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 confess to have quite an uneasy feeling about ghosts movies, and while I sometimes enjoy the genre when it comes to horror, but when it comes to comedies, they really need to be crazy to be funny. 'Over Her Dead Body' seems to take afterlife a little bit too seriously, and fails in my opinion from almost any aspect I can think about. The story is completely unbelievable of course, and did not succeed to convince me either in the comic or in the sentimental register. The choice of the principal actresses was awful. While Paul Rudd is at least handsome and looks like a nice guy, the taste in ladies of his character seems to need serious improvement as Eva Longoria seems too aged (sorry) for him, and Lake Bell seems too unattractive (sorry again). A romantic story without good enough reason for romance is due to failure from start. Jason Biggs and Lindsey Sloane were actually better but they had only supporting roles. The rest is uninteresting and uninspired, with flat cinematography and cheap gags borrowed from unsuccessful TV comedies. Nothing really worth watching, nothing to remember.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nthis movie was terrible. i thought with all the some what decent actors, it would be better. don't waste your time. Eva longoria parker was awful. she should stick to desperate housewives. Paul Rudd is becoming a B actor. the mess he made in the movie i could never be your woman was the epitome of what i'm saying. and lake bell she was cute but definitely in need of some more acting lessons. watch just like heaven with Reese Witherspoon...it was a tad better. or any other ghost movie. you will be grateful to not have wasted your precious time. PS i love you is also a good from beyond the grave romance! time to start watching movies rated over 7 out of 10 and listen to the people who have already seen 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\nObnoxious Eva Longoria dies on her wedding day when an ice sculpture of an angel (without wings) falls on her off the back of a truck and kills her. She is then tries to ruin the relationship of her ex-boyfriend with his new girlfriend, a psychic who can see her.
Obvious unoriginal movie wouldn't be bad in a clichéd sort of way, except that Longoria's character is hateful and obnoxious that she drains all of the fun out of the film. Its like having your ears cleaned with sandpaper. To be fair Longoria, nor anyone else in the cast or crew, isn't the problem, its the god awful script that sinks the proceedings. Its just really really stupid.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWell this is the first post am ever commenting on IMDb., do you get it, this movie has made me come and warn all the good souls who will stop ever experimenting with movies.
As most of them have given their comments I thought of watching this movie because it seemed to have some decent actors(though having read worst critics against this movie) I thought of experimenting it assuming it to be some comedy flick., Well it all started well with some ahem., comedies.... then it all started going pathetic... man you can believe your self, you wud feel like going and banging your head each and every time the pathetic looking woman called the heroine of the movie is made helpless...Huh~~ Well how much can a person digest a sick all POSSESSIVE witch kinda ghost trying to do all she can to irritate you and stop you from what you are doing.
The next worst thing about the movie is, the \"ZOMBIE\" Hero, yes as he looses his fiancé he roams around like a Goat, with black marks under his eyes., and with the hero's \"terribly stupid\" sister.. you wud be bleeding from head to toe if you attempted and succeeded by completely watching this movie~!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\ni didn't even bother finishing the movie because i was so bored i thought i was going to pass out i was watching it in the movie theaters and me and my friends just got tired so we got up and left to another movie if i ever have to sit through 2 min. of that movie again i think I'm going to shoot myself...and i do know the whole entire movie because my friend told me what happened at the end and i wasn't surprised at all i mean who didn't know she was going to do the right thing and let him be happy i mean for real you would have to be a complete idiot not to know that. i know i didn't miss anything and if somebody ask's me to see that movie i would say \"over my dead body\".
\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\nMuch of \"Over Her Dead Body\" is so painfully unfunny that I was actually squirming in my seat out of embarrassment for the actors.
Eva Longoria proves that she can't carry a film in this terrible romantic comedy, and further, that she doesn't really even have any comedic timing. She's grating and annoying as a ghost who returns to earth to keep a cooky psychic from dating her widower fiancé. The fiancé is played by Paul Rudd, drippy and charmless, while the psychic is played by Lake Bell, bringing the movie whatever anemic energy it has. I felt most sorry for Bell, as she appears to have some comic abilities and was working overtime in an effort to make the material work. Unfortunately, she is up against the insurmountable task of making any movie that features Jason Biggs tolerable, and she is dragged down with the rest of the cast like Leo DiCaprio at the end of \"Titanic.\"
\"Over Her Dead Body\" actually pi**ed me off, because of its laziness and utter lack of effort. I started to think of all the interesting projects that can't get funded because vast amounts of money are being funneled into bland crap like this. Seriously, does Hollywood think movies like this are good enough? How stupid do they really think the movie-going public is?
