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\nReally, truly, abysmally, garishly, awful. But actor Clayton Moore (the movie Lone Ranger) acquits himself competently as an actor. He's the only one.
A rare treat, for five minutes, if you want to plumb the depths of grotesquely transparent special effects, southern California as \"the moon\" (again and again and again), and acting so woodenly inept that it may be a spoof . . . except that it's clear that it isn't--no humor here, except unintentionally.
The dialogue may be worse than any of these other aspects, and the costumes . . . well, enough said. Plot? What plot? Bad guy (well, head bad guy) and his henchmen, including his earthly agent called Krog (listen carefully or you'll suspect it's a spoof on the name of McDonald's founder Ray Kroc)and his unbelievably inept gunsels (who, however, have handguns that never need reloading; as does Commando Cody, so there are numerous firefight standoffs).
Enjoy.
\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...and Ethel Merman buffs, too, will love her loud, bossy vocals as the wicked witch Mombi, but this cartoon sequel to \"The Wizard Of Oz\" is bereft of real imagination, substituting fantasy and excitement with noisy action (and cheaply repeating its footage like a bad music video). Little Dorothy is whisked back to Oz, which has gone to ruin, and meets old and new friends. The inelegant animation is stuck somewhere between the weakest Walt Disney and the less-inspired shows from Hanna-Barbera, however many of the songs are good, particularly Dorothy's sweet lament \"It's a Far Away Land\", superbly performed by Liza Minnelli. You can count on Minnelli for energy, which is why the movie perks up whenever Dorothy is around. Much of it is unmemorable, and I'm not even sure baby-boomers will get a charge from it since it has been out of circulation for so long. As a curiosity item, just fair. ** from ****
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nMy kids picked this out at the video store...it's great to hear Liza as Dorothy cause she sounds just like her mom. But there are too many bad songs, and the animation is pretty crude compared to other cartoons of that time.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe number of goofs in this episode was higher than the first 9. They don't follow their own rules about spirits where destruction of the body makes the spirit dissolve. This one dropped a second body. That body, and Dean, drop about 20 feet from Sam but then they are right with Sam. Flashlights go out in an unlighted asylum, at night, and we can still see everything. It's night but light is streaming through the windows. A ghost that died in 1960's is making cell phones calls? Come on! There is no way Sam could get a psychiatrist to see him in the same day he makes an appointment and the doctor talks to Sam like it wasn't his first visit. Sam and Dean knew there were other bodies in the asylum and innocent spirits still lurking and didn't do anything to help them. That doesn't seem like a thing the Winchester boys would do. Oh and after crawling around on a dirt filled mattress and all around a nasty asylum the girls' makeup and hair is perfect and not a smudge on her white shirt.
While the implementation of this episode had problems the premise was good and a few times I was not creeped out but nervous as Dean sat reading Elicots' journal. I just knew that an object so intensely personal to the ghost would draw it to the person violating it's sanctity. Elicot didn't appear. Maybe that is a fault for such an important object or place (like Elicot's office) should draw the spirit when a living being touches or enters. When they separate I want to scream... 'that's how you die! Always stay together and watch each others backs!' but they don't listen to me :o The Elicot spirit and his special ability was a very nice touch. It's prime-time show but I do wish the horror of Elicot strapping one of his victims down and using anticipation of torture to creep us out further.
Especially because of the lighting goofs I gave this a 4. Sudden darkness or the flickering of the whole scene's lighting as the flashlight flickers is all that more terrifying. The lighter coming or the flashlight reviving and instantly a spirit is in their face is shocking. I understand the directors wants us to see his scene but then make a mention or obvious connection by Elicot touching an electric socket and the lights coming on. Have the characters respond to the fact an asylum with no power suddenly has lights in the one room. Blue white lights flickering as electric arcs just like Elicot's finger power.
