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 had heard some bad things about Cabin Fever almost as much as I heard the cultish hype. As it turns out, the first film from the new impresario Eli Roth, it's just a so-so effort with the IQ points dropping as the film progresses. There are worse movies out there, and surely more gory ones (while I'm not sure how the hype-meter got so high on the blood-count for Hostel, there is a good amount for genre fans here). The premise isn't necessarily bad either though: kids go to a cabin for a week of partying, only to come across a very sick man, covered in blood, whom in a panic they set on fire. He winds up dead in the water that feeds the reservoir, and soon the characters all succumb to the flesh-eating virus one way or another. The characters, either the lead college kids (including Rider Strong as the hero and James DiBello as the goofy side-bar) or the supporting 'village' folks are archetypal to the point of inertia, if not painfully so.
As they meet their fates, the townspeople get pretty weird, and it just seems to be non-sensibly thrown together without the many laughs; 'Pancakes kid' comes out of nowhere, and maybe might have been funnier in another movie or by itself, but in the context of the rest of the movie, it just doesn't work. There's also a young police character who is even dumber and less convincing than the others. And the family that goes after DiBello following an incident has some possibilities that aren't realized. But all the while, Roth pumps up his script with common sense out the window and sudden scares and frights with people hacking up blood on one another and a killer dog rambling around. Which isn't all for not either. Now, unlike lesser Troma horror movies or even lesser ones of the 70s or 80s- to which I'm sure Roth is a die-hard fan- he doesn't make it unwatchable. It's also smart to not have any explanation for where the virus comes from.
But unlike those films too, he also doesn't really have a fine idea of what makes for great campy-horror times. His film tries for that, of course, and only once or twice does he make it a goofy, bloody time (I did like the random bunny Strong sees while on the gurney). It's not even very poorly shot a lot of the time (albeit with its own contrived style-choices ala red tint on the lens or that story with the bowling-alley worker). It simply contains a lot of illogical scenarios and choices made (shave your legs with a deadly virus, uh-huh), and it aims for fairly typical ground. If that's your cup of tea, more power to you. But at the end I found it to be actually un-exceptional genre territory that doesn't offend audience sensibilities ala Saw, but doesn't swing for the fence either as a clever B-movie. Roth also has the temerity to end the movie on a true note of 'what-the-hell' as the Santa Claus bearded convenience store clerk from earlier in the film serves a bunch of black people. It could work if he followed up on it with something better, or if he dropped it altogether. Same could be said for a lot of the movie. C-
\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\nCabin Fever is the first feature film directed by Eli Roth.Roth and Randy Pearlstein co wrote the script from a story by Roth.this a zombie film,which owes a lot to George Romero and his earlier \"living dead movies\",and to the original Texas Chainsaw Massacrenot to mention Sam Ramie's \"Evil Dead\".there is nothing original here,and the story is not compelling.the acting is about par with this genre,it's just that the story fails.we have pretty much seen this movie before and better made.having said that,after having achieved commercial, if not artistic success from this movie,Roth decided he was a director and came out with the abysmally atrocious,mean spirited,pointless(though much more ambitious)crap fest Hostel.Roth should have quit while he was behind.Cabin Fever is not a good film,however compared to Hostel it is a work of art.I hope somebody (preferably a psychiatrist)convinces this guy that film-making is the wrong career choice.as for Cabin fever,a weak 3/10 for not being as abysmal as Hostel.
\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 first five minutes of this movie showed potential. After that, it went straight from something possibly decent to some sort of illegitimate comedy. The best part is that I couldn't stop thinking of Supertroopers thanks to Joey Kern. I would recommend watching this movie for the sheer fact of learning how not to make a movie. There are so many scenes in this movie that makes one just stop and wonder if the entire cast and crew just stopped caring at some point. The thing that amazes me most about this movie is that it grossed $22 million in the box office and only cost about $1.5 million to make. Congrats to Lion's Gate for being able to pull that one off.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThere's a major difference between releasing an original, intense, edge-of-your-seat, scary, gore-fest, and doing like filmmaker Eli Roth and his team have done with \"Cabin Fever\" and simply acted like it. The film follows five college graduates into a cabin in the woods that begins to prove fatal as one after the other succumbs to this mysterious, fast-acting, flesh-eating disease. It's not long before the friends turn on one another, and can barely stand the sight of one another, much less want to be in the same vicinity as them. As gross as it all sounds, there's a certain spark behind the basic premise of this film that could have worked, in the hands of a less cocky filmmaker. Unfortunately what we end up with is poorly drawn characters whose sole purpose seems to be to look beautiful at the beginning to make the inevitable decomposition more contrasting, a hackneyed script so profanity-laden as to leave the viewer tuning out the dialogue, and several incomprehensible subplots that motivate little more than (in one instance) an on-screen appearance by director Roth. This is sloppy film-making in several ways! Avoid this time devourer.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film is about a group of five friends who rent a cabin in the woods. One of the friends catches a horrifying flesh-eating virus. Suddenly, the friends turn on one another in a desperate attempt to keep from contracting the disease themselves.
