empathielabs/imdb_v0 huggingface dataset:
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWatching CBS's \"Surrender, Dorothy\", I kept wondering why Diane Keaton would want to be in it (not because it's a television movie--with the dearth of enticing roles for slightly older actresses, it isn't any wonder why Academy Award winning performers such as Keaton turn to TV--but because it offers no opportunities for Keaton to shine). A single mother, grieving the sudden death of her twenty-something daughter, imposes upon--and gradually becomes friends with--the group of young people her daughter was close to at the time of her accident. Adapted from the novel, this teleplay gives us a group of self-absorbed characters one would cross the street to avoid. Aside from being coarse and dim, these phony people are incredibly unconvincing, as is the tidy scenario and the bungalow near the beach where the kids reside (one young man, who wears muscle shirts to tell us he's gay, hears Diane Keaton say, \"Surrender, Dorothy\" and actually asks, \"That's from \"The Wizard of Oz\", right?\"...no, genius, it's from \"Citizen Kane\"!). Keaton may have wanted to do this material based on the subject matter of confronting death. She tries turning this distinctly unlikable woman into a shadow of her own personage (lots of kooky outfits), but it doesn't sit well with the viewer since Keaton has always been warmly likable and flexible in a flaky way. Here, she's a crazed harpy who doesn't learn many lessons on her journey of self-discovery (the movie quickly forgets it's about a dead young woman and becomes an odyssey for the nervous wreck of a mom, who appears to be an overage hippie who has never lost anyone close to her). This is the kind of film actors promote on talk shows with the caveat, \"It should help a lot of grieving mothers out there\". I can't imagine it helping anyone since it is intrinsically a downer, muddled and baffling. It's deranged.
\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 waited for this movie to play in great anticipation. Assuming it would be more accurately portrayed like the movie, \"The Christmas Box\" based on the book by Richard Paul Evans. I sent out many emails to friends and family asking them to please watch this show, hoping they would better understand a tiny amount of my \"new\" life. After seeing this movie I was so disappointed. As a mother who lost her only child in November 2003 and REALLY knowing the pain, I had hoped that this movie would shed light to parents who \"think\" they understand the grief a parent goes through who has lost a child. This movie was a very light hearted movie and the silliness of Diane Keaton was a slap in the face to parents who have buried a child. It was VERY unrealistic from start to stop. I had a few calls after the movie, each call the same, \"That was so off the mark and made it appear that in a short time you are back on the road and listening to songs on the radio and life is back\" What a bunch of bull! It is clear that the director and Keaton have never lost a child because neither would have EVER made the movie to be so off the mark. I guess that's Hollywood.
\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(Very light spoilers, maybe.)
Normally a fan of Diane Keaton, I tried to watch this tonight. I had to switch it off before the second hour because I found myself with absolutely no sympathy for daughter or mother. Both came across as self-absorbed with little regard for others, with the daughter also adding in rude, disrespectful and reckless to the mix. When the daughter died, the only thing I thought was, \"At least we won't have to watch her anymore.\" Keaton did a good job of moving into her stunned state and into the grieving, but it was too far gone for me by then. I simply wasn't enjoying it, so I stopped watching. If you want me to care for the protagonist, you need to get me caring about the characters much sooner--if it's nearly an hour in and I don't care, it's too late.
The supporting cast was sincere and well played--I felt for *them!*--and the gay best friend was wonderful, but even combined, that wasn't enough to carry the film for me.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n**1/2 for this Diane Keaton farce.
Someone should tell Ms. Keaton, enough with your Annie Hall philosophy and hats.
This flick is just too much as Keaton's daughter, Sara, dies in a traffic accident, while her boyfriend survives.
Keaton, who could not be reached by phone at first, as she was in the sack with her pal and had pulled out the phone plug, grieves in a new way for grievers.
She retreats to the summer locale where all of Sara's friends are staying. She cleans the house, sleeps for two days and then begins to reveal things which were better not to be revealed. It appears that sweet Sara slept with her girlfriend and the guy who ultimately married the latter. In addition, she had an abortion thanks to this guy. We're all now put on this guilt trip.
Her only hope is to find the elusive diary that Sara kept. She also hopes that boyfriend,Adam, who is a playwright, will not include all this in another play.
When the diary is found, it has been written in Japanese. Sara had a Ph.D in this language. It's not that great news for mom when an excerpt of the diary is translated by a Japanese cook in a Japanese restaurant.
Naturally, everything seems to tie up nicely in the end.
