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\nThere are so many stupid moments in 'Tower of Death'/'Game of Death 2' that you really wonder if it's a spoof. At times, it felt like I was watching a sequel to Kung Pow rather than a Bruce Lee film.
To be honest, this film has bugger all to do with 'Game of Death'. If anything, it's more a sequel/remake of 'Enter the Dragon', incorporating many elements of that film - particularly the actual footage. Bruce Lee's character Billy Lo (apparently) investigates the sudden death of his friend and encounters a piece of film that was left with the man's daughter. When the body is stolen during the funeral (!), Billy is also killed and it's up to his wayward brother to avenge both men's deaths.
Tong Long stars as brother Bobby Lo and doesn't really have the sort of charisma to carry the film. His fighting abilities are very good however. Bruce Lee obviously turns up thanks to (no longer) deleted footage simply to cash-in on the legacy. Saying that, on the whole, the footage is actually edited-in better than in 'Game of Death' but it doesn't stop the film from being a mess.
OK, so the fights are actually very entertaining (dare I say mind-blowing) and make the film at least watchable. But there are so many daft elements to this film that it really tests your patience. First off, there's the supposed villain who lives on his palatial estate... or is that mental institution? Seriously, the nutter eats raw venison, drinks deer's blood, carries a monkey on his shoulder and owns some peacocks and lions (?!). This attempt to make him look tough and intelligent just makes you feel sorry for him - you half expect someone to escort him back to his room.
In fact, this middle section is awful and when the scene involving a naked hooker and a lion suit arrived I turned it off. However, I did finish the film and was kind of glad I did because the fight scene towards the end (much like 'GOD') was the whole reason for watching. While the story is an embarrassment, the action is very good and contains excellent choreography.
But even the finale disappoints if the premise was anything to go by. What we were told was that the 'Tower of Death' was a pagoda that was upside down and underground. This sounded great, like a twist on Bruce Lee's original idea with different styles of fighting on each level. Could this be the 'Game of Death' that was originally planned? No! The film should have been named \"Generator Room of Death\" because thats as far as the tower goes. Of yes, there were indeed one or two 'different' styles... there were foil clad grunts, leopard-skinned henchman and stupid monk. It's as though Enter the Dragon had never been made, with the plot being a poor imitation.
Worth watching once for the fast paced fight scenes, but so stupid sometimes that it hurts. If this was intended, then fine. Thumbs up, however, for recreating that projector room scene from 'Enter The Dragon'.
\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 high grade cheese fare of B movie kung fu flicks. Bruce \"wannabe\" Lee is played by Bruce Li...I think. Of course, let's show quick clips of Bruce and do closeups of his eyes and if you quint at the right angle during a certain time of the day during the winter solstice, it kind of looks like Bruce. You'll laugh in awe at how the film splicing isn't very good, but some cool deleted scenes from Enter the Dragon are thrown in the mix. According to the movie, Bruce Lee was killed by a dart while hanging from a helicopter. Of course, they think this can excuse Bruce Li for trying to be Bruce even though his character is supposed to be Bruce's brother (who for some reason still mimes Bruce's gestures and fighting style - very POORLY). See Bruce go one-on-one with the cowardly lion. The props department stopped by Kay-Bee, you see. Bruce also finds nothing wrong with savagely beating up a crippled man. Towards the end, the director decided \"let's throw a flashback\" for a scene just shown 3 minutes ago!! They must've thought that only one-celled organisms with attention deficit disorder could fully understand 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\nIn this 'sequel' Bruce is still called Billy Lo (get it? Bruce= Billy, Lo= Lee. No?) But apart from that, that's all it has in common with the other movie. Billy doesn't seem to be an actor anymore. He seems to be in another country. He's more like a spy. He's the only cast member to return and sadly, they kill him off to make way for a new character, his brother, Bobby. Sadly, when Bruce dies, the movie pretty much dies with him. This was extremely poorly made. It seemed like they were writing the script as they were filming. The footage works for a while (it's not too obvious at first) but soon Bruce is always shown in the dark all the time (he kicks out a light at one stage for no other apparent reason to hide the fact that it's not Bruce playing the part). Sadly when he dies the movie changes. I can't help but wonder if they were filming as they were writing and may well have planned to keep Bruce alive, but later decided to kill him off because it would not have been plausible as Bobby does not appear until Billy is dead. It's hard to change the lead character halfway in the movie and Bruce is a hard act to follow so it's hard to now accept Bobby as the star. Bruce is never seen again in this movie. I think they should have made this sequel without Bruce he has a lame role in this movie. People hoping to see a new Bruce Lee movie will be disappointed to see that although he's given the top billing, he only has a featuring role. Even the worst movies have at least one memorable bit. If there was one bit about this movie people seem to talk about, it's the scene where Billy fights in a plant nursery. Ironically it doesn't even use Bruce Lee footage. Mind you, they did it more convincingly in No Retreat No Surrender. Not one of the other actors here ever made anything else memorable. Bruce's girlfriend (Colleen Camp) is never mentioned. My advice is to turn it off as soon as Bruce is finished writing his letter to his brother. Nothing else in the movie is worth watching. I found it really sad to see Bruce die. I don't see how a small budgeted movie like this could get enough money to use footage from Enter The Dragon. This was a cheap way of trying to cash in on Bruce's name. Oddly this and the original are credited in Bruce's filmography. Thankfully so far, no one has tried anything like this again. 1981 was the year of Bruce's last movie appearance. It was a sad way to end it, but thankfully this is proof that Bruce's movie career should be left alone.
