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\nWatching \"Speak Easily\" is painful for fans of Buster Keaton. Seeing such a phenomenal writer, actor, comic, director, and stunt man subjected to this humiliating spectacle is like seeing a Picasso used as a drop cloth, or perhaps more like seeing the finest Camembert adulterated with whey solids and processed into Cheez-Whiz.
Keaton is ill-cast as Professor Post, whose overblown vocabulary is the only thing keeping him from saying, \"Tell me about the rabbits, George.\" (Post would have said something like, \"Kindly inform me as to the status of the small mammals in the family Leporidae of the order Lagomorpha, kind sir, who I believe is primarily addressed with the epithet 'George'.\") When Keaton created his own characters, they might be situationally clueless but they weren't stupid. They were quick studies and became masters of their worlds. Not so with Post, who never stops stumbling and bumbling and who who has no more control of his destiny than a bilge rat had of the Titanic. And while Keaton's original characters had a charming naiveté and innocence, Post comes across as such a profound sexual retardate that if he ever did become physically aroused, he'd put an ice bag on the swelling and seek medical help.
There are a couple of small, redeeming moments, such as Keaton's attempts to get rid of the vampish Thema Todd or his suggestion as to appropriate attire for a Greek dance, but it's just not worth enduring the entire film to see them.
If you're a fan of bad movies, get drunk and watch \"Speak Easily\" with friends, a la \"Mystery Science Theater 3000\". But other than that, stick with the silents. Let them be 100% of what Buster Keaton is remembered for.
\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\nT.Z. Post, college professor, receives a false letter stating he inherited $750,000. Now with financial means, he withdraws his life savings of $4,000, and decides to finally going out & live. After having his baggage sent on a train to Chicago, he meets a traveling vaudeville troupe, and decides there good enough for him to put on a show on Broadway. The night of the show, poor Prof. Post has to hide from his creditors, settle the relationship woes between girlfriend Pansy and & floozy diva Eleanor, and still make sure the show must go on. After watching many of Keaton's silent gems, this one is a pain to sit through, but I felt, it could have been a lot worse. Supporting cast Durante, Todd, & Selwyn come off very annoying at times, but still likeable. A pre-Charlie Chan Toler is good as the frustrated show director. 90% of the script is badly written as MGM is trying to pass this off as a poor man's Marx Bros. film where many of the sight gags fall flat from the beginning. Compiled with Keaton's drinking problems at the time, this movie just is a sad moment in Buster's life. Rating- 3.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI watched full house when I was younger and I can not understand why I did. I don't remember really enjoying the show. I think I and the majority of Americans watching this were hypnotized by its badness. It will put you in a trance state and there is no going back. I am still scarred but I try to move on. I know it's a family show but that does not mean it has to be SO bad. The show is SO cliché with every episode ending with a \"talk\" from the dad to make everyone's problems go away. The characters on the show are all loathsome. There is a know it all, cleaning obsessed, corny father who you want to punch in the face every time he comes on screen. We then have a supposed \"rocker\" uncle that is just there to look pretty for the moms that have to watch this crap. We have another uncle who is completely unfunny who does lame Bullwinkle impressions (need I say more about him). There is the eldest daughter who can not act and is always whining about something. Then a middle daughter who always says, \"HOW RUDE!\" to pretty much everything anyone says. Finally, there is the youngest daughter Michelle. Do not get me started on Michelle played but the horrible actors known as The Olsen Twins. If you believe in Christianity I guess you would associate her with the antichrist. She is always demanding things, trying too hard to be \"cute\", is constantly saying \"DUH!\" and rolling her eyes which makes you want to smack her. I am not a big fan of using a lot of physical abuse as punishment to children. But in her case, I would make an acceptation. She needed it on a daily basis. She is the most selfish character to ever be introduced to mainstream television. One example of this is when her rocker uncle is busy doing his job in the attic. The brat decides to constantly annoy him and demand attention. He yells at her and she gets upset. POOR BABY! The rest of the episode is catering to her emotional needs and the uncle eventually apologizes to her. UGGHH! The show will lower your IQ along with slowly destroying your will to live. I am surprised we don't hear in the news about full house being played in the background when police find people that have committed suicide. Do yourself a favor and do not watch reruns of the show. You will thank me later.
\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\nSeriously. This is one of the most stupid family shows of all time.
Plot- A family without a mother and 3 \"dads\" raise 3 little girls in San Francisco, California.