The title of this shmaltz comes from The Wizard of Oz. Every time mom and Sara would speak, they would both utter Surrender Dorothy.
As if this isn't enough, during the course of this bizarre extravaganza of mourning, Keaton tells Adam not to be another Woody Allen in his film, Interiors, where he tried to successfully emulate Ingmar Bergman. Ms. Keaton also tries drugs with the group. Come on, folks, can we realistically believe that anyone in his right mind could mourn like this?
Fair to mediocre best sums up 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\nAlthough the casting for this film was admirable, particularly Dianne Keaton and Tom Everett Scott, the quality of the writing was so poor that it would be impossible for any actor or director to make this film worth watching.
My wife and I decided that the reason we watched the entire film was that it was like a train wreck, and it was almost impossible to turn away. It may have been that we \"hoped\" that the message would eventually make itself apparent, and that we would be able to glean some meaning from this effort. Unfortunately, this did not happen.
Of course the audience may have been able to \"make sense\" of this convoluted tale, a credit to the ingenuity of the human brain to make sense of the absurd. The writers, however, did NOTHING to facilitate this innate need we seem to have for finding meaning.
It was apparent that those involved were simply going through the motions of their respective crafts, and that any intrinsic passion for the characters or the story was either secondary or non-existent.
Unfortunately, made-for-TV movies have seemed to devolve over the years. Whereas communicating a message to the audience may to have been the primary interest of the writers in the past, present-day writers and producers seem condescending to their audience, concentrating primarily on manipulating us to \"stay-tuned\" through the incessant advertising which seems to be the only reason movies such as Surrender, Dorothy are made.
\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 could not believe how awful this film was; I rarely watch commercial TV, but thought \"Well, Diane Keaton is always worth watching\". I stand corrected. Everyone involved should be hanging their heads in shame.
I realize there are not a lot of great roles for women of a certain age, but the script to this was so inept, clichéd and baffling that I am surprised it ever got into development or that Ms. Keaton thought she could make a silk purse out of this sow's ear. None of the characters had a shred of believability and were so incredibly unlikeable. The acting looked like exercises in a BEGINNING class - I stared in open-mouthed horror through most of this wondering \"What were they thinking?\". Very, very sad that it has come to this. Don't waste your 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\nI can't believe we watched this total piece of crap but we did and I feel obligated to warn others to avoid it at all costs. When one of the main characters announces that he's gay twice in the first five minutes, don't ignore it as typical PC nonsense and figure it has to get better because it won't. If his faggoty boyfriend hanging all over him doesn't make you sick, then be thankful the freak who wrote and/or directed this grossout is somehow attempting a little restraint. I mean, get real. It's one thing for there to be a gay character appearing in a movie in such screwed up times as these but quite another to have it continually slapped on the screen and examined up close and personal when the the liner notes clearly state the flick's supposed to be about a mother seeking some sort of \"closure\" over the sudden death of her daughter. What does one thing have to do with the other, one might be tempted to ask? Apparently, the two issues are inextricably interwoven. And if that weren't bad enough, there's the bearded lady at the ice cream parlor. I mean, seriously, hasn't that poor woman ever heard of electrolysis? Why must she go around like that? At the very least, how about shaving the ugly thing off, and while you're at it, have those horrible moles removed, too. Would YOU slurp up some ice cream she just served you? I think not. It must be a New Jersey thing.
You'd think Diane Keaton might save this piece of drek, but think again. Was she actually trying to put lipstick on a corpse? I don't even wanna think about it. So what if the body was supposed to be that of her own dead daughter. This grotesque excuse for cinema is slop from the word go and that's all there is to it. One wishes that each of these characters would simply walk out into the waves and just keep going. None of these flaky people even remotely gain our sympathy for an instant. Trust me -- pass this piece of crap up. It's not about death, a mother who inadvertently suffocated her daughter, or even the other much more unsavory issues it keeps bringing up no matter how little you want to hear it. It's a load of perverted trash from a misguided and talentless director.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe first 30min of the flick was choppy and hard to know just what was going on (unless you read the book - which I had not).
If you can stick with the first half, the second half is sweet - predictable, yes, but sweet none-the-less.
The way it was shot one would think it was produced in the early 80's, not 2005.
No stand-out moments, bland, but it moved along without boring me.
I would like to know why Keaton selected this role, her part would have been better cast with a player more at the level of the other actors to keep the balance.
