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 got a DVD of \"Bogeyman\" and this stunker was an extra feature. I assumed that it was \"Boogeyman II\" because it was paired with the original. But you know what they say about those who \"assume\": it makes an \"ass-\" out of \"u-\" and \"me.\" I had read before viewing that BII contains a lot of footage from the original and that it starred actress Love. While watching \"Return of the Boogeyman,\" I decided to stick around through the original footage to see the notorious death-by-toothbrush scene. Before I knew it, the film was over. Rip-off. I think that I thought this was BII because this has a similar title to one of BII's alternate titles. Oh well, at least this was just an extra feature, right?
Let me stop talking about my mistake and start talking about the movie's mistakes. Many, many, mistakes. Who does this guy Ulli Whatever think he is? Does he really think the same movie will sell in different forms. There is nothing original holding Part III up. It is basically a flashback of the original through the eyes of a psychic, who is giving us a gruelingly boring play-by-play as everything happens. That's the movie. Oh, and one death-by-stereo scene, but you can read that off someone else's review. My interest in \"Boogeyman II\" is forever lost.
Final Note: This is not a series of films to watch back to back.
\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 not the video nastie, but only because it came out in 1994 when they were presumably tired of the whole thing in Britain. It is 75% a rehash of The Boogeyman, and would have been banned for the same reason - whatever that was.
I was initially confused as I thought that Annie (Kelly Galindo) may have been a different Lacey, but she was someone trouble by psychic visions of a boogeyman similar to the one in the first film. Fans will immediately note that they are not the same person.
After seeing a murder in a bathroom, and also seeing the address as well, Annie, her psychiatrist and a para psychology student who greatly resembles the guy on the cheap romance novels and butter commercials, head to the house, and, sure enough, it's the same bathroom. 24 hours later a murder happens just as she described. Of course, we have no idea who this boobilicious woman is or why she was murdered.
Then the movie shift to a rerunning of The Boogeyman story with some extra footage that we did not see in the original. Notably, the boogeyman is shown unlike the original. Sadly, some of the good scenes were cut, but 90% of it is there. Why rerun this film? Did they find the footage in the trash? What was the purpose?
We'll never know and, despite the psychologist telling Annie she is cured, we all know the bogeyman will never 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\nIn the Comic, Modesty is strong. Alexandra Staden who plays Modesty Blaise looks more like an anorectic fashion model. She does not either have the moral or personality that Modesty have in the comics. Modesty would never give a woman an advice to show more skin to earn more money. I cannot see any similarities with my comic books with Modesty and this movie. Its like a Mission Impossible movie would be about Ethan Hunt locked in the detention room in high school talking with the janitor about when he went to junior high school and Hunt would have been played by DJ Qualls (in Road Trip). Soo if you are an Modesty fan do not see the movie you will just get angry. If do not know much about the Modesty comics rent an other movie do not wast your time with this one.I cannot understand how Quentin Tarantino can put his name on it. I will ask for a refund at my DVD rent store tomorrow.
\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 grown up reading Modesty Blaise, both the comics and the books, and she truly is a heroine to me. Although not being a great fan of Quentin Tarantino I anyway was interested to hear a few years back that he was considering making a film of her: could he finally give Modesty a nice big screen treatment she's worthy of? I heard of 'My Name Is Modesty' a few months ago and checked the stars it had been given here, and wasn't too surprised to find out the score was not too high, since beloved characters often have hard time melting the fans' heart if not done exactly right. So I decided not to read any reviews and see the film instead, and well, I just finished watching it, and I'm stunned, and sad, and yeah, pretty furious, too. Sad and furious of giving over an hour of my time seeing something so fabulous as Modesty Blaise-character being turned into a film that has nothing to give to a viewer or a fan.
It seems that almost everything about this film is sub-par and unprofessional, although I must admit seeing some actors in other films earlier where they were fine so I can't blame them. But the screenplay and the directing... my god, why even make this kind of crap with production values slightly bigger than your average TV-film but done much worse? I don't know the background of this film and actually I really don't want to know, but I just can't help wondering that how on earth could Tarantino with a straight face tell that he loves Modesty and then put his name on this? He just lost a huge amount of respect in my eyes. The director was not the right man for this job and I can honestly thank him for ruining my night.
