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\nSTAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning
This second instalment of the Che films moves the story forward to the late 60s, where the man has now moved his resistance fighters into the hills of South America, surviving without enough food and water and with tensions mounting between the group. Everything comes to a head when he crosses the border into Bolivia and the government forces step up their campaign to bring him down.
Without the flitting between time and places of the last film, Soderbergh's second instalment focuses solely on the action in the hills, and manages to be an even duller experience. And more pretentiously, the score has been drowned out, giving the second instalment more of an unwelcome air of artsieness that proves just as alienating. There's just an unshakeable air of boredom to the film that never lets up. You can't fault Soderbergh's ambition or Del Toro's drive in the lead role, it's just a shame that somewhere in the production things managed to take such a disappointing turn. **
\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\nSame old same old about Che. It completely ignored the really interesting facts of Che's true character. Sodeberg redid the same boring narrative of Che. The silly seductive tale of an Argentinean rich-boy who was so shocked by poverty he became a Robin Hood fighting alongside the poor, until eventually he was murdered by the CIA. Yeah, yeah, heard it all before, BORING AND UNTRUE!. The reality of Che Guevara is very different and far more explosive! The facts show that he was a totalitarian with a messiah streak, who openly wanted to impose Maoist tyranny on the world. He was so fanatical that at the hottest moment in the Cold War, he even begged the Soviet Union to nuke New York, Washington or Los Angeles and bring about the end of the world. CHe urged Khrushchev to launch a nuclear strike against US cities. For the rest of his life, he declared that if his finger had been on the button, he would have pushed it. When Khrushchev backed down and literally saved the world, Che was furious at the \"betrayal\". If Che's recommendations had been followed, you would not be reading this review now. How a homicidal maniac became a pop icon would have made a much more interesting film. Incredible that no filmmaker has been daring enough to show the real side of Che and his posthumous media transformation. THAT WOULD MAKE AN Oscar WINNING FILM! I thought making independent film meant taking REAL RISKS and being GROUNDBRAKING! They only stick to \"safe counterculture themes\", to wit, \"Che cool\", \"Wall Street bad\", \"Republican= Nazi\", \"Bush ex Hitler\", \"NRA is worse than KGB\", \"Christians are fanatics and stupid\", etc...ad nauseum. Oooh, how daring, how mind blowing. Tres anti-mainstream and edgy. I wish they would have some real cojones and tackle the Independent Film Oligarchy! That would be truly daring!
\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 second half of Steven Soderbergh's revolutionary bio on Che Guevara deals with his last campaign to export revolution to Bolivia. In order to maintain his saintly visage of Che Soderbergh conveniently leap frogs the mass executions he presided over after the revolution in Cuba and the folly of his Congo adventure (\"This is the history of a failure\" he writes in the preface of his Congo Journal) to concentrate fully on Che's attempt to rally support to rise up against the government in Bolivia. It would turn out to be a disaster and Guevara's final act.
What plagued the first chapter follows suit here as Soderbergh slows his film to a crawl to study the beatific countenance of the contemplative Guevara once again being played like James Dean in East of Eden by Bernicio Del Toro. The problem is Guevara has little success in gaining converts and he soon finds himself and his starving comrades being swallowed up in the heart of darkness Bolivian Jungle. Unlike Werner Herzog in the magnificent, Aguirre, the Wrath of God Soderbergh fails to utilize the jungle's metaphorical possibilities to heighten the desperation of the guerrillas. He seems more concerned with keeping Che's nimbus above his head than exploring the panic setting in on the dead enders. There is one Herzogian moment where Che sits astride an obstinate horse kicking and screaming to get it moving but overall Soderbergh's mise en scene remains flat, sloppy and uninteresting.
In both of his films Soderbergh shows he is clearly a Che groupie and because of it his focus remains myopic and narrow. He spends too much time building his monument to Che and too little in developing his relationships with key players in his saga, especially Fidel Castro. Making matters worse he does it with a slow and dispassionate approach that never catches fire. One would think he was steeped in enough Eisenstein and Vertov to realize that sweeping change is showcased a lot better with sweeping style.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt is incredible that with all of the countless crimes that have been uncovered and laid unequivocally at the doorstep of Marxism, from the Berlin Wall to the Gulag archipelago to the Cultural Revolution to the Khmer Rouge, one still finds admirers of Communist totalitarianism in Hollywood and are still making propaganda in its favor. It just shows the moral depravity of Hollywood.