\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\nAs I sat subjected to this televised mediocrity, I wondered why? Why did Dianne Keaton agree to this trash? The movie uses meaningless, contrived plot lines to deliver trash to homes of thousands. The movie takes a political agenda to a new level. The movie was meaningless, and all creditability was lost to the excessive use of stereotype.
It was obvious that Keaton tried to make this movie worthwhile, but in the end she needs to remember the age old adage that you cannot polish a turd. I hope that you did not waste your New Year's Day watching another mindless made for TV movie. I now know why the networks started airing series on Sunday night, to rid us of trash!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nMy wife and I started to watch this movie with anticipation. It looked warm and touching. It started out well; but, soon became boring and frankly idiotic after a while. It got so bad that we turned it off The movie was poorly acted and honesty, we couldn't really understand or wanted to understand what exactly why or how the hell they could put up with this woman! You lost sympathy for her after she was rude and acting wackos singing and cleaning. I would have had her committed. And, of course, like most movies and T.V series made in Hollywood we have to throw it a token \"gay\" character! This movie was boring. I was expecting more from Diane Keaton!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI just finished reading a book on Anita Loos' work and the photo in TCM Magazine of MacDonald in her angel costume looked great (impressive wings), so I thought I'd watch this movie. I'd never heard of the film before, so I had no preconceived notions about it whatsoever. Thought it got off to a cute start with Eddy as the playboy and MacDonald as the secretary he doesn't know exists. The scene where she shows up at the costume party in her simple angel outfit with an uncooperative halo and wings that won't stay on was really endearing. I was even with the film when Eddy goes to sleep and imagines her as a real angel. But after a while it just started to fall apart for me. Eddy stays \"asleep\" for the entire rest of movie, so it's all a dream. Whatever happens from there on doesn't really matter, because he's just dreaming. The rest of it was pretty much plot less and pointless. I had to force myself to stick with it. And the final number where MacDonald goes from musical number to musical number in some mad hallucination was just plain freaky.
Had Eddy \"woken\" a sooner and the original story continued, or had he really married an angel, I think it would have been a lot more interesting. I wanted to see more of her real character.
There weren't really enough musical numbers to call it a musical. The first few songs were good, but the jitterbug number that MacDonald performs was like nails on a chalkboard. Completely wrong for her operatic voice. Even so, Eddy and MacDonald still manage to shine, showing what true stars they were.
\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'll say one thing for Jeanette and Nelson--even when stranded in a mirthless, witless, painfully inept musical like this, there's still that twinkle in their eyes. Yes, the chemistry between the famous duo is there even when the material is paper thin. Even when the score is practically a throwaway, non-existent one depending on just a couple of catchy tunes. And even when the circumstances are so unbelievable--yes, even for a fantasy.
Truth to tell, she has more chemistry with Nelson than with her own real-life husband Gene Raymond in SMILIN' THROUGH, which, nonetheless, was a considerably better film.
Sorry, I love Jeanette and Nelson as much as the next fan, but this is the bottom of the heap. Jeanette is more than embarrassing in her one \"hep\" number with Binnie Barnes--and Nelson can only come up with a blank stare when faced with the most ludicrous situations.
One can only wonder what this was like on Broadway in 1938. Surely, it must have had more wit and style than is evident in this weak MGM production. Edward Everett Horton fizzles in an unfunny role and none of the supporting players can breathe any semblance of life into this mess. It's like amateur night at the studio even with the few professionals sprinkled among the supporting cast.
Summing up: Painfully clumsy rendering of a Rodgers and Hart musical. Can't recommend it, even for fans of MacDonald and Eddy. And even if Jeanette's close-ups still glow with her gossamer beauty, this film is jaw-droppingly bad.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhen anyone comes into a film of this type of film it's not without saying that an overdose of that great over-the-counter brain-medicine, Suspension of Disbelief, comes in mighty handy.
Jeanette MacDonald plays two roles: Anna/Brigitta, the woman who Nelson Eddy has ignored since the beginning of time, but who also is -- an angel sent to Earth.
My reaction when I saw this was a mute gasp of \"Hunh?\" Where have I seen this before? It turns out, I have seen it before, but in a movie made much later than this one. DATE WITH AN ANGEL, a forgettable pile of dreck made in 1987, cashed in on the ethereal beauty of one Emmanuelle Beart who had no speaking lines, also wore a blond wig, and made life hell for soap-actor Michael Knight. Much worse in every conceivable angle with ultra-low 80s values but more than likely an updated version of this 1942 turkey.