Characters- Neat freak Danny, cartoon loving Joey, hair obsessed Jesse, spoiled brat Michelle, stupid DJ, and almost normal Stephanie. The creators of this show really want you to hate the characters, don't they?
Therefore, I do not think anyone should watch this show. I only chuckled at a few moments in the show's whole running, and I think that instead of lethal injection, all criminals should be forced to watch this show, a torture far worse than anything else.
1.5/10 or: D
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt has very bad acting. Bad story lines. Bad characters. You should never see this show If you see it on. TURN IT OFF. Or you be cringing for the next 30 minutes. It should have never been aired. It's not great. You should never see it. NEVER EVER EVER. So now, if you ever wanna watch this show, please don't. Turn to the THE CW for Smallville. Or Disney Channel for Hannah Montana, Wizards Of Waverly Place, or Nick for Drake & Josh, Those are much better family shows. So believe me on this, I've watched it before. and It is honestly, and I say Honestly, the worst show I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot of TV. So do me a favor, and never watch this 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\nThe acting is bad ham, ALL the jokes are superficial and the target audience is clearly very young children, assuming they have below average IQs. I realize that it was meant for kids, but so is Malcom in the Middle, yet they still throw in adult humor and situations.
What should we expect from a show lead by Bob Saget, the only comedian in existence who is less funny than a ball hitting a man's groin, which is probably why he stopped hosting America's Funniest Home Videos.
Parents, do not let your kids watch this show unless you want to save money on college. Expose your kids to stupidity and they will grow up dumberer.
\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 can see little girls enjoying this show, but calling this a family show is ridiculous. I'm amazed how well remembered it is after all these years. It's an extremely unfunny and stupid show about widowed father of three living with his dead wife's brother and his stupid friend from school, and others as the seasons go on. All of the plot lines generally have a really dumb lesson. In the middle of each episode somebody is mad at somebody else and each episode they make up and it ends on a light unfunny joke. As for the actors, I didn't like them either. Bob Saget was painfully unfunny as the dad with the mom responsibilities. Dave Coulier is a one note joke 30 something year old that does cartoon voices and acts like a kid, and he's horrid. John Stamos was the most tolerable character but he was so clichéd it was hard to watch him. The oldest girl, DJ, on the show was a genuinely bad actress and showed no emotion ever. The middle girl Stephanie was too clichéd as the annoying little sister. The youngest girl Michelle showed what bad actresses the Olsen twins were. You can always tell when they are switching them off. The plot lines to too many story lines were so unrealistically stupid it's cringe worthy. This is a \"family\" show that tried to replace any good substance with cuteness and love, and though those are needed for a show about a family they overdid it way too much. This will be remembered as my least favorite sit-com from the 80's and 90's.
My rating: Terrible show. TVG 30 mins.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhat a crime...
You forgot to brush your teeth...let's make a 30 minute show about it and have a couple of kids make some noise and then have the dad lecture them all because that's what he has to do.
But, don't forget Uncle Joey has to make some weird noises and cooky faces, then Uncle Jesse has to show up with his black leather jacket and some jeans and look pretty for a few minutes while everybody discusses how Mother would have done things if she were around..
Yep, full of zany little adventures about a whole bunch of nothing and an entire overlong story to build around it.
Full House will not only bore you to tears, but it will make you age twenty times faster than you normally would.
\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\nFull House is one of the worst TV series ever! Why?Because all the characters are so irritating that it's impossible to bear.The best character is Joey an even he is pretty irritating occasionally.An that girl DJ,who wrote her character?I want to kill my self every time she speaks.Not to mention when Danny start's with his philosophy.
Example: DJ won around ten thousand dollars or more in the casino.However,she's not eighteen so she shouldn't gamble according to law.However the casino was ready to pay her the money but then Danny,her father cought's her and don't let's her raise that money because she is not eighteen.Oh come on,give me a break,will ya?Since i've seen that stupid and childish scene i instantly turned off the television.Some of the thing's they say in this series not even a child would bought.Who in the world could think that Full House is entertaining and funny?Every single word they say in this series seem's like Shakespeare wrote it.Except that Shakespere knew how to write and except that he wouldn't be that childish and stupid to write something as stupid as they wrote in the script for the Full House!