Seriously, MCG could have done 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\nAccording to IMDb, as well as to every other website that holds a review; this \"thing\" doesn't have a director. Well, that would surely explain a lot! Just a bunch of people that gathered together to shoot some perverted porn sequences and throw in an ultra-thin storyline about devil-worshiping and women sacrifices inside the walls of a secluded sanitarium. \"Hardgore\" is a prime example of totally demented 70's smut, as it's really made with a minimum of production values and scripting inspiration. Horror movies about satanic cults were hugely popular during the early 70's and pornography as well, so why not combine the two? Here we have a simplistic story about a young nymphomaniac girl who's committed to a mental asylum, and from the first night already, she's drawn into a network of drugs, psychedelic orgies, rape, torture and dildo-action. Really, a LOT of dildo-action. The friendly lesbian nurse tries to warn her, but she has her throat slit even the same night. The horror aspects are truly poorly elaborated, going from laughably un-scary Satan masks to virulent severed penises attacks. The photography and acting performances are almost intolerably amateurish, but what do you expect from a film that features footage of sperm-firing dildos and talking amputated male reproduction organs? Leading lady Justina Lynn is a rather good looking girl with a ravishing body, but most of her co-stars (male & female) are hideous and excessively haired sleaze balls.
\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\nFormer private eye-turned-security guard ditches his latest droning job and is immediately offered a chance to return to his previous profession. His assignment: to tail a mysterious French woman newly arrived in California...and apparently wanted by suit-and-tie racketeers. Unsuccessful attempt to update the film noir genre, without enough sting or wit (or involving plot dynamics) in the screenplay. Director and co-scenarist Paul Magwood (who later claimed the picture was edited without his involvement) doesn't give off the impression of having high regard for the '40s films his \"Chandler\" was borne from; his nostalgia is appropriately rumpled, but also bitter-tinged and somewhat indifferent. The handling is curiously, commendably low-keyed, and Warren Oates is well-cast as this '70s variant on the 'private dick' archetype, but the movie doesn't have any snap. Nice to see Leslie Caron and Gloria Grahame in the cast--though neither has much to do, and Caron's hot-and-cold running character is exasperating throughout. Vivid cinematography by Alan Stensvold, nice location shooting, but it fails to come to any kind of a boil. *1/2 from ****
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI saw this film when it was first released. The memory of how bad it was has stayed with me almost forty years. I didn't want to trust my own sentiments about the movie when I saw it, so I consulted a movie review published in a major metropolitan newspaper the next day- sentiment confirmed, the reviewer wrote that the movie was incoherent, indecipherable, and uninspiring. A little research reveals that the producer was star Leslie Caron's husband, thus the whiff of nepotism suggests the beginning for this awful film. The film's roster of many capable actors - Caron, Warren Oates, Scatman Crothers, Gloria Grahame, and James Sikking among others - suggests that it holds some promise. But the death of this film is attributable to its terrible screenplay. The \"mystery\" implicated is so obscure and so little revealed throughout the film that the viewer is left perplexed from scene to scene. The movie seems torn between being a detective mystery and an espionage thriller, but never settles upon one or the other. The sense of suspense is entirely absent. The main characters settle on playing dry, emotionless types in a fashion that inspires no empathy whatsoever. The cinematography is pedestrian. The result is that the hapless viewer loses interest in the characters, the plot, and, in the end, the film itself. I am little surprised that there is no version of this pathetic film available to purchase. I hope that if TCM finds a print of this film and feels compelled to air it that it is safely relegated to the 4:00 am slot.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIn the many films I have seen Warren Oates, I have come to a definite conclusion, here is one talented individual. I first saw Mr. Oates back in the 1960's television series called Stoney Burke. From then on, I followed his career closely and felt he was destined for great roles. That happened in 1974, when Sam Peckinpah gave him top billing in a film called 'Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia.' Of course, his biggest claim to fame was his magnificent role in 'The Wild Bunch'. I have always thought he was quite able to bring any character a certain magic, that is until I saw him in this flop. The movie is called \" Chandler \", a tribute to the iron fisted detectives of the 1950's created by Raymond Chandler. Because, the synopsis said it was about a hard nose Private Eye, I was immediately interested. However, I sat patiently through the entire film and found it to be a dull, dis-interesting, slow pace, twisted, confusing saga which if it had a theme or plot must have been left on some dark back room self. Collectively and with some of Hollywood's best supporting stars, such as Alex Dreier, Mitch Ryan, Gordon Pinsent, Charles McGraw, Richard Loo and Scatman Crothers, this movie had enough power to reach Mach five, however, it fizzled on the launchpad and went no where. As a result, one of my favorite actor's got stuck in a poorly made vehicle which never got off the ground. **
\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 \"Trivia\" page on IMDb claims the filmmakers protested because this film was re-cut by the studio to \"simplify the plot\". If so, that effort was a total failure, as this is one of the most incoherent narratives I've ever seen in a film -- I'd hate to have seen it before the plot was \"simplified.\"
It's sad to see Warren with so little character to go on that even he can't do anything with the inept material. It's interesting to see Caron in '70s mode instead of her Hollywood-era glamour garb and persona, but it's sad to see her haplessly wander through this doing-a- favor-to-her-producer-husband dreck. She would actually later hook up with and marry the director, instead -- who, you'll note, never directed anything again, but did strictly 1st or 2nd A.D. work in TV from here on out. That oughta tell you enough right there.
