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\nWhat an incredible fall for Sean Ellis.
You gather a bunch of your friends at home, all hyped about the follow up work of Sean Ellis. You have an vague idea of the plot, no spoilers that could kill the fun, very high expectations.
It is late at night, perfect atmosphere for a movie of this type.
15minutes passes and you start telling yourself it is bound to pick up, at 25mins you start wondering if you should just go to sleep and save this for another time when you can fully appreciate the expected not existent subtle touches. Over the half hour mark you realize half of your your hyped up audience is already asleep and call it a day.
A few days later when you exhaust all other material to watch you go back to this, in the middle of the day this time, hoping your mood will keep you awake this time. 10 minutes later you find yourself fastforwarding the unbelievably and needlessly long intermediate transitions and images. Any other stuff I would have given up already but there is cashback and its legacy. But that legacy can only carry you so long, this is a new level of boring movie-making, imagine a short story extended to a novel with just descriptions, this is what it is.
Decent cast is wasted, there is no cinematography that leaves you in awe like cashback either. There are films that annoy you, there are films that lack certain aspects, or just cheesy, unfortunately this is just a waste of time.
Final words, stay away.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf the myth regarding broken mirrors would be accurate, everybody involved in this production would now face approximately 170 years of bad luck, because there are a lot of mirrors falling to little pieces here. If only the script was as shattering as the glass, then \"The Broken\" would have been a brilliant film. Now it's sadly just an overlong, derivative and dull movie with only just a handful of remarkable ideas and memorable sequences. Sean Ellis made a very stylish and elegantly photographed movie, but the story is lackluster and the total absence of logic and explanation is really frustrating. I got into a discussion with a friend regarding the basic concept and \"meaning\" of the film. He thinks Ellis found inspiration in an old legend claiming that spotting your doppelganger is a foreboding of how you're going to die. Interesting theory, but I'm not familiar with this legend and couldn't find anything on the Internet about this, neither. Personally, I just think \"The Broken\" is yet another umpteenth variation on the theme of \"Invasion of the Body Snatchers\" but without the alien interference. \"The Broken\" centers on the American McVey family living in London, and particularly Gina. When a mirror spontaneously breaks during a birthday celebration, this triggers a whole series of mysterious and seemingly supernatural events. Gina spots herself driving by in a car and follows her mirror image to an apartment building. Whilst driving home in a state of mental confusion, she causes a terrible car accident and ends up in the hospital. When dismissed, Gina feels like her whole surrounding is changing. She doesn't recognize her own boyfriend anymore and uncanny fragments of the accident keep flashing before her eyes. Does she suffer from mental traumas invoked by the accident or is there really a supernatural conspiracy happening all around her? Writer/director Sean Ellis definitely invokes feelings of curiosity and suspense in his script, but unfortunately he fails to properly elaborate them. \"The Broken\" is a truly atmospheric and stylish effort, but only after just half an hour of film, you come to the painful conclusion it shall just remain a beautiful but empty package. There's a frustratingly high amount of \"fake\" suspense in this film. This means building up tension, through ominous music and eerie camera angels, when absolutely nothing has even happened so far. By the time the actually mysteriousness kicks in, these tricks don't have any scary effect on you anymore. Some of my fellow reviewers around here compare the film and particularly Sean Ellis' style with the repertoires of David Lynch, Stanley Kubrick and even Alfred Hitchcock, but that is way, way  WAY too much honor. PS: what is up with that alternate spelling; the one with the Scandinavian \"ø\"
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nNo,
Basically your watching something that doesn't make sense. To not spoil the film for people who actually want to this take a look at the flick I will explain the story.
A normal everyday to day women, is walking down a street then find's herself driving by in her own car. She follows her and many events take place during that time that include her and her family.
I specifically made an account to comment on this film, of how horribly written this was. The acting was great, the events were great, but the story just brought it nowhere - it could of been added to tremendously and be made into a worldwide epidemic. I'm not sure what the writer was trying to accomplish by making this, usually at the end of films most of your questions get answers but this film has you asking, What just happened and 1 hour 20 minutes just passed for nothing.