For everyone who has a bad heart or any kind of bad medical condition or any will for life or any sense of the real world,i deeply recommend 'Do not watch the Full House'!Not even one episode as a try out.Avoid this series.Save your self from stupidity and nonsense.This is the worst television show ever!I'd rather watch Teletubbies then this.'Do not watch this'.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI hated this crap, every Friday as part of tgif it was on, and consistently sucked big time with stupidity each and every week. If you want to see something funny go watch \"No On Would Tell\" Starring Candice Cameron and Fred Savage, it really is hilarious, shows exactly why no one ever goes on to a good film career after doing a terrible TV show. This show really makes me sick, I hate those kids, and bob saget needs to go jump off a bridge for ever making this crapfest. I've seen funner stuff everywhere else but here. I AHet writing 10 lines! Watch 'full house' to see the least humanity has to offer in the way of arts and entertainment.
\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 was younger, I liked this show, but now...BLECCH!!! This show is sappy, badly written, and rarely funny. The three leads were all good actors and funny men (Saget's stand up was a lot better than the stuff this show came up with, as was Coulier a better stand up, and Stamos was a better than average actor). After a while, Stamos wanted off the show because it wanted to do more serious stuff (who could blame him?). The show eventually got cancelled when many of the actors demanded more money.
Here are a few things that drive me crazy about the show:
1. The catch phrases- How many times can one person put up with tiring catch phrases like with 'how rude', 'you got it dude', 'nerdbomber', 'cut it out' and 'have mercy' in a 24 hour time period?
2. Kimmy Gibler- the most annoying character ever written for television.
3. The writing- stale and cliched as an oreo cookie. There is good cliched writing and bad cliched writing. Full House had bad cliched writing.
4. Three men living together in San Francisco- Enough said.
5. Unrealistic stuff- Too much to recall.
6. Trendy kids- The girls had all the latest mall fashions and you can see posters of trendy recording artists they would be into.
Now this show is on Nick @ Nite. I would hardly call it a classic. I have nothing bad to say about the people involved since I think many of them are talented in their own right. But this show was just so sugary sweet, I couldn't stand it after a while.
\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 show is just annoying!!! I feel sorry for the actors for having to attempt to be funny (especially Bob Saget), the laugh track tries to cover up the sad jokes and the \"Awwww\" track comes up at the most unnecessary times. The over-dramatic kids are no exception, especially the Olsen twins. Also, this show is cliché city. If you were to look up the word cliché, it would read \"Full House\" Every story line has a \"life lesson\" to be learned at the end. A sappy speech makes everything better and even has the ability to make the most bratty child have a sudden realization of goodness GASP too bad this couldn't be possible in real life. I don't know how someone could watch this show without bad mouthing the behavior of the characters or the laugh track. i find myself yelling at the TV saying, \"THAT Isn't FUNNY/SAD/CUTE\" If life were really like this, the world would fall apart.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nDon't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of many of Woody's movies, obviously his late 70's masterpieces (Annie Hall,Interiors, Manhattan)and most of his late 80's/early 90's dramas (Hannah, Crimes and Misdemeaners,Husbands and Wives) in fact I even liked some of his more recent efforts (Melinda, Anything Else, Small Time Crooks) but this was abysmal, I though it couldn't possibly be any worse than last years Match Point but how wrong I was.
It was lazily plotted - basically a cross between Match Point, Manhattan Murder Mystery and Small Time Crooks,with all the jokes taken out - Woody seems to be on the way out as well, slurring most of his lines and delivering 'hilarious' catchphrases 'I mean that with all due respect...' over and over until the blandness of it all becomes to much to bare.
I know that most actors are queuing up to work with him but they should at least read the script first - Scarlett Johansson and Hugh Jackman are so much better than this - and Woody should really take a more behind the camera role in future, if he has any sense about 20 miles behind it.
It wouldn't be so tragic if we didn't have so many great Woody films to compare this to - but it is clear that his best days are behind him and judging by this effort, Woody should call it a day before he becomes an industry joke.
Embarrassingly bad
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nMy wife and I both thought this film a watered-down, made-for-TV (BBC) version of Manhattan Murder Mystery...which is itself good, but not great. The story has little inter- character tension or chemistry, and not much of a plot. Woody Allen's character just sort of wanders around running off at the mouth, and Hugh Jackman and Scarlett Johannsson don't have a lot more to do. It's pretty disappointing, I must say. Ian McShane's role is just an expanded cameo appearance.
