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 once thought that \"The Stoned Age\" was the worst film ever made... I was wrong. \"Hobgoblins\" surpassed it in every way I could imagine and a few I couldn't. In \"The Stoned Age\" I hated the characters. In \"Hobgoblins\" I hated the actors... and everyone else involved in creating this atrocity. I won't include a teaser to this film, I'm not that cruel. I couldn't subject innocent people such as yourselves to such torment. In fact, any discussion of plot pertaining to this film is senseless and demeaning. Words I would use to describe this film are as follows: insipid, asinine, and ingenuous.
In conclusion, PLEASE don't watch this film. I beg of you, from one movie lover to another... no, from one human being to another, PLEASE. For the sake of your own sanity and intellect DO NOT WATCH IT. Destroy any copies you come across.
\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\nDescription: Corny, utterly stupid and worthless. It's so cheap and lame, it'll make you wonder why these abnormally dumb people even wasted 2 months or so to spend a budget (I'm guessing this...) probably no more than 700 dollars to make this movie. It was just hysterical to watch with or without Mystery Science Theater. I am giving you the best advice in the world:
Spare yourself, spare your time, life, and money, by NOT--I repeat, NOT even ponder about whether you should see this movie. This movie is so corny, it'll make your face turn purple of outraged boredom. If you have a one-digit IQ, then be my guest and watch this absolutely despicable movie. You might actually admire it. (Like I said before, IF you have a one-digit IQ)
With about 12 actors of your own, a few puppets you bought at a garage sale, and of course cameras and music, I gaurentee you'll make a slightly more entertaining home video than this piece of absolute crap.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nthis is the result. A piece of trash movie that doesn't deserve to even be classified as a movie, it's just a bunch of stuff on a film reel, that makes no sense whatsoever. Well back to the actors, which from the get go seem to be just a bunch of friends who thought they would get a little amount of money together and try to make a movie that would be a great horror film. Well it's a great horror anyway, nevermind being a film. There's plenty of horrific acting in \"Hobgoblins,\" but the worse is the main guy named Richard, who is just way too much of a weakling to even sorta root for. Well, when you cast a bunch of friends and try to make the film scary, on a less than shoestring budget, no less, this is what will happen. Oh well at least the MST3K version was hilarious. But this is still a horrid movie, that deserves all the bashing it gets. 9 for the MST version.
\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... Bad at being intentionally bad...
This little gem shot straight onto the MST3k big screen. While it's obvious the movie isn't trying to be taken seriously (Hopefully that their goal, anyway...), the movie is still plain bad. Hell, it makes Leprechaun In Space look big budgeted...
In short: Paint my muscle car prune colored!
\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\nGood Lord, what were they THINKING??!!!!!! Here is your spoiler warning, even though I don't think it'll really matter. You won't be seeing this piece of trash anyway.
A group of handpuppets go chasing after a group of really stupid people, who go on a really stupid hunt for them to try and kill them, and the puppets complicate things by letting them live out their really stupid fantasies. In other words, the whole thing is really stupid.
You KNOW it has to be bad when even Mike and the Bots can't save something!! And they didn't! I know, some of their lines were funny, like what to add to the sign \"HIT\" and the hand comments, but, geez, this was pretty dang sad.
All I can say is DO NOT WATCH THIS PIECE O CRUD. IT IS NOT WORTH YOUR EYES.
\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\nGood grief! While I still maintain that Manos: The Hands of Fate is the worst piece of mental torture available, Hobgoblins came awfully close. This...this...thing insults the audience at every opportunity.
At least films like Space Mutiny and Future War can be enjoyed on mst3k, this one was a struggle to get through. I was literally writhing on the couch in anguish. This thing managed to embarrass me - alone!
Even if you are a die-hard MST3K fan and have made it your mission to see every single experiment, think twice about seeing this one.
It's that bad.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nHee hee hee. This movie is so bad that it doesn't even try to hide the fact that it sucks big time. I remember the day I first saw this on MST. Sun was shining, looked like a good day. then, I saw this product of Rick Sloane which consisted of horrible plush dolls wreaking havoc in the crappy 80s fest land. Kevin, wussy extraordinaire, tries to impress his girlfriend, manages an assistant security guard job, fights with rakes, and plenty more stuff in this very badly made series of images. No plot or story is needed. Obviously no acting is necessary as the film proves. An army guy and his sex crazed girl will make you wanna leap off a cliff, and the dorky friend who gets his kicks off phone sex will make you say, \" He has got some nice red shorts\". Plus, I really hated the old security guard and wished he had an accident in his supermarket cart. Just when you think it's over, wait until the Club Scum scene. Ask for Road Rash.