\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 handful of critics have awarded this film with positive comments. I don't wish to argue with their opinion, but I strongly disagree. When I first watched this film I was mildly impressed. But after comparing it with other films, particularly with the late master, Bruce Lee I quickly changed my mind. In fact, if it wasn't for the title of the film, I would never have bought it. Game of Death 2 doesn't relate to the original Game of Death, (except it shares one character, Billy Lo.)
I was stunned to see how similar Game of Death 2 was compared to Enter the Dragon. The plots have striking similarities: Both Bruce Lee and Bobby Lo are on a mission to avenge a relative. The two locations are similar, in which they both are very isolated and are surrounded by thousands of Blackbelts. There is an element of prostitution in both films (women are sent two the guests rooms in both films.) Both Han (Enter the Dragon) and Lewis's henchman have a hand missing. Their is an underground drug operation in Enter the Dragon, believe it or not, there is one in Game of Death 2. Han has a pet cat in Enter the Dragon, the director has used his imagination and awarded Lewis with a pet monkey! The list continues.
Regarding other aspects of the film, such as the script and the acting, I felt it was very poor. It seemed to me that the director was looking for a group of martial artists to star in the film and prayed they could act.
On a positive scale, I cannot deny that the choreography is impressive. Although the fighting sequences have strong elements of acrobatics in them, they are none the less skillfully performed. However, as the plot is insufficient, i couldn't relate to the characters, therefore the fighting sequences were more exhibitions rather than having a meaning to the film.
In conclusion I would say this film is recommendable to any martial-arts fans, but for those who enjoy a solid action film, with a good storyline and strong characters, I seriously wouldn't recommend this film. My opinions towards this film may seem very bias and one-sided, but when Bruce Lee set a new standard in the martial arts cinema, particularly after his masterpiece: Enter the Dragon, this film failed to rise to these standards. If anything they imitated a truly brilliant martial-arts film, in hope of achieving the same level of fame.
In reference to my evaluation, awarding this film a very harsh 1 out of 10, the film is barley watchable, and must be thankful that it had the fighting sequences it did.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOnce again I took a chance and rented this bag of crap. Billed as a horror flick, there wasn't one scene, not one, that was even remotely scarey. NOT ONE!! Sure there was some nudity, but all the lesbian action got a little old. I guess maybe that was suppose to be this movie's saving grace? And Dan, what an annoying ass bag!! Right from the beginning I knew I was in for it when good ol' Dan first spoke. And he was suppose to be intimidating? What a laugh!! All in all, this movie is dreadfully awful! How in the hell do movies like this get made? If you want a movie with a few thrills in it, don't rent this one. This movie is about as thrilling as the Teletubbies.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWow...where to begin...picked this up at Big Lots for only $2.99. That's three bucks I'll never see again...ever...and for what? I'll tell ya. An hour and fifteen minutes of boring, boring, boring chat and college angst that seemed more suitable for a Lifetime movie than the horror flick advertised on the box. (May the marketing droids who designed it burn in Hell for all eternity). Follow that up with a little bit of cheap gore (not even good gore mind you...) and a plot twist at the end that comes out of nowhere, and makes no sense. Awful, awful, awful...
Was there any redeeming qualities? Well, on the Joe Bob Briggs scale, there WERE six breasts involved, but that's hardly worth my long lost three bucks. Without those, this coulda been on Sci-Fi at, say, two or three in the morning...