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\nYou know you are in trouble watching a comedy, when the only amusing parts in it are from the Animal cast. It is a pity then that the parrot, Cat & Dog were only in support & not the other way around, as the humans in it were pretty abysmal throughout.
If I were you, Paul, Eva, Lake (what sort of name is that), Jason, & Lindsay, I would forget this acting lark & do something else, as all of you are as funny as watching paint dry, & awful actors to boot.
The main gag in the film is one of the characters shouting, me not Gay, which is funny as if you weren't, you might change your mind if you had to put up with the three bossy, tedious & dare I say very plain women leads in the film.
The worst film I have seen in years, & hopefully never see one as bad again, though I expect not.
\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\nSorry guys, I've already written my opinion of this movie but today was the first day I looked at some of the other reviews. There are a quite a lot of people who agree with me but what's scary is that there are some people who seem to really like this movie. I don't like to write nasty reviews or criticise other people's opinions but I think it's only fair to warn anybody out there who may be debating whether or not to see this movie. This is not a good movie. I really like movies and I'll watch just about anything but this movie made it onto the incredibly short list of movies I watched and was happy to leave halfway through. If you really are incredibly tempted, watch the trailer...that's the mistake I made because the entire movie is essentially in the trailer...after that there are no surprises, just some shockingly bad dialogue to waste time. I love Michael Vartan in Alias and would hate to criticise him but I think it's my duty to stop other people wasting hours of their life on a movie like this!!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis really was the worst movie I have ever seen. Michael Vartan is hot, but who is this woman? And she looks absolutely awful through the whole movie, the hair is so bad! They talk in like monotone voices and there is nooo chemistry. The cover of the DVD does not even remotely come close to what the movie actually is. Really, really boring. I had to fast forward through some of it because it was so painful to watch. I really want to know how i on earth anyone could think this is good? hhaha they literally just like talk and say \"yeah\" and there is no passion whatsoever. I could not tell at all that they were in love. I'm sorry but this was the saddest excuse for a movie I think I have ever seen.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSure, it had some of the makings of a good film. The storyline is good, if a bit bland and the acting was good enough though I didn't understand why Olivia d'Abo had such a pronounced Australian accent if her character was supposed to have been raised in the US. My biggest problem, however, was with the wardrobe. I know as rule, the average American is considered a frumpy dresser by any self-respecting European but this was beyond that. Anna's colour combinations were positively ghastly!! And that potato sack-like, sad excuse for a coat she wore throughout the film made me break out in hives. I suppose the idea was to be as realistic as possible (how many school teachers walk around in Prada?) but simple doesn't mean an absolute lack of taste. A word to the wise...
\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 just want to make one thing clear- I love Michael Vartan! But this film really lets him down. His acting is still superb, he's still as charming as ever, and he still looks great. But the film itself is a load of rubbish! Natasha Henstridge, I'm sorry to say it, comes over bit manly... you're constantly waiting for her to run off with her best friend, who's own sub-storyline is a little weird. Myself and my family (who sat down and watched the film with me) were also put off by the soundtrack to the film; at times the music just didn't fit with what was going on in the scenes. However, even this was not the worst aspect of what I found to be a very disappointing film. I could forgive the leading lady's butch-ness, I could forgive the freakish characters that were thrown in to the mix, and I could forgive the poor choice of musical accompaniment, but whose choice was it to cut out the whole middle section of the film and skip straight to the end??? The ending was obviously planned from the beginning but how it gets there is left untold. If you're a Michael Vartan fan skip this film: buy yourself a poster 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\nGreat movie - especially the music - Etta James - \"At Last\". This speaks volumes when you have finally found that special someone.
\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\nLook, there's nothing spectacularly offensive about this film, it's just boring. It's a typical rom-com with an ending you can see coming before you've seen so much as the trailer. The key difference is that the classic rom-coms tackle their stories with wit and a lack of pretension. This movie has no pretension but it really has no sense of movement, you feel as though you could get up and walk away at any moment. The production of the movie also has the feel of a debut movie made about fifteen years ago. I'd recommend re-watching a classic movie like When Harry Met Sally instead of this shallow imitation. Oh, one other BIG problem...no chemistry. If you're used to seeing Michael looking all cute as Vaughn in Alias, you're going to be seriously disappointed with the way they've made him look 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\nI'm a sucker for a good romance, but this one doesn't qualify as either good or a romance. I had the plot nailed down before the credits were through. With such poor dialog, plot and character development, I suggest investing your hour and a half elsehere. I had to rush out and rent Serendipity for the third time so I could get the bad taste of this one out of my mouth.