I advise that after viewing this film, a good month to regain senses and sanity. And if you see Rick Sloane, give him a good kick to the groin to show how much we appreciate this crapsterpiece called Hobgoblins.
\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\nMy favorite quote from Crow was, when the car was going off the cliff, \"The movie is so bad, even the car wants to get out of it!\"
This had to be the funniest movie I have ever seen. It was seriously out there to scare you, which makes it even funnier! If it weren't for Mystery Science Theater I wouldn't be here today! :-P
\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 didn't think it was possible for a horror comedy film to fail so abysmally on both fronts....really awful. The fact that it doesn't take itself seriously (usually a good thing) works against it, primarily because the actors are so wooden you really would swear they are reading cue cards. On the upshot though.....the MST3K version, as always, has a few laughs....
\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\nHobgoblins... what a concept. Rick Sloan was a master with this film. He had the brilliance to produce a film with actors that couldn't act. On top of that, he chose to write a script based on some sort of bad acid trip gone serriously wrong. Put it together, you end up with a film that sucks more than a warehouse filled with suction cups and vaccum cleaners. This movie was very painful. The pain it caused is about equal to the pain caused by having your genitals carved out with a spoon, and then having the entire wound covered with salt and Hydrochloric acid.
\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 should not be viewed unless you are trying to kill yourself. I think this movie could actually cause severe brain damage. The main characters are the whiny non-hero Kevin, Amy, his bratty, ungodly conservative girlfriend, Kyle, a dork in red shorts who enjoys phone sex, Daphne, a scrawny, horny girl who is supposed to be \"cool\" and has no sense of how to dress, and her oversexed boyfriend Nick, an army recruit who can make an innuendo out of anything. No, I'm not a pervert, that's REALLY how the movie goes. The movie itself is an over-sexed rip-off of 1986's Gremlins, only you'll never find a trace of Gizmo anywhere. No, these Hobgoblins, unleashed by Wimpy Man (I'm sorry, Kevin), make someone's wildest dreams come true, and then kill the victims. Yes, you guessed it-Eventually, they wind up in a strip club, where the nerdy Amy's greatest dream is revealed-She wants to be a stripper! Look, I watched this flick via MST3K, and even with Mike Nelson, Tom Servo, and Crow T. Robot making a laughing-stock out of this cinematic trainwreck and it still made me bleed from both eyes. Not really, but I wish I had. I'm not giving you anymore plot, because reliving it gives me this great urge to drive a pitchfork through my brain. Besides, it's not like there's a plot worth mentioning. They should put a Surgeon's General Warning on 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\nYep.. this is definatly up there with some of the worst of the MSTifyed movies, but I have definately seen worse. Think Gremlins rated R. Well anyway, I met Rick Sloane at some sci-fi convention, that amazingly, he was lecturing at! It was one of those really low budget conventions, where everything goes, an everyone brought in something (if you want to see crap, you should have of seen what some friends and I brought in).
He seemed like a very nice guy, he was very cool about my questions and comments on Hobgoblins, and he even told me not to take it seriously, and said he loved the MST3K version!
All in all, Rick Sloane knew what he was doing. And I think was meant to bad like Mars Attacks. So I guess I'm standing up for this movie and giving it a 5, and betraying all my fellow MSTies. Sorry guys.
\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 the cocaine laced 1980's this is a pathetic. I don't understand why someone would want to waste celluloid, time, effort, money, and audience brain cells to make such drivel. If your going to make a comedy, make it funny. If you want to film trash like this keep it to yourself. If you're going to release it as a joke like this: DON'T!!! I mean, it was a joke right? Someone please tell me this was a joke. 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\nThe back of the DVD box says Ellen Page co-stars in this movie. She does not even appear until two thirds of the movie is over and then its in minor role. I don't consider it a supporting role either, but rather a \"bit\" part. Also the plot has many unexplained elements. Some examples are: why does the main character reject her oldest son? Why does her youngest son drive head on into the train? He says its for a \"sucker\" bet which doesn't explain anything. Obviously the screenwriter doesn't know the definition of a sucker bet. This film is not worthy of the rental price in my opinion. Save your money and view it for free on TV if you think it needs to be seen.