The first thing that occurred to me was \"I wonder how much the BBC had to pay Woody Allen to dislodge him from Manhatttan?\" He must've needed the money, and they must have needed his appeal to expand their audience beyond the youth market drawn to the two stars. I'm giving this movie 4 stars instead of 3 because it is unbothersome background noise. If you ever want something to have on while you're knitting or sorting your stamp collection, this'll do the job. I wouldn't pay to rent it again.
\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\nErr...this movie sucked. A LOT.
I have been reading some of the other reviews. Apparently there are a lot of people that think that anything Woody Allen writes or stars in is automatically good...
I have watched several of his films, in the vain hope that I'm missing something. But no, they just suck. Poorly written trash. The characters are all very stereotypical (not to mention rather stupid). The plot is...I think it is supposed to be mysterious. Not sure on that. Mr. Allen's character is...Woody Allen, on any other film you have seen of his.
If you are a fan of Woody Allen, go see this film. If you are under 50, don't bother. (If you are a fan of Woody Allen AND you are under 50...well, you are atypical. I don't know what to say.)
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is a poor film by any standard. The story in Match Point had a certain intrigue, and the direction and writing a certain fascination (Woody Allen mixing his own culture with that of the classic English murder and exploring what can be done with it).
Scoop, however has none of this. It is poorly written, the two leads are hopelessly wooden and the story itself has no interest at all. The genre that it spoofs requires at least some sort of subplot with witty explanations and tie-ups (why are tarot cards and keys kept under French horns in locked rooms?).
Allen's delightful and witty versions of various Hollywood genres (Curse of the Jade Scorpion/Purple Rose of Cairo etc) have given us so much pleasure over the years. Even Hollywood Ending had a great central idea. Sadly his inspiration has deserted him this 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\nThe movie seems disjointed and overall, poorly written. The screenplay moves along as if 10 different people wrote it, and none of them were communicating with each other. Apparently they wanted to take a page from a Miracle on 34th Street (the original) type film, but it is done in such a poor way that the movie falls apart. This film is for only the very young, and even THEY will see the fact that whoever scripted it knows little to nothing about baseball. Such as:
 When the Angels are in dead last place, the owner doesn't seem to care, nor is he bothered by the fact his manager just got into a fight with his pitcher  ON THE MOUND  or that he PUNCHED the team's play by play announcer on live TV. However, when the team is one game from winning the Division, he gets bent out of shape over a story (sourced by a 6 year old) that the manager is getting help from a kid who claims to see real angels. What sounds worse? A losing violent out of control manager whose team has lost 15 in a row? Or a winning coach on the verge of the playoffs that is acting a bit eccentric and is helping foster kids? The owner's reaction makes no sense. And he's moved to change his mind by Maggie and her 'straight out of cliché land' speech during a news conference.
 The Angels are supposed to be playing for the Division in the final weekend series against the White Sox, however at the end of the game the announcer's keep saying the Angels 'won the pennant\". The pennant is not decided until someone wins the LEAGUE championship, not the regular season division title.
 Whitt Bass, the goofball pitcher is the starting pitcher and wins the game that breaks the Angels losing streak  then is the starting pitcher  THE VERY NEXT DAY.
 Mel Clark (Tony Danza) is said in the ninth inning to have thrown 156 pitches, in a low-scoring ballgame. Typically in low scoring games, the pitch count is MUCH lower than this, usually around 80-90 pitches.
 \"AL\" the angel says at the end \"Championships have to be won on their own\", even though he and his angels have been manipulating and fixing games throughout the whole second half of the season.
I could go on and on, as there are MANY other examples where the story is poorly written.
For younger kids (under 10), this movie may be entertaining. It's too bad  done right this could have been a classic. Done wrong like this and it's a forgettable mess that will forever live as a UHF/cable Saturday Morning washout.
\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 know that actors and actresses like to try different kinds of movies - hey, no one wants to get typecast - but Danny Glover, Brenda Fricker (happy birthday, Brenda!) and Christopher Lloyd should have known better than this. \"Angels in the Outfield\" is another movie in which everything seems lost until someone or something magically comes and saves the day. Do I even need to tell you how it ends? The movie is just plain lowly escapism (examples of high escapism are the various sci-fi movies from the '50s). If these movies had some political undertone - or at least offered us a new look at life - then they would be OK; this one is just pointless. Far closer to diabolical than angelic. Also starring Tony Danza, Adrien Brody and Matthew McConaughey, and I suspect that they don't wish to stress this in their resumes.