\"Cabin Fever\" is a horrible film. For one, it tries to be many genres at once. Is it supposed to be a homage, a slasher, a black comedy, or a scary movie with unintentional comedy? Nobody can tell. There's a serious scene at first and a second alter, it turns funny. When the film tries to be funny, the humor is quite bland, excluding the ending. I liked the ending a lot.
But apart from the ending, I was pretty disappointed and disgusted. The violence is cringe-worthy, more looking away from the screen than being scared. The tone changes within each scene, sometimes funny, sometimes scary, and sometimes quite random. In fact, you see a girl doing karate in slo-motion. What are we supposed to get from that? This same girl would bite one of the characters. Was that supposed to be funny? I don't know.
Some of the performances were decent, and many were quite amateurish. I didn't care for most of the characters. I liked the plot but the execution was done horribly. As a horror film, I didn't know what it was trying to be. I didn't find it funny, tense, nor scary. By the end, you're left indifferent, thinking, \"What have I just been through?\" Unfortunately, you'll never know the answer to that question.
\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 I've seen bad movies in my life, but this one was so bad that I actually became angry in the theater. I wanted my money back. I wrote to the director asking him to refund my movie ticket, of course I didn't receive a refund (or even a reply) but it's the point that matters. On a scale of 1-10 I give this movie a -42. Why did the \"Jeep\" (Chevy Blazer??) stop running from being hit with a bat? Why did they hit the \"Jeep\"(Chevy Blazer?????) with the bat in the first place instead of cracking the bum's skull? The plot was thin, the movie filled with obvious clichés, and certain parts of it just didn't make any sense.
\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\nno redeeming qualities can possibly be expressed. i wish i could get my time back. nice skull face broad really smiles, bright at the camera when the disease has already wreaked enough havoc on the ill informed script. i was ((spoiler)) happy to see all the characters dead or severely incapacitated by the end, especially the party poopers that drink the tainted juice on their way to the alleged sunset. Eli Roth does shine for moments of maybe ten, putting forth the theory on how well weed smokes in the woods when others really fiend on top of beer consumption. overall, i found most of it pointless, though not without gratuitous violence and not enough nudity, happy to witness the demise of cast, in a way though, wishing that journey never happened (probably should've been getting laid instead of watching TBS late night, ugh).
\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\nFrom the opening dialog and scenes, I knew I knew I was in for a train wreck. Didn't want to look, but couldn't turn away. If it weren't for the meer eye candy of this film, I would have given one star. The fact that the interaction between characters and relationship behavior were so far fetched, added by poor direction and horrible story make this movie nothing more than a low-budget disaster. Money is definitely not a necessity to make a good film. But this movie fails so horribly there was no chance to rebound.
If you were stuck out in the woods, your childhood best friend dying from an unknown disease, other friends dying around you, stranded in a strange place, what would you do?
A.) Run away from everyone and try your luck on your own. B.) Have sex with your friends girlfriend. C.) Take a hot bath to relax your sorrows to include shaving your legs. D.) Bash in the head your childhood best friend and life-long crush with a shovel. E.) All of the above.
According to Eli Roth, none of these answers are that far fetched. In fact, all are plausible and well represented in Cabin Fever. The total lack of reality and illogical attempt at explaining what people would do in traumatic situations throws this film in the bonehead bin at your local rental store. Stay away. Stay far away.