\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\nPoorly structured, badly written, loaded with cliches and flat dialogue. Not a single scene shines. The actors struggle with a painfully dull scenario that manages to completely avoid any surprises, plot twists or conflict. You know from the first ten minutes where it's going.
For a movie set in NY, it has almost no feeling for the city. There are a dozen other indie movies that manage to make it seem magical on a small budget. This one seems like it was shot in Toronto.
If you cast Natasha Henstridge, why dress her in baggy sweaters? Why make Vartan look boring and drab? Where's the attraction? I felt like I was watching a sub-par Christian movie of the week it was so asexual and moralizing.
Steven Feder's big success is that he convinced people to make this bland movie.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n\" It had to be You\" is another sign that Hollywood is running out of ideas. This picture is about Charlie Hudson a former police officer turned Author. When Charlie's fiancé goes out of town he's stuck with all of the wedding planning. He spends a week at a fancy hotel and meets Anna Penn a teacher who just happens to also be getting married. The two quickly become friends and set out to plan their separate weddings together. This is when the plot gets boring, Charlie falls in love with Anna and she has to choose between a safe life or Charlie. This movie rips off every romantic comedy ever made and just has you waiting for the end of the movie so you can do something else. Micahel Vartan and Natasha Henstridge give really mediocre performances which just makes this movie all the more gut wrenching to watch.
\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 supposed to be well-researched and based on fact. How come therefore that it's so packed with McGovernisms. Did the people of Derry live in some kind of bizarre Philip K. Dick world in which reality was uncannily like Cracker/ Liam/ Priest? Or is McGovern an idle hack who just keeps repeating hims
\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\nBeing an independent filmmaker and a huge fan of Edward D. Wood Jr. I purchased this documentary believing that this would finally set the record straight on how gifted and brilliant Ed Wood actually was.
What I got was a disappointing self-centered, conflictive, contradictory compilation of bitter self-aggrandizing has-beens.
Where people DO remember Ed Wood Jr., do people actually remember the second cousin of the guy with the duct tape who knew someone who was in Plan Nine From Outer Space?
It appears as though, the very minute there is a renewed interest in Ed Wood, these people come out of the \"Wood\"work! Only to take mean spirited swipes at someone who actually gave them a chance when no-one else would! After 50 years I would suggest that many of these people should let go of the fact that they didn't get the $75 they were promised!
Ed Wood was a brilliant creative filmmaker who knew how to entertain. In-fact that was ALL he lived for. You may giggle when you see Ed's films, but somehow you are aware that you are laughing WITH him, and not AT him.
But, I digress... Back to the film at hand. If you are expecting a film ABOUT Edward D. Wood Jr., you won't get it here. If you want a film about cranky bitter old actors, this is the film for you!
\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\nEssentially a story of man versus nature, this film has beautiful cinematography, the lush jungles of Ceylon and the presence of Elizabeth Taylor but the film really never gets going. Newlwed Taylor is ignored and neglected by her husband and later is drawn to the plantation's foreman, played by Dana Andrews. The plantation is under the spell of owner Peter Finch's late father whose ghost casts a pall over Elephant Walk that becomes a major point of contention between Taylor and Finch. The elephants are determined to reclaim their traditional path to water that was blocked when the mansion was built across their right-of-way. The beasts go on a rampage and provides the best moments of action in the picture. Taylor and Andrews have some good moments as she struggles to remain a faithful wife in spite of he marital difficulties with Finch.
\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\nELEPHANT WALK was a thoroughly dull film and I really was quite happy when finally a herd of elephants stormed through the mansion and ended this film. Considering the money and cast, you'd sure expect the film to be a lot better, though I also question the odd casting of Dana Andrews as a man who is in love with Elizabeth Taylor. It's not just the age difference but I just can't see the pair as a couple. Perhaps some of this may be the fault of substituting Miss Taylor for Vivian Leigh at the last minute (due to Miss Leigh's deteriorating mental condition)--though I also have a hard time visualizing Andrews and Leigh as well. In addition, for an English woman, Miss Taylor doesn't even seem to try using an accent.