In this particular film a psychotic murderer is glorified. Needless to say that neither his crimes nor his psychotic proclamations were included. That both the director and the actor expect audiences to sit through this seemingly interminable propagandistic film demonstrates the tunnel vision that they have in regards to their object of worship.
\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 think that's this is awful produced and directed movie. Benicio Del Toro shouldn't work in production of movies, he should put accent on his acting and that's it. Steven Soderbergh missed the whole point of the idea about revolution, about it's ideals, and most important about life of Che Guevara and so on. Camera is awful, like someone with 2 day working experience is shooting with it, music is ...i don't know..is there some music in the movie???? i will not recommended this piece of sh.. to no one. It's just wasting about 4 hours in front of the TV or whatever.... I can't figure out how can someone rate this movie more than 3 stars. DISASTER....DISASTER....DISASTER....DISASTER Don't watch please. Save yourself from this misery of \"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\nWhat I found so curious about this film--I saw the full 4 hour roadshow version, is how oddly dispassionate it is. For a film about 2 very charismatic men--Castro and Che, engaged in a gargantuan political struggle, it's almost totally devoid of emotional fire. The scenes between Benicio Del Toro and Demian Bichir (who is at best a second level actor,with a slightly high pitched voice) have no drama or depth and basically come down to Castro telling Che: go here, go there, do this and that, with no explanation as to what effect or use this action will result in. Odder still is there is an actor in the cast who has the requisite power to play Castro--Joaquim de Almeida, but he's shunted aside in a minor part in the second half. Without the tension or passion that you would expect to fire these men and their followers, the film becomes a dullish epic-length film about hairy, bearded men running through various jungles shouting and shooting to no particular purpose or end. Several of the reviews I've read showered praise on the work of director Steven Soderbergh while ignoring the actors almost completely. (One in fact spent more time talking about Soderbergh's new digital film camera than the plot or actors or the fact that it's entirely in Spanish with English subtitles.)This is an odd, odd thing to do since a) Soderbergh was only a hired gun on the film and b) it's no more than a competent job of work, with an unremarked upon nod to Oliver Stone's JFK in the black and white cut up camera-work when Che visits New York. If you can imagine Reds directed by Andrew McLaglen instead of Warren Beatty, you'd get an idea of the dull competency of 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\nThe first part, Che in Cuba, is about that portion of his life. It contains too many indistinguishable battles and Che ministering to too many indistinguishable wounded (remember that Che was a physician). It ends as Castro wins the revolution; Che never gets to Havana. The second part, Che in Bolivia, is about guess what. It contains too many indistinguishable battles and Che ministering to too many indistinguishable wounded.
When I realized this was supposed to be an \"epic\" (I never knew *anything* but the title before it started), I naturally thought of the greatest epic of them all, David Lean's Lawrence of Arabia. More of that later.
Not to be a racist, but aside from what I've already mentioned is the fact that there are too many characters who are, well, indistinguishable -- unknown Hispanic actors who look alike, especially considering they all wear \"Che\" beards and all wear Che fatigues. This results in the viewer not being able to identify with anyone other than Che, Benicio del Toro (even Fidel has a very minor role). While del Toro's terrific, think of \"Lawrence\" with Peter O'Toole as the only discernible character: no Alec Guinness, no Omar Sharif, no Anthony Quinn, etc. You get the idea.
Because the other characters are interchangeable, this results in a loss of reference. When top aides of Che are killed, you feel no remorse since you don't know who they are. Even when Che is killed (I don't think that's a spoiler), there's no empathy from the audience -- he's just killed.
He's too one-dimensional to relate to as a human being. Aside from being a revolutionary and second only to Jesus in moral rectitude, the only thing we learn about Che is that he's married with five children (he tells another character that near the end). What was his motivation? A complete enigma.
Maybe Soderbergh is purposely aping Lean. Like Soderbergh's Che, Lean never lets us know anything about Lawrence, the mystery man of Arabia. But at least Lawrence had a friend (Sharif) and associates (Guinness, Quinn). He was as courageous as he was insecure -- i.e., had human qualities. Che is like a machine, about as warm as The Terminator.
Earlier this year there was another war epic, Mongol. Che makes Mongol look like It's a Wonderful 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\nThis \"documentary\" is a proof of talent being used for mean purposes. The fact that it is financed by the venezuelan government gives it a lack of legitimacy in the purpose of searching for the truth of what really happened those horrible days of April 2002 in Venezuela, something even we venezuelans don't know for sure.