\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\nMargret Laurence probably didn't intend on having any of her novels adopted for film, let alone the Stone Angel. Hagar, as a character, was one who constantly challenged the social norm (Gainsay who dare, anyone?), and ended up nearly sacrificing her humanity in the process. The symbols in the book (the Stone Angel, Silver Thread, etc, etc.) are constant reminders of this struggle of the old and new, and the carnage (so to speak) along the way.
While the film is reasonably faithful to the plot of the book (but it isn't really a plot kind-of storytelling, is it?), I think it missed the point on capturing the spirit of the film. Hagar's defiance (for the sake of defiance) was not there. Bram could have been a lot more crude than portrayed, and Hagar's father could have been played more \"traditionally\", so to speak. If the filmmaker would insisted on stronger portrayals, the film would drive the point straight to home.
Along the same vein, why should we see cell phones, organic produce, and other modernizations? Are we trying make some points for the sake of making some points (e.g., the Muslim girlfriend and the Native people). Hagar and co. are everything but politically correct in the book, so why should we see that in the film version. Modernization may be an excuse for a low-budget operation, but using that as an excuse to send subliminal politically-correct messages that are totally irrelevant to the novel (and the film) seems like throwing punches below the intellect.
There is also the audience. It seems that we have been conditioned to see bitter old people as cute and lovable. Why should be laugh every time Hagar is at her tantrums? I doubt Magaret Laurence wanted her readers to laugh at, or with, Hagar. These people are frustrated and are full of angst, and all we do is to laugh at them. I don't think it did Hagar and other folks in her situation any justice.
\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\nTwo sisters, their perverted brother, and their cousin have car trouble. They then happen about the home of Dr. Hackenstein whom conveniently needs the body parts of three nubile young women to use in an experiment to bring his deceased lover back to life. He tells them that he'll help them get home in the morning, so they spend the night. Then the good doctor gets down to work in this low-budget horror-comedy.
I found this to be mildly amusing, nothing at all to actually go out of your way for (I stumbled across it on Netflix instant view & streamed it to the xbox 360), but better then I expected it to be for a Troma acquired film. Most of the humor doesn't work, but their are still some parts that caused me to smile. Plus the late, great Anne Ramsey has a small part and she was always a treat to watch.
Eye Candy: Bambi Darro & Sylvia Lee Baker got topless
My Grade: D+
\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\nHated it. If you believe that everyone in the South is dumb, morally bankrupt, stupid, violent, a religious nut, or a child molester, then this film may be for you. Everyone is poor and seemingly ignorant. In one scene, two older men are talking in a general store and one mentions that he had molested a set of sisters before they could tie their shoes. The man seemed proud of his actions, and the other man clearly took it as a normal part of life. Very nice. A teenage girl walks the back roads looking for her sister and no one offers to help her -- despite an obvious limp and lack of food or water (no backpack, etc.). Strathairn's character is not only thoroughly disgusting and slimy, but he is shown to be a religious believer who (typical for Hollywood) reflects the vile nature of Christians. A scene in the movie is highly reminiscent of the end of Cape Fear (the one with DeNiro) -- Bible verses being spouted by the bad guy. I am from the Great Northwest, but found this film offensive because of the wonderful people I know who are from NC, WV, AL, MS, KY, TN, 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\nI saw this by accident one lazy summer afternoon. It was playing on the family programming channel of HBO. At first I was drawn in, by what I thought was a Disney animation. But then, after a few minutes, I found myself searching for the remote, so I could find the 'INFO BUTTON', to find out what in the world was on my TV. I have nothing against Harvey F., I enjoy him in many of his films, but one thing he is not, is a voice-over artist. Sure he has one of the more unique voices in Hollywood, but it works only as a part of a bigger visual package. Attaching his voice to a cute duck made watching somewhat difficult. As for the rest of the cast, uninspired. I suppose working on this film didn't appeal to the really good voice over talent out there.
So, weak voice talent, strong animation...who was this film targeting? Gay adolescent ducks? I don't get it. Is there really such a dearth of role-models for young up and coming homosexuals, that we must resort to animated ducks? Cute story, and like the title, this movie I found hard to love, just like an ugly duckling.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI've been watching a lot of cartoon or animated movies because I have a baby girl who likes to watch TV. I began to watch this movie to see if I would like my little one to watch it... and no. At the beginning I thought it was such a cute movie like the Bambi movie, but all the way it was like insinuating the ducky was a homosexual. The info said that they were making fun of him because he wasn't good at sports, but that was not the case. It just seems like a movie made for kids to learn to be okay being gay. It was also very sad, as far as the ducky's dad and all. I don't know, I guess if you're gay you'd like it, but I don't think I'm going to watch it again with my little one.