I call this \"interesting\" because I have an automatic fondness for American films of this period, and this role does add perspective to Oates' otherwise fantastic 1971 output (Two- Lane Blacktop, The Hired Hand). But the \"1940s detective as fish-out-of-water in 1970s L.A.\" theme, which is the only thing the movie really has to say, is sold in way too heavy- handed a manner. A similar theme would be far more effectively handled two years later in Altman's The Long Goodbye. And as far as Oates playing a hard-bitten guy on a doomed errand, three years on, he would give his definitive performance in Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia. If you haven't seen those, don't waste your time with 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\nMae Clarke will always be remembered as the girl whose face James Cagney showed a grapefruit into in the same year's THE PUBLIC ENEMY. She will not be remembered for this weird little story about a a hood's girl who finds that her past will always be with her.
In some ways, this looks a bit antique for 1931, almost as if you are looking at 1928's famously inert LIGHTS OF NEW YORK. But don't be fooled. Although Ted Tetzlaff's photography is still in the big scenes, there's lots of movement, indicating distraction to the moviegoers in the set-ups to them. But in competition with the fast-paced stuff that it seems that everyone was doing at Warner's, this attempt to bring the woman's viewpoint into the genre as a tearjerker doesn't work, nor is Mae Clarke the actress to carry the effort.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nVERY BAD MOVIE........and I mean VERY BAD...THe plot is predictable, and it's EALLY cheesy, the creativeness of the battle and the dance scenes for the time are the only reason I didn't give the movie a one, other than that...this is def a movie one can def afford not to watch.....I feel while watching the movie, the idea behind the movie was an interesting one tho kind of cliché....bringing country bumpkins to the city blah blah blah, but I feel it might have been at least a little better if it just wasn't so cheesy, very poorly portrayed from idea to screen, i think. The Plot is somewhat predictable at times, tho the dancing I can say AT TIMES, is pretty good, The break dance battle twist was good.....IF u just pop the movie and watch the dance scenes and make up your own dialog maybe it can be a 5...lol
\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\nbecause you can put it on fast forward and watch the inane story, without having to listen to banal dialogue, and be finished in 10 minutes max. Come to think of it, even 10 minutes is too much to waste on Enid-Blyton-meets-struggling-wanna-be-artists. Vomit.
\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\nMona the vagabond lives on the fringes of French society, in a life without meaning, purpose or direction.
I watched this because of all the stellar reviews, but I'm afraid I must have missed something. The character of Mona has little or no personality while drifting through life being rude to people, getting high and contributing nothing to anyone's life. She's not interesting or exciting. She's just useless.
I've seen and known enough people like that: there is no secret meaning to what they're doing. They are just lazy bums. I wouldn't want Mona anywhere near me, as she tends to steal anything that isn't nailed down and leave her friends in the lurch. Sure she's enigmatic - because there isn't anything to her. Lots of junkies, winos and bums I've seen are enigmatic; I wouldn't want to see a film about them either.
Possibly there is something there that I totally missed. Otherwise I'm assuming that all the reviews are from people who assume anything done by a French female director is high art.
\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 last couple of weeks in the life of a dead vagabond woman is told in flashbacks. Like the vagabond, the film wanders aimlessly and rather pointlessly. Mona, the lazy, sullen, and drug-addicted title character, is not likable and Bonnaire does little to make her interesting. Although there is some pretentious dialog attempting to explain why Mona has chosen this miserable lifestyle, her motivations are never really clear. The episodic nature of the film, involving some random characters, becomes tiresome after a while, making it seem much longer than its running time. It is also hard to believe that an attractive young homeless woman would not draw more attention from men.
\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 . . . I don't know. Why they would take such an indellible character as Pippi Longstocking and cast the singularly charmless Tami Erin, I will never know. Why they would spend money on art direction and some not-all-that-bad special effects, then not bother to edit it properly, I will never know. Why the sets and costumes are sometimes in period, and sometimes bizarrely not, why they commissioned SUCH bad songs, why the script doesn't make any sense whatsoever (not even on a silly, children's film level) . . . . what were they thinking?? Nothing about this movie is quite as it should be. Every single part is dubbed (and always poorly,) every sound effect is slightly wrong, every edit is in the wrong place, every performance is bad in some way. It does manage to create an appropriate atmosphere, despite all the problems, but it NEVER captures the magic that is Astrid Lindgren's creation.