There are ways of lying, and the directors of this stuff lie both by omission and by knowledge.
The venezuelan political process is too complex to be easily understood by foreign audiences, and they take advantage of that. For instance *POSSIBLE SPOILERS* they show pro-Chávez demonstrators shooting at an empty street (what the hell they did that for?) in a way of saying they didn't kill anyone, but didn't bother showing the images we all saw here, of opposition demonstrators (and a journalist) falling dead or injured at the other side of that \"empty\" street. They can't explain why the chopper of the political police was the only one authorised to fly over Caracas that day and did nothing against the snipers that were all over the roofs of the buildings nearby the presidential palace, something that would exhibit how inefficient would be the security measures to guard the President. A few days after the \"coup\", the chief of the military guard in charge was asked at the National Assembly (our Congress) why didn't they act against the snipers and he said \"'cause they weren't there to act against the president\", isn't that a confession?
There is so much more, the fact that the highest rank military announced that Chávez had resigned and 2 days later he said he had lied because \"that's politics\" and nowadays is the Minister of Internal Affairs of Chávez' administration.
It would take me thousands of words to explain all the lies depicted in this \"documentary\", made with the intention of selling the world an image of the good old Hugo Chávez who rules for the poor and the bad rich opposition that wants him out at all costs, when the truth is that 60-70% of people rejects his government, and that percentage includes the poor.
I hope those of you who have seen and bought this will be able to see a different version that is being made by a group of venezuelan people showing no less than 30 lies.
Nazi propaganda has returned!
\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 this movie, Chávez supporters (either venezuelan and not-venezuelan) just lie about a dramatic situation in our country.
They did not say that the conflict started because of Chávez announcement firing a lot of PDVSA best workers just for political issues.
They did not say anything about more than 96 TV interruptions transmitted by Chávez during only 3 days in \"CADENA NACIONAL\" (a kind of confiscation o private TV signals). Each one with about 20 minutes of duration.
They did not tell us anything about The quiting announcement made by General en Jefe Lucas Rincon Romero, Inspector General of the army forces, who is a traditional supporter of Chávez. Even now, in despite of his announcement, he is the Ministro de Interior y Justicia. After Chávez return he occuped the Charge of Ministro del Defensa (equals to Defense Secretary in US).
They did not say anything about Chávez orders about shooting against a pacifical people concentration who was claiming for elections.
They did not say anything about the people in this concentration that were killed by Chávez Supporters (either civilians and Military official forces).
They present some facts in a wrong order, in order to lie.
They did not say anything about venezuelan civilian society thats are even now claiming for an elections in order to solve the crisis and Chávez actions in order to avoid the elections.
That's why i tell you.... This movie is just a lot of lies or a big lie.
\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\nRecently, I saw the documentary \"The revolution will not be televised\", also know as \"Chávez: inside the coup\". At first I thought it showed a genuine inside view of events during the Venezuela coup of April 2002. What bothered me though was the fact that the tone of the narration and the accompanying music were suggestive, and that at no point any criticism was expressed about Hugo Chávez. This is peculiar because if a documentary is giving an non-biased account of what happened, there should have been some of that too. After all, Chávez certainly is not a saint. Fortunately, since the documentary is several years old, a lot of additional information is available on the internet nowadays, and it was not difficult to find for instance \"Urgent Investigation about Chavez-the coup by the 5 European TV Corporations who financed the film which presents blatant falsehoods about Venezuela.\" It lists the many errors and intended or unintended falsifications in the documentary. (Just use the title as a search string in Google, you will find it). Another interesting document was the video registration of a presentation of the findings of the many errors in this documentary, \"X-ray of a lie\". To me it seems to be a good counterweight to \"Chávez: inside the coup\" It's available at video.google. I strongly advice you after watching \"Chávez: inside the coup\" to look at \"X-ray of a lie\" and then form your opinion. My conclusion is that Kim Bartley and Donnacha O'Brian were (knowingly or not) part in Chávez-propaganda.