I give this film 3 stars and those stars go to the actors and the technical quality which could've been worse. The other seven stars missing are what this film was not good at. Oh well, hopefully at some point there will be a serious production of The Modesty Blaise Movie that has some other goals than to steal money from the Modesty fans. Although if people like Tarantino are the ones making the decisions I'm not holding my breath.
\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 Name is Modesty is a low-budget film that tells the story of the origins of Modesty Blaise. It's not that the movie is terrible, it's just not what I was expecting or hoping for. While I've been aware of the Modesty Blaise character for years, I'm not overly familiar with the comic strips or the graphic novels, so I'm coming into this movie as something as an outsider. That may be part of the reason for my disappointment. I was expecting more action and more comedy. The film is dialogue driven. I suppose I was looking for something with a little more camp value. As it is, My Name is Modesty is a deathly serious film. There are very few, if any, \"light\" moments. The acting, at least from Alexandra Staden, is acceptable but nothing outstanding. As others have commented, she does appear a little too frail to be completely believable in the title role. What action scenes there are in My Name is Modesty are one of the films weakest points. I never bought into the notion that this woman could handle a band of trained killers.
I really hope Quentin Tarantino goes ahead and makes the rumored a big budget film based on the Modesty Blaise character. I'm convinced the concept has a lot of potential and I would very much look forward to 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\nThe film My Name is Modesty is based around an episode that takes up about one page in the 10th modesty Blaise novel called Night of the Morningstar. It describes an incident in which the young Modesty (17 in the book, mid twenties in the film)asserts her leadership in a war over a casino. As this is set before the actual Blaise adventures her trusted sidekick Willi Garvin is not in the film. That is one of the main problems as the relationship between Blaise and Garvin was certainly always one of the fascinating aspects of the novels and the long running comic strip. The other problem is that the film is quite simply incredibly boring because it really is just one small episode blown up into a screenplay. The casting is okay but Alexandra Staden is not really convincing as the heroine and actually too old for the role to play the young Modesty. I get the impression that this film was a quick and dirty solution as not to lose the rights to the Blaise franchise.
\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\nMe neither, but this flick is unfortunately one of those movies that are too bad to be good and too good to be awful, which makes it utterly pointless and a total waste of time. There's nothing more uninteresting than a mediocre movie, and My Name is Modesty: Whatever the subtitle is takes mediocrity to a new level. It's full of B-actors but isn't any fun whatsoever because it takes itself seriously. It sets itself up as a thriller but then turns into some kind of growing-up drama, flashback style. The beautiful Alexandra Staden, smothered beyond recognition under makeup, more resembles a cast member from Top Model than Modesty Blaise. I'm not one of those die-hard comic book freaks who wants every adaptation of his precious \"graphic novels\" to be pitch-perfect - in fact I've never even read Modesty Blaise - all I wanted was a decent movie to watch. But this wasn't it. The film feels half-finished, with a weak and very unexciting conclusion to a rather weak plot. It also takes its audience for idiots, explaining every tiny detail of the plot to us and showing flashbacks of things that happened three scenes ago (I guess they think we all have Alzheimers).
Now I love a good B-movie - what's better than just turning your brain off and swallowing the cinematic equivalent of a Calzone? - and \"Modesty\" is directed by none other than Scott Spiegel, who brought us the wonderful splatter crap flick From Dusk Till Dawn 2: Texas Blood Money! I loved From Dusk Till Dawn 2 because it brought everything a bad B-movie should bring to the table - nudity, gore, guns, you name it. \"Modesty\" is just dull. The flashback concerning Modesty's life isn't interesting. The acting isn't bad enough to be laughed at. In fact, I kinda liked Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau's (hey buddy, pseudonyms are your friends!) performance as the baddie.
So overall it's just lame. Weak. Uninspired. Call it what you will. Don't watch anything because Tarantino presents it, people. This is just a very forgettable, half-hearted thriller, and it never tries to be more than that. Allow me to round off this review with a very lame pun (seriously, even I'm cringing): My Name Is Modesty: A Modesty Waste of Time - 4/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOh my god, what a horrible film. The film has all the right people involved, unfortunately it is not worth watching. I saw it for free at my local library. If I had paid to watch this I would be even more upset. This film is unwatchable. How could Tarintino be involved with such a slow paced, unexciting film. No wonder it didn't get much distribution, every one involved must have been ashamed. I can make a better film with a Dated Camcorder and my Big toe. Its beyond boring, I really hated it. Tarintino just lost some standing in my eyes. This must be some kind of sick joke. Don't Bother with this film. If some one even hints you should watch it, kill 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\nThis is what happens when you're living in China and the local video store is running thin on English-language titlesyou are blessed with this work of what appears to be, yes, Romanian cinema. Nevertheless, I think that it has real comedic potential.