\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 another North East Florida production, filmed mainly in and near by to Fernandina Beach and the Kingsley Plantation. I was rather surprised the company was able to take over the main street of Fernandina Beach as long as was necessary to achieve the street scenes. The film is pretty, and pretty bad. Tami Erin is cute, but overacts. Eileen Brennan overacts even more. Good for small kids, or for those who like fluff in large doses. A 4 from the Miller-Movies formula.
\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 appalling film somehow saw the light of day in 1988. It looks and sounds as if it had been produced 20 or 30 years earlier, and features some of the worst songs ever included in a major motion picture. I weep for the parents and children who paid top dollar to see 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\nwhile watching this movie I got sick. I have been grewing up with Pippi and every time was a real pleasure. when my wife came to Sweden she was looking at the oldies and had a real good laugh. but this American version should be renamed and never be shown again. it is terrible from beginning to it's end. how can they manage to make it soo bad. well I guess someone blames the translation ha ha ha.. but they are never close to Pippi. may this movie never been seen again and never sent out on a broadcast. burn the movie and save the kids. if you want to look at Pippi then look at the original movie and have a good laugh. WE LOVE PIPPI INGER NILSSON, sorry Tami Erin you will never stand up to be Pippi.. Oh yes.. when read the \"spoilers\" explanation, \"'spoiling' a surprise and robbing the viewer of the suspense and enjoyment of the film.\" well I guess the director stands for this... you are looking at this movie at your own risk.. it is really a waste of time...
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt's about time we see a movie that stays unbiased towards these old Indian traditions. At times it is clear how most of the 'doctors' are charlatans, even lying about how they don't charge their clients. While they are wearing their gold watches, the 'donation' box is mandatory. Notice that there are only a couple of people who get 'cured' while we see quite a few cases.
Keep in mind while watching that ingesting mercury is not toxic and that the smallest Indian bank note is 5 rupee, while the average salary in India is 1,700 ru/month.
\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 documentary is at its best when it is simply showing the ayurvedic healers' offices and treatment preparation. There is no denying the grinding poverty in India and desperation of even their wealthier clients. However, as an argument for ayurvedic medicine in general, this film fails miserably. Although Indian clients mention having seen \"aleopathic\" doctors, those doctors are not interviewed, and we have to take the vague statements of their patients at face value-- \"the doctor said there was no cure,\" \"the doctor said it was cancer\" etc. Well, \"no cure\" doesn't mean \"no treatment,\" and what type of cancer exactly does the patient have? The film is at its most feeble when showing ayurvedic practice in America. There it is reduced, apparently, to the stunning suggestion that having a high powered Wall Street job can make your stomach hurt.
\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 peculiar charisma of Martin Kosleck brings a certain believability to his character of the frustrated artist. He imbues his dialog with an odd sense of realism, making the sculptor Marcel a convincing individual. The character manages to come across as a real person and not so much a typical B movie villain.
The story line is nothing to write home about, and many scenes are dull. What makes it work is the strange chemistry between Kosleck and Rondo Hatton as the Creeper. Kosleck's talkative, philosophical character is contrasted with Hatton's low key, monosyllabic approach. The character of the Creeper isn't developed much beyond a basic monster level, but Hatton suggests undeveloped possibilities and makes you wonder about his back story.
This movie was on Shock Theater a lot when I was a kid, so I have a certain nostalgic fondness for it. It's worth seeing once, anyway, for those who enjoy Forties horror movies.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is a typical late Universal Horror flick: its technically comptent, if by the numbers, with a cookie cutter plot and some serious overacting. The most interesting part of this film is its stunt casting of Rondo Hatton, a man with a bone disease as the film's \"monster\". Its sad to see this man exploited, but he probably made good use of the money they paid him. Hatton is less horrifying than the studio hoped, as I more often felt pity over fear or even loathing. Martin Koslack is on board as the film's mad artist, and he is very amusing in this part. I for one enjoy seeing Koslack in just about anything; for some reason the man amuses me. The only other part of the film that entertained me is the film's absurd take on the art world. Here we are shown evil art critics who revel in their ability to break artists; this is side by side with the film's male \"hero\" who is an \"artist\" who paints...get this...pin up girls. Somehow our hero's work is reviewed side by side with the villan's absurdist sculpture. Also amusing is the film's chief nasty critic, who at one point claims that he despises the hero's pin up art because \"women like that don't exist\" to which our heroine replies with an assurance that the critic just doesn't get out enough. Finally, there's a bit of a subplot about the heroine's (who is an art critic herself) domestication by the leading man....completely anti-feminist and ridiculous to witness. Overall this film is a rather mediocre picture with a few amusing elements.