Bmoviefreak
\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 proves that you can't judge a movie by the awesome artwork on the DVD cover. It also goes to show that you should learn more about a movie before you buy it (or get it for someone at Christmas). The beginning of this movie actually looks somewhat promising. Well, until you meet the characters. Pumpkin Jack (the old guy from down the street) brings the college co-eds a book full of witch's spells that he leaves at their annual haunted house (where the movie takes place). After that there is some drinking, fighting, and soft core porn. Then the action of the movie finally takes place after over an hour.
Overall, Hallow's End was predictable, unsuspensful, and reminiscent of a soft-core porn. This movie is probably best viewed with a group of friends who have nothing better to do, as it is a good movie to make fun of. And for first-time viewers, it is really fun making predictions of the order of people who die.
\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. THERE MIGHT BE SPOILERS AHEAD, IF YOU CARE.*
Okay, the basic premise of this homegrown Texas film is: College kids + spookhouse + evil magic book = scary stuff. In practice, it equals a lot of time looking at the time to see how much longer this movie is going to drag on. A bunch of frat boys, along with assorted girlfriends & volunteers, is setting up a charity haunted house. The project is being presided over by a thoroughly repellent character, whose main purpose seems to be verbally & physically assaulting as many cast members as possible. I had a hard time believing that anyone would even attempt to work with this person in any capacity: he's nothing but rude and abusive to everyone, including his girlfriend and his buddy. Regardless, the kids are visited by local character & annual pumpkin-carving champion \"Pumpkin Jack\", an elderly coot who is described as the \"Santa Claus of Halloween\", and who drops off a load of props for the house, including an ominous book that figured prominently in the irritatingly strobe-flashed prologue(where a gaggle of robed cultists get turned into stir-fry). Needless to say, some damn fool starts messing with the book, and eventually most of the costumed monsters turn into real ones, and the remaining few normal folk have to try and survive. There's some good stuff in this film, but not much: everything is shot well, and the makeup effects are decent. On the other hand, the performers either underact, or overact drastically; much of the plot makes little sense outside of a \"this happens so that can happen\" series; there is hardly any musical score to speak of, just snatches of songs throughout the film; and the movie takes an hour to actually get anywhere. That last problem is the most telling: two-thirds of the 90 minute running time is used to repeatedly set up the characters. Tom is a nice guy dating Heidi the control freak, but he used to date Jill, who is now dating Dan the jerk, but she's started a relationship Kira the girl who wears too many shawls/capes. Dan is a really big jerk, Gary likes to play jokes, and Steve & Lily like to have a lot of sex. Stuff that could have easily been dealt with in 20 minutes or so drags on and on, to the point where the lesbian \"sex\" scene(calm down, it's pretty tame) left me looking for the fast forward button. That leaves us with half an hour of lo-calorie scares, a klunky ending and a deep-seated dislike of ol' Pumpkin Jack, who I blame for the whole mess. Unless you can get this on some sort of deep-discount rental(and really have seen everything else in the store), put it back on the shelf and keep looking.
\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\nHorror movies can be a lot of fun with low budgets, bad acting, and a bit of panache. I think the film is just missing panache, because, one thuddingly dull scene after another, people make laughably harmless claw-handed grabs at the air. If it weren't so boring, it might be funny.
A horror film can go a long way with a tired concept like \"college kids in a haunted house,\" in much the same way the Evil Dead movies had a lot of fun with a similar standard plotline. Hallow's End, unfortunately, doesn't go a long way. Actually, it doesn't go anywhere. It spends the better part of an hour setting up faceless and anonymous characters with what seem like endless interpersonal drama. I have nothing against character development, not even in a horror movie, but these are strictly one-dimensional characters (the alpha-male, the milquetoast, the... um... throwaway characters that exist mostly for sex scenes.) Spending forty-plus bloodless, droning minutes with them was more horrific than when the bloodshed started.
Well, implied bloodshed anyway. When the college kids turn into whatever they dressed as for their haunted house (one's a vampire, one's wearing O.R. scrubs and some white pancake) they look pretty much the way they did in their amateur haunted house costumes; The Dead Hate The Living, using a similar theme, is a masterwork in comparison. There isn't really any gore to speak of, nor are there any real scares.
I've thought about this one from almost every approach. If it was supposed to be a tight, suspenseful horror movie (which would explain why things moved so slowly), the pathetic sex scenes and cheap monsters would invalidate it. If it was supposed to be a genuine blood & guts horror movie (which would explain the schlock)... where's the blood and guts? And the anticlimax is one of the unexciting endings to a movie I've ever seen. It's the kind of movie that, though it doesn't have a narrator through the film, is bookended by voice-overs because all of the meaningless dialogue just wasn't enough.