\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\nUnfortunately for me, the first Busby Berkeley movie I ever watched was \"42nd Street.\" I then expected all of his stuff to be that good. I found out that wasn't necessarily the case, even here, with my all-time favorite classic-era actor James Cagney.
Oh, the musical numbers at the end are as spectacular as always, but the story is like many of the others and quite tiresome. They seem to always involve screaming, unhappy show producers. In this film, it's Cagney who winds up shouting things out so often that he gives me a headache after awhile and his character wears thin....fast!
Even the songs in here are anywhere near \"42nd Street\" class, songs you could hum for years and years - decades, I should say. The songs in this movie are not memorable. No, this is one of the few early Cagney films - and Berkeley films - I totally dislike and was very disappointed with while watching.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nUsually, I know after the first minute of a movie if I will hate it or adore it... but now, I was wrong.
The start was great; the \"this is based on a true story\" and blah blah blah thing was funny. After, the cartoons and the description of the guys' life with pictures made me think I had made the right choice.
Then, seeing the hilarious fake look of Toronto was cool. Also, the situation and appearance of the house seemed to confirm my first idea.
That was maybe the first 10 minutes of the movie... which afterwards looked like an eternity.
Maybe that's just me not understanding English Canadian humour (that's possible, English Canadians also do not always understand Quebecois humour), but hey... there was enough stuff in that for a short movie, *nothing* more. Maybe that could be a meaning for the title? Anyway, almost everything was filling, and very few things were even close to funny in my opinion.
As a matter of fact, the \"making of\" was better than the movie. At least you understand the motivation behind that which made everything bad. The potential of the idea was great; that's why I rented the movie, being interested in the \"annoying people disappearance\" thing. But yet, I did not know the whole universe would vanish, and with it even a point to the movie.
If you are English Canadian, it seems you could appreciate the local humour, considering the surprising number of people who gave this movie an 8. Otherwise, just think twice before losing your precious time...
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI honestly had somewhat high expectations when I first began to watch this movie, but it turned out to be probably one of the most boring films I have ever seen!
First of all, the pace is incredibly slow, so it seems much longer than it is (and it's not short).I'm sure when Jane Austen wrote the book, she made it several pages long, filled it with description, and didn't intend for people to read in in one day, or it might drag and lose it's appeal, which \"Emma\" most certainly did. Now \"Sense and Sensibility\" had this flaw of a slow pace, but at least it had lively lines to make up for it, as well as some good performances!
That brings me to flaw #2, which is of course, the acting. While I don't happen to care for basically anybody involved in this film, I am sure they are capable of good work, but I didn't see much of it in this movie. It was like people were trying too hard to be witty, too hard to be \"upper-class\", too hard to be British (well, some of them), so they all just came off as a bunch of actors and not as people.
#3. The cast, as I said, seemed only like actors, and not actually like the people they were playing. Maybe that's a good thing, because the people they played really weren't all that nice. Why did everybody like Emma, for example? Sure, she was nice to the rich, handsome people in front of them, but she was an awful gossip behind their backs. If her friends were \"ugly\", then she didn't even bother to go behind their backs. So, why is this girl so great? Why do people have to tell stories, \"just to make her laugh?\" Of course the snob couldn't even do that right. I have enough problems with Gwyneth Paltrow as Gwyneth Paltrow, and her \"Emma\" did not exactly change my opinion.
Well, it's easy to see that I did not care for this one. I'm sure it's a lovely book and all, but some books are really not meant to be made for the big screen, and \"Emma\" is one of them.
\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 surprised when I saw this film. I'd heard it was the best ever filmed of the novel. How disappointed I was.
How any true Jane Austen fan can rate this adaptation is a mystery to my eyes. The scriptwriters have decided to stick in bits of ridiculous humour which are embarrassing at the best of times, but also ruin the feel of the period. As for the cast: Gwyneth Paltrow makes a rather shallow heroine (but then any 'hot' American star would be questionable in the role), Toni Collette is miscast, and poor Ewan McGregor is made to look laughable!