\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 low-grade Universal chiller has just been announced as an upcoming DVD release but, intended as part of a collection of similar movies that I already had in my possession, I decided to acquire it from other channels rather than wait for that legitimate release. Which is just as well, since the end result was not anything particularly special (if decently atmospheric at that): for starters, the plot is pretty weak  even though in a way it anticipates the Vincent Price vehicle THEATRE OF BLOOD (1973)albeit without any of that film's campy gusto. What we have here, in fact, is a penniless sculptor (Martin Kosleck)  whom we even see sharing his measly plate of cheese with his pet cat!  who, upon finding himself on the receiving end of art critic Alan Napier's vitriolic pen one time too many, decides to end it all by hurling himself into the nearby river. However, while contemplating just that action, he is anticipated by Rondo Hatton's escaped killer dubbed \"The Creeper\" and, naturally enough, saves the poor guy's life with the intention of having the latter do all the dirty work for him in gratitude! Although it is supposedly set in the art circles of New York, all we really see at work is Kosleck and commercial painter Robert Lowery (who keeps painting the same statuesque blonde girl Joan Shawlee over and over in banal poses  how is that for art?) who, conveniently enough, is engaged to a rival art critic (Virginia Grey) of Napier's! Before long, the latter is discovered with his spine broken and Lowery is suspected; but then investigating detective Bill Goodwin gets the bright idea of engaging another critic to publish a scathing review of Lowery's work (I did not know that publicity sketches got reviewed!!) so as to gauge how violent his reaction is going to be! In the meantime, Kosleck deludes himself into thinking that he is creating his masterpiece by sculpting Hatton's uniquely craggy  and recognizable  visage which, needless to say, attracts the attention of the constantly visiting Grey (we are led to believe that she lacks material for her weekly column)much to the chagrin of both artist and model. Bafflingly, although The Creeper is fully aware of how Grey looks (thanks to her aforementioned haunting of Kosleck's flea-bitten pad), he bumps off Shawlee  who had by then become Goodwin's girl!  in Lowery's apartment and, overhearing Kosleck talking to (you guessed it) Grey about his intention to dump him as the fall guy for the police, sends the slow-witted giant off his deep endeven down to destroying his own now-completed stony image. Curiously enough, although this was Hatton's penultimate film, his name in the credits is preceded by the epithet \"introducing\"!
\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\nAlthough this isn't a \"great film,\" there's something compelling and memorable about it. Like another commenter on the film, I saw this in childhood. It's been thirty three years since 1952, but I have never forgotten the story or its ridiculously cumbersome title. See it if you have the opportunity. You'll feel like a voyeur of small town life as it evolves through the decades. More than any other film, this one brings a human face to the historical drama of early twentieth century \"progress.\" It's engaging enough for a young viewer and memorable enough for an older one. Furthermore, it's easy to like the characters and watch their passage through time.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAlthough i had heard this film was a little dry, I watch whatever Scott Bakula is in. At the start of this film I had high hopes for the classic cheesy but enjoyable Scott-gets-girl ending and until 20 minutes before the end it was going great. The plot twist was crazy and unexpected and very clever. I kept my fingers crossed that it would work out and it would all be some horrible misunderstanding, right up until when the credits rolled and I realised that there was not going to be a happy and contented ending. Unfortunately i was left regretting that i'd watched it and hurriedly putting on some quantum leap to restore my faith in the goodness of the Great Scott!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOh a vaguely once famous actress in a film where she plays a mother to a child . It`s being shown on BBC 1 at half past midnight , I wonder if ... yup it`s a TVM