The film begins with Peter Finch and Taylor meeting and marrying in England. Their plan is to return to Finch's tea plantation in Ceylon (Sri Lanka) and at first it seems like a good life. However, there are no women to talk with and the household staff seem to resent her. On top of that, once back home, Finch behaves like a boorish jerk and Taylor is miserable. Neighbor Andrews can see this and he declares his undying passion for her. However, Taylor isn't yet ready to abandon her marriage. But, through the course of the film Finch treats Liz more and more like an object and finally she is ready to leave...when out of the blue, Cholera strikes the plantation. So it's up to Andrews, Finch and Taylor to work together to save the day--though by this point I really didn't care, as there is absolutely no chemistry between the characters, the dialog is pretty dull and you can't understand why Taylor didn't leave her weasel husband within days of arriving in this inhospitable hell.
The film isn't particularly engaging or convincing and despite a decent budget by Paramount, the film is a sluggish mess. I particularly was surprised that although the film appeared to be filmed on location, many scenes were clearly filmed in a studio with a rear projected (and grainy) shot that wasn't integrated well. In one scene, for instance, Taylor, Finch and the lot are sitting on the veranda and the grass is bright green. Then, when the picture cuts to people dancing right in front of them, the grass is brown! It's clear they really are NOT in Ceylon in this scene or the scene with the giant reclining Buddha. My advice is to skip this one or at least keep a pot of coffee nearby to keep you awake. Despite its budget, it's just not a very good or inspired film.
By the way, could Miss Taylor have been pregnant during part of this film? In some scenes (particularly at the beginning) she's wearing billowy clothes, has a double-chin and looks puffy. This isn't a criticism--after all, women do get pregnant! But if you look carefully, you'll see what I mean.
Also by the way, the basic plot in many ways is similar to GIANT--a great Taylor film indeed! It's amazing how casting and decent direction can do so much.
\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 author of the book, by the same title, should not have let her name be used for this movie. if you have read the book, this movie takes such a liberal interpretation of the actual events in the book and its spirit that the movie and book seem to have quite little in common except the title and some superficial details. the movie adds nothing, in terms of artistic merit, to the book's own literary achievement.
for those who have not read the book: you will also be disappointed. not only does the plot move at an incredibly slow pace, it doesn't offer anything more while it is moving slowly (like character development, for example). some viewers might be entertained by some of the graphic lesbian love scenes later on in the movie, but you might as well watch a showtime special for the stuff they show in therese and isabelle--its fairly tame and not imaginative 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\nI'm not sure how related they are, but I'm almost certain that Lost and Delirious is a remake of this movie (or the story that it's based on). Very similar plotline, and even some of the scenes and sets seem to be very, very similar. Lost & Delirious is actually a much better movie, so see that one instead.
This one moves very slowly, but being a late 60s French movie, that is to be expected of the style. Told in a retrospect from the perspective of one of the girls revisiting the school. The editing of the flashbacks with the current scenes is a little bit confusing at first, particularly since the audio from each overlaps (ie, hearing flashbacks while seeing the present and vice versa). Also, the \"girls\" are a bit old to think that they are in a boarding school. Finally, not much character development to even get you attached to the movie.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nShallow, shallow script ...stilted acting ...the shadows of boom mikes lingering over the actors' heads in scenes ...worth watching because Kate Mulgrew plays the most selfish mother in TV movie history and it's all before Ben Affleck got his teeth capped.
\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 tragedy of the doomed ship Titanic has inspired many books and movies. The battle between nature and technology always caught man's imagination. The latest film concerning this tragedy in the Atlantic Ocean was written and directed by famous action movie filmmaker James Cameron. The story of \"Titanic\" involves two fictional characters (Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet) from different backgrounds (one is a hobo-artist, the other is an aristocrat) and how their love triumphs over societal barriers and the tragedy of a sinking ship that they happen to be on.
First of all, although using a historical name, this movie had little regard to history. The plot was built around two fictional lovers, French diamond, and treasure hunters. The deaths of over a thousand of people on the greatest luxury ship of its time became a mere background. Many historical facts were simply forgotten. Where was the radio operator that ignored the iceberg warnings? Why was there no mention of the ship that was only 5 miles away from the Titanic but did not come to the rescue because its captain failed to identify the distress signal? Omitting these facts is an insult to the tragedy. And what was the point of flavoring this historical disaster with fictional cheesy romance when the story is already as sad as it is.