\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\nRemember a film you seemed to enjoy in the past that doesn't quite meet those same feelings as an adult? That occurred to me when I went back to school..the National Lampoon's Class Reunion. The film has a perfect opportunity for laughs, but surprisingly wanders aimlessly as we see a bizarre collection of characters such a woman who sold her soul to the devil and can shoot out flames of fire from her mouth, a man who appears to be a vampire, and a lunatic killer dressed as a woman and wears sacks over his head. You have the class president who believes he's the best thing since sliced bread(but as we see in the film, he's a coward and joke), a couple of pot smokers who don't even know they are at their own class reunion, and a man named Gary for whom know one even knew existed(and no one can seem to remember his name..this is the one running joke I enjoyed). There is a plump pervert who likes to grab women in inappropriate places, a deaf and blind woman who has a screeching holler when calling for her dog, and the cook(you know her from \"goonies\" and \"Throw Mama From The Train\")who loves to place food on people's plates with her hands! The film is essentially about a nutcase who is(or at least attempting to)taking revenge on his classmates for a gag they pulled on him(they arranged for him to sleep with his own twin sister!). The film follows the characters as they search for the killer canvasing darkened, trashed hallways of the old high school. They were told of the killer by his psychologist who seems a bit odd himself. The film has a few good gags that work(pretty much early on), but the film slowly gets worse each passing minute. The film's true problem is that it really doesn't know where to go. The film is pretty much a one-joke premise for it has unassured direction..if it really has any direction at all. The cast is enthusiastic enough, but the material they are to make funny just doesn't have the quality to hold any interest. It's a curio for fans of early 80's comedy relics that are forgotten(this one rightfully so).
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf it wasn't for the performances of Barry Diamond and Art Evans as the clueless stoners, I would have no reason to recommend this to anyone.
The plot centers around a 10 year high school reunion, which takes place in a supposed abandon high school(looks more like a prop from a 1950s low budget horror flick), and the deranged student the class pulled a very traumatizing prank on. This student desires to kill off the entire class for revenge.
John Hughes falls in love with his characters too much, as only one student is killed as well as the lunch lady(Goonies' Anne Ramsey). We're led to believe that the horny coupled gets killed, but never see a blasted thing! This is a horrible movie that continued National Lampoon's downward spiral throughout the 80s and 90s.
\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\nAnyone who thinks this film has not been appreciated for its comic genius must have been smoking with the two stoners in the film. This film is NOT under-rated...it is a bad movie.
There should be no comparisons between this film and The Naked Gun or Airplane since the latter two films are well written and funny. Class Reunion is neither of those things. The sad thing is it had such potential (good cast, good story lines) but the good jokes are few and far between. The scenes that were supposed to be funny came off more annoying than amusing. The stoner guys, the vampire, the blind girl...NOT FUNNY. The only funny character were Delores (the one who sold her soul to the devil).
National Lampoon has made some really good films (Animal House, Vacation) but this isn't one of them. I certainly expected more from John Hughes.
\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\nStereotypical send up of slasher flicks falls far short as supposed entertainment. Gerrit Graham, Michael Lerner, Zane Busby, and in fact the entire cast are totally wasted. Lame jokes abound, and every punch line is well telegraphed. The dumb one liners come at a fast pace, and almost every one falls flat as a squashed grape. The musical numbers only contribute to the boredom that sets in and lingers for the entire movie. Another negative is the claustrophobic setting entirely within the walls of an abandoned high school. Avoid this and seek out one of \"Lampoon's\" truly funny films like \"National Lampoon's Golddiggers\" - MERK
\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 biggest National Lampoon hit remains \"Animal House\", and rightly so. It was funny, raucous and good-natured.
The exact opposite of every other National Lampoon film. Including \"Class Reunion\".
PLEASE do not be fooled by the inclusion of Stephen Furst (\"Flounder\") from \"Animal House\". Or by the fact that John Hughes wrote this jumbled mess. This reunion is about as hilarious as root canal and twice as painful.
One star, and that's being generous. Then again, I always thought most of my old classmates were demons, vampires and serial killers, too.
\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\nNATIONAL LAMPOON'S CLASS REUNION was a flop when it was released. It didn't stay long in theaters in my big city. Why? Because it's BAD!!!!!
Not bad in a good way but bad in a really painfully unfunny way. The entire cast of actors were mostly unknowns then and have remained unknowns after this turkey.
The idea is actually great (a parody of slasher flicks) but the execution is sorely lacking in every aspect.