You`ve got to hand it to TVM producers , not content on making one mediocre movie , they usually give us two mediocre movies where two themes are mixed together and NOWHERE TO HIDE is no different . The first theme is a woman in danger theme cross pollinated with a woman suffering from the pain of a divorce theme which means we have a scene of the heroine surviving a murder attempt followed by a scene having her son Sam ask why she divorced ? And being a TVM she answers that the reason is \" That people change \" rather than say something along the lines like \" I`m a right slapper \" or Your daddy cruises mens public toilets for sex \" as does happen in real life divorce cases . And it`s young Sam I feel sorry for , not only are his parents divorced but he`s as thick as two short planks . Actually since he`s so stupid he deserves no sympathy because he`s unaware that a man flushing stuff down a toilet is a drug dealer , unaware that you might die if someone shoots at you , and unaware that I LOVE LUCY is painfully unfunny . If only our own childhoods were so innocent , ah well as Orwell said \" Ignorance is strength \" . Oh hold on Sam is suddenly an expert on marine life ! Is this character development or poor scripting ? I know what one my money`s on . And strange that Sam the boy genuis hasn`t noticed that if the story is set in 1994 then why do people often wear clothes , drive cars and ride trains from the 1950s ? But as it turns out during a plot twist it`s the mother who`s the dummy . Then there`s a final plot twist that left me feeling like an idiot for watching 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 plot sounds vaguely interesting ... a scientist (Bateman) discovers how to transplant animal eyes and optic nerves into other animals, like humans. A young man (Monteith) is blinded saving a coworker at work - the scientist gets a call from a doctor that the young man is a good candidate to be the first human recipient. The recipient starts becoming more and wolf-like, but the effect is nothing more than \"weird eyes\" and running at night with dogs! (for the whole movie) The budget is too low, the dialogue too stilted (I laughed out loud at some of the ridiculous talk), and the acting too inept. Long portions of the movie are nothing more than dreamy looks, eerie music and interspersed clips of wolves in the wild. Way too long even at 90 minutes, boring, and devoid of ideas.
The military want to use the eye transplants to give wounded soldiers back their eyesight, and presumably want to militarize the technology. There's a silly subplot about a beautiful Indian girl (Korey) who thinks she can help, using Indian wisdom about the wolves. They make love while music heavy on drums and Indian chanting is heard - crazy, man! The love making takes place immediately after a gruesome murder - who edited this turkey?! A grouchy \"medicine man\" who spouts platitudes seems to do little, except for adding atmosphere.
Here's two ridiculous scenes. A worker at the research lab goes into the animal room to discover the monkeys have been let out of their cages. She gets scared, looks left at the monkeys, turns right, turns left, turns right, turns left .. this goes on for a while (who edited this??). RUN OUT OF THE DAMN LAB! It was so stupid I started laughing. Another ridiculous scene - our hero is at home, escapes out a window as the heavily armed military arrive - he leaves the window open, the military guys go to the open window, look out the window, they say \"looks like he was here\", and LEAVE! He went out the open window, guys!! Crazy.
Near the end of the movie, military guys are firing machine guns over and over at trees, when obviously nothing is there - easier to place the squibs I guess. They have 6 machine guns which have cut down trees, but decide to fight our hero with 1 knife!!! Shoot the guy!! Who wrote this trash?? There's a pointless confrontation at the end, and believe me I'm not spoiling anything for you - there's not enough plot to spoil.
I figure the whole thing was a tax write-off or a rush job to make use of unused budget money left over from some better 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 hired out Hybrid on the weekend. What a disappointment! A stupid lame attempt at a tele-movie. The guy they got for the lead was totally weak and when running {he did a lot} looked like he was eating those minty sweets...with his backside! The wolf contacts he wore were great, though I feel the actor relied on them too much, as there was nothing menacing about his acting at all. The wise native American Indian chick has to be one of the most stony hard faced hags ever seen. Talk about a sour cow! She smiled about once for the entire film, and I think that is because she had sex. The sex scene was lame too. They may as well have shown blowing curtains, if you can dig that.
Last of all, and this is a big pet hate of mine, on the cover and the DVD menu, the losers digitally drew in cool sharp teeth on the guy. They were nowhere to be seen in the 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\nThis movie has some fatal flaws in it, how someone could walk through an open back door of a highly secure medical facility is unbelievable. Then this same person just walks around the facility and enters the Dr.'s office, is just bad writing or bad editing.
Very very very predictable movie.
I am not sure how this film got made, except it is was filmed in Canada, and probably received a government grant.
I must say the person playing Aaron, Cory Monteith, did a good job.