\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\nColumbo movies have been going downhill for years, this year it may have reached the bottom. Peter Falk gives the same uninspired performance and comes over as creepy in this movie. As is usual in this series, crime scene protocols are unheard of so plausibility is always lacking. Brenda Vaccaro chews the scenery and pulls pantomime faces and Andrew Stephens is a pretty unconvincing lady's man. (His faint, though, was a hoot!)The script was by the numbers and its delivery patronising. They should never have brought Columbo into the nineties, just left us all with one or two happy memories of clever plots, better scripts and sharp characterisations.
\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, finally got to see the remake last night in London, unintentionally hilarious, sexless and devoid of any real humour. I don't really know where to start, whilst I was entertained by this strange homage, it didn't really move me. The acting is screamingly hammy, there is no original music, the costumes are far too 'Disney' there is a ridiculous 'six months later' insert after the burning of Nic Cage (which didn't come soon enough for my liking) The bit with Cage in the bear suit had the audience suppressing mirth as did the comedy punching out of various 'baddies' on the island. It's such a weird remake that I cant quite believe I saw it, it reminded me of something that The Comic Strip presents would have done in the eighties, a bit like their Hollywood interpretation of the Miner's Strike, very strange!
\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\nOK, so I am an original Wicker Man fan and I usually don't like British films remade by Americans, so why oh why did I put myself through the most painful cinema experiences ever? I am not a Nicolas Cage fan and I had some kind of moment of madness perhaps? The film was appalling! The bit at the beginning with the crash/fire had no relevance to the film at all and the female cop knew where Edward was going, so the bit at the end with the two girls visiting the mainland, well it wouldn't have happened as the whole thing would have been investigated. The history behind the wicker man wasn't really explored - and I guess being set in America didn't really help the whole pagan theme. This film was slow and contained no atmosphere or suspense. I must say that the best bit was right at the end, when Nicolas Cage goes up in flames! I am in such desperate need to see the original again now, in order to cleanse my disappointed soul. I really can't stress how disappointing this film is, please don't see it if you:
A) Don't like American re-makes of British Films B) Are a fan of the original C) Hate Nicolas Cage
\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 Edward Woodward was the the flicks watching this film then that's what he would scream out in horror.
I'm sorry folks but enough's enough. We had Get Carter, The Italian Job, Alfie and now this. What's the similarities? No. It's not exactly a coincidence that three of the originals star Maurice Micklewhite and the other stars another great British actor. The main common ingredient in those originals IS the britishness of the films. They weren't made to impress Hollywood. They were quirky English films with a unique charm/atmosphere that just cannot be replicated in the USA. The word is CULT and what better way to destroy a cult film than to bastardise it with a remake or even a sequel.
Wicker 06 had a tough task before it even hit the road. Wicker 73 is even more enigmatic that other said cult films; it defies genre, intelligent scripts, A-grade actors, the music score, set-pieces that defy description and all the stories surrounding the film.
So here comes a remake. Don't worry. No originals were harmed in the making of this remake. Some major aspects of the story needed to be reworked for the modern USA - communications, paganism, virgins. But that's just about the whole premise. So we give the cop a Nam style trauma past complete with shock music flashbacks for the cheap scares. Then with no mobile phone mast on the island that sorts the communication out - but in the real world this wouldn't happen. Cops just don't go missing. Give him a blood link for motivation rather than the clash of beliefs and you have the remake. Wafer thin though, isn't it?
It's just that it was all laid on with a trowel. The name alterations were simply hammy, almost Carry On, there was no sense of community on the island, no centre of town to catch your bearings, just a few houses dotted about a forest and that was it. Willow was just annoying by not giving out any info at all and Cage was useless to let her get away with it. When he went into the well you just knew he would get locked it. The screenplay was signposted all the way to the end - and you just wanted it to hurry up and end. The epilogue was absolutely hilarious and didn't know when to stop.
That ending is probably the best way to summarise the difference between the two. One ends in the most beautiful sunset after the most horrific day. The other ends with a post-production explain-it-all-to-the-thickies type conclusion.
I loved the original but went to the cinema with an open mind and was excited to see the film. I left thankful in the knowledge that this film will probably end up beneath a highway somewhere only this time mercifully forgotten forever.