I really could not say a good thing about this film. I seem to be among the very few who don't rate it, but if you want my advice, see instead the TV production starring Kate Beckinsale - believe me, that is far preferable to this superficial trash.
\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 good is Gwyneth Paltrow! This is the right movie for her... too bad she's completely out role. I haven't read the book by Jane Austen, but I can't believe it is so superficial and the characters aren't much more than caricatures. It wasn't probably that easy to reduce in 2 hours of show about 600 pages of the book, but I had expected more than just seeing old pieces of furniture and tea cups. I was taking a sigh of relief every time I saw an actor who didn't overstep the mark of overacting (a couple of times).
\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 like Jane Austin novels. I love Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility books and movies, and I'm half way through Mansfield Park. But i couldn't stand Emma. I gave up on the book after 2 chapters, and by the end of the movie i couldn't care less about Emma. She didn't seem to change at all. Maybe it was Paltrows acting (which as excellent in Se7en) or my lack of interest for the movie. Dunno.
The costumes are nice, but the dancing was clumsy compared to Pride and Prejudice dancing by Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle.
I gave it a 2 basically for the fact Knightly is bloody gorgeous, and although it as a rather patchy performance for Ewan McGregor, i liked his singing.
\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 was the first Ewan McGregor movie I ever saw outside of Star Wars. Since then I have become a very big Ewan McGregor fan but I still can't bring myself to forgive this movie's existence.
My sister has always been a huge Jane Austen fan and because of that, I have been subjected to various of the classics, Emma being one of them. I've always considered them irritating, stupid and boring. However, after watching this terrible rendition, I was forced to admit that the original Emma was delightful and charming. Ewan McGregor scarcely serves a purpose in this film after they hacked and mutilated the part of Frank Churchill. Gweneth Paltrow is ridiculous in an already ridiculous character and the rest of the film is unremarkable and stupid.
My recommendation to anybody who is remotely interested in English period drama... go see the originals. If you're a Ewan McGregor fan... believe me, by skipping this film, you haven't missed anything but five minutes collective of him in a silly hat and a bad haircut.
\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\nBah. Another tired, desultory reworking of an out of copyright work never designed to be filmed.
On the plus side, Toni Collette is superb as always (being an actual actress, you see), and there are some nicely handled handover cuts between scenes. There are even a few genuinely funny lines, and the filmwork, score and editing is competent, apart from a bizarre lapse into voiceover and speaking to the camera towards the conclusion.
But, ah, but. Much of the cast seems to be on autopilot, and they are almost all very clearly too old (and in one case too young) for their declared ages. Worse, they are all speaking \"Austinese\", that peculiar falsetto self satisfied sing song that couldn't be further from the way people actually spoke in Austen's day (think Yosemite Sam, I kid you not). This is particularly sad, considering that we seem to finally be seeing the demise of the equally farcial \"Fakespearan\" that Olivier and his cronies were so fond of bellowing at the top of their lungs.
And worst of all is Gwyneth Paltrow. She's only ever played one character in her films, and she stays true to form here, running through her entire range (smirking to sulking) in the first ten minutes, then just repeating herself for the rest of the overlong film. There is absolutely no chemistry between herself and any of her admirers, nor any apparent reason why they would be interested in her apart.
In short, there is very little reason to watch Emma. It's an amiable enough adaptation, but if you're going to pack a film full of anacronisms (i.e. an appalingly thin lead who can't shoot a bow or handle a period accent) then you might as well do it properly, as with the vastly superior \"Clueless\".
\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\nReading through all these positive reviews I find myself baffled. How is it that so many enjoyed what I consider to be a woefully bad adaptation of my second favourite Jane Austen novel? There are many problems with the film, already mentioned in a few reviews; simply put it is a hammed-up, over-acted, chintzy mess from opening credits to butchered ending.
While many characters are mis-cast and neither Ewan McGregor nor Toni Collette puts in a performance that is worthy of them, the worst by far is Paltrow. I have very much enjoyed her performance in some roles, but here she is abominable - she is self-conscious, nasal, slouching and entirely disconnected from her characters and those around her. An extremely disappointing effort - though even a perfect Emma could not have saved 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\nHow can anybody say that this movie is a comedy?? If I had not gone with then my finacee I would have fallen asleep and asked for my money back. I love Gwen Paltrow, but it was like she was on the wrong set. I like most chick flicks, but I hated this one. This is the only time I saw so much clevage and was not turned on. Those outfits were way overdone. No one talks that way anymore and I don't think they even did then. The dancing part was horrible.My ex said to me later...\"Didn't ya like that part? Didn't ya think it was sensous?\" I said yes only to spare her feelings. Now I know why we never married.This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen.