\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\nWarning! Spoilers!
This is your typical disney film.
1.Policticly correct what with the foster home that has an even divison of races.
2.Insults the viewers intellect with its simplistic lines.
3.The boy's slezy father is almost directly taken from the Never Ending Story 2.
4.In a world full of crime,disase,corruption,starvation and other proplems that need to be taken care of,only a losing team is worthy of divine intervention.UGHHHH!!!
5.Did you know that angels don't like swearing?! Where the heck did that come from!
6.In helping the team,the angel cause pain and humilation on the opposing team.Very angelic indeed!
7.The team the angels are helping are called...can you guess...THE ANGELS! Disney at its worst!
8.\"Just got his training wings.\" Brillent line!
My conculsion:I did not like it at 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\nNaming the absolutely most pathetic piece of crap in cinematic history is not an easy task, candidates being so abundant, but Nemesis 2 has been my personal favorite ever since I saw it. It was so funny we had to rent it again the next day, and again I laughed so hard I was literally rolling on the floor. (This usually only happens when I see Monty Python's \"Scott of the Antarctic\".)
Throughout the whole movie, an overwhelming what-the-heck-feeling firmly grasps the viewer. I'm utterly confounded that this clumsy home video ever made it to production stage. It's supposed to be a sequel, yet has no apparent connection whatsoever with the first film. The hero has the same name, but this time \"Alex\" is female, although it took us half way into the movie to stop guessing, what with all the muscles and the barbarian-nomad outfit!
There is really no plot at all, it's merely a prolonged chase scene, only it's so slow-paced and senseless that calling it a chase scene makes it sound way more interesting than it really is. There is almost no dialogue, which is just as well considering the quality of it, and then the film suddenly just comes to an abrupt end after a blatant action scene with lots of gasoline explosions, without ever really explaining what it was all about. Luckily, it never gets boring, because there's something silly and phony going on at all times!
Terrible movies are usually just tedious, but Nemesis 2 is such a perfect mixture of over-seriousness and utter nonintentional wackiness that it's truly entertaining. Rent this film, or buy it even, you won't be 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\nI saw this movie in a theater in Chicago and should have enjoyed it, since I love Nemesis but if the first half an hour is skillfully done, the rest is just sub-Predator video fodder, a long chase through those post-modern empty factories Pyun affectionnates. My girlfriend fell asleep. I still like Pyun though, but not this
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAnd that is the only reason I posses this DVD. Now I haven't seen the first Nemesis film, but I did check the info out of it and I here by say: What? Why? Because in the first film Alex was male. But then again the first one was set in the future, so maybe this Alex is brand new one and the scientist just happened to make Alex female this time. Who knows, at least it wasn't addressed in the film in any way.
Here's a quick summary of the plot: Alex, still a baby then (or how ever you want, as it was, is, in the future) escapes with her mom using a special time vessel and ends up in the 80's Africa. There mommy gets killed and Alex (Sue Price) grows up in a African tribe. Then the tribe gets slaughtered by a cyborg from the future and Alex then runs and hides and finally she kills the cyborg. So there. Does sound familiar, doesn't it?.
Terminator isn't the only film being ripped here, Predator gets its fair share too and I think the first Fly movie, the Vincent Price one, gets special nomination for giving a solid base to build up your cyborgs head from.
Lets see, what else? Okay, the film was quite standard small budget flick, but it did have bad special effects for a mid 90's film. It would have looked okay for a 80's flick how ever. Biggest problem is the plot. Things just happen and the viewer is barely interested. Nemesis 2 isn't the crappiest piece of cinema I've had pleasure (?) to watch but it does come damn close.
I won't say a thing about acting, because let's be honest here: did anyone expect Oscar worthy performances here? Oh well... at least I did find Sue Price hot in that amazonian warrior way.
A \"real\" movie rating: 2/10 There isn't a lot of pros about the over all quality. And despite of the very basic plot the film it self makes very little sense.