Anyway, not to elaborate, this is not a memorable film and stands as a doorstop of information because it was the last time MacDonald and Eddy, neither very good actors but terrific singers, would be together playing up the \"innocence\" and \"clean-cut\" romance that they were known for. After that you may need a cold shower, not because there are any steamy scenes here, but to get rid of the memory.
\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 final pairing of Nelson Eddy and Jeanette MacDonald is basically a complete misfire.The script is weak and has been presented badly.The film just has no life in it.Eddy and MacDonald would have been better off just making a filmed concert for their final pairing.There's nothing wrong with their singing,its just everything else in this turkey thats overcooked.
\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 Sentinel represents everything about the soul-lessness of Hollywood and the saddening lack of imagination present in so many movies these days. I cannot possibly think of one good thing about it, it's all so generic, so factory-made and so lazy assembled that it really only exists as an infomercial on how to make money from the unsuspecting, undeserving public.
A plot about a Secret Service Agent planning to assassinate the Prez could well be entertaining. If handled by a good director or caring cast that is. Douglas is the one who is framed. Basinger is the First Lady, with whom he is having an affair (an undeveloped, unresolved plot contrivance). Sutherland is the best pal who believes his guilty because there would be no movie if he didn't. And Longoria is nothing. A woman with a fortune of Maybelline and...that's it. I guess there are less requirements for women when entering the Secret Service. As usual in a film like this the role of the Prez himself is nothing more than a tool, a token and is very badly written.
Clark Johnson's, he who gave us the equally as pathetic SWAT back in 2003, mechanical direction lacks any kind of signature and has all the visual sophistication of a cheap TV-movie. Douglas, Basinger and Sutherland look incredibly bored and phone-in their performances from afar. Eva Longoria, the most over-exposed woman of the 21st Century, is basically only in this to attract to the Desperate Housewives audience. Her role is 100% pointless and she does absolutely nothing to further the plot or add to character development. She barely has 2 lines to rub together. A truly shameless marketing ploy.
If you're a glutton for punishment then don't let me stop you. But it IS time and money you won't be getting back.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis, for lack of a better term, movie is lousy. Where do I start......
Cinemaphotography - This was, perhaps, the worst I've seen this year. It looked like the camera was being tossed from camera man to camera man. Maybe they only had one camera. It gives you the sensation of being a volleyball.
There are a bunch of scenes, haphazardly, thrown in with no continuity at all. When they did the 'split screen', it was absurd. Everything was squished flat, it looked ridiculous.
The color tones were way off. These people need to learn how to balance a camera. This 'movie' is poorly made, and poorly done.
The plot - You got to be kidding. If I was an SS agent, I'd sue the producers. looked like the Marks Brothers with radios and guns. Sutherland was in his '24' mode - I can see this for free. Eva Longoria would have been better with a little less on, and a lot more showing. As an action bimbo she wasn't much.
I couldn't see a real plot, other than Douglas boinking the Presidents wife. Never did say why the mercenaries were trying to kill the pres. I just don't see the President of the United States running for his life in the utility tunnels of a building, like a rat in a maze. p-l-e-a-s-e.
Hollywood is dead. This movie is the proof. I like 'the big screen'. Have since I was a kid. Many more 'movies' like this and I'll quit going. Whats the matter Hollywood, made so many chick flicks, forget how to make a real movie? If I owned a theater, I'd start running the old movies. The one with real actors, good story lines - and good Cinemaphotography.
This 'movie' is a dog. Don't waste your time or money on it. I rate this 'movie' a zero! Douglas isn't suited for this role. I can over look his age, but his just is to much of a wimp to carry this 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\nSlow, Slow, Slow... There is no mystery or excitement in this film. If you don't figure out who the \"mole\" is in the first ten minutes you must be brain dead. The secret service must have been too, because it took them the whole film to put it together. There are no compelling characters in the movie (not film). The pace of the movie is slow there is no tension. The hired killer is an excellent shot unless he is aiming at Michael Douglas than all he seems to be able to hit is large panes of glass. The funniest scene in the movie is when the presidents wife says the code word at the anticlimactic ending. It is laugh out loud ridiculous. At least six people got up and left the movie early. I would have joined them if I were not sitting in the middle of the row. I would not recommend this film to anyone.
\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\nAlmost every plot detail in this movie is illogical and implausible. It carries no semblance of a genuine human story, dead and dull. It is a parody of Hollywood, with trumpet musical bits that remind you of a Denzel Washington movie, wobbly camera shots and focusing, racist stereotypes, absolutely unnecessary and comical shots and gestures of famous people in clothing catalogue poses. It is made to cater for the multitude of zombies whose meaning in life derives from watching celebrity names. The only good thing in the movie is the end credits and funky song that accompanies it. I feel like an idiot for watching this, save yourself.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nTrying to conceive of something as insipid as THE SENTINEL would be pretty difficult. The problems are many. The result is terrible and loaded with plot holes.