The overall plot was rather shallow; rich equals greed and corruption, poverty equals compassion and heroism. It is very ironic to spend $200 million to make a movie about how money corrupts. There was absolutely no human side shown in anti-heroes. It seemed like Billy Zane was playing a part of the devil. Casting was also very poor. If DiCaprio was 2 inches shorter than Winslet, you could swear she was his baby-sitter. The length of the movie was unnecessarily stretched to over 3 hours. First hour and the half was wasted on establishing the relationships between the characters that were known to audience long before they went to theater and the dialogue that was used to do so made it even worse. Hearing corny pick up lines such as \"I see you\" and \"This is my side of the ship\" generated more pain than the screams of drowning people. Also, jokes were too abundant and rather lame.
\"Titanic\" did involve some moving scenes such as the part when the musicians were playing while the ship was sinking but they were no way near anything original. The best thing about this film were its special effects, and that is the only thing that truly deserved an award.
Although this film lacked artistical value in overall sense, the public could not resist a sentimental story starring Romeo (DiCaprio), and so the movie became a success. Now it is safe to say that the industry will be less hesitant to invest large amounts of money in a single motion picture, so it seems that \"Titanic\" did achieve something after 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\nOnce upon a time there was a director by the name of James. He brought us wonderfully, thrilling science-fiction such as Terminator and Aliens. These movies were the stuff blockbusters were made of and he looked to have a fantastic future ahead of him as the dawn of computer generated special effects landed upon the film industry. Terminator 2 showed gave us glimpses of what was possible in this new era.
.......and then it happened...................1997........countless awards..........obscene amounts of money............outlandish barrage of advertising............maximum profit margin........Titanic was here!
I have never (ever) been one to jump on the bandwagon and be overly critical for the sake of it, in fact I have often taken the opposite stance from the majority just to get an argument going. Titanic however was a film I only took one single positive out of - that of Kate Winslett being absolutely gorgeous throughout!
Quickly - the dialogue was like something out of Beverly Hills 90210, the acting was more wooden than my nephew's tree house, images meant to terrify were actually comical (man falling from ship and hitting propeller), historically false (don't even get me started because there's too much), it had dire theme music (up there with the bodyguard for cheese) and the pointless love story was so tedious, self absorbing and pathetic that it disrespected the plight of everyone else involved (I was glad when he died and disappointed when she did not).
It was plainly obvious from the word go that this picture was designed to appeal to MTV watching, bubblegum chewing, boy-with-car chasing, teenage girls (DeCaprio himself resembled something less heroic than the weedy member of a boy band) who would drag their sex-starved boyfriends out for a three and a half hour chick-flick hoping to get lucky later! The worst aspect was that it did not stop at that point. Millions of dumbed down, culture vultures went to see this expensive waste of celluloid because \"it cost so much to produce it must be great\" and \"Steve and Barbara said it was good and they know their movies\".
The crowning glory arrived when Titanic swept the boards at the Academy Awards. King James of Hollywood had a serious moment of silence for the victims of the fatal evening on which his three and a half hour farce was based. It looked to me as if he was praying for forgiveness after making a fortune off inaccurately portraying the circumstances that lead to the death of a lot of people.
However, if people are stupid and sentimental enough to buy into this kind of rubbish they deserve to get ripped off. Good luck to Hollywood if that is how they want to make money, I'd do it if I had those kind of chances in life!
It is right up there on my all time worst movies list with other silly, historically false/human interest tripe like \"The Patriot\" and \"Pearl Harbor\".
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI've just had the evidence that confirmed my suspicions. A bunch of kids, 14 to 22 put on the DVD of \"Titanic\" on a fantastic state of the art mega screen home entertainment type deal. Only two of them had actually seen it before. But they all had seen the moment of Kate, Leo and Celine Dion so many times that most of them felt they had seen the whole movie. Shortly after the epic started, they started to get restless, some of them left asking the others -- \"call us when the iceberg appears\" Over an hour and a half into the movie, only the two girls who had seen the movie before, were still there. They started shouting: iceberg, iceberg. A stampede followed, they all came back to see the sinking of the Titanic. They sat open mouthed, emitting Ohs and far outs. So, just like I thought when the movie first burst into the scene. What is this? One and a half hours waiting for the bloody thing to sink but what about the rest of the of it. Dr. Zivagho, for instance, had a similar running time, but think how much takes place in that film within the same period of time. In \"Titanic\" Leo teaches Kate how to spit. Look at the faces and hands of the, supposedly, creme de la creme in the first class dining room of the ship. Look at the historical details, if you can find them. The storyline is so thin that they have to introduce guns and shootings in a ship that is about to sink. The real sinking here is of film standards. All the efforts are focus on special effects and opening week ends. The film went on to become the highest grossing movie of all time so, what do I know?