\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\nSometimes laughter in the middle of a horror film is a signal of its greatness. I remember the nervous laughter from the audience in the re-release of The Excorcist really nervous laughter. It punctuated just how freaked out we all were watching the voice of Satan coming out of a 12 year old girl. In the case of the 2006 remake of the 1972 cult classic The Wicker Man however, it made me think that this new Wickerman is about as scary as the South Park character, Scuzzlebut, the friendly forest monster with TV's Patrick Duffy for a leg and a celery stalk for an arm who's favorite hobby is weaving wicker baskets.
3 years ago a friend of mine in Hollywood told me that he heard that Nicolas Cage was going to do a remake of the film. I started laughing and my friend (Keith) got mad at me touting Nicolas Cage as a great actor. I just didn't think that he could pull it off and unfortunately for moviegoers I was right. Gone is the realness, the outstanding original music, the originality, the creepiness and the wonderfully powerful dialogue. Instead we have horror movie clichés, affected acting and changes to the storyline that make any believability fall apart. Like many of the countless Hollywood remakes we have been inundated with lately this feels like we are watching 4th graders on a playground \"playing Wickerman\".
The original film takes place on a remote Scottish Isle where a Scottish police officer is lured there to find a missing young girl named Rowan Morrison. In the new spin a California cop (Cage) is lured to an island of the coast of Washington state by his ex-girlfriend to find her missing daughter. She sends a photo and the missing daughter looks exactly like a young girl he tried to save in a fiery crash not long ago. The crash still haunts him in part because the girl's body was never found. Yet even after he gets a letter with her picture in it that connection is completely cast aside as he heads north, alone, to help his ex-girlfriend find her daughter. He arrives to find an island full of actors pretending to be the descendants of Wiccans, many of whom seem like they didn't get call backs for roles in The Village. And like The Village it isn't long before you realize there is nothing to be afraid of here. Not even the cloudy eyed blind sisters who speak in unison.
I think that the opportunity in Hollywood to make great amounts of money on a film often comes at great expense to the artistry. I think someone like Nicolas Cage who is in so many films these days loses touch with the magic that film can be when it gets to the point where he has a personal chef on the set preparing his snacks. We needed a bad re-make of the Wickerman like we needed yet another '9-11' movie. I'm starting to wonder if Nicolas changed his surname from Coppola because he wanted to or because he was pleaded with to do so.
\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 big fan of Nicolas Cage and I never thought he would work on a movie like this. I couldn't believe the other reviews and I thought it shouldn't be bad to watch it at least once...but trust me, it is.
I haven't seen the old movie..but why would they want to remake a movie like this. The very basic idea of a good horror movie is either it should have an extremely intelligent script or it should be extremely graphic. This film doesn't fall under any of those and just remains dumb.I just kept watching the movie hoping it would get interesting at some point , but it never does.
So this movie is a big no no for both Horror movie fans as well as for the Cage fans. You could probably for it show up on television.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt's unfortunate that you can't go any lower than one star. Prior to watching The Wicker Man, I had considered Aliens 3 to be the only movie that would actually merit negative stars. In all fairness, The Wicker Man doesn't detract from the enjoyment of an earlier film, but the fact remains that my cumulative movie enjoyment has been reduced by seeing it.
There is a cheap trick all too often used in Hollywood when the producers are too stingy to hire good writers or in too much of a hurry to allow them to bring a plot to a satisfactory conclusion: slap in a shocker ending and hope that the public will mistake it for something artistic or meaningful. It is a gambit that rarely succeeds and in this case manages only to splatter embarrassment on a fine actor and ridicule upon the producers. Even more so in that the \"carefully crafted\" (or however they put it) conclusion didn't seem to follow logically from the plot (which naturally I can't elaborate on without introducing spoilers), and instead negates what merit the plot had up to that point.
It is a film that might logically appeal to psychopaths, pedophiles, and possibly die-hard Nicholas Cage fans, but only to a few of the mainstream audience. If you really want something along these lines, I heartily recommend M. Night Shyamalan's The Village instead. Lacking some kind of memory-erasing pill, I suppose I need to watch something better to force it from my mind, say, Attack of the Killer Tomatoes or Pee-wee's Big Adventure?
\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 this movie was not that bad.It was entertaining...at least to me for probably all the wrong reasons. I have never seen the original so can't compare the two.
This movie reminded me of that weird Christopher Reeve movie Village of the Damned. THe two movies have different plots, but that creepy disgusted feeling and unwanted comedy exist in both.