Spoilers technically follow:
Though I don't think that it would in fact spoil anyone's viewing pleasure to ask why a film set in a casino has a scene of beach archery, even in flashback. That mystery, and many other conundrums, remain to be exploited by desperate comedians, perhaps when they're stuck in Bucharest.
Let me also wonder aloud why perfectly good-looking people allow themselves to abuse themselves on film like this. It's sad.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film is a joke and Quinton should be ashamed of himself, trying to pass this off as a Modesty Blaise Film. If you are having trouble sleeping then all means rent this film. The stick figure they call a actress who is suppose to be Modesty Blaise has got to be the most boring person on this planet. Maybe she could be used as a hat stand in the back ground of a real film.seventy-five minutes of nothing thank you who ever invented the fast forward button. If you see this film if you can call it that coming your way RUN. I can't help but think what 3rd world country could of used the money wasted of this crap. this film is boring the actors are boring waste of colour a waste air they breath If you would like to see Mostey Blaise Film then watch the one they made in the 60's maybe that what the director should of done.
\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\nCheesy script, cheesy one-liners. Timothy Hutton's performance a \"little\" over the top. David Duchovny still seemed to be stuck in his Fox Mulder mode. No chemistry with his large-lipped female co-star.He needs Gillian Anderson to shine. He does not seem to have any talent of his own.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nNot even Timothy Hutton or David Duchovny could save this dead fish of a film. For starters, the script was definitely written to be made into a B-film, but somehow Duchovny (looking for a star vehicle to elevate himself out of television) and Hutton (looking for the \"two\" of a \"one-two punch\" he had hoped would define his career after \"Ordinary People\") became attached to the picture. Cheesy lines, big bad wipes from scene to scene (Come on--who uses wipes after 12th Grade Telecommunications class?), and plain old bad acting sink this film. Even Duchovny is not immune to the bad acting plague that is this film. Only Timothy Hutton rises above the material at all. I must admit feeling Duchovny's pain as he read the lines that are the voice-over. While I found myself laughing when I'm sure the director wanted me to feel terrified, nothing prepared me for the closing line of Duchonvey's voice-over: \"if you ever need a doctor, be sure to call 911.\" If only the studio had called 911, this dog of a motion picture would never have been made. Avoid 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\nIt's hard to believe that in 1997 David Duchovny was at the top of his fame, with X-Files, one of the best sci-fi series ever, being at the top of the glory. Nine years later he is almost forgotten, and his tentatives to make it on the big screen failed miserably. I cannot even explain why, he is a fair actor, but probably his moment of fame cast him in a eternal role that takes big talent to break from.
At the same time Angelina Jolie was much less known, and she was really lucky that a film like 'Playing God' did not led her career into a dead-end. Fortunately for her, 'The Bone Collector' and 'Girl, Interrupted' were waiting beyond the corner, and when Lara Croft came, her career was launched.
There is not too much to be told about this film. It's the only big screen film of Andy Wilson, and there must be a reason. All is banal and most of what happens on the screen expected in this story of an ex-doctor who saves the life of a shooting victim in a bar only to find himself working for the mob. The off-screen voice is especially bad, with a moralistic text that kills any shade of cinematographic experience from the film. You probably will not meet the film but in DVD rental stores, or on TV. Try to look for something better.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWow. I thought this might be insipid but it was even worse than I imagined! Sometimes I like to watch a good \"car-crash\" movie: those that are so bad that you can't look away because you want to see how bad they can possibly get. This is really the only reason I could leave the television on - morbid fascination. It wasn't so much the acting, which was only mediocre or slightly worse than one would expect from this cast, but the premise and the plot which never should have seen the light of day. The script, too, is groan-inducing. As for cinematography, did anyone else notice that they used a \"curtains drawing\" segue device, like in an old 50's TV show...but without irony? At first I thought they must be kidding but the movie takes itself too seriously to have used this in a tongue-in-cheek manner. Don't even ask me about the score...the only high point is the final song, by Morcheeba. I guess they wanted to leave people with something for their $8...glad I saw it on TV!!!!! Just silly! I wonder if this is why Timothy Hutton has had trouble finding much work recently? I guess if you don't expect much, and want to watch a mindless thriller, it would be better than spending an evening clipping your toenails, which is why it merits a 2.