\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 I think I'll probably like best about the new Star Wars film, \"Phantom Menace\", is that it will likely blow \"Titanic\" out of the water, if you'll pardon the pun, when it comes to sheer devastating box office receipts, and thereby knock it out of the number one spot. Every time I hear someone declare \"Titanic\" is the greatest film they've ever seen, I think to myself, \"You don't see a lot of movies, do you?\" What a travesty. You could make 50 good films that are a lot better than \"Titanic\", and for the same price tag.
\"Well, it won lots of academy awards, lots of people really loved it,\" as someone might say in its defence. Well, lots of people like the Spice Girls and billions and billions of people eat at McDonald's, but that doesn't mean it's high quality. Yes, millions of Elvis fans CAN be wrong.
I'll be the first to admit, that part of the problem for me was the mega-hype over the film. I waited a month or so to see it and ultimately, it didn't live up to the expectations set upon it, which simply called more attention to the appallingly stupid love story. It's true, \"Phantom Menace\" will likely suffer a similar fate. but.
James Cameron's \"Titanic\" is. a) a cheesy action flick thinly disguised as a serious period piece. b) a three-hour epic that has it's finest moments given away in the trailer. c) a sappy love story beyond belief or entertainment. d) something left better to documentarians, which I would've enjoyed much more. e) a film with arrogance that lives up to the level demonstrated with the real ship. f) a robbery of 3 hours that I will never get back, therefore the greatest motivation for a time machine I can think of. When I meet someone who hasn't seen it yet, I say, \"I wish I could trade places with you.\" g) a slap in the face to any genuine victim of hypothermia. How long are we supposed to believe that people can be immersed in freezing cold water and still form intelligible sentences? h) thankfully a film that wasn't recognized for any acting achievements at the Oscars. i) a technological achievement in filmmaking, and little else.
The only reason I post this as a anonymous comment is I do NOT welcome the rebuttal of 10,000 thirteen year old Leonardo DiCaprio fans who'll no doubt come to his defense, and I am not really interested in hearing a defense of Titanic's story, acting or length.
\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\nFirst of all, as a long time student of the Titanic disaster and member of several Titanic clubs, I feel entitled to comment on the film. I don't really care how many awards and accolades the film won, but to me it is still an absolutely awful film. Cameron had the resources to make a 'proper' semi-documentary film of the disaster but unfortunately chose to turn it into a po-faced romantic mush. The fact that so many people around the world fell for it only shows, to my mind, the sad state of taste and common sense that movie critics and audiences have these days. Whoever said that all movies should have a hero and heroine falling in love? In fact most real events are anything but romantic and the Titanic disaster certainly was not one. I feel that it needed a better script and director with a semi-documentary approach and as little artistic license as possible. I almost threw up in the last sequence where the 'dead' lovers meet among the other lost passengers and crew who break out in applause. Is this an intelligent film? Ask yourself.
\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 see people writing about how great this movie was. It was horrible! The acting was sub-par at best. It made a lot of money because teenage girls went to see the movie 7 times in the theaters because of Leonardo. Where the hell did they get the money? Anyway, I wanted to learn more about the Titanic; why it sank, what was running through a lot of people's minds; maybe even a little conspiracy stuff. Does anyone realize that certain people didn't even board the ship because there was a fire on board before it even took off? No, you don't because all you see is a rich girl falling for a poor boy and he paints her naked (did that corny junk at least tip you off that the movie was stupid?).
I did cry in during one scene, though. The scene when they showed the water that was filling up in the ship. It looked like pool water! I'm thinking this movie made all this money and they couldn't even make the water from the ocean look real? unbelievable...