This was a hard one... coming out of it, I wonder if I've just sat through a christian horror film. Maybe the \"I know hell exists\" of the opening wasn't meant that way, but there are some hints (or misdirection-- I'm not sure which). For all the profanity in the film, a line like \"gosh-darnit\" comes off a little absurd, and so does most of the crucifix worshipping, god-fearing, and satan-dreading, especially after some lecherous T&A sex scenes (one heterosexual, one lesbian).
If it a christian company (Highland Myst's logo even has a bit of a crucifix resemblance), then this film weighs in heavily for the atheist camp. An omnipotent being can't be this bad a filmmaker.

\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***One Out of Ten Stars***
Because if it was, it gets an F. Holy Mother Mary of God was this bad. I mean, I gave it every reasonable accommodation considering it was a straight to video film, but it let me down at every turn. Like so many other B movies, the basic storyline was decent and the filmmakers seemed to have a reasonable level of resources, but the execution was ridiculous. It's a shame they attached the good name of Halloween to this fiasco.
The basic premise surrounds some frat douche bags hosting their annual Halloween haunted house fund raiser, when a satanic spell book shows up out of nowhere and hurls the frat boys into a living hell. Well that's the idea anyway, but instead most of the film is devoted to displaying these frat boy's relationship escapades, abound with an outrageous lesbian subplot. Very little of the actual story is devoted to Halloween or the mysterious spell book. It actually makes me mad that the film makers thought they could get away with making such dribble.
The film is essentially about frat boy relationships. This IS NOT what the movie is billed as. I'm tempted to track down the producers and at the very least threaten them with bodily harm. The acting is about as bad as it gets, it's atrocious! The script is unintentionally funny. The cinematography is just plain lazy. The whole film is amateur night. This movie actually makes the SyFy channel movie productions look like masterpieces.
The last half hour of the film felt like the film makers realized they weren't producing a soap opera and had to throw in some sort of horror sequences. The evil spell book finally comes into play and turns everyone in the haunted house into the character their dressed up as. I almost feel like crying as I write this review. Wow! I mean wow! This thing was an undecipherable chopped up 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\nYa I rented it, so shoot me!
A decent premise sets up an otherwise awkward story with no real payoff, but at least it's shot well. Director Jon Keeyes takes the simple idea of a fake haunted house with real danger inside. In most cases this should be a slam dunk, but this little stinker derails quite quickly. The cinematography is above average and the acting is mediocre at best, but the story and writing is just plain awful. Slower scenes drag on forever and the scares are too few and far in between with no real climax to the film. An eerie mood is set at the beginning but loses it's luster before any type of horror transpires, and I found myself bored to death and making another sandwich... The cover art is appealing and I suppose it's worth a rental if you're looking for mindless low budget dreck, but if you enjoy a good story and eventful ending, reach for something else.
\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\nSUcks. That's all I got to say about this sorry excuse for a film. Sucks. Sucks. Sucks. I mean, what the hell were they thinking? The idiots involved should never be allowed to make another films. The acting was so bad that it even failed to entertain on a bad level. The attempt at a \"lesbian scene\" was sad. I felt so bad for the ladies involved. This movie sucks! Sucks! Sucks!
I heard rumors of a sequel.
God
Help
Us
All
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA low budget effort from Texas that's at least filmed well, but that is little consolation. Bad acting, or, should I say, bad over-acting, a pretty limp story line that's nothing new, bad special effects, bad, bad, bad. Seems like a bunch of young folks are putting together a haunted house for Halloween, which is done every year, but this year things are different. Has a long extended lesbian theme that is not only annoying but definitely fills out the empty spots, of which there are a lot. Putrid, puerile, definitely avoidable, at all costs.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhat can I say? I think I have to write \"Spoiler alert\" and then \"reveal\" they used the F-word a LOT in this movie - like in every two sentences. I did not like this movie at all - too much hints on sexual perversions, sidesteps and cheating. And that swearing was totally out the window. I gave this movie \"3\" and two of those points are for Mira Sorvino's sexy movements on the dance floor.
\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 to walk out of the theater. After an hour, all I was seeing was people cheating on wives, schtupping like dogs in a rut, and using the f-word like a diabetic using Equal.
No thanks.
It was especially frustrating because the movie could have done a lot. Any one of the characters could have been quite interesting if they were given more to do than fornicate, talk about it, and swear at each other.
The few times that it looked as if there were about to be some sort of character development, all that happened was another sex scene. Plot development in the 1st hour can be summarized as 1)several murders occur, 2) Vinnie sees murder scene 3) Vinnie stares moodily across Atlantic/East/Hudson River 4) Vinnie cheats on wife, and 5) Joey (most sympathetic character in the show) gets kicked out of his parents' house. More than that, I didn't wait to see.