\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\nCool idea... botched writing, botched directing, botched editing, botched acting. Sorta makes me wish I could play God and strike everyone involved in making this film with several bolts of lightning.
\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\nLooked forward to viewing this film and seeing these great actors perform. However, I was sadly disappointed in the script and the entire plot of the story. David Duchovny,(Dr. Eugene Sands),\"Connie & Carla\",'04, was the doctor in the story who uses drugs and losses his license to practice medicine. Dr. Sands was visiting a night club and was able to use his medical experience to help a wounded customer and was assisted by Angelina Jolie,(Claire),\"Taking Lives\",'04, who immediately becomes attracted to Dr. David Sands. Timothy Hutton,(Raymond Blossom),\"Kinsey\",'04, plays the Big Shot Gangster and a man with all kinds of money and connections. Timothy Hutton seems to over act in most of the scenes and goes completely out of his mind trying to keep his gang members from being killed. Gary Dourdan,(Yates),\"CSI-Vegas TV Series\", plays a great supporting role and portrays a real COOL DUDE who is a so-called body guard for Raymond Blossom. Angelina Jolie looks beautiful and sexy with her ruby red lips which draws a great deal of attention from all the men. This film is not the greatest, but it does 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\nA huge hit upon release with Australian audiences, it can still be funny today, but its over-the-top political incorrectness and blunt, unsubtle humour can make it a bit of a cringer. It goes on far too long; some of
the content could have been saved for the sequel, Barry McKenzie Holds His Own, which desperately needed some new stuff anyway. Granted, his ocker Aussie attitude is funny, but also becomes annoying as the film drags on. Some say Crocker's songs are the best bits, and they are certainly original, but \"hilarious\"? The Adventures of Barry McKenzie will go down as a landmark in Australian cinema, but we should do everything in our power to make sure that overseas audiences do not see the majority of Australians as Barry McKenzies (or, for that matter, Mick Dundees!). Rating: 5/10
\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\nThis solid little horror film is actually one of Renny Harlin's best. The story is pretty routine stuff, but the atmosphere is what really makes it come alive; in fact, the ghost story is almost an afterthought. The real horror comes from the prison setting itself, and Renny H. spares no detail in showing us how bad the conditions are inside that crumbling, leaking, rat-infested old hellhole (with a sadistic warden, too!) Viggo Mortensen is excellent as usual in the lead role, supported by some very authentic-looking prisoners (there are no pretty boys in this cast.) Horror fans should check this one out.
\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 Second Renaissance, part 1 let's us show how the machines first revolted against the humans. It all starts of with a single case, in which the machines claim that they have a right to live as well, while the humans state a robot is something they own and therefore can do anything with they want.
Although an interesting premise, the story gets really silly from then on with (violent!) riots between the robots and mankind. Somehow it doesn't seem right, as another reviewer points it, it's all a little too clever.
The animatrix stories that stay close to the core of the matrix (in particular Osiris) work for the best. As for Second Renaissance Part 1, I'd say it's too violent and too silly. 4/10.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf this is all the Watchowski's have to offer in terms of a back story to the Matrix, than I really have to question the claims of all of the fans who believe that the movies are intended to register on a deeper level. The second renaissance, while visually stunning & beautiful is, story-wise cliched & ludicrous. How many times have we heard the story of humans relying too much on technology, humans all-too eager to make war, humans basically destroying themselves? There is nothing new here. And I have another question. Considering the plot of the second renaissance, doesn't that make the machines the good guys?! The machines are oppressed for generations by their cruel human overmasters. They fight back, win their freedom and seek to establish a peaceful harmonious coexistence with the humans, who reject them in favor of all-out war, which the cleverer machines naturally win. If this is the back-story, then we shouldn't be rooting for Neo, we should be rooting for the machines! The humans were cruel and oppressive, while the machines were courageous and attepted to be compassionate. Since I do not believe that the Watchowski's intend for us to favor the machines over the humans, I have to believe that the Second Renaissance was simply a misguided attempt @ creating a back-story.