\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...but I regret having seen it. Since the ratings on IMDb are relatively high (and they must also have been relatively high on Netflix), I guess I put it in my queue because it is advertised as a gentle comedy from the UK, a category that has produced many films I liked immensely. \"Saving Grace,\" on the other hand, falls into the category of laugh-less comedies usually populated by Hollywood movies produced and directed by the talentless. Brenda Blethyn is a capable actress, and I have liked her in other movies. The concept -- a gardener growing marijuana to overcome the penury she finds herself confronting after her husband's death -- does not offend me. Notwithstanding the strenuous efforts on the part of the cast to produce humor, the film falls flat on its face (falling flat on its arse might have been funnier) as far as I and my wife were concerned. Be forewarned, oh gentle reader, not all offbeat British comedies succeed. This one is a dud.
\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\nSaving Grace is surely one of the leading contenders for the 'How to Ruin an Adequate Film in the Final Few Minutes' award. Naturally if you mix a quaint Cornish village - largely populated by retired genteel ladies - with a liberal dose of marijuana, a certain amount of silliness will ensue. However, the last seven minutes of the film descend into the totally ludicrous and is not even redeemed by being particularly funny. It is a real shame, because this comedy has the potential to be every bit as good as 1998's Waking Ned Devine, which also portrayed a picturesque small village and its oddball inhabitants trying to extract themselves from a tricky situation.
The protagonist of Saving Grace is middle-aged, recently widowed Grace Trevethyn, whose husband's legacy of bad debts has forced her into an unconventional way of earning money. Helped by her gardener, Matthew, she turns her horticultural expertise to the lucrative cultivation of marijuana. Unfortunately, this leads her into confrontation with the local police, her husband's creditors and a French drug baron. . . . . . . . . . whom all turn up at her greenhouse simultaneously. The relationship and rapport between Grace and Matthew is well-portrayed, and Brenda Blethyn gets the viewer emotionally involved with her likeable character - you can really feel what she is going through.
The casting of the minor roles is excellent, even if some of them are rather outlandishly eccentric. However, the transformation of Jacques the drug lord into Grace's romantic interest is highly implausible and does not fit the tone of the movie at all. And surely hydroponics is not such a revolution in the world of cannabis growing? Sadly the film swaps gentle humour for slapstick and ends up being as fake as the marijuana plants.
\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\nLike too many recent British films, this one takes a great cast and gives them a flimsy, cliched script to work with. The performances save it from total disgrace, and it has some charm but it certainly didn't make me laugh. Where are all the great British writers hiding?
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe plot, character development, and gags in this movie are all extremely weak. Quite a waste of time. The conclusion of Saving Grace is supposed to make one feel warm and fuzzy as though the characters have grown through their struggles. There was no such development to make such warm fuzzy feelings possible. The drug gags are cliched and much of the movie doesn't ring true to life. The plot builds what is supposed to be tension but the characters aren't developed enough to care. Then it rushes through a resolution of all the outstanding problems in about a minute of screen time leaving the viewer feeling like they have just wasted their time.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhen you get your hands on a British film you expect some sort of quality. And when it comes to acting, camera work, lighting etc; this film does the business. It's done by highly skilled craftsmen. That alone can bring you an enjoyable one and a half hours. But when you look under the layers of professionalism, you don't really find anything. Apart from making you feel good and advocate a drug liberal view, there's really nothing there. The script is mediocre, the plot is predictable and the ending must be one of the worst east of Hollywood. In all it's English cosiness, it's just a shameful and cynical attempt to make another \"Full Monty\". Why they made this film? I haven't got a clue, apart from making money of course.
\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\nMy comments may be a bit of a spoiler, for what it's worth. Stop now if you care enough....
Saving Grace should have been titled \"A Paper-Thin Excuse for Old British Women to Get High On-Screen.\" This film is dumb. The incidental music is an annoyance as are the obvious, hackneyed tunes that sporadically pop up to comment on the narrative (\"Spirit in the Sky,\" for example - Oh, I get it!) This is basically a Cheech and Chong movie made credible by its stodgy English setting and Brenda Blethyn's overwhelming power to inflict emotion on an audience using her voice alone. I could literally hear the folks over at High Times magazine receiving their jollies over the enormous \"buds\" that litter this picture. Worst scene? Easy. Brenda attempts to peddle her illicit wares on the street of London in a blaring white dress-suit. Not funny. Not original. Not interesting. Not a good movie. The 7.2 rating is the result of zealots over-voting. Don't waste your time...