The wicker man is suppose to be a mystery/thriller/men please don't anger the women movie. I don't know the whole pagan thing and sacrifice was a little off.
Nicholas Cage, his glorious bad self goes to a secluded Island called Summerisle when he receives a letter in calligraphy from his long lost fiancée who claims her daughter has been taken and hidden by fellow islanders.
Cage is a police officer and being the weary policeman he is he goes to the semi uncharted island leaving no word of his whereabouts to anyone who is located in the real world. Stupid.
Things get weirder when the large Amish-esquire women who populate the island snarl at him and lie about the whereabouts of the missing girl. His fiancée is no help who seems to be elusive and weary the whole time. Cage stays on the Island when he learns that the missing girl is his daughter and he is the lucky man tricked to come to this island as a sacrificial victim during the islands sick harvest festival.
In this movie males do not fare so well. A sick twisted display of feminism?
I found the movie laughable at times particularly when cage punches some women and runs around in a bear suit. I think there were too many potholes in this movie. I find the whole concept of angry women secluding themselves on an island without any care for males quite entertaining, but the way it was portrayed in this movie was just weird. While most women have had some jerk hurt and anger them this is clearly a form of sexism. I would have turned the movie off in disgust if the roles were reversed. This movie is something to watch maybe just once or twice. It is NOT a thriller it should be categorized as just strange.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA trooper is on the side of the road making sure every1 is obeying the speed limit (doing his job); he then pulls over a woman who appears she is a mother (there is a child in the back seat); he then is telling her what is wrong and BAM...they get killed. Okay, this is the start of what i personally thought would have been a good movie. When I was watching this movie in the theatre I was with some friends. This was our first night out after the summer so we wanted to go and see a good movie. We all decided to see a suspense/thriller that looked good to everyone in the group...this was one of the biggest mistakes of my life. Not only did I waste $7.oo on a movie ticket, but I had to sit through torture for the brain. This movie started off with mystery and suspense and I seriously thought \"this cant be bad\"...I was so wrong. The whole problem with this movie is that it makes no sense; even if you can get passed the bad acting, the \"not so scary\" storyline, and the over all horrible mess this movie was, you will still be puzzled. It's not because you're not smart enough to understand it, it's because no human with a brain could comprehend what this stupid movie is about. Right now you may be thinking \"Oh man! I have to watch this movie just to see if it's as bad as this person says it is\". GET THAT THOUGHT OUT OF YOUR HEAD RIGHT NOW!!! I'm trying to save you the trouble of watching this movie by telling you that it is so bad that there is no point in even considering seeing it. Please people don't make the same mistake i did thinking that this movie has potential...it doesn't. I give this movie 1 out of 10 (if I could give a zero I would), and I do not recommend anyone to ever see this movie, you'll be saving yourself many sleepless nights trying to think w.t.f. that freaking movie is about.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie is suppose to be a mysterious, serious thriller about a man looking for a missing girl. However, 30 minutes into the movie, it turns into a funny, unrealistic story with annoying characters and random scenes. I can't imagine anyone not laughing when Cage randomly Karate kicks that blonde girl or when he \"bear\" punches that old lady. The lines, characters, and acting are all poorly done from the get-go. I've always liked Nicolas Cage as an actor, but he has made some terrible movies this year; this being by far the worst one (yet...).
I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone who wants to watch an intense story-gripping thriller. If you really want to enjoy this story, go rent the original. However, if you intend on watching it, get ready to laugh at some of the lines and end scenes rather than taking them seriously; that's the only way you enjoy this film.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\ngreat mystery, but the film goes down hill from there. The beginning is promising with a car wreck and a woman and her daughter being burned alive in front of a police officer, Edward. He is traumatized over this and is seen popping pills. A mysterious letter turns up from an old girlfriend asking for help in finding her missing daughter. So Ed travels to an island commune of mainly woman. They don't like outsiders. A lot of filler is with Ed shown looking around town for the girl. That made the movie too long. It finally gets a little better toward the end when we learn of the crazy rituals the woman perform and finally of the sinister plan in store for Edward.
Overall, not a well written story and too long.