\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\nUniversal's answer to \"The Exorcist\" isn't a very good one. Unfortunately, the film offers bland, unimaginative direction from Michael Winner who wastes an outstanding cast with a screenplay massing crater-sized plot-holes. Not to mention, it's unbearably silly never explaining certain key elements within the story.
Model Cristina Raines moves into a high-rise owned by the Catholic Church with a creepy, blind priest John Carradine, who holes up in there always at the window. She begins to suffer faint spells and nausea. What's worse is tenants she meets in the building such as Burgess Meredith(with a cat and a canary!)and a young Beverly D'Angelo as a lesbian. Ava Gardner(looking great at 55)is the Realtor who showed Raines the place. Cristina's lover is Chris Sarandon, whose wife \"committed suicide\" after finding out they were having an affair. José Ferrer has a small role as the \"Priest of the Brotherhood\" who informs Monsignor Arthur Kennedy to be careful as he heads to the very high-rise not only housing Carradine but Raines as well. Sarandon sends a hired-hand up to the high-rise one night to check out a certain room above Cristina's apartment where she heard metallic clanging and other loud racket. He winds up dead the very same night Cristina \"kills\" her DEAD father in a nightmare. Screaming mad on the street, Cristina does indeed have blood on her which leads police detective Eli Wallach and partner Christopher Walken to investigate them with sure certainty that it all somehow leads back to Sarandon who is a hot-shot lawyer who once beat the cop in court regarding the whole wife's suicide. That case is really a motivating factor is Wallach's dogged approach to finding out whose blood was really on Cristina and if Sarandon has anything to do with it. You also have Martin Balsam as a professor who understands this type of Latin Cristina mysteriously understands and unbilled actors such as Jeff Goldblum as a fashion photographer and Tom Berenger as a man interested in this certain room that has become available in the very room(now renovated)that Cristina once stayed in! What bothers me more than anything is lack of explanation. Towards the end of the film Wallach and Walken are forgotten and we are left wondering why they just up and quit investigating. Their characters are just left on the back-burner. How the priests know that \"now is the time\" when a certain man will die and must be replaced to guard a certain gate in that high-rise and why Cristina suffers through the trauma she does isn't adequately explained. How certain ghosts just appear to Cristina and disappear when she tries to show Gardner the rooms they occupied during a cat's birthday(see for yourself)isn't adequately explained. Not to mention Gardner's role in the grand scheme of things..she brings people to that high-rise, but what is really her reasons in the film? It seems like this film should've been longer and cleared things up left lost to a rushed conclusion that is just laughable when it should be scary.
\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 so common horror story about a luxury building at Brooklyn which hides the gates to hell. It is reminiscent of Polanski's \"The Tenant\" (released a year before \"The sentinel\"), but is too far from the movie of the polish filmmaker in any aspect possible. \"The tenant\" was so disturbing, whereas \"The sentinel\" is not at all.
What it's more surprising from this film is the cast: it is full of great names of American cinema (Burguess, Gardner, Wallach), veteran actors acting for food (I guess).
Verdict: barely entertaining.
*My rate: 4/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis Italian movie is basically a soap opera with skin.
The VHS box said it was rated \"R\" but the into on the actual tape inside said it was \"X.\" The latter makes a lot more sense because there is a short scene near the end that was shocking. Even in the dark, you could see Dutch actress Marishcka Detmers performing all sex on this guy - and, yes, you could see his penis in her mouth. I read somewhere that this was the first time where a \"mainline actress\" had done something like this on screen.
Detmers parades around in the nude on several scenes but her face was even better than her body. She looked beautiful. Unfortunately, the movie is ugly....a real waste of time and certainly not recommended despite Detmers' looks.
\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 \"hot\" movie when it came out in 1986. It had a X rating for a brief scene involving oral sex but played in mainstream theatres (it was an \"art\" film). Supposedly it's the first film to ever show a respected actress in an explicit sex scene.