Unless you are really bored and there is nothing else to watch on television then I would say it will kill some time, but otherwise, it is a movie no actor would want on their resume.
\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 plot sounded like it had promise. To be honest I did not watch the entire movie. After about an hour into the movie I had to make a decision. Is this movie worth watching until it conclusion? The answer was clearly NO! It was not the fact that the human body could not receive a transplant from a different species without rejecting it. Nor the premise that he was being chased by secret government authorities for an human / wolf transplant. It was because the movie was badly written, acting lacked emotion and I did not understand the several dream sequences with the wolves and buffaloes. When he was running to the zoo with a dog pack and leaving them at the front of the zoo gate the saying \"If you can't run with the big dogs don't leave the porch\" kept running through my bored mind. Save yourself the time and skip this movie. I can guarantee if you do dare to watch it you will sit there slack jawed as I did wondering why anyone waste money, time, energy and effort to make this insulting outrage to American cinema.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhen i saw the preview for this on TV i was thinking, \"ok its gonna be a good werewolf movie\" but it was not. it was not scary at all! acting was good, plot was horrible, the military bid was just plain stupid. I think the SCI-FI channel could of done better than this piece of crap. The movie made it sound like Arron was going to turn into a werewolf, instead he turned psycho and bit some doctor's throat out. If you have read some of my other reviews on other movies, there all positive, but this one is not simply because the story was terrible. One out of 10 max. Im sure you all were expecting some werewolf flick, but i bet you didn't expect this. Beyond Loch Nes was way better than this movie, heck, any movie thats on the sci-fi channel is better than 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\nMy Score for this crap: 1 / 10 1 for the technical only. Everything else is very bad.
Another film that makes no sense. Clearly it seems that creating a good script for film or television is almost a impossible mission.
While it's easy to understand why politicians never say the truth, they are among the biggest liars on the planet, it is difficult to understand how to make films so pathetic.
We must believe that taking people for morons. Perhaps it was reason to believe, since 99% of the films are crap. Because they are stupid and ridiculous and very bad scenarios.
When you look at the price we give Oscars, we understand better why we continue to make films any more ridiculous than others.
And oddly enough it was always money for such nonsense. But it was not for education and health.
If you still want to listen to this s**t, press super Fast Forward button (at least 20X).
\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 probably pro-Muslimization.
Why do I write that? The main character has a Muslim father and a Christian mother. He lives his first 20 years in a Christian village. In the end of the film he seemingly is a Muslim because of his head-wear, that he has kept his amulet, and his general clothing. He has a six year old child, who wears the same head-wear and therefore is probably a Muslim, although the mother is a Christian. The main character thus chooses to, it seems, to be a Muslim and his child becomes a Muslim. No one of the other male main characters, which are Christians, seems to breed a child. There are more Muslims in the world of this movie at the end of it, it therefore seems.
\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 moment the film begins, already there is a discrepancy. As this film takes place on the borders of Normandy and the middle East, and is also an international film, one would expect proper accents portrayed. This is not done as the majority of the cast sound American. Also, I find the acting to be rehearsed at best, the story line a little difficult to follow from the beginning. Who is who? Otherwise the film is very accurate in costume and scenery. If you want to see a movie to get a feel of what it was like in the past (albeit the lack of accents) then this movie is worth a rent. If you're looking for a movie as epic as Kingdom of Heaven, then look elsewhere.
\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\nIm still in doubt if this is just a horrible movie or the worse movie i ever saw. Actors are painful and its impossible to get into the text.
Don't waist your time into this movie. By submitting this comment you are agreeing to the terms laid out in our Copyright Statement. Your submission must be your own original work. Your comments will normally be posted on the site within 2-3 business days. Comments that do not meet the guidelines will not be posted. Please write in English only. HTML or boards mark-up is not supported though paragraph breaks will be inserted if you leave a blank line between paragraph.By submitting this comment you are agreeing to the terms laid out in our Copyright Statement. Your submission must be your own original work. Your comments will normally be posted on the site within 2-3 business days. Comments that do not meet the guidelines will not be posted. Please write in English only. HTML or boards mark-up is not supported though paragraph breaks will be inserted if you leave a blank line between paragraph.