A camp movie rating: 4/10 I did get occasional laughs from the sheer badness of the film, so it does have small merits in 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\nYears have past since Alex Rain (played by Olivier Gruner in the first movie) stumbled onto the horrific plot that involved replacing humans with machines however since then a war between cyborgs and humans has emerged and we lost, now a superwoman of sorts who is the daughter of Olivier Gruner's character (She also inherits only half of his minimal acting ability) which I think is the films minimal connection to the first, however when the superwoman is created she hides in 1980 while a bounty hunter from the future hunts her down in this confusing sci-fi clunker. Nemesis became a cult hit, that I can see why people liked even though I was no fan of said film. Nemesis tried very ambitiously to come up with different ideas, develop a beautiful look and provide tons of action, it almost worked. Nemesis 2 doesn't even have that ambition, it's a cheap rip off of The Terminator with a muscled female who is so low on acting ability she makes Olivier Gruner seem like a master thespian and the action sequences lack the explosive scope that was the main selling point of the original. I'll admit I was no fan of the original but it deserved a better follow up than this. The original also featured a good cast like Tim Thomerson, Cary Hiroyuki Tagawa, Thom Mathews, Brion James, Thomas Jane and yes Jackie Earle Haley this one features nobody and this time it's just a dull movie with a pretentious vibe. In fact after I saw this, it inspired to add a half star to the original.
* out of 4-(Bad)
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf this is the first of the \"Nemesis\" films that you have seen, then I strongly urge you to proceed no further. The sequels to \"Nebula\" prove to be no better...hard to believe considering this entry is bottom-of-the-barrel. This movie tries, but it's just not worth your time, folks. Take a nap instead.
\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 recent boom of dating show on U. S. television screens has reached a fevered pitch since the first episode of \"The Bachelor.\" Unsuspecting audiences have since been subjected to countless clones and variations, including \"The Bachelorette\", \"Joe Millionaire\", \"For Love Or Money\", and the execrable \"Married By America.\" Hoping to cash in on this trend, and simultaneously tap and exploit a new demographic, Bravo has unleashed the disastrous \"Boy Meets Boy\" upon the world. And may they have mercy on us all.
The premise is simple and is designed to be light-hearted: an eligible gay man is courted by a number of suitors, eliminated show by show until one is left, but there's a twist. Half of the men are actually straight. This is not much of a big deal, but the inherent viciousness of the scenario kicks in after hearing the pay-off: if, at the end of the show, the gay man picks a straight man in disguise, the straight man wins a cash prize. The gay man gets nothing, or at least nothing more than a few parting gifts, a pat on the back, and a hearty round of \"Aren't you embarrassed? Well, thanks for playing!\"
Just the like the equally painful \"Queer Eye For The Straight Guy\" (another Bravo program), this show is another example of stereotypes run amok. What makes it even worse, though, is the fact that straight men are playing UP these stereotypes for cash. The producers of this show believe that all you have to do is put enough hair gel in a man's hair, dress up in Abercrombie & Fitch with a pair of designer sandals, strip him of all body hair and fat and voila! It's the gay equivalent to putting a white performer in blackface, and just as offensive to those of us -- like myself -- who are genuinely gay and don't dress/act like that. It implies that gays have no variance or chance for individuality, that they can't behave like real people, only like stereotypes. Never mind the fact that the bank of suitors is sorely lacking in any kind of diversity. All are gym-toned, most are white, and all look far too scrubbed and cleaned.
This is another example of how, instead of fostering acceptance of gays as dynamic individuals capable of variance and change, Hollywood has again taken a stereotype and run with it all the way to the bank. I feel genuinely dirty watching this show, as show any gay man who sees this unabashed parade of soft-core pornography masquerading as legitimate television. 1 out of 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\nThe Nutcracker has always been a somewhat problematic ballet. It bears little resemblance to ETA Hoffman's original story on which it is based.
In the ballet, the story is essentially over by the second-half when Clara (or Marie in this version) travels to the Kingdom of Sweets to watch a series of character dances.
There's an infinite variety of stage productions that re-interpret the story in myriad ways (not always successfully) to compensate for the ballet's weak libretto.
Balanchine's version doesn't really have any sense of drama or story at all (despite the fact that there is plenty of drama and mystery in Tchaikovsky's wonderful first-act music). The result is a completely forgettable first-half Christmas party where hardly anything happens and where even the dancing (the little that there is of it) isn't particularly memorable.
The pantomime over-acting, particularly of Drosselmeier, which might look passable on the stage, just looks silly filmed for the big screen.
Unfortunately, things aren't much better when we get to the Kingdom of Sweets (Act II in the stage version). Although there are a few choreographic highlights, most of the choreography is bland and uninspiring. This certainly isn't vintage Balanchine.