Just avoid this \"comedy\". Your time is more precious than spending a nanosecond watching this embarrassing misfire.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie is about as underrated as Police Acadmey Mission to Moscow. This movie is never funny. It's maybe the worst comedy spoof ever made. Very boring,and dumb beyond belief. For those people that think this movie is underrated god help you. I give this movie * out of ****

\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie is rated a classic on sentiment not on any quality of movie-making. It moves from the unlikely to the unbelievable, from the unrealistic to the ludicrous.
The unbelievable plot revolves around an attempt by two British soldiers and a Hindu gofer to rescue a third soldier who has been captured by insurgent Indians. In the later scene we see a full regiment with drum and bagpipes marching into an ambush. In the British army, a sergeant does not order up a rescue attempt, and if you get past that, he does not attempt it with only one other soldier and an Indian servant when there is a full regiment on hand. The Indian insurgents are so incredibly inept it is laughable...there are hundreds of them but they can't hold their prisoner or kill the two rescuers, of course not. At one point we see the British soldiers throwing blocks of stone down from the battlements at the insurgents, who are scattered around the mountainside in ambush...one would have to have an eggplant for a brain to think this would do any damage. After Cary Grant as the rescued prisoner is shot, he lies on the floor looking around at the water boy...hardly the actions of someone who has been shot in the back. The water boy bravely blows a bugle (which comes from nowhere) to sound the alarm...this he does by standing up high on a wall so he can be seen and shot by the bad guys, and we shed a tear as he keeps trying to sound more notes as he is repeatedly shot and the bugle call breaks up into feeble squawks...instead of blowing the bugle while hiding behind cover as anybody with half a brain would do. This scene has deservedly been parodied in comedy sketches. If they wanted to make a Buster Keaton comedy, they should have hired Keaton and done it 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\nNot one of the better pokemon movies.
Two legendary pokemon come into the story. You do get to see how strong Celebi can be, though he turns evil first.
Suicune also makes an appearance, he didn't seem that powerful.
The Marauder didn't have many strong pokemon at all, except for that taranitar? Some fight scenes with his pokemon may have made it better.
Ash and Pikachu meet the much younger Professor Oak, though they don't realise it. Misty I was thinking had it at the end but she didn't get close. I saw this in the credits.
Don't expect much here, the worst of the series so far.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe movie seemed to appeal me because of the new type of Pokemon Celebi. But the plot was out of course and didn't have as an interest as the other movies. It was a waste of money and time. The same corny humor and cliche bad guys. The movie was of no use to make if you wanted to make Pokemon famous. The movie should better not associated with animes such as Dragonballz, Digimon, or Yu-Gi-Oh. The drawing and settings are of no level rising to the standards of original anime. It is a shame even to talk about this movie. I bet Pokemon fans will be disappointed with the outcome of the movie and give up on Pokemon. Digimon is more of an anime and doesn't fall anywhere close to Pokemon.It's second movie is coming out late 2002.
\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\nWow. This movie bored the pants off me when I saw it. Bland, pointless and unmoving.
Apparently, Ash and co. can travel through time with the help of \"The Spirit of the Forest\" ('Princess Mononoke' much??) There, they meet a dorky kid named Sam, and the \"plot\" begins.
So Tom (Ash) and Huck (Sam) get high with nature, become hippies and try to free Celebi (the \"Spirit\") from some weirdo hunter guy. I don't even know what else went on. It all went by in a blur. Ash's friends were hardly in it, and all the fight scenes were boring.
After saving the day, Ash and his infamous friends, must return to their time, while watching Sam float away with Celebi (that scene was just creepy. O-O;) Then, after returning to their time, Ash learns that his new friend is actually his rival's grandpa. And I think that's it. Pretty retarded isn't it? If you love your children, you won't expose them to this. (1 out of 10.)
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nTo heighten the drama of this sudsy maternity ward story, it's set in a special ward for \"difficult cases.\" The main story is Loretta Young's; she's on leave from a long prison stretch for murder. Will the doctors save her baby at the cost of her life, or heed her husband's plea for the opposite? Melodrama and sentiment are dominant, and they're not the honest sort, to say the least. For example, just to keep things moving, this hospital has a psycho ward next door to the maternity ward, and lets a woman with a hysterical pregnancy wander about stealing babies.
There are just enough laughs and sarcasm for this to be recognizable as a Warners film, mostly from Glenda Farrell, who swigs gin from her hot-water bottle while she waits to have twins that, to her chagrin, she finds there's now a law against selling. An example of her repartee: \"Be careful.\" Farrell: \"It's too late to be careful.\" Aline MacMahon is of course wonderfully authoritative as the chief nurse, but don't expect her to be given a dramatic moment.