FINAL VERDICT: I would skip 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\nThe Wicker Man, starring Nicolas Cage, is by no means a good movie, but I can't really say it's one I regret watching. I could go on and on about the negative aspects of the movie, like the terrible acting and the lengthy scenes where Cage is looking for the girl, has a hallucination, followed by another hallucination, followed by a dream sequence- with a hallucination, etc., but it's just not worth dwelling on when it comes to a movie like this. Instead, here's five reasons why you SHOULD watch The Wicker Man, even though it's bad:
5. It's hard to deny that it has some genuinely creepy ideas to it, the only problem is in its cheesy, unintentionally funny execution. If nothing else, this is a movie that may inspire you to see the original 1973 film, or even read the short story on which it is based.
4. For a cheesy horror/thriller, it is really aesthetically pleasing. It's pretty obvious that it was filmed on location instead of using green screen or elaborate sets, so we get to see some very great scenery. There are also many nicely composed shots. It is a very good looking movie.
3. Nicolas Cage is not so much an actor as he is a force of nature. Whether you're a fan of his or not, it seems as if it's impossible for Cage to play a \"normal guy\". There is always some kind of eccentricity or nerdiness he brings to the characters he plays, and personally, I am always fascinated by watching him in any movie he does. Whether Nicolas Cage is great or terrible, he always brings his unique energy into play, and he is never boring to watch. He is terrible in The Wicker Man, but in the most wonderful kind of way.
2. A student could probably write a hell of a paper on this movie, as it seems to be the strongest anti-feminist movie ever made. \"See?\" you could write, \"this is what happens when women are allowed to run a society!\" Also, the similarities between this \"Summersisle\" society and a bee colony are pretty interesting and worth noting.
1. If you're reading this, there's probably a good chance you may have seen a YouTube video that has become very popular: a collection of \"highlights\" from the movie, including Cage running around in a bear suit, and of course, the infamous \"AAGHH!! THE BEES!! MY EYES!!!\" line. These scenes are hilarious out of context, and they are still fairly funny while watching them in the film's entirety.
I bought the used DVD at Blockbuster for about 5 dollars...when you work that out, it's about a dollar per reason. It's a pretty good deal.
NOTE: The Unrated version of the movie is the best to watch, and it's better to watch the Theatrical version just for its little added on epilogue, which features a cameo from James Franco.
\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\nWhere oh where to begin in describing the comprehensive wretchedness of Neil LaBute's latest attempt at film making?
There are many kinds of film fans out there, but by far the most annoying and shallow is Mr. Intriguing. You know Mr. Intriguing, don't you?
He's the fellow that no matter how stupid, lame, and incomprehensibly dull a film is, he says \"Gee, I don't know why everyone hated it, I found it intriguing.\" He's the kind of guy who finds the scent of dog poop intriguing. Especially when he smears it in the shape of a Hitler mustache on his upper lip and marches about the house ranting about the brilliance of science fiction that features thinly veiled references to Greek mythology. He's also the guy this version of The Wicker Man was made for. No one else could stand 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\nI watched this movie because I like Nicolas Cage and well, I found it strange and completely pointless... so I decided to poke around a little bit and got my hands on the 70s copy of it. Wow. what a difference. The original one was way better. I'd like you all to know it did originally actually make a statement, it's existence did have a purpose. It was really the Christian public expressing their fear of paganism. If you dig deeper into it it also makes comments on life but I don't want to go into details, just, simply put, if you were disappointed and you'd like to know what it SHOULD look like, feel free to watch the 70s version, a little dated, but A lot better.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAnd I thought The Beach was bad, with the difference that this movie has one of the greatest actors of our time, Nicolas Cage. Don't blame him for the awful script, if any one can make any sense of what the hell was the point of that movie, give your self a pat on the back. Its a cross between The Village and a crappier script. Its starts off kinda catching your eye, and then as it goes further into the plot, it just makes no sense, and don't get me started about the ending!!!! What was that? The only thing that makes this movie exist is Nicolas Cage usual great humor, and his ability to be funny in the weirdest situations. If you go to a blockbuster and this is the only movie to watch, save yourself five bucks and just go back home and turn put some thing on fire and when some ones asks you why, just say the stupidest thing that comes into your mind, and there you go!