\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\nMarilyn Miller made only three films before her untimely death - the marvelous SALLY (1929), the comedy HER MAJESTY LOVE (1931) and this trifle - SUNNY (1930). It is quite poor both as an early talkie and as an attempt at a musical - although she has four dance numbers, she only sings two songs (WHO? and ONE MAN ALONE). The rest of the score including the spritely title tune are jettisoned, although we can hear the latter in the background scoring. Miller looks overweight and amateurish here - no star quality at all. Even her dancing is cloutish. The film is very badly written, stock full of stale and unfunny jokes and stupid situations. If you're interested in Miller as a performer, by all means, check it out, but for general entertainment, stay 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\nI have only recently been able to catch up with the films of Marilyn Miller since they are not shown on TCM in the UK.I have been much intrigued over the years because this was one of the superstars of the 20s.What was she really like.To some stars of this era like Jolson some of the magic still shines through,but alas not for Miller.Her dancing seems awkward and poorly choreographed,her singing somewhat limited and as an actress she makes Ruby Keeler seem like Hepburn.Even worse in this film as the public had grown tired of musicals virtually all of the musical numbers have been deleted.So we are left with a comedy of that period with little real appeal.She was being paid $500000 for this!So i have only two conclusion.Either she was poorly served by the cinema or she had no talent at all.I think that the truth is nearer the later than the former.
\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 key aspect of film that Jobson seems to have forgotten - it has the ability to tell a story by showing it to you. You don't need to tell the audience what to think, because they'll see it. The action here is interspersed with some of the most ponderous narration unleashed on the unsuspecting public - the purple prose of the sensitive fifth former. And it should be unnecessary because their is a fine cast here and some beautifully composed and shot visuals. Maybe Jobbo felt that the basic story needed a lit bit of support. And he may have been right, it lacks a basic credibility: 70s Edinburgh wasn't exactly full of beautiful brainy girls with a penchant for the Velvet Underground and a soft spot for a passing sociopath. From the too neat and new looking clothes that character wears to the cod intellectualism that tries to link it all together, it's all too contrived for my taste.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI got lured by the title... I was expecting an insightful and intriguing journey into alcoholism, instead I got a rather boring and uninspiring story about a rowdy Scot.
The leading character isn't given much psychological depth, unless you are willing to classify cheesy teen-like poetry as psychology.
It was a shame, because the core of the story could have been good, with a better effort to depict the inner feelings of a man who had to live with alcohol and violence since his youth.
Sadly, the general idea seems to be more like \"I'm the way I am because that's the way I am\". And the laughingly bad attempt at giving some sort of poetic edge to a lower-class man makes things even worse. Resorting to the overused cliché of the \"poète maudit\" reeks of a quick fix, a cheap way to make a dull movie seem smart, artsy and meaningful.
But \"16 years of alcohol\" isn't much smart, artsy or meaningful... The leading character doesn't evolve at all, and the feeble attempt of changing fails without a good explanation. Just like the initial attempt happened rather out of the blue.
The movie borrows heavily from classics such as A Clockwork Orange and Trainspotting, but it ultimately fails to recapture their greatness, not even for a few seconds.
Jobson put too much emphasis on the artistic side of the story, and neglected the rest, giving us a movie which is pleasant to the eye but insipid to the brain.
\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 can often tell a movie didn't turn out like it should by the heavy use of a narrator. This film features this device throughout. Richard Jobson not entirely content to write direct and even fund some of this film adds to his credits by reading excerpts of his own semi- autobiographical writing which combined with some pretty editing manages to gloss over what is a dull depressing tale which he must be mistaking for genuine art-house. Kevin McKidd puts in a good performance. Everyone else is okay.
Budget constraints meant that all scenes are shot in daylight though most are obviously meant to be at night, though if you know serious alcoholics they mainly operate in the day so for me it adds a touch of realism.
The funniest part of this film is a waitress who fails to age a single day in the 20 odd years that elapse between her appearances - a more extreme version of the problem McKidd has who goes from 18 to 30 without changing more than his clothes. Bless.
\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 only the second time I stopped a video/DVD part way through.
I was willing to give this film the benefit of the doubt at first, even though it managed to be both shallow, clichéd and stupid.. AND joyless, plodding and pretentious.
It was like an After School Special directed by that weird grade nine kid who thinks nobody understands him... creepy and sad, with voice-over narration that only the most deluded adolescent would consider poetry... and some singing, and... no, really, the poor child's suffering...
Enough, already, especially when it morphed into a brazen, clumsy, and insulting Clockwork Orange ripoff. And did I mention the singing?
This isn't the worst film I've ever seen, but certainly the one I've felt least compelled to sit through. I don't recommend it to anyone.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"