The photography and the interplay between the characters were superb, but THERE WAS NOTHING for them to DO. The flood of sex and vulgarity was hardly worth waiting another hour for SOMETHING to happen.
Sorry, Spike. Take some lessons from Notting Hill, or Shawshank Redemption. Either one is a better study in community and interpersonal relationships.
\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 one of the most ridiculous and badly directed movies I've seen in a very long time. I've never liked Spike Lee, but thought I'd give this one a try: bad mistake. The movie is supposed to show how the Son of Sam real life murders affected a neighborhood in the summer of 1977; what it really did was center around the most boring characters that I doubt anyone cared for as far as their drug problems, marriage problems, and so on, etc. The scenes that depict the murders are just that, and nothing more; a shooting and then it's back to Saturday Night Fever! What's even more ridiculous is Spike Lee's choice to show up as a reporter in the movie: Spike, trust me, you're no Hitchcock, stay out of the movies, it makes them even worse off. The most silly scene had to be the dog speaking in a goofy voice, which was depicted in a scene before it where it was supposed to have been shot??? Spike, what were you thinking when you made this film? Not thinking at all is my guess. People who think they'll see a crime drama, take my advice and do not waste your time or money on this loser. You're better off watching Jerry Springer in this case! Waste of film, I gave it a 1 out of 10: awful 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\nThe film is a collection of cliche's on just about anything out there. It has no focus whatsoever, no goals, no real message. Symbolism is pushed over the top and stereotyping is abundant and outrageous. This movie can't resist the temptation of making drama where non exists. Every small exchange of words turns immediately into a lengthy, unjustified dialog that is so typical of an acting class rehearsal. Where there is no substance to this exchange, the actors (regardless of how good they are normally) can't help but compensate with exaggerated emotion, aka \"raising the stakes\". Over acting, to put it simply. The directing is of no help here. Nothing can save this non-story. It is forced, faked and boring to tears. Inaccuracies in portaraying punk rock with The Who, piercings and flashy 90's outfits. Characters wander without a role, detail and motive. Locations are arbitrary. This is Boogie Nights cum The Good Fellas cum Saturday Night Fever, with meaning and art ripped out.
Good DP. I'll give it that.
Some films have flaws. This film is Lee's flaw. He sold out, like the rest of them. Became irrelevant. He has nothing of interest to say anymore.
I have no desire to see anything again from this guy (whom I'll refrain from naming from now on).
\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\"Why?\"
That simple question had to be on the lips of every single New Yorker during the 12 months of terror that David Berkowitz created in 1976-77. That same one word will surely become the same perplexing question 22 summers later as people exit theaters exhibiting the trite and exploitative \"Summer of Sam\".
Director Spike Lee attempts to weave the story of a pack of misguided thugs searching for the celebrated psychopath -- who paralyzed New York City for over a year -- with a stark and graphical depiction of the killings, the demons inside Berkowitz's head and the frustration of a futile NYPD manhunt. He presents an ensemble of despicable losers who hear their own \"barking dogs\" as they live lives devoid of love, honor and humanity -- no different than Berkowitz. Lee browbeats the audience in nearly every frame with \"not one of us are what we seem to be\". Often a critic of the white establishment, Lee perpetuates the stereotype by including a scene where Mira Sorvino, playing a newlywed with a cheating husband (John Leguizamo), hopes to have oral sex with a black man \"in the back of a big black Cadillac\". An Italian Mafioso tells a black detective that the famous Willie Mays' over-the-back center field catch was \"lucky\". Lee even makes sure to deliver the racist musings of one middle aged black woman who declares \"I'm happy it's a white man killing all these white people because if it were a black man killing all these white people - there would be the biggest race riot in NYC history.\"
Other than an outstanding opening pan shot of an arrival at a disco (reminiscent of shots from Martin Scorcese's \"Goodfellas\" or Orson Welles' \"The Third Man\"), this film has no soul, purpose or passion. He parades characters on the screen bereft of human decency. Although we learn nothing about the true victims of this horrible spree, Spike Lee seems to be saying New York City got what it deserved during that frightening, boiling summer over two decades ago.
\"How could anyone wreak such havoc on his beloved city?\" \"How could someone show such hatred toward his fellow man?\"
Are these appropriate questions for Berkowitz or Lee?
You decide.
\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 wish Spike Lee had chosen a different title for his film. \"Summer Of Sam\" conveys the impression that the film is about the infamous serial killer, David Berkowitz. It's not. It's a gritty, earthy portrait of NYC street life during the hot summer of '77 when Berkowitz terrorized that city.