The main theme of the film is that the sight of a baby turns anyone to mush. Even given the obvious limitations, this film should have been better than it is.
\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\nAfter watching many of the \"Next Action Star\" reality TV eps TiVo taped this gawd-awful tripe for me. For some bizarre reason - and I only have myself to blame - I watched the whole thing, hoping that there would be *something* unique in the entire movie. After so much hype about Joel Silver's \"Midas Touch\" with action flicks, he might want to make sure he bones up on his alchemy.
First, the only redeeming value of the entire film was Billy Zane, and even he couldn't lift the slipshod writing out of the crapper. Having said that, Zane's performance falters about 2/ 3rds of the way through, as he doesn't even seem to know what else to do other than look smug.
Can't blame him here, though. The writing, quite frankly, sucked. Let's take ideas from \"Rat Race,\" \"Enemy of the State,\" \"Terminator,\" \"Midnight Run\" and any bad gambling film you can think of and simply rehash it. And who's brilliant idea was it to have TWO bridge chase sequences in a ROW?
Sean Carrigan, the \"man of the hour\" of \"The Next Action Star\" shows all of the strengths and weaknesses the casting directors mention during the entire run of the series. A one-note johnny, Sean plays the dumb good looking jock very well, but struggles with shouldering the weight of the film. Quite frankly, we never quite seem to care about whether he lives or dies by about mid-way through, as Carrigan fails to provide a reason for the audience to even like him. His dumb-but-lucky routine gets old as there really isn't anything about the character to root for.
But Carrigan is a dream compared to the wooden, rigid Corinne Van Ryck de Groot. Did Howard Fine really tell her to pretend to be a Terminator for the first half of the film? I don't think so. I kept expecting her to quote Arnie. Her character \"performance\" can be compared only to the dramatic depths of \"Freddy Got Fingered,\" though not nearly as well-developed. The camera loves her in dark, shadowy limousines, but in the harsh light of day her demeanor sucks all energy off the screen. Jeanne Bauer showed more natural life in her five minute bit part than Corinne showed at any part of her screen time.
Ultimately, Sean has the rugged good looks to provide a good lead in an ensemble cast, but shouldn't have been left to do this one solo. It was simply too big of a task for him. \"Next Action Star\" colleague Jared Elliot may or may not have had better luck with some more dynamic characterization, but it's hard to tell given Jeff Welch's lame script. Someone should take Welch's iMac away from him before he hurts himself or anyone else. And finally, Van Ryck de Groot simply was outclassed and way out of her reach, even for complete shlock like this.
Joel Silver should be ashamed.
\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\nHAH! So this is the movie that the \"Next Action Stars\" were getting into. Well I'm glad that I didn't participate and didn't win...
Isn't it funny how one can just look at the first 10 seconds(!) and make up ones mind about a movie? I mean, come on! Just look at those titles!? I watched this movie(or part of this \"teleplay\" since it was produced for TV and we couldn't bear to watch the whole thing) one evening while doing my military service and the audience with me was the typical hodge-podge of average guys that once in a while watch series like Las Vegas just for the girls in the show. so the bar wasn't really high, the most watched movie in my group was Girl Next Door (and it wasn't because of the great script ;D . But this movie's total lack of originality, acting, scripting, and just about everything else that makes a movie good made it pretty easy to switch channel to Las Vegas (or was it CSI? don't remember...) without any complaints by the rest of the group. And that is rare(!) For heavens sake! Don't by this movie! If it's on TV, then yes, watch it. And contemplate on it. My conclusion? well, since Joel Silver has indeed produced some of the best action-films out there (Die Hard, Matrix 1, to name some) I can only say that producers don't give the film it's quality, they provide money for the directors. And to sell this movie just because it's a Joel Silver movie is just a desperate attempt to conceal the obvious flaws of the crew who really made 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\nIt is unbelievable that a script as cliché and completely absurd could make any screen even the small one. The dialogue in this movie makes Catwoman seem like a high culture classic. Billy Zane plays the bad ass harmonica playing, Elvis impersonating, gunslinging, martial arts master who gambles on the life of a down-an-out former football player turned gambling addict played by the winner of NBC's craptastic show \"Next Action Star.\" His performance is as cold as ice and not in a cool way. The \"film\" takes place in Vegas, and since people play poker there the writers felt it was a perfect setting for a movie about a guy trying to survive 24 hours against an omnipresent, wealthy gambler who has offered his target $2.4 million if he can make it through the day. And so the hunt ensues. A hunt reeking with unimpressive explosions, construction yard settings, shoddy cinematography, and one-liners containing the word \"bet\" or \"gamble.\" The female winner is also tossed in the mix, but for what reason I have no idea. Oh but don't worry \"NAS\" fans the losers make their memorable cameos as well. The surprise ending will knock your socks off if you love predictability or plagiarism. Joel Silver should reevaluate his decision to sell out even more. I wish he could give me those two hours of my life 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 was the worst movie I have ever seen Billy Zane in. I understand that this movie was mainly to showcase the new comers, who did pretty good for newbies, but over all, the movie was not believable.
