomery, who is very unhappy, and cries or screams or something, and that's the end. The bad guys win.
\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\nForbidden Siren is based upon the Siren 2 Playstation 2 (so many 2s) game. Like most video game turned movies, I would say the majority don't translate into a different medium really well. And that goes for this one too, painfully.
There's a pretty long prologue which explains and sets the premise for the story, and the mysterious island on which a writer (Leo Morimoto) and his children, daughter Yuki (Yui Ichikawa) and son Hideo (Jun Nishiyama) come to move into. The villagers don't look all too friendly, and soon enough, sound advice is given about the siren on the island, to stay indoors once the siren starts wailing.
Naturally and slowly, things start to go bump, and our siblings go on a mission beating around the bush to discover exactly what is happening on this unfriendly island with its strange inhabitants. But in truth, you will not bother with what's going on, as folklore and fairy tales get thrown in to convolute the plot even more. What was really pushing it into the realm of bad comedy are its unwittingly ill-placed-out-of-the-norm moments which just drew pitiful giggles at its sheer stupidity, until it's explained much later. It's one thing trying to come up and present something smart, but another thing doing it convincingly and with loopholes covered.
Despite it clocking in under 90 minutes - I think it's a horror movie phenomenon to have that as a runtime benchmark - it gives that almost two hour feel with its slow buildup to tell what it wants to. Things begin to pick up toward the last 20 minutes, but it's a classic case of too little too late.
What saves the movie is how it changes tack and its revelation at the end. Again this is a common device used to try and elevate a seemingly simple horror movie into something a little bit extra in the hope of wowing an audience. It turned out rather satisfactorily, but leaves a bad aftertaste as you'll feel cheated somewhat. There are two ways a twist will make you feel - it either elevates the movie to a memorable level, or provides you with that hokey feeling. Unfortunately Forbidden Siren belonged more to the latter.
The saving grace will be its cinematography with its use of light, shadows and mirrors, but I will be that explicit - it's still not worth the time, so better to avoid this.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIs it just me or is that kid really annoying?
Hideos sister, spends most of her time running around after the disobedient little so and so. As for him, well, I know he's a kid n all, but his acting ability is about as wooden as a dead tree. So far I'm only half way through, and am fascinated by the story, but the people in it, let it down, I just hope it gets better by the end, as I can't not know what it's all about. Although, some supposedly cryptic messages in the scribbles on the wall and a notebook, indicate everything is backwards, i.e. Dog is God, Live is Evil etc... just seems a little obvious at the moment, yet nobody mentions its obvious meaning, (As yet anyway) If my opinion changes at the end of the movie, I'll update this post, but if your reading this, then well...... See above statement.
\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 fully amped up to see this film. I had been waiting a year for it to be cleared down here in New Zealand. I shouldn't have built myself up so much because it was so disappointing and is without a doubt Clark's worst film There is so much wrong with this film. First off, some of the acting is great, in particular Nick Stahl as 'The Bully', and the girl with the curly brown hair (I can't recall her name), but most of it was so out of touch and incredibly unbelievable, especially Leo Fitzpatrick. He's a veteran of Clark's films now and he was so brilliant in 'Kids', but in 'Bully' he invests his lines with such solemnity as to turn his scenes into a parody virtually. The screenplay felt like it had been written by a first year film student. No sorry, a high school student...one who has never seen a movie before. And I couldn't fathom Clark's intentions. Was he trying to point out the meaningless of these kids' existence? It sure as hell didn't stop him getting in a damn good perv. I'm no prude but I didn't need to see teenage breasts and buttocks every 5 minutes. I still maintain that Clark's best film is 'Another Day in Paradise'. It's fantastic and I don't think he'll ever top 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\nIt, at all, you have seen when harry met sally, then avoid this one. It will not only make you bang your head on the table as why can't bollywood even make a good remake; but also annoy you with the so called funny moments in it. The charm of the movie is missing. Ranee looks terrible. Saif tries to act like he is one hell of an actor. The plots that have been picked up from the original, don't look effective either. The part where both of them bring their friends along and they hit a note, it just doesn't look appealing. What can be more disastrous? you wanna waste some money, this is what you can get. Otherwise, put some more bucks, and watch the original. Its too good to miss..
\n
assistant\n0
\n"