Balanchine is widely regarded as a master of abstract dance, but I have always felt he was less successful as a creator of narrative ballets. Watching this film version of his stage production of The Nutcracker has only re-affirmed this view.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI have seen many, many productions of The Nutcracker. Now perhaps I viewed this movie from the tainted point of view of a theatrical director, but I was disappointed. I'm sure people in the specific business of ballet choreography find this production impressive but from a purely theatrical perspective I found everything from design to choreography to be lackluster and unbefitting of a \"motion picture\". None of the traditionally \"weird\" and impressive costumes looked like what they were supposed to be (i.e. the candies didn't look like candies, the rats didn't look like rats but rather like chocolate kisses,) the acting was weak, perhaps toned down too much for the screen, and the choreography just didn't do anything for me. This makes the entire show very satisfactory (at best), as if it were intended to not set itself apart from any other production. But remember, again, this is from the artistic perspective of a theatrical director, not a dancer or a choreographer, but a straight male theatrical director.
\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 cannot vote on this because I wouldn't watch garbage from these people. They got my money with another movie (Mr. Jingles) and I swore it would never happen again. I feel it's my civic duty to help people stay away from this trash. Go to the forums on this film and read where cast members try to act like they are seeing the movie for the first time. One guy even responds to himself ...using the same name! There are shills in the forum that say it's as good as Shawshank Redemption and Citizen Kane...Not even close (by no means). If this is the company's 2nd movie, it should be better than the first. That means the 3rd movie should be a lot better. Not so, I've seen it. All I want to know is how you distribute this trash using the same names all the time. Having fun with friends and making a movie over the weekend is fine...but don't try to market that trash!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI don't really post comments, but wanted to make sure to warn people off this film. It's an unfinished student film with no redeeming features whatsoever. On a technical level, it's completely amateur - constant unintentional jump edits within scenes, dubbing wildly off, etc. The plot is completely clichéd, the structure is laughable, and the acting is embarrassing. I don't want to be too harsh: I've made my share of student films, and they were all awful, but there's no reason for this film to be out in the world where innocent fans will have to see it.
Safe assumption that - much like the cast - positive comments are filmmakers, friends, and family.
\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 is a lot to like here. The actors are first rate and the script provides good dialog best capturing the ambiance of a tightly knit, likable family. However, for that reason the film does not ring true. We see Leo, who apparently just learned of his HIV positive diagnosis, essentially react in a way that is not in tune to the supportive atmosphere for which he finds himself. As well, the film ends somewhat abruptly avoiding what Leo, his brother and the rest of this close family must have dealt with in light of their love for him. The young actor who plays Leo's brother, Marcel, is impressive as generally is the rest of the cast. Unfortunately, the scriptwriters could not decide onwhether they wanted an insightful dissertation on the effects of HIV on a functional, appealing family or what the devastation HIV is on the victim - so it only hints at both. While this film provides food for thought it leaves the viewer wanting much more than it delivers.
\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 must be that one guy in America that didn't like this movie. I guess this just wasn't my style or something, I just don't see what's so fascinating about it, this was *barely entertaining, let alone one of the greatest achievements in cinema history.
It's about a guy that came from nothing, and goes on to become a drug lord. Pretty simple way to describe an entire movie, and that's exactly my feeling about the entire movie. Contrary to what a lot of people think, just because a movie is about mafias/drug trade/criminal groups doesn't automatically make it a great movie, don't forget good storytelling.
\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 really a proper review since I did not see most of the film. I stopped watching it. The film is very violent, with nasty drug dealers and street punks, but that is not why I stopped watching.
Here was the problem: I watched just enough to be introduced to several characters, all of whom were not interesting. Everyone was a tedious, despicable psychopath, with no engaging personalities, giving me nothing to look forward to. I found myself not the least bit curious about what they would do next or what might happen to them.
If there had been even one person of interest, and I don't mean good or nice person, I mean an interesting person, I could have stayed with it. Watch \"State of Grace\" to see what I mean. In that film the Gary Oldman character is a complete lunatic, but he is *very* interesting. Al Pacino perhaps did a good job in Scarface, but his character just did not engage 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\nSpoken like a true hard-boiled u'an gangsta. The story is no worse than any number of gangster flicks, but never ever confuse this movie with The Godfather I or II, or Goodfellas. It is not in the same league.
But what makes the film periodically painful to watch is all these Italian Americans swaggering around dropping bad gangsta lines in an even worse fake u'an accent. Pacino would have been great if they could just have dubbed him. I was looking forward to see Abrahams and Loggia, but their steenky accents spoiled the fun.