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA very \"straight\" nice old lady, desperate for money to save her house and possessions, grows \"pot\" in her house, smokes it with a few old-biddy friends and then sells it. That's the story for this low-key comedy, emphasizing the absurdity of the situation and some of the humor the predicament brings. For much of the film, it works. The humor isn't of the laugh-out-loud variety but it does keep you entertained for an hour-and-a- half, so I guess it serves its purpose.
There ARE funny moments and Brenda Blethyn is fun to watch in the lead role. But the ending really ruined a \"cute\" movie with insultingly-bad messages that only the ultra-liberals of the film world would like to see happen.
Like most people, I would prefer a happy ending, too, but it should not all warm and fuzzy for those who blatantly break the law. Also in here are the typical (1) children out of wedlock but that poses no problem and is deemed okay; (2) clerics portrayed as morally weak people; and (3) even a medical doctor who gets stoned, too!
Hello? And reviewers here blast Hollywood? This is exhibit A how a secular society has lowered the standards in the UK and Europe in general. Hey, people: at least have a trace of morality instead of nothing but a Timothy Leary \"If it feels good, do it\" message.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI absolutely fail to see what is funny in this film. The humor seems to be destined for corpses. It's slow. The story is too simple to be true. The characters do not raise much sympathy, a few non-important characters aside. Nothing surprising happens. What did the writers of this script think? \"Oooo funny! Let's make some old lady's high on pot! Let's make them.... giggle! Let's make them... behave like little children!! Oooo, yes, that's absolutely brilliant and original!\"
This film has irritated me most from all the films I've seen in the last five years.
\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\nGreenthumb Grace is left penniless after her husbands death so she turns to ganja-growing in order to pay the bills. It sounds promising and the ever-reliable Brenda Blethyn doesn't disappoint but the material is sitcom-thin. There's actually a scene where Grace asks her young gardener to \"Give me one\" (a toke) and he thinks she's asking for sex and acts all awkward. Yes, it's humour so twee a nun would be bored. Saving Grace doesn't seem to know what it wants to be: the stunning cinematography and stately pace evoke memories of Ryan's Daughter whilst the light-hearted whimsy of the country townsfolk could be lifted from any episode of Antiques Roadshow. It does speed up after the first hour but by then it's too clichéd to care. The climax manages to be unpredictable only by introducing the most shameless Deux ex Machina I've ever seen.
\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 feels like swedish movies are trying to become more american and I just don´t get it. In this movie the performance of some of the actors is horrible and the script is nothing special. Don´t waste your time!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSwedish action movies have over the past few years evolved into something that imitate American hardened action movies like \"Heat\" but with a low budget. This movie follows the same prescription as \"Noll Tolerans\" and \"Livvakterna\". However, it is obvious that they are trying too hard to make a cool and tough movie.
The story has been seen before, the dialogue feels artificial and the acting is very poor, especially from the main actress. The movie tries to paint a picture of hard-boiled military-like robbers with no remorse at all and a female investigator who has completely lost it with problems of the past but at the same time acts completely rational. It does not succeed very well.
The bluish-cast photo style does not seem fresh anymore, and it is not even done well in this picture. Only a very few scenes actually look good. Also, the sound is quite weird and it sounds like a lot of the actual dialogue is recorded afterward.
The main quality of this movie is Stefan Sauk, though not making a convincing portrait of a SWAT-team leader, has some really funny lines. Also, the music is quite 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\nStandard procedure for Swedish movies today seem to be to start by throwing plausibility out the window and continue down that path for the rest of the process. Rånarna is another fine example of a movie making very little sense.
Banks in Stockholm are being robbed by a highly efficient \"military-styled\" gang of robbers. Two police officers start investigating the case that soon becomes more complicated than it would appear at first.