Ohhh the band played on while the ship sank.. Just ridiculous. This was the worst movie until Pearl Harbor outdid it in the \"Nothing to Do With Reality\" department.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI, like many people, saw this film in the theatre when it first came out in '97. It was a below average film at best, defiantly not the \"masterpiece\" that all these \"Titanic\" fanboys like to make it out as. First off, DiCaprio is a terrible actor no matter which way you look at it. People just like him because of his looks. His acting \"skills\" essentially consist of saying a lot of cheesy lines and trying to act sexy. Second, the film itself had a rather boring and simple plot: girl falls in love with guy, ship they're on sinks, lots of crappy love scenes thereafter. Anyone with an IQ above 50 will realize this isn't ingenious in any way whatsoever. Nor is it original. Plus the director felt the need to drag it out for 3+ hours. I could compress it into a 1 hour block without losing any of the plot. In conclusion, \"Titanic\" is the most overrated movie to date. Why it got so much attention and money is beyond 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\nThere is a lot of obvious hype associated with this film. Let's just face it, though, the main reasons why anyone would watch it would be for Leo and Cate, who are not necessarily the best actors in this film. I'm not saying they're not good actors, I'm saying they stunk in this film. The special effects were decent (and I will say the film makers did a good job making the ship eye-pleasing), but IT even has several major flaws. For instance, right before the ship goes under, you can see an unfinished blue-screen image behind your main characters.
Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the story of the REAL Titanic, but I find this movie an insult to that story. Editing was atrocious--there's no reason for any film to be over 2 1/2 hours (with the exception of MAYBE a biographical movie), and the writing and screenplay was horribly stilted.
I will say that the music was perhaps better than I could have predicted (and not just the \"My Heart Will Go On\" song either). There is one scene that stands out to me when the ship is sinking and pounding bass music is heard. That could very well be the highlight of the film. As for the mood throughout, it was extremely dull. I was more relieved than sad when Jack died, which I know cannot be what the director intended.
In a nut shell, I find it horrible that they turned the beautiful story of the Titanic into an over-hyped chick flick.
\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 piece of junk this movie was. The premise was okay, but even in the beginning with crappy effects to blend in a giant with normal sized people (even the effects in Hercules was better) I knew this would be bad. But the really awful part of the movie is the dialogs. It's completely incoherent, silly and stupid. I felt like it had been written by some 9th grader in creative class and gotten a D-. I want to slap Casper van Diem and the other actors for following this movie through.
I've had my share of cheesy and bad movies (I love the tremors series), but this... I do not recommend it at all. It's silly and the totally flabbergastingly bad dialogs will make you cringe.
\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 fallen ones\" falls under the waste of life (WOL) category. I am sad that I am now two hours older was not entertained. My other family members also watched this movie and threw demeaning comments at the screen and rooted for the mummy. I felt sorry for the actors (Wagner). I have read other negative reviews and cannot add anything else to this movie other than it could be reduced to 25 minutes so it could take a 30 minute slot on TV without any loss of plot. It reminds me of a dish that has several good ingredients but when served is bland with no flavor at all. In my humble opinion, The 42 foot mummy should have been 8-10 feet and improved the plot by taking out the mystic and replacing him with several people who want to denigh the facts and want DNA samples for evil reasons. The heroes are discredited and tossed on there ear by their colleges. Later after everything was screwed up by the evil people. The heroes would save the day and prove everyone wrong.
\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\nSome moron who read or saw some reference to angels coming to Earth, decided to disregard what he'd heard about the offspring of humans and angels being larger than normal humans. Reinventing them as mythical giants that were 40 feet tall, is beyond ridiculous. There was some historical references to housing and furniture in parts of the world, that were much larger than would be needed for standard humans. These were supposedly built on a scale that would lend itself to a 10 to 14 foot human, somewhat supporting the \"David and Goliath\" tale from the bible. There is no mention in any historical references to buildings or artifacts that would support the idea of a 40 foot tall being. If I was rating this movie on my own scale, it would have been a negative value instead of a 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\nI saw not so fabulous rating on IMDb, but I went to see it anyway, because I am a big fan of Bible related material. First thing that bothered me was a little too much Indiana Jones wannabe movie, but it also looked like Casper Van Dien didn't see those Jones movies through (but he should). I believe he tried his best, but script just stunk. Music tried to be kinda Jones style too. Great work, but for such movie it seemed like too much work, like the video part did't deserve all that great music. Robert Wagner gave his best acting skills, he did a good job, but somehow the script was bringing everything down. \"Jokes\" are old school, somewhere 20 years old; they brought only cynic smile to my face. There are some really bad camera angels, SFX looks like homemade and unrealistic. Kevin VanHook had probably a good idea on the story (in my opinion, but I love such stories), but things just didn't work out in the end. Maybe he should put it on a paper when it was still fresh in his head. When I (in first minutes) saw that movie was going to be one of those 'low budget movies', I hoped that I will at least 'hear' a good story, but sometimes movies just disappoint.