\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'd like to start off by saying that I am NOT an anime fan (with a few notable exceptions), and I generally have a low opinion of so-called otakus, as they are so in love with their particular brand of cartooning that they label every movie starring spiky-haired, big-eyed characters as a work of art without even considering other more vital factors, such as the plot. And no anime movie better represents this division between otakus and people with actual taste than this elegant piece of trash, Fatal Fury: the Motion Picture.
As seen through the glassy, witless eyes of an otaku, there's little to find fault with in Fatal Fury-- there's plenty of quirky Japanese-y humor, one-on-one duels, some \"dramatic\" moments, and everything is beautifully drawn. But everyone else will be turned off by the cliched, predictable plot with cliched, predictable characters, culminating in a cliched, predictable ending. The love scenes are hilariously overblown-- the scene in which Sulia \"heals\" Terry is obviously intended to be a tender moment, but it's virtually impossible to not be thrown into spirals of giddy laughter by the sheer ludicrousness of it. And of course, Fatal Fury is not without the obligatory cartoon T&A-- this is supplied gratuitously by the huge-breasted Mai Shiranui. And since Fatal Fury IS based off the video game series of the same name (oh boy), we're treated to numerous pointless cameo appearances by popular characters with little or no relevance to the plot whatsoever (they go through all the trouble of introducing Kim early on, only for him to disappear from the movie totally after that point). This mess of a movie reaches its climax with the unintentionally farcical final battle, in which all the main characters engage the all-powerful main villain in one-on-one combat in turn. That's some thing that's always amused me... even when battles in animes AREN'T taking place in a tournament, they always happen as if they were, regardless of the fact that it makes no sense whatsoever!
Otakus always rave about how anime movies should be treated as MOVIES as opposed to merely cartoons, and a disturbing portion of those same people love Fatal Fury. So would Fatal Fury have been good if it wasn't an anime? The answer is an emphatic \"no\"-- all of this movie's charm, what little of it there is, resides in the actual drawings. Had Fatal Fury not been an anime, it would have been worthy of an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000, if the show was still on the air. That's the key-- this is nothing more than a laughably bad B-movie in the guise of an anime epic. If you're a fan of movies so bad that they're actually entertaining, consider renting Fatal Fury (or catch it on the Sci-Fi channel), as it is definitely one of those. If you're an otaku, please WAKE UP and realize that a good 90% of the stuff you're watching is garbage. As for everyone else, buy a Dreamcast and Fatal Fury: Mark of the Wolves, but don't even consider seeing 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\nits awful i cant believe that one of the greatest nonsenses in the world can be a blockbuster and the favorite movie of millions of people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! a movie which has no story,again shahrukh khan has been appeared on the screen with nothing new the same as usual he is trying to make you cry by start scrambling his head for thousands of times,i think this is to much,pretty zinta spouse to act the character of a Pakistani girl i didn't know that there is enough facilities in Pakistan for the Pakistani girls to do so many plastic surgeries on their face and also there are enough make up facilities??!! and also i didn't know that an Indian can cross the March's between both countries,go to Pakistan and start dancing and singing may be Pakistani soldier's were sleeping!!!!!!!!!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA mummy narrates vignettes about men, women, and the sex between them. Huh? At the beginning, the mummy randomly asks the viewer, \"Imagine having sex with this girl. Imagine having sex with this boy\" about 37 times, while flashing pictures of half naked mod youths. Later, said mods boys pelt mod girls with...vegetables? If you ignore (or fast forward) through the mummy's rambling, the shorts aren't bad in their own right. I found a few of them rather funny. My personal favorite is one where the sexually-confused man tries to convince a girl to have sex with him while his pet lizard sits on the bed. This is one, well, bizarre 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\nThe film had some likable aspects. Perhaps too many for my taste. It felt as though the writer/director was desperately trying to get us to feel the inner conflict of ALL of its characters. Not once, a few times...but all of the time.
This is the job of television, not cinema.
The location of the train station was well chosen and I enjoyed Sascha Horler's performance as the pregnant friend.
I felt as though Justine Clarke's performance was wan. Her reactions to things felt forced, as though the director were trying to vocalise the themes of the film through her protagonist's expressions. I also can't believe that a director can make the wonderful Daniela Farinacci into an unbelievable presence.
I cannot understand the choice of pop music slapped over entire sequences. This is a lazy device, especially where the pop music comes from no place diagetic to the film and/or where the lyrics of the song feel embarrassingly earnest.