With all of the gunfire, you would think the police would have intervened. Even the coin being a bug on Sean was stupid. The way Sean suddenly realizes the coin is the bug, was not realistic.
Looks like this movie was slapped together fast. Poor job. Get a better writer.
The count down to the end was not in sync with anything. It took longer to fight. And what a coincidence that each time Billy was going to blast Sean, he'd be out of bullets. Once, I can believe, but not twice.
Actually, Billy's character was goofy. It was so stupid when Sean punches him out at the end. It was like a comedy. Bad! Bad! 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\nMaybe television will be as brutal one day. Maybe Big Brother` was only the first step in the direction Stephen Richard Bachmann` King described the end point of. But enough about that. If I spend too much words talking about the serious background topic of this movie I do exactly what the producers hoped by choosing this material. It's the same with The 6th Day`. No matter, how primitive the film is, it provokes a discussion about its topic, which serves the producers as publicity. Let's NOT be taken in by that. The social criticism that is suggested by that plot summary is only an alibi to make it possible to produce a speculative, violent movie, more for video sale than for cinema.
I didn't read the book. I don't dare criticising Stephen King without having read him, but when I saw the film I thought they couldn't make such a terrible film out of a good book: In a typical 1980s set with 1980s music and some minor actors Arnold Schwarzenegger finds himself as a policeman running away from killers within a cruel TV show. The audience is cheering.
Together with Predator`, this is definitely Schwarzenegger's most stupid movie. 2 stars out of 10.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI am probably one of the few who actually read Stephen King's book, the one this movie was based on. After reading this excellent work, I could not wait to see the movie version of it. After viewing the movie, I was TOTALLY disappointed. The only thing that this movie has in common with the book is the title and the names of the characters. In the book, Schwarzenegger's character is put on a game show. The main object is to survive. But he's not in an arena. He's set loose in the city and has to escape the game show's (I guess you'd call them) villians, who bear absolutely no resemblence to the movie characters. This premise built much tension and suspension and ended greatly with the climax. The movie was absolute garbage. There was no cinematic quality to it. I totally respect Arnold Schwarzenegger as an actor, but he messed up with this one.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n:::SPOILER ALERT:::
Soooo, Arnie's really a good guy, but after an incident with some fighting in a helicopter and some disobeying of orders, he's sent to jail (or rather some sort of work camp). He escapes, but after a short while he's caught once again. This time ends up in a freakish reality show in which he's supposed to run for a while from a bunch of tough guys with different themes, and eventually die. But we all know Arnie, and we all know that he's tougher than even the toughest of tough guys.
I really wanted to like this movie, being an Arnie-fan and all. However, \"The Running Man\" contains too many flaws that really annoy the crap out of me. E.g. The reconstruction of Arnie's fight inside the helicopter, where the shocked audience is showed a short summary of the incident, complete with 5-10 different camera angles. This means that the military helicopter in which Arnie flew was equipped with almost 10 cameras filming the crew members, one of which _inside_ the eye of one of the crew members Arnie beats.
There are other flaws also, and the plot, which in theory seems to be very interesting and innovative, works for a while, then it sort of creates a pool of stupidness and unrealism in which it drowns.
The acting can't really be said to be anything better than sub par, with Arnie in the leading role, doing an average Arnie performance. The rest of the cast get by without being especially good or bad.
The special effects are OK, without being impressive.