\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 came into this movie really wanting to line it. I thought the premise had a lot of potential and was ripe for an interesting movie. Don't get me wrong here, I wasn't expecting Citizen Kane, I was taking this for the B movie that it is. That said, it still fell short of the expectation. The historical aspect of the story is glazed over and the ending left me a bit cold. The acting in the movie was very wooden. All in all I give it 4 for a great idea, but the movie could have scored much higher with a bit more attention to movie making fundamentals. Is it worth seeing? I didn't wish for my two hours back, but I don't know that I'd recommend it to others.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI had some time to kill before watching football so I saw this movie being offered on the scifi channel and it literally after watching it I thought I had encountered my version of mentally walking the Bataan death march as my conscious was beaten into submission by the awful movie which ripped off the Mummy series and Jurassic Park. It was so bad that I thought the opening credits were the highlight of the movie and then it went into such a abysmal descent that it made the recent drop in the stock market seem like a hiccup. The acting was so bad that I was hoping that one and all would be buried at the end. The lead by Casper Van Dien made me long for the high caliber acting of Steven Seagal in \"On Deadly Ground\" as his line reading was so wooden that Woody Woodpecker was thinking of making a cameo to sit on his shoulder. I also noticed that his emotional range is so limited that I was under the impression my kitten was more expressive when asking for popcorn to eat . The direction was so abysmal I looked back yearning to my nephew's grade 3 play recital which had more pace and better vision and the fact that this movie seems to be have spliced together from afterthoughts of the aforementioned movie franchise it can not even be thought of as a homage. The FX of the movie was so bad that I thought the director and producers were enviormentally friendly by recycling cheap special effects from grade Z horror flicks from yesteryear. What Robert Wagner, Tom Bosley and Geoffrey Lewis were doing in this movies is beyond me and they should look at litigation against their agents for misrepresentation for getting them involved with such a dreck of a movie. My warning to one and all is watch this movie at your peril as this movie may cause your IQ to diminish with prolonged viewing. On a side note I noticed at IMDb that sometimes salaries for movies are published I was wondering if their is a way that actors that should give the salaries back for their poor performances in such movies. Beware and be safe 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\n...from this awful movie! There are so many things wrong with this film, acting, writing, direction, editing, etc. that it's amazing that something rises to the top and proves itself to be the absolute worst. The music! I noted that the film has two composers listed. This must be the reason why every single frame has music, of the absolute worst \"D\" movie style drivel. They have never heard of the expression \"less is more\". It got so painful to listen to, I muted the sound every time there was no dialogue, not that the dialogue was that good. You have to feel sorry for Robert Wagner and Tom Bosley, I'm sure they didn't see roles like this in the twilight of their careers. See it at your own risk.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAn archaeologist (Casper Van Dien) stumbles accidentally upon an ancient, 40 foot mummy, well preserved underground in the Nevada desert. They are determined to keep this a secret and call in a Jewish translator to assist in figuring out the history of it. The mummy, as explained at the beginning, is the son of a fallen angel and is one of several giants that apparently existed in \"those days\". In order to save his son from a devastating flood which was predicted to kill everything, he mummifies his son, burying him with several servants for centuries - planning to awaken him years from then. In our present, the fallen angels still walk the earth and the mummy is resurrected and a ritual is expected to take place. Most of the movie is slow, having to do with a lot of biblical crap and a couple lousy, air-punching fights. The mummy is decent looking but isn't shown nearly enough. It should have had more to do with that but it dragged on a great deal so... eh. Don't bother.
\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\nMr. VanHook took a good idea and kicked like a football. Unfortunately, it didn't make the goal. The historical subject of giants is a good one, but pour in the goon milk and you end up with a giant wheel of cheese. I say, take this reel wheel and roll it off a cliff. I couldn't even watch the entire film. That says a lot because I rarely walk away from any movie. I always like to give them a chance for last-minute redemption. It's impossible to redeem something this bad. Well, at least the acting was good....NOT!
The only thing \"falling\" in this film is the rating. 1/10 and sinking into the negative numbers!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"