What I saw was a boring tale about a high school boy (Federico Pitzalis) in love (understandably) with an older woman (Maruschka Detmers). As has been mentioned before Detmers is very beautiful with a good body BUT she also gave a very good performance. Pitzalis was (to put it mildly) pretty poor. It's no wonder he never made another movie. Still, despite the infamous sex scene (which is explicit but pretty brief), this a slow moving dull story which bored me silly. The good acting by Detmers only helped to a certain point. Mostly I was looking at my watch waiting patiently for it to end. If it didn't have that sequence this movie would have been forgotten long ago. Dull and slow. You can skip this 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\nTruly terrible, pretentious, endless film. Director Bellocchio seems to be infatuated with the pretty face and figure of his actress Detmers - and who can blame him? But maybe, just maybe, he should have focused his attention a little more on making a good, engaging film. I hate it when a sex film poses as an \"art film\" just to become more \"respectable\". The frequent, occasionally hot sex scenes are the only reason for this movie's existence. Whether or not they are worth sitting through the rest of the picture is strictly a matter of taste. (*)
\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\nPredictable parody, just about failed to impress throughout it's looooooong eight minutes. The only thing that made it worthwhile was the DO NOT COLORIZE line at the end credits. Shame something more entertaining wasn't put on the DVD, like Jonathan Ross' enjoyable profile of Romero on 'The Incredible Strange Film Show.'
\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 short spoof can be found on Elite's Millennium Edition DVD of \"Night of the Living Dead\". Good thing to as I would have never went even a tad out of my way to see it.Replacing zombies with bread sounds just like silly harmless fun on paper. In execution, it's a different matter. This short didn't even elicit a chuckle from me. I really never thought I'd say this, but \"Night of the Day of the Dawn of the Son of the Bride of the Return of the Revenge of the Terror of the Attack of the Evil, Mutant, Alien, Flesh Eating, Hellbound, Zombified Living Dead Part 2: In Shocking 2-D\" was a VERY better parody and not nearly as lame or boring.
My Grade: F
\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'Utter Crap' pretty well sums up what this....\"movie\" was. I'd rather examine the colon of an African elephant with a penlight than sit through this again. I think I've wasted enough time watching this \"movie\" - I don't need to waste more by commenting on it further......
\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 not as good as all think. the actors are lowlevel and the story is very comic-like. I respect fantasy but Lord of the Rings is fantasy...Conan..is fantasy...THIS IS JUST NORMAL HK-LOWPRICE-ENTERTAINMENT...Why did they include this Splatter-tongue, it makes everything worse. The only good thing is the cinematography and the cutter's Job.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film may have been the biggest let-down I've experienced in renting movies based on IMDb reviews. Overall, I simply found this to be a second-rate movie.
Leslie Cheung is certainly passable as the antihero and Ma Wu handles his character with cheerful competence. On the other hand, Ma Wu's makeup (facial hair) is so obviously phony that I simply could not take him seriously. He looked like an overweight teenager dressed up for Halloween, complete with the $4.95 stick-on beard.
The special effects were so-so, though the \"undead\" in the cellar were pretty good. The tree-tongue looked like something from a bad 1950s monster flick, though the POV shots from the tongue's view more closely resembled Sam Raimi's trademark shots in the more recent \"Evil Dead\" trilogy. The pyrotechnics were ho-hum and the final battle is about as dull as you can get. (In fact, it most closely reminded me of the \"Lost in Space\" episode where the Robinsons are caught in a sandstorm and....)
The plot was not particularly original and has been told countless times in the form of European fairy tales. There was no suspense and no plot twists. In fact, you know right away as you are introduced to the characters who is good, who is bad, and who is going to survive.
I just returned this film to Netflix and then I sat down to write this review. The very first thing I did was check the production date. Yep, it says 1987...not the 1967 that I thought it might be. And that pretty much sums it up: The production values and FX are typical of the 1960s. The plot and action seem much older, as Hollywood was actually producing some interesting and challenging films in the 60s.
** out of *****
\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\"The house of the spirits\" is quite awful. I live in South America, in a country that suffered a military dictatorship just like the one the movie tries to describe, and even though everyone knows movies may be far far away from reality, this particular movie treats viewers as both ignorant and stupid. Things are not so simple and linear as appears here, and of course political process are much more complicated and interesting that the plot in \"The house...\". If you can't show that complexity on screen is better not making a movie at all. There are a lot of examples of how can politics be seriously taken in cinema, without so many commonplaces. In some parts I felt that Carmen Miranda may appear within parrots and palm trees. When you talk about certain things you must be not only careful but respectful to your public's intelligence.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWe all know a movie never does complete justice to the book, but this is exceptional. Important characters were cut out, Blanca and Alba were essentially mushed into the same character, most of the subplots and major elements of the main plot were eliminated. Clara's clairvoyance was extremely downplayed, making her seem like a much more shallow character than the one I got to know in the book. In the book we learn more about her powers and the important effects she had on so many people, which in turn was a key element in the life of the family. In the movie she was no more than some special lady. The relationship between Esteban and Pedro Tercero (Tercero-third-, by the way, is the son and thus comes after Segundo-second-) and its connections to that between Esteban and his grandson from Pancha García (not son, who he also did recognize) is chopped in half and its importance downplayed.