RATING: 3/10
\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 read the running man from Kings books as Bachman and I felt for the main character John and his family. This movie could have been SO much more. The trouble? It was set during the big action movie craze. I watched the movie and was in pain during the whole thing. I felt nothing for the character and less for his cause. Yes it had funny scenes (or laughable) though I think that it did not save the movie in my eyes. If you read the book you can feel the climax and the fire in the heart of John as he gets his final revenge.
I give this movie a low number. It may not have been this low if I had not read the book.
\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 am a big fan of Stephen King. I loved The Running Man. So obviously I was very excited that someone had made a film of it. And when a local network showed the film, I was in heaven. I was all ready for a night of fun!
The first indicator that something was wrong was when I noticed that someone had cast Arnold Schwarzenegger. I could simply not believe that a man who got famous for films filled with runnin' an' shootin' could play a more cunning part, as was described in the book. I still was convinced that this would be a good film, however. Who knows, maybe Arnold had some hidden talents?
Well, he didn't. I soon found out that the only reason he was even cast was because someone had re-written the entire story to MAKE it about fightin' an' shootin'. Yup, it was a standard Arnold-film: hero is done wrong, hero solves problems by flexing his mighty muscles and scaring everyone away and hero gets the girl.
I was stunned. This is NOT what the book said at all. I know that books can't be put on screen literally, but this didn't even have ties to the book. Stephen King should have openly denounced any affiliation with the film and he should have forbidden using the title The Running Man for this shameless waste of film. I don't say it often, but this film was BAD. If I weren't at home watching, I'd have tossed rotten tomatoes at the screen. Once again: bad.
(Note that I used 'someone' a lot. I did this because I'm sure a lot of people are ashamed to have worked on this and I don't want to embarrass them even further by naming them here)
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nargh! this film hurts my head. and not in a good way.
maybe it's just my growing hatred for the action genre, but even as a kid when i would swallow tripe like Navy Seals, i still regarded this film with dislike. now i utterly despise it.
take one fairly good fast-paced story. keep the title and throw the rest away. instead use some half-assesd future gladiators storyline thats so full of plot holes the whole things in danger of collapsing (why is there a rebel base in the middle of the arena, what about the cameras? why have clearly marked footage of what really happened at bakersfeild in an unguarded room?)
the whole film screams eighties, from the truley awful score to the goofy shiny costumes. ugh.
don't watch this film. i know some people liked it, but some people get off on being peed on and i don't understand them either.
\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 was a waste of 75 minutes of my life. The acting was atrocious and the plot was ridiculous. It revolves around an evil lesbian who gets rich married men to have sex with her, and then blackmails them for money. One of the victims is a candidate for DA, which is causing problems in his relationship with his wife. Another is a plastic surgeon, also married, and the evil lesbian happens to seduce this guys wife too! Meanwhile, the evil lesbian's girlfriend doesn't really like her sleeping around. It ends in a happy ending where all is forgiven. The women get naked a lot too, mostly in situations that stretch reality. bad bad 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\nthis became a cult movie in chinese college students, though i havnt watched it until it is broadcasted in channel4, UK.
full of arty giddy pretentions, the plot is mediocre and unreal; the 'spirit' it wants to convey is how independent artists 'resist the commercisliation of music industry' and maintain their' purity of an artistic soul' and wouldnt 'sell themselves for dirty money'. that is really giddy and superficial; the diologue are mainly pathetic. acting is poor. sceenplay is full of art pretention. it is a fantasy movie for kids and that;s all

\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI have to admit that by moments I had to laugh at how bad that movie was... But the laughs were too few and since this whole thing was in no way a parody, it felt more like an insult to the viewer's intelligence. The worst acting I have ever seen from any of these people...
\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\nImagine, its, say 12-1am - your at home, your bored, your not tired. This scenario occurred about, say 4 or so years back..I turned on the TV and flicked over a few channels and found that this film was on. OH MY WORD this is the worst film I have ever seen! A runaway car that cant be stopped (cos the brakes have been cut or something) in caning it down the freeway - whats gonna happen?! This film was so bad its actually funny - I think the stunts cost about $2 to make, there was one instance where a baby/small child is being winched from the car by a helicopter - in an attempt to excite the viewer - a conveniently placed bridge is nearing ahead...THIS IS THE BEST BAD BIT OF A FILM EVER - it shows the child narrowly missing the bridge but it looks so bad - you can almost see the make of the dummy that they used - total low budget classic! Cant remember the end of the film, though but I bet it was GREAT
I doubt they will ever show this film again so I'm glad I got to see this piece of trash!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"