Michael Douglas stars as Pete Garrison, a Secret Service agent who \"took one\" for Reagan during the attempt on his life. Years later we find Pete assigned to the Whitehouse Family, mainly as a guard for the First Lady (Kim Basinger, L.A. CONFIDENTIAL). Troubles arise as we see Pete's close involvement with the First Lady, and a sudden threat against the President himself (David Rasche, UNITED 93). When Pete fails a polygraph test, he's singled out as a disgruntled agent by investigator David Breckinridge (Kiefer Sutherland, 24 TV series).
As the presidential assassination plot unfolds, Pete finds himself on the run from his own people. His only confidant is the First Lady, and she's reluctant to tell anyone about their affections for one another (which is why Pete failed the polygraph in the first place). But is Pete really innocent? Or is he simply trying to buy time until he can kill the President? If he is innocent, how can he help prevent the assassination attempt while running from the Secret Service?
The one, big, overwhelming problem with this film is that there's no justification for the reason behind the presidential threat. Isn't that what the movie's supposed to be about? One would think so! But the audience is never let in on why the assassin(s) want to kill the Prez. Hmm. Someone forget to put that in the script somewhere?
And what's with David Breckinridge's (Kiefer's) new partner, Jill Marin (Eva Longoria, CARLITA'S WAY)? Seems that she was put in the film strictly as a piece of a$$-candy. What was her purpose again? Did she do anything other than look nice in tight pants and a low-cut blouse?
There are so many problems with the basic premise of The Sentinel as to be laughable. The action is too easily stymied by the \"What the...?\" responses sure to be uttered by those unfortunate enough to watch the movie.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nLets first start this review with the fact that I SIGNED UP JUST TO WRITE THE REVIEW AND WARN PEOPLE TO SAVE Their MONEY!!
This was one of the worst pieces of trash i have seen since The Hulk. The storyline was the most predictable garbage you could possibly come up with. If you are expecting 24 but on the big screen, flush that expectation down the toilet immediately along with the money you would use for a ticket.. You may get more enjoyment that way. The acting was terrible, the plot was completely unrealistic, (along with the so called \"twist\" in the end. I must say this.. The ending did surprise me. I am not referring to the plot twist that surprised me, but instead the effortless manner that they put together what could be considered the ONLY scene of somewhat decent action in the entire movie. They rushed the ending so quickly that I didn't even realize that it was over until I saw the credits rolling and at that point i considered burning the reel of film if I could just figure out how to get into that screening room.
Casting was awful for a few reasons. First of all, they must have accidentally switched the character assignments, because Michael Douglas played the roll that CLEARLY Keifer Sutherland should have been playing. While Douglas was sneaking around agents, tapping phone lines, hacking into systems and taking out people who are chasing after him, Sutherland plays the less capable agent who is always in a bad mood even when things aren't going that badly for him. He plays a very bland agent, nothing like his Jack Bauer type roll us 24 fans love.
I can just about promise you that this movie will disappoint in all areas. It can be best compared to a remake of the \"The Fugitive\" / \"In The Line of Fire\" but written by people with mental disabilities
\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 good. There is bad. And then their is The Sentinel, a bottom-barrel political \"thriller\" that ranks among the worst movies I have ever seen. The plot of a mole in the Secret Service is a good one, but never has a movie with so much potential been so utterly butchered. Directed with ham-handed \"edginess\" by Clark Johnson, every actor in this film seems to be working on autopilot. Even the great Michael Douglas looks bored here. I can honestly say I have NEVER, in all my life, viewed another film with so many glaring plot holes. The twist is predictable from square one, and the character's motives are so utterly ridiculous that they inspired laughter from the audience. Avoid this at all costs. This is a catastrophe of a movie with no redeeming value.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSeriously, I don't even know where to begin. It's like somebody gave a bazillion dollar budget to an autistic third-grader and said 'make me a movie about the secret service'. The editing is ridiculous, the cinematography was random at best, every single syllable of dialogue was completely retarded and the directing ... well, was there even a director there? Everything was just so pointless and lame and pointless...and random....and lame.
Here's a SPOILER for you; this movie is the dumbest thing you'll ever see.