Ah well, the script ain't too hot either. Don Corleone would have made this disappear five minutes after meeting him, smiling and patting him on the back all the while.
\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 is nice to see the likes of Oliver Stone, Brian DePalma, Al Pacino, and even Michelle Pfiefer make one monumental piece of cinematic garbage. It is nice to see people so rich and 'successful' wasting their time on one of the most forgettable, trite, and pathetic pieces of film-making of all time. This movie represents the worst of Hollywood.
What is this? Is it based on a true story. Well, they do start with some basic news bites and facts that they read off USA today. But then the movie departs to some fantasy world and a 'cuban' refugee going to make it in the American drug subculture; kind of like Rocky on cocaine. Is it a movie about Cuba or Cubans? For the life of me I don't believe there is a single Cuban in this movie. The accents are totally fake, and scene with Antonio's mother looks like a poster for midwest American values. The whole scene looks like something out of the Dick Van Dyke show. Is this movie about Miami? It looks more like L.A. transposed in Florida. Afterall, a palm tree is a palm tree. Is this a romance novel. The relationship between Pacino and Pfeiffer is so obvious from the getgo, and there is not one shred of possibility that these two characters could ever care for each other. Is this a drug movie? Well, no issues of obsession or addiction are even mentioned. The behavior of the actors after a line of coke is nothing different than had they had a drink of water. Admittedly, the acting is terrible.
Let's get to the rest. The music is disgusting and sounds like latin elevator music or something out of a Lawrence Welk show. I think I heard a polka? The camera work is shoddy with too much movement and far more cranes than could ever be effective. Clearly, the photography budget was excessive. The sound is bleached in a number of spots, and the dialogue seems to be carried out in a warehouse. The writing is appalling. This is one of those movies were the script writes itself. You are dragged from one trite piece of dialogue to the next, each pushing the plot like a sack of bricks.
So I am going to ask, Is this even a movie? It could be a drama series patched together for two and a half hours. But at least a drama series has some kind of focus. Maybe it is just a bunch of poorly acted scenes taped together. Whatever it is, movie or not, it is a piece of crap.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt wasn't the most pointless animation film experience ever, but it certainly can't be admired as much as it tries to be good. Combining Dreamworks animation and computer graphics, this is the story of a mustang, later named Spirit (Matt Damon, providing the first person narration), and his journey through across the frontiers of the Old West. Basically he is born free amongst all the other horses in the beautiful countryside, then he is kidnapped to be used as a saddle horse, he manages to throw off all who try to ride him. However when he escapes his cage, along with Little Creek (Daniel Studi), the two of them form a friendship, oh, and he obviously has a thing for Little Creek's female horse. In the end, after a few more escapes, being chased by The Colonel (James Cromwell) and his men, and making a final big leap across a gorge, Little Creek lets Spirit go, and he also releases his female horse, and they run home to their countryside and fellow horses. Also starring Chopper Bernet as Sgt. Adams, Jeff LeBeau as Murphy/Railroad Foreman, John Rubano as Soldier, Richard McGonagle as Bill and Matthew Levin as Joe. I was expecting to see the horses talk in this film, but it turns out to be more like a Dumbo thing throughout, and the songs by Bryan Adams aren't the most engaging, but it isn't a terrible film. It was nominated the Oscar for Best Animated Feature, and it was nominated the Golden Globe for Best Song for Bryan Adams' \"Here I Am\". Okay!
\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\nHere's the good news first. \"Spirit\" is the most visually incredible animated film in current home theater release. The artwork and effects are revolutionary, and I recommend that you give this movie a look by virtue of the visuals alone.
And now for the bad news. I really mean it when I say that the animation is the only thing this movie has going for it. You may remember that \"Spirit\" got badly trounced by \"Lilo and Stitch\" last summer. The first person who argues that it was because Disney is more well-established and had better advertising can write me a four page long essay entitled \"Why 'Lilo and Stitch''s Script Didn't Stink\".
For all the incredible new animation technology on display in \"Spirit\", the story is almost *astonishingly* dull. There is a lesson here, and (needless to say) it doesn't just apply to animated movies. You can have the most mind-blowing visual effects ever to grace the eyes of a mortal, but if your story is boring and, more importantly, we don't care about your characters, it's bad film-making. Simple as that. The animation is still mind-blowing; I just can't wait to see what somebody with more imagination does with it.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"