The film follows several young fictional characters in an Italian-American neighborhood, and their reactions to the Son of Sam threat. There's Vinny and his wife Dionna; there's Richie and Ruby, and several other characters.
The problem is that these characters are not likable. They are routinely annoying, and at times unbearable. Lee then belabors their high energy, chaotic lives, which are filled with anger, lust, and general turmoil. There are at least two protracted fight scenes between Vinny and his wife, redundant disco dance scenes, countless gabfests ... Over and over I kept wondering: where's the film editor?
Meanwhile, with all that bulk, the film passes up the chance to convey any real sense of fear or dread arising from the Son of Sam menace, which is too much in the background. Lee is more successful at showing a different kind of menace, that arising from neighborhood vigilante groups.
The acting is uniformly good. That, combined with 70's disco music, and lavish attention to costumes and production design, make you really feel like you are in an Italian-American neighborhood in NYC in 1977.
The film's atmospheric authenticity, however, is not nearly enough to offset a rambling, overblown script about the lives of grossly irritating people.
\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 bad news and I'm really surprised at the level of big name talent who would ever agree to appear in such a piece of junk as this. I imagine there were a few strangled agents sprawled across Hollywood Blvd. as a result of this fiasco. What really gets you is that it could have been good. The directors star appeal and the subject matter was sufficient fodder to spark interest and ticket sales, but this is a flop. The multiple story lines all go from bad to silly by the pictures end, and you end up feeling like a mouse in a maze looking for a piece of cheese that turns out to be rotten. What Spike is able to achieve is revenge against any Italians who may have beat him up when he was a kid or insulted him, as the movie does quite a number on perpetuating outdated and probably offensive Italian stereotypes. As with any Spike Lee film there is some really thought provoking and magical camerawork. He does have the gift of grabbing your psyche and transporting you into his vision if only for a few memorable scenes. But the question remains...can you endure the other 2 hours of head scratching and clock watching as you wonder and wait for the ending that has to be there somewhere.
\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 actors and good performances can't mask a pointless script, bad dialogue, and patterns of behavior spiraling into nothing you'd care about. The most interesting character is David Berkowitz. No character development - no growth, no interest, just some suffering for no particular reason, teaching us nothing and not even bothering to entertain.
\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 long winded film turns out to be less about Berkowitz and his effect on NYC, but more about painting caricatures of a certain group of Italian-Americans, known locally as \"Guidos.\" The problem is that \"Guidos\" are uninteresting, no matter what kind of story or setting they are immersed in. They are already living caricatures, so Lee only amplifies them, rather than simply portraying them.
When someone has a caricature done of themselves, they don't go home and say, \"Hey, let's make the ears and nose even bigger!\" That's what Lee has done in this film. The most interesting characters in the film are the two (Adrian Brody and Jennifer Esposito) who wish to escape the \"Guido\" lifestyle. Top it off with an uninteresting storyline for the characters, particularly John Leguizamo's, and you get a nice film to fall asleep by. Especially considering it's lengthy run time.
One more strike against it: For someone proclaiming to be a Yankees fan, and has grown up in New York, Spike Lee should know how to spell Phil Rizzuto, which is spelled incorrectly in the closing credits.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'm afraid that I have to disagree with the majority. I found Spike Lee's latest a wee bit boring! Although he was trying something different, i.e. not just documenting the rise and fall of the serial killer, I don't think it worked too well.
There's really a bit too much going on - Vinny (John Leguizamo) and Dionna's (Mira Sorvino) relationship, Ritchie's (Adrien Brody) lifestyle and then the local mafia types. The story is good, but at the end thats all you have - 2 or 3 stories. With such a provocative killer could Mr Lee not have put more into that side of the film? >
There are some good points though. All scenes with the 'Son of Sam' killer David Berkowitz look very nice (colour saturation etc...)and the acting is pretty good throughout.
Overall I felt that the different stories would of worked well on their own or else without the killings. It just wasn't strong enough in the end.

\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 always liked Spike Lee's movies, but this one was a total waste of 2 1/2 hours. I expected more about Son of Sam and instead got a movie that seemed to have very little to do with the 1977 serial killings. The talking dog was laughable (you know you're in trouble when all the movie patrons burst into laughter inappropriately). The whole movie seemed very disjointed and not very interesting. The sex scenes were totally irrelevent to the plot. I'm not opposed to sex in movies, but it should have some point (unless it's a XXX movie). All in all, we were very disappointed at this Spike Lee effort!!