However, if you liked this piece, you'll also enjoy; Deterrance, Dark Blue, and a partial frontal lobotomy.
\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 the film tonight at a free preview screening, and despite the fact that I didn't pay a dime to see this film I still felt ripped off. Ladies and gentlemen, time is money and if you see this film you are leaving a Benjamin on your seat. The acting is torpid at best; Kiefer Sutherland phones in his worst impersonation of Jack Bauer, and Michael Douglas looks like he realizes he made a bad choice leaving Catherine Zeta-Jones for the duration it took to shoot this turkey. Eva Longoria is a non-entity; she looks like she's reading her lines off a teleprompter. And if you can't spot the \"mole\" within the first 20 minutes, then you just landed on this planet from a world without TV and recycled story lines. If you truly want to see a good secret service thriller, rent In the Line of Fire. If you see and buy into this one, you'll start to fear for the president's safety because the Secret Service looks and acts like the grown-up versions of the kinds from 90210. No matter what your feelings about W, let's hope this \"art\" does not imitate life.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI've been willing to put up with a lot from late-spring/summer action fluff movies, but in general that's been due to the fact that most of them have reasonable payoff (i.e. cool special effects, interesting plot twists, comic value, Steve Buscemi, etc.). This movie, however, had none of this. All that we got was the cheap thrill of several minutes of Eva Longoria's cleavage (an issue of Maxim is cheaper than a movie ticket). There is an embarrassing lack of plot, suspense, back story, character development, continuity, etc. I would get into specifics, but quite frankly I've already-maybe willingly-forgotten most of the movie.
The entire time I was in the theater, I was kicking myself for not just spending the afternoon watching a 24 season on DVD. Save your money on this one, folks. Unless you really, really, really like Eva Longoria's cleavage.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nNot to be confused with the above average supernatural thriller \"The Sentinel\". The Sentinel was a big bore of a movie for me, not delivering the consistent action, a couple of critics promised on the back. To me it seemed like everyone was Halfassing it, and only there to make some quick cash, because this felt very much like a made for TV film. The Sentinel is a rehash of several better films, like \"In The Line Of Fire\" this does not have any originality in it, and watching Michael Douglas run around, felt kinda silly in my opinion. The Main problem besides it's unoriginality, had to be the poor pace. I often got distracted while trying to view this movie, while looking how much run time was left, more then once. Not only the miscasting with Eva Longoria, who couldn't convince worth a lick.
Performances. Michael Douglas is usually a dependable actor, here is obviously going through the motions. He does not convince as a man on a run, or a secret agent. His chemistry with Bassinger, was also off. I'm a big fan of Kiefer Sutherland, but here he is only OK, nothing more then that. He tries to come across as a gruff, but managed to be more bland then anything else, and to be honest, he didn't seem that interested. Eva Longoria Parker is pretty mediocre. She does not convince in her role, and was pure eye candy. Kim Basinger is pretty terrible as the 1st lady. She looks bored to tears, and her role is a throw away, more then anything else. Martin Donovan has a big part in the end, but not enough to matter for me.
Bottom line. The Sentinel is yet, another political thriller, that bored me to tears. It's too old, too tired, and most importantly the lack of effort sucked. Not recommended.