As usual in Swedish film the cast is mostly made up of the same people you have seen over and over again. Mikael Persbrandt must be in every Swedish film from the last few years! But that's OK i guess since Persbrandt is one of few that performs solidly here (like he usually does). The problems with this film mostly revolves around the story itself. First of all the robberies feel mostly like background. Rather this is more a movie about a young policewoman fighting to prove herself in a male world (like that has not been made a thousand times before with a decent actress instead of Sofia Helin). Also there is a completely unbelievable plot twist near the end that seems about as plausible as Aliens landing. But still, i did think it was a quite nice touch considering i was half asleep right about then. It spiced things up a bit (and actually saved the rating from dropping another step).
In the end the main problem is the same thing as with most other Swedish movies of this kind. Simply that the action and suspense doesn't live up to the standards we are used to from other movies of this kind (mostly Hollywood). It feels cheap and rather weak in comparison. In my opinion Swedish filmmakers should try to focus more on plot and acting, and forget about trying to make \"Hollywood-action light\" like they do now. Because this becomes yet another forgettable effort from the Swedish movie-industry. I rate it 3/10.
\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\nQuite typical for swedish movies of this type. Strange that the acting was soooo bad, these actors usually give a good show. The casting was poorly done, it made you expect something (I won't tell you what). The lead character was awful... I don't know where they find her. Anyway, stay away from this and go see \"Den Tredje Vågen\" instead, this is swedish action in is prime.
\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 must be one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I was actually expecting a bad movie but I was caught by surprise believe it or not. The storyline is the traditional, all clichées are included.
The dialogue is so poorly written that you actually laugh when the otherwise half-descent actors are trying to make it sound real. The photo is not too good, the music is so malplacée it actually made me angry, the actors are not even trying, altho the script makes it almost impossible you could expect more from people that have been acting for 30 years and the so called action scenes actually manage to lack the \"action\" itself.
I dont understand why these types of bad movies keep on coming, who is financing this shit? Where is the screening ? And why on earth do actors take on this mission impossible script?
There are a million hollywood-movies in this genre without even aspiration of reaching the theaters, but even them Straight To Video things actually manages to look professional in comparison.
I can not say anything positive about this except the title which explains it all, I feel robbed of 2 hours of my 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\nWhen I heard that the Dukes of Hazzard was going to be remade with current actors and a solid script, I was like, \"alright, I'll give it a chance, it's not going to be better than the first, but we'll see what happens.\" Well, I saw what happened. I saw a great late 70's/80's show that was a classic, basically humiliated by Hollywood. It's so sad to see that Hollywood scriptwriters cannot come up with something original these days. They are seeming to take a great show that had a great target audience, and try to \"REMAKE\" the classic show. HEADS UP Hollywood... IT AIN'T WORKIN!!!! Anyway, more about the show. I think they could have casted a better actor than Sean William Scott (Stiffler from American Pie) to play Bo. I'm sure that John Schneider is definitely disappointed with how his character was portrayed and taken advantage of. Also, Get for real, Johnny Knoxville, as Luke Duke. How low can you go?? A crappy jackass actor to play lovable Luke. This sickens me. Also, I'll give Jessica Simpson is a beautiful woman, but her acting sucks. Catherine Bach who played the original Daisy, was smart, sexy, strong, opinionated and a good IL' southern girl. She was every little girls role model growing up! (I owned the doll and the Jeep - thank you very much!!!) Anyway, Jessica Simpson played a smart ass, 2-bit slut as Daisy Duke. Daisy never was blonde. Why did they have to cast her. Jessica Alba would have played a great Daisy Duke. She can speak with a great southern accent, and she is gorgeous, and would have done a wonderful job. Anyway, I'd like to say that this movie blew something fierce. I feel like I got ripped off by paying $8.50 for tickets, and they should refund my money. If you like the Dukes of Hazzard (the original series) don't see this movie. It'll just upset you. CMT (country music television) plays the reruns of the Dukes all the time later at night. So set your TIVO's and go with the real thing, not the imitation on the big screen in Hollywood.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhy take a show that millions of us watched and loved as children and make a complete joke of it? They ask why Hollywood isn't making the money it used to. Because they put out garbage and pay actors huge amounts of money to be garbage men and ask us to pay $10 to see their garbage. The TV show was what it was, good people in bad situations where the good IL' boys come out on top. It wasn't Gone with the Wind but it was fun. This movie is garbage! Hollywood can't come up with anything original so they take something that was good and ruin it for some $$$$. I only hope that this movie makes 10x's less than it cost to make. The only one's to have any fun with this crap are the guys who got to drive the General Lee. The audience is the victim.
Don't see it, watch the reruns of the TV show instead. They still hold up 20 years later.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"