\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 went to this movie expecting a concise movie relating the effect the Son of Sam had on the society. I didn't expect Spike Lee to force-feed me more garbage on racial tension, mob-justice, or the inability of the common citizen to make a choice under pressure by peers. Lee has presented an extreme opinion.
The entire movie could have been more effective if in a 90-min format with more focus, less tangential sub-plots.
Don't even bother renting the video unless you passionately enjoy Spike Lee; in such a case, the theatre is worth it. This is not an escapist movie.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSpike lee has to be one of the most over rated directors I have ever seen. He is the critic's darling because he supposedly makes films with a \"message\" or he is just so bohemian in his approach that it makes critics that are waterlogged from formula Hollywood films eat his stuff up just for being different.
Summer Of Sam does not even do that well. The cinematography and editing style is Oliver Stone, and so is the narrative. The plot is a lot like \"Do The Right thing\". The portrayal of \"Guidos\" or for the PC set Italian-Americans (of which I happen to be one) is straight out of Eddie Murphy's Raw. Only Eddie Murphy's impression of a macho Italian guy picking a fight with a much taller African-American is much, MUCH more believable than the cartoonish, broad Italian caricatures shown here (the John Leguizamo character being a possible exception).
Is there anybody who saw this movie that could not figure out how it was going to end up? As soon as Richie came into the film I could already see the fist in his face and the foot in his stomach, I could already see him being accused of being the killer. This character had the most integrity in the whole film so, of course, Lee is going to show what happens to people that stand out in a crowd (what a white bearded clique!)
Someone please, please give Spike Lee a lifetime pass to all the Basketball games he wants. So, maybe he will be enjoying himself too much to pick up a film camera for a long time and we won't have to be subjected to his self important drivel and furthermore I won't have to see critics (some of them whom I respect) ohhhh and ahhhh to an Emperor with no clothes.
\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\nJohn Leguizemo, a wonderful comic actor, is a New York Latino, able to get inside a myriad of characters, both male and female, to show the bizarre foibles of an ethnic group trying to cope in an alien culture. He is not, however, Italian. He doesn't look, think or behave Italian...Especially Sicilian or Calabrese, immigrant groups who live in Bensonhurst or Bayridge Brooklyn. Every scene in which he interacts with his \"Gumbas\" rings false, as though he'd wandered in from a college production of \"West Side Story\" while the other guys were doing a low-rent \"Mean Streets\". That's only one problem with this ill-conceived, mean-spirited flick. Spike blew this one big time. Btw, CBGBOMFUG means \"Country, Bluegrass, Blues and Other Music For Uplifting Gourmets [or possibly Gourmands] Ask Hilly Crystal who founded the club.

\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\nSpike Lee has been in a decline since his early successes and this mess does nothing to help. I looked at my watch frequently hoping the movie would end or get to the point. Lee's first movie with an all-white cast is a major disappointment.
What's the point? That Italians swear and like funky sex, but not with their wives? If I wanted to see Scorsese, I'd go to a Scorsese movie. The incredibly lame Godfather character only adds to the stereotype.
I've admired several of Lee's films, especially \"Do the Right Thing\". This movie is a 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\nAfter seeing the trailer for this movie and finding out Spike Lee was directing, I was excited to hear about this event. I wasn't alive at the time, I didn't live in New York, so I expected more of a history lesson than anything. What I got was some interesting acting, a lot of sex, and about 30 minutes worth of film that actually had anything to do with the Son of Sam. I guess the film wasn't about the Son of Sam, but it was a peek into the summer of '77. Label me disappointed.

\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 difficult to put into words the almost seething hatred I have of this film. But I'll try:
Every other word was an expletive, the sex scenes were uncomfortable, drugs were rampant and stereotyping was beyond the norm, if not offensive to Italian-Americans.
I'm not saying the acting was terrible, because Leguizamo, Sorvino, Brody, Espisito et. al, performed well. But...almost every character in the film I despised. Not since The Bonfire of the Vanities have I disliked every character on screen.
\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\nFox's \"The True Story Of Jesse James\" (1957) is a remarkably poor widescreen remake of their prestigious 1939 Tyrone Power/Henry Fonda classic \"Jesse James\". I'm not sure where the fault lies but the casting in this version of the two central characters, the uneven direction of Nicholas Ray and the ham-fisted screenplay must surely have something to do with it.