4/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI saw the trailer of the film several times at theater and I excited. It looked like a classic action thriller like the ones made in 1990's. It recalled me also Fugitive movies, a cat and mouse chase between Douglas and Sutherland. However, The Sentinel is the most tasteless action thriller of all time. As I see, many people say that this is like a TV movie. Not exactly. Firstly, there are much more better TV movies in this genre. Secondly, TV movies might be very fun sometimes, but this film is the exact opposite of having a good time. It is not stylish at all visually and the most important, the tone of the movie is unappealing. This is not an action movie, there are two action scenes consist of a chase and a clash. Also they are not big action scenes, but the worse is that those action scenes are very tasteless like the whole movie. The love affair between Douglas and Bassinger was very unnecessary. Besides, the assassination plot to the president is the most cliché story in this genre either, but they insist on that. And this is not a cat and mouse film as it is supposed to be. Although, Douglas is very old now, he has still potential for acting in an action thriller. In the film, Michael Douglas cannot be like Tommy Lee Jones, for example. Sutherland is a wrong choice either, because you feel as if you watch Jack Bauer and somehow, its character is one of the reasons which make the film like a TV movie, Eva Longoria Parker is a strange choice, of course she is too passive or straight in this movie, because she is a soap opera actress. The movie was not fun even one second to me, so I could not get over for a while.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt saddens me to rate a movie with a lot of my favorite actors, locations and genres, i.e. Douglas, Sutherland, Washington, D.C. and political thriller, but 'The Sentinel' really hits a low. It's like they had a great idea up front, signed the right cast and had some great city shots and then took a holiday letting the remaining crew improvise the rest. And I wish I could blame it on yet another bland performance from Basinger (not only do I feel she's one of the worst actors in Hollywood, but I'm still steaming more than a decade later that she was the only one, and definitely the only bad actor in the film, to win an acting Oscar for 'L.A. Confidential.') But she wasn't the only problem. Sutherland, who I love as Jack Bauer on '24' once again playsJack. I miss his old 'A Time to Kill' or 'A Few Good Men' days. Douglas certainly took a hiatus from acting and phoned this one in. Plot: Someone, some Secret Service traitor, wants the President dead and Douglas is (haphazardly) being framed. Will someone believe him? Actually, no spoiler here: as quickly as they came up with that subplot half-way through, it's over before you know it. And why did someone(s) want the President dead? Is that to be revealed in the sequel? Too many plot holes, too many doors opened and never closed and too predictable 'The Sentinel' is. If you only see one movie a year, you may not know who the mole is, but anyone who's familiar with these types of movies or even just seen one 'Law & Order' episode you'll know in the first few frames. Was it terrible? Not really, the cinematography was good, and despite Sutherland playing Jack again, he's still got 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\nA bum gives a Secret Serviceman a tip about a Secret Service man in the presidential detail who plans to kill the president. Baloney. How did the bum know? The script then turns to a most detailed examination of how the Secret Service works, but who cares. Most of this just slows down the movie. All the chases that follow are this film's version of the tiresome car chases of many movies. Then, after a lot of impossible athleticism in which our hero outruns and out-guns all his buddies, we have a shootout in the Toronto City Hall. The Canadians are clearly marked with maple leafs, but how did they get into this? Finally, all is worked out. But it still makes no 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\nSPOILER ALERT ! ! ! Personally I don't understand why Pete did not help to save Williams life,I mean that would be great to know why William was motivated,or forced.I think Secret Service members are every day people,and there is a rumor the writer was a member of the Secret Service,now he's motivations are clear,well known.But as a rental this film will not satisfy you,cause the old but used twists,the average acting -these are just things in this film,only for keep you wait the end.Clark Johnson as the director of S.W.A.T. did a far better work like this time,and I still wondering how the producers (for example Michael Douglas)left this film to theaters.
\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\nHollow point is an alright movie worth a half price rental or if nothing else is on a good time waster with no thought required. There are the requisite explosions and hammy acting and pretty ladies. A pretty good cast with Donald Sutherland, John Lithgow, and the lovely Tia Carrere. This cast plus a light hearted touch make for a not a great movie but a fun one..on a scale of one to ten ..a 4
\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 director Sidney J. Furie has created in Hollow Point a post-modern absurdist masterpiece that challenges and constantly surprises the audience.
Sidney J. Furie dares to ask the question of what happens to the tired conventional traditionalist paradigms of 'plot' and 'characterisation' when you remove the crutches of 'motivation' and 'reason'.
The result leads me to say that my opinion of him could not possibly get any higher.
One and a half stars.
P.S. Nothing in this movie makes any sense, the law enforcement agents are flat out unlikeable and the organised criminals are full on insane.
\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 bomb is just one 'explosion' after another, with no humor and only absurd situations. Really, pyrotechnics to the extreme. Reality is not one of its strong points. I give it a 1 out of 10. I would have made it a zero but that option wasn't permitted. Sorry, but Lithgow and Sutherland deserve better roles. But then at times we all need to have money. And I still recoil at that Tim Burton farce about Mars. Nicholson was brave enough to admit that was a turkey. But if that was a turkey, this movie then is not even a gizzard. I wish I could say, \"give me back my money\". You can bet I would if I could. But that is the trouble with premium services, the subscription variety.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI saw this movie years ago in a group tradition of Fast Forward Film Festivals, where we would set out to rent a bunch of B-movies and vote for who picked the worst.
The night we watched this, it was voted the best, due to semblance of plot and fun costuming.
This is certainly a silly, kitschy, movie, to be watched under the full understanding that you are watching low-budget fluff. Personally, however, I wouldn't recommend additional substances ... this movie will leave it's own mark on you.
It made enough of an impression on me that I've actually been trying to get my hands on a copy for a few years.
A good choice if you are setting out to watch bad movies. This one is fun, and I remember bouncy music ...