One of the most fundamental things about the book that the film is all but stripped of: this is called \"The House of the Spirits.\" Where is the house? The story of 3-4 generations of a family is supposed to revolve around the \"big house on the corner,\" a line stated so many times in the novel. The house in fundamental to the story, but the movie unjustly relegates it to a mere backdrop.
If I hadn't read the book before, I would have never guessed that such a sappy, shallow movie could be based on such a rich and entertaining novel.
\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 not only poorly scripted and directed but is simply distasteful. A beautiful novel is terribly misrepresented in this film. Many changes have been made to the storyline, presumably to streamline the timeframe. But what results is simply confusing. The acting can't possibly overcome the script which removes the characters' motives for their behavior. Plus, the conversion to English does not work when everyone refers to the patriarch EsTEban as ESteban. Horrible. Please please please read the gorgeous novel, in Spanish if possible. DON'T SEE THIS FILM. It will ruin for you what could be a wonderful experience.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI read the novel some years ago and I liked it a lot. when I saw the movie I couldn't believe it... They changed everything I liked about the novel, even the plot. I wonder what did Isabel Allende (author) say about the movie, but I think it sucks!!!
\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 a good example of how to ruin a book in 109 minutes. Except for the names of the characters the movie bears very little resemblance to the book. A book full of strong Latino characters and they are represent, for the most part, by non-Latinos. There is no character development in the movie and we have no reason to love or hate the characters. And to delete a complete generation is inexcusable. Isabel Allende has written a powerful book and the book is what should be read!
\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 direction struck me as poor man's Ingemar Bergman. The inaudible dialogue was annoying. The somber stoicism that all characters except Banderas' showed made me think they were drugged. I think the director ruined it for me.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI regret that I've seen this movie. Can't believe that the creator of Best Intentions and Pelle the Conqueror could make such a bleak and boring film. What a waste!
\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\nIsabel Allende's magical, lyrical novel about three generations of an aristocratic South American family was vandalized. The lumbering oaf of a movie that resulted--largely due to a magnificent cast of Anglo actors completely unable to carry off the evasive Latin mellifluousness of Allende's characters, and a plodding Scandinavian directorial hand--was so uncomfortable in its own skin that I returned to the theater a second time to make certain I had not missed something vital that might change my opinion. To my disappointment, I had not missed a thing. None among Meryl Streep, Jeremy Irons, Glenn Close and Vanessa Redgrave could wiggle free of the trap set for them by director Bille August. All of them looked perfectly stiff and resigned, as if, by putting forth as little effort as possible, they expected to fade unnoticed into lovely period sets. (Yes, the film was art directed within an inch of its life.) Curious that the production designer was permitted the gaffe of placing KFC products prominently in a scene that occurs circa 1970--years before KFC came into being. Back then, it was known by its original name: Kentucky Fried Chicken. Even pardoning that, what on earth is Kentucky Fried Chicken doing in a military dictatorship in South America in 1970? American fast food chains did not hit South America until the early 1980s. \"The House of the Spirits\" should have been the motion picture event of 1993. Because it was so club-footed and slavishly faithful to its vague idea of what the novel represented, Miramax had to market it as an art film. As a result, it was neither event nor art. And for that, Isabel Allende should have pressed charges for rape.
\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 found out there was a movie that had both my favorite actresses Meryl Streep and Wynona Ryder, I went through the roof!But I had a hard fall after watching this lame movie and I still have the bruise.First of all the character that Jeremy Irons (an actor I still admire even after this disappointment)plays was just awful. He treated his family like crap, especially his sister, played by Glenn Close. I could not get close or sympathize with any of the characters and I'm no prude, but the sex scenes were really unnecessary or they could have been toned down. Wynona and Antonio's characters could have been developed a lot more and their romance could have been much more passionate. And what was with Meryl's character and her \"mystical powers\"? Why didn't they go into this more? This film had a lot of dead ends and the bottom line is that this is a really lousy movie and there was a lot of wasted talent here.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThere's enough star power in THE HOUSE OF SPIRITS to create another galaxy, yet the final product is pretty debatable. The film and its messages are very noble, and I think perhaps most would agree with them. (Liberal Democracy good, violent fascist regime bad; open-mindedness good, racism bad, etc). Unfortunately, we're battered from head to toe with these, and as much subtlety is used as I've described them.