In the late thirties and forties Tyrone Power was Fox's top leading man but in the fifties his star began to wane and studio head Darryl Zanuck started to groom newcomer Robert Wagner to take his place. This was a major error on Zanuck's part as Wagner proved to be a less than a suitable replacement. With the possible exceptions of \"Broken Lance\" (1954) and \"Between Heaven & Hell\" (1956) it is hard to think of Wagner distinguishing himself in anything! Also, Jeffrey Hunter was nothing more than a Fox contract player before being assigned to play Frank James to Wagner's Jesse in \"The True Story Of Jesse James\". Borrowed from the studio the previous year this actor's one distinguishing mark was his excellent and revealing performance in John Ford's classic \"The Searchers\". But his playing here, along with Wagner as the second half of the James Brothers, is nothing short of boring. Neither player bring any personality or colour to their respective roles. They totally miss the mark, lacking the charisma and appeal so vividly displayed by Power and Fonda in the original. The movie is also marred by too many flashbacks and with the all over the place screenplay Wagner, as the Robin Hood of the American west, comes across as a charmless introverted twit that you can feel no empathy for whatsoever. The supporting cast are hardly worth mentioning but it is a shame to see such a great actress as Agnes Moorhead barely getting a look in as Ma James.
The best aspects of this uninvolving so-so western is the wonderful Cinemascope/Colour cinematography by the great Joe McDonald and the excellent music score by the underrated and little known composer Leigh Harline!
\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 couldn't believe my eyes when I watched Nuremberg yesterday on Dutch television. It starts very slowly, the backgrounds of the Nuremberg trials become clear step by step, the Germans have a funny English accent, but then, suddenly, in the last few minutes of the first part of the series, the audience gets to see the most shocking, horrific footage I have ever seen.
It is important that people get to see such footage (although I absolutely don't agree with people stating that there is no minimum age at which children can be exposed to this kind of material), but in this film it was completely ridiculous. It was purely meant to improve the impact of an ordinary TV series. It was meant to shock the audience which is very cheap and unbelievably easy. In stead of trying to move us with well-done scenes, inspiring dialogue or interesting viewpoint's, the audience is being tortured with horrible images of skin-and-bones camp inmates. It doesn't show any respect for the victims of the holocaust.
I'm very angry.
\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\nApparently most viewer knows nothing about the history of Europe, including Germany, Hungary and the whole Central and Eastern Europe as well as the Hitler and Stalin Era. Nuremberg (and a lot of forgotten trials all over Europe) was a revenge and injustice of the winners. What do you think, why were not any American, British, French or Soviet defendants after the WWII? There were no American, British etc. war crimes? There were no Hiroshima, no Nagasaki, no Tokyo, no Dresden, no Hamburg, no Berlin, no Katyn and so on? The Germans had war crimes too, but in Nuremberg the justice was not a real consideration. The main point was: Vae victis! Germany must perish! (That was also a book title in America, 1941.)
This film is an awful, ignoble American brainwashing instrument, full of error, lie, propaganda, prejudice and injustice. And first of all: full of hypocrisy. But not surprisingly... Why wasn't enough the Nuremberg process itself? This film is a nightmare. Total darkness after 60 years! This darkness (and hate and narcissism and lack of self-criticism) is the real cause of the massacres in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Serbia, Iraq and so forth. And there are no American war criminals... Bravo, America! Very clever. Even Stalin would become envious of it...
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie was disappointing. It was incomplete and dull. While Alec Baldwin tried to portray himself as the Perfect fair and just prosecutor (not to mention executive producer), the movie never showed any of the defense counsels or tried to challenge the audience with an actual meaningful debate on the subject of how a country could be led down such a terrible path.
Sure, nobody wants to defend the Nazi's point of view, but THAT WAS THE POINT of the Nuremberg Trails! Four hours of simply bashing on the Nazi's.... c'mon! Thats been done already!
I really think Alec Baldwin should just stick to being Kim Bassinger's husband.
Right after the movie ended, TNT showed the 1959 movie, Trail at Nuremberg. That movie is FAR superior.
\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\nAmerican movies about war and Nazis simply cannot be good. They can not refrain from becoming idiot and following an agenda. All Nazis are bad, crazy, too proud, and Americans are so modest yet so capable and sensible and human. Come on, stop this bullshit. The main character says something like \"by this trial, we have to make aggressive war a crime\". Is America a peaceful nation with its world #1 $420 billion \"defense\" budget (#2 China with just $51b)? Is it simply spent in this without any... ROI? Why portray America as a peaceful nation when it isn't? I deeply dislike movies with an agenda - they throw art to hell and try to persuade us into believing something. Hollywood should put a label on movies, just as record companies have that \"parental advisory\" label. We should have a \"bullshit advisory\", \"propaganda advisory\" or a \"politically correct advisory\" label on some movies. This is one of them.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"