\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 horribly acted, written, directed and produced. But it's so campy it's actually semi-watchable. That's SEMI watchable.
The storyline (what little there is) makes virtually no sense whatsoever. The Barney Drum character is the only real comic relief in the movie and that gets tired after about 30 seconds.
Many of the Canadian supporting cast can be found in TV commercials.. None of them went on to anything else that I'm aware of. And of course Sly Stallone's even less talented brother well..... =\\
Trivia: It was filmed almost entirely in and around the little village of Claremont, Ont. (about 20 miles N.east of Toronto) I recognized many local landmarks/intersections/buildings. I think the Drive-in scene was filmed at the now demolished \"Oshawa Drive-in\" just before it was torn down.
\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\nTo say this film stinks would be insulting to skunks. As the other commenter says, this movie is insulting to anyone over the mental age of 7 (it is especially, incredibly insulting to gays). It is awful - and not in a \"so bad it's funny\" sort of way either - it's just plain awful. No, I have to say it: IT STINKS! (sorry skunks).
From the opening credits to the end titles there is hardly more than 10 seconds of this movie worth opening your eyes for. The \"plot\" is incoherent, the characterization non-existent, the acting is of the over the top mugging \"look at me I'm being funny!\" school and so it goes on. The set pieces are clumsily set up (if at all) and are badly executed, it's just awful on every front - apart from the music maybe, I don't remember thinking the music stinks (apart from the songs).
To be fair to the makers, they lay their cards on the table pretty quickly: the opening credits include the title \"Also starring Ertha Kitt as the voice of Betty the meteor\" (since as the meteor in question turns out never never say anything but make an occasional purring noise they may well have lifted Ms. Kitt's contribution from one of her records) and the second line of the movie runs something like: \"...and scientists have discovered new facts about the rings around Uranus.\" Uranus - \"Your Anus\" geddit? geddit? huh? huh?? Your Anus? The humour really is that cheap.
It says strange things about the \"comedies\" of that period in that it was perfectly permissable for the hero to deliberately shoot people dead in the street but not say \"sh*t\" out loud.
I paid fifty pence (about $1.00) for this movie in a sale. I feel ripped 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\nSly Stallone is hardly the finest actor in the world but compared to his brother, Frank...well, roll out those awards now! Mullet haired, muppet Frank seems to think that every part he plays, calls for him doing the role as an American/Italian Wise-guy refugee from the 'Godfather.' Please, somebody make him an acting offer 'he can refuse!' This film just stinks the place out, even by the terrible overacting in this, Frank still steals the acting dishonours. All the people compensate for their lack of talent by shouting their lines and throwing their arms about, gesticulating wildly in a style that went out of fashion back with silent films.
The plot, what there, is, makes no sense as a meteor lands and turns all the women into sex-crazed nymphets but as this is 15 certificate film, that just means they strip to their underwear and make moaning sounds like dogs on heat. What happens in the end, I'm not quite sure as I was losing the will to live long before the film finished.
Avoid this like the plague and watch 'Deep Impact' for a reasonable film about a meteor about to hit the earth.
N.B. Point of order: when one of the female leads strips down to her underwear, she has her knickers/panties under her suspenders/garter belt, it's knickers over the suspenders to allow women to go to the toilet with less fuss. A trivial point, perhaps, but shows how dumb this film is when they can't even get this right!
\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\n102 Dalmatians (2000, Dir. Kevin Lima)
Believed to be cured, Cruella de Vil (Close) is released from prison and sets out to make a new start in life. Things are going well for Cruella who is busy helping homeless dogs off the street. When the clock strikes on Big Ben, things turn bad. The hypnotic cure is reversed and Cruella is back, and this time she is determined to make that spotted coat she always wanted.
Glenn Close reprises her role as Cruella de Vil and once again is the highlight of the film. Every scene with her in is worth watching in this dull sequel, which feels more of a repeat of the previous film, rather than a new story.
She's Changed.  Ken Sheperd (Ioan Gruffudd)
\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 wouldn't bring a child under 8 to see this. With puppies dangling off of buildings squirming through dangerous machines and listening to Cruella's scary laugh to name a few of the events there is entirely too much suspense for a small child.
The live action gives a more ominous feel than the cartoon version and there are quite a few disquieting moments including some guy that seems to be a transvestite, a lot of tense moments that will worry and may frighten small kids.
I don't know what the Disney folks were thinking but neither the story nor the acting were of their usual level. The puppies are cute But this movie is spotty at best.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"