That said, there is a breezy quality about the film that evokes the Australian heat and local attitude with originality. It does create an atmosphere of heat and sunshine. Especially with the usage of wonderful animation sequences that rescue the film from complete mediocrity, infusing it with passion and hand-crafted charm.
I am curious why the dialogue feels so overworked. \"Who knows if there's a god? Like some guy sitting there up in the sky telling us what to do\" or whatever the line was.
Perhaps one of the more embarrassing moments was the friend returning home from cricket with a bunch of flowers to declare to his wife \"I'm giving up smoking.\"
An anti-smoking commercial? A TAC ad with some tasteful animation? I had to leave the cinema at the 50 minute mark -- it was all too 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\nSomething I really love about this woman's short films was the elusiveness of theme -- especially in \"Living with Happiness.\" This film has some nice beginnings -- unusual location and the potential for a strange cinematic treatment, but fails to succeed with clunky expositional dialogue, patchy performances and very television coverage.
It's once again charming television and very ordinary cinema. The ideas are so fleshed out that they almost feel pat like a television commercial. But the sentiment is good so we can't complain too much.
I really would love to see this director make a full length animation and try and work with a producer who doesn't demand so much boring clarity.
\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, ostensibly, a movie about multiple grief. As such, it ought to move viewers and make them empathetic with the plight of the main characters. However, its irritatingly postmodern style makes it almost incomprehensible. The camera continually switches from one scene to another, from one personal crisis to the next, creating a choppy, disjointed effect. Most characters appear to live aimless, unstructured lives, held together by their professional commitments. (It also stretches credibility that a man who has just been given what amounts to a likely death sentence, would cheerfully indulge in a sex romp with a woman he has just met). The storyline (if there is a storyline) is difficult to follow. In sum, the overall effect is rather disappointing. In spite of all that, the acting is generally good and some of the scenes are quite powerful.
\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 found this movie boring, monotonous and quite uninteresting with a hurried, shallow \"upbeat\" ending that didn't ring true to the overall story. Following these characters through a weekend of awful events, unfriendly attitudes and bad news just isn't my idea of a watchable, interesting movie and I got very tired of its \"one note\" theme and couldn't wait for it to end--in fact I almost stopped about halfway through. The whole movie just seemed pointless and wandering, and the characters were for the most part depressing and unpleasant, though the acting was good. A small movie with small ambitions and small appeal--sorry, but it just didn't make it with me, and I love good, small films! This one just didn't jell, though I kept watching it hoping and trusting that it would. I was disappointed, especially after two local reviewers put it on their \"Year's 10 Best\" list. I'd strongly recommend watching \"The House of Sand\" instead--now there's a good, small film!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nBruce Lee was a great martial artist, but this film still is probably one of the worst films ever made. It has Bruce Lee die as the result of falling off a helicopter after being hit by some kind of a ninja knife to the back of the neck but it doesn't explain how he came to be on a helicopter since the prior scene has him near but not on the helicopter which is already 200 feet in the air. It just gets downright absurd from then, like something out of a cheap comic book. Maybe the idea isn't so rotten but it isn't done with any degree of artistry from a film making point of view. There are dozens of such martial arts bombers out there, usually all made in Hong Kong. I think that Jean Claude van Dam improved the genre with adding plausible stories in his films and having film makers who know how to use the camera. Even Steven Seagal's films are way better than 90 percent of the martial arts junk movies made during the 1970s and early 1980s in Hong Kong. 'Game of Death II' falls into the category of junk cinema in my opinion, despite Bruce Lee being 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\nThis is even worse than the original Game of Death. A jumbled, incoherent storyline leads to \"Billy Lo\" falling from a helicopter to the ground below, killing him, as we're left to follow his younger brother, Bobby Lo. So not only do we start out following some Bruce Lee clone, the film kills that one off and has us follow another one thirty minutes into the story. The main reason to watch this one is when Bobby Lo fights a lion, which is quite obviously a guy in a lion costume. Jang Lee Hwang is also the villain, who is usually pretty awesome but his screen time is significantly small. Mainly watched this and the original Game of Death because they're a part of the Bruce Lee boxed set. It's no wonder they're included with Lee's finished works. No one would buy them otherwise.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"