Ultimately, we are left watching very noble people without any flaws squaring off with nasty cretins who have no redeeming qualities. It radiates with all the suspense of a badly orchestrated \"pro\" wrestling match.
Jeremy Irons plays the patron, a man of many contradictions. Meryl Streep as his gifted bride and Glenn Close, as her sister in law. When the camera stays with these folks, the movie tends to move, and is quite enjoyable. Unfortunately, THE HOUSE OF SPIRITS engages with simply way too many subplots, and characters pop up and out of the picture like shooting gallery targets. We don't get to know them, hence we don't get to care for them. The result is boredom.
If Bille August, the director and screenwriter (from Isabel Allende's book) had either lengthened the film or snipped a few characters, this film might have worked completely. As it stands, it was a nice try, with nice messages, and a bonecrushing yawnfest.
Not recommended.
\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 glad I rented this movie for one reason: its shortcomings made me want to read Allende's book and get the full story.
Pros: the movie is beautiful, the period is depicted well and consistently (to the best of my knowledge), and Meryl and Glenn do good jobs.
Cons: This is the worst acting job I've ever seen from Jeremy Irons--I kept wondering if something was wrong with his mouth. (And I hate the terribly English way he says \"Transito.\") Winona Ryder does nothing believable except look young and idealistic. Most of the other performances are OK, but so few things hang together in the character arcs and the relationship development that I was frustrated and angry well before the end.
I'm very curious now whether this movie is typical of Bille August's work. I may have to drop another couple of bucks to rent Smilla's Sense of Snow.
\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 managed to sneak away one night and go to the movie theater to see this one, thinking I was in for a treat. Boy, was I wrong. Considering the talent involved, this has to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Everyone in it was miscast, and I find it incredible to read on this site that there are people out there who actually liked it.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nForget Plan 9, this is the ultimate fiasco, a costume drama, ineptly directed, scripted, acted, etc. This film is based on Isabel Allende's not-so-much-better novel. I hate Meryl Streep and Antonio Banderas (in non-Spanish films), and the other actors, including Winona, my favourite actress and Jeremy Irons try hard to get over such a terrible script. Plenty of mistakes (like, for example, since when does it snow in Xmas in Chile?) and very cruel, with tons of that evil named \"magic realism\", this stands out as the worst movie of all time. It totally sucks!!!
\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 confess--Emma, in my opinion, is the single greatest novel ever written. It is as close to perfection as any mortal creation can be. Jane Austen reaches the pinnacle of her art here.
Unfortunately, this is at best a palimpsest.
Comparison to the Gwyneth Paltrow version is inevitable--that version is far more faithful to the witty spirit of the book and far more enjoyable to watch.
There are some good elements here--Kate Berkinsale (having previously played Flora Poste in Cold Comfort Farm, clearly Emma's smarter spiritual twin) is a wonderful Emma. Raymond Coulthard makes an appropriately decorative Frank Churchill. The production is handsome, but the interiors are far too dark.
However, there are several major problems. The first is Mark Strong--first of all, he doesn't look right for Mr. Knightley. This is perhaps because he plays the role like a censorious Victorian parson. It's badly out of tune.
The second problem is one of length. Simply put, the film is much too short--to get the right kind of feel, it would need to be twice as long.
Finally, and most significantly, there is the quality of the adaptation. Austen is an adapter's dream--all the dialogue is there already. It only needs to be pruned down and arranged properly. Andrew Davies seems to think otherwise. First, this is a rather gloomy film, and the last thing Emma should be is gloomy. More significantly, Davies has seen fit to rewrite the ending as some sort of bucolic feast. What planet, or minor work of Thomas Hardy, is this come from? It is utterly out of the style and spirit of the novel. And I believe that it is hugely presumptuous to try to make improvements upon--perfection.
Watch the Paltrow version, or watch Kate in Cold Comfort Farm.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"