Spoiler Starts__
They had this area between 2 dimensions (ours and behind the glass) that would come into our world and kill us. It was not elaborated on all during the film, and you never know how it was happening or why it was or when it happened. Nothing gets explained during the film. The main character shouldn't of even been the main character. At the end of the film the guy who finally figures it all out and runs away (her sisters boyfriend) should of been the main character but sadly the movie ends 20 seconds after.
I bought this movie for $10, threw it out right after.. don't waste your time. I really hope nothing like this is made again.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nYou gotta wonder how some flics ever get made... this one decided to skip with the why among many other things and just wanders off beyond the moot.
And yet you have a number of decent actors doing their best to pump some life into the story. The blue tint throughout the movie overshoots into 'yet again', which on its own would be depressing but here it's overkill. The idea that it's not a medical condition, not some house or gypsy or trinket curse but just something that for no apparent reason starts to happen to our protagonist and then to everyone else around her, just winds up being much like taking a big swig out of an empty mug. Some doppelgangers have super powers but others don't or don't know they do? It seems they're just as clueless as we are.
It's a poor man's rip-off of \"Invasion of the Body-Snatchers\" with Keifer Sutherland's \"Mirror\" and \"The Sixth Sense\", were you to seriously botch those three together.
\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 really tries to hard. if your going to make a horror film, at least give it a reason to believe in to hook the viewer.
you wait and wait through the film expecting for some grand explanation but it doesn't. instead it tries to be too clever ending and not revealing anything.
what was the point of the movie ? where it's actually going ? and more importantly what the hell was going on . . .
why were they there and how does it tie into anything? just another weak sci-fi horror. i love the fake reviews on IMDb saying how great it is by related press releases to bump the movie (either that or people have low horizons). it's not worth your 2hrs at all.
i'm not saying the film is better than the fragile, but at least that gave you reasoning and why things happened and has an end result. this doesn't and it just waffle's on with tons of padding to make everything feel scary. this film is about as low as when a stranger calls. god that was lame too.
big tip, if your gonna make a horror, make it believable with reasoning and explain to the viewer what's going on, so they have a hook into your story. because if there's no reasoning or believability then there's no firm hold on anything and it can't be scary. no disrespect to the cast or crew cause they did a good job. it's just the poor writing.
\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 BROKEN is part of the After Dark Horrorfest III. Not a slasher or filled with gore. Plenty of broken glass and mirrors in this edgy thriller from France and writer/director Sean Ellis. A successful radiologist Gina McVay(Lena Headly)inters a strange world as her life seems to spiral out of control. While attending her father's(Richard Jenkins)birthday party, the guests are stunned when a mirror crashes to the floor for no obvious reason. Things get really strange when she witnesses a woman that is the spitting image of herself driving down a London street in a car identical to her own. Gina sneaks to her doppelganger's apartment and finds a photo of herself with her father. She drives away and is involved in a head on collision. Then mysteriously her boyfriend is not the same; to be exact family and friends are not easy for her to trust. Is Gina beside herself? Is she in a parallel world? Her nightmares become more horrific...is she broken?
Kudos if you can figure this one out...it won't be easy. Editing couldn't be any tighter. Lighting is questionable. Other players: Melvil Poupard, William Armstrong, Michelle Duncan and Ulrich Thomsen.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nVery unnecessary movie with characters that are acting so unsympathetically that I really didn't care who would fare the best (or was that the purpose of the film, to portray some smooth talking cold-hearted New York city folks?) No romance here, no comedy either. Acting is very flat and a very predictable plot. What annoyed me the most was this constant joking with quotes from classic movies. Man, can't you see that the more you quote, the less significant your own movie becomes? Try to be original yourself! A small budget is no excuse at all, first-time director neither. Crappy, crappy, crappy. No wonder it only cost me one buck...
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\ni'm being generous giving this movie 2 stars. the line about \"have you even seen the wizard of oz\" was the best part for me! with terrible writing and acting like displayed in this movie it's no wonder so many are taken in by worthless tv reality shows. do yourself a favor and get out of the house and hit a royals baseball game, your gonna be glad ya did!
\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 cute movie until the ending. The ending was merely one more despicable effort to emasculate men and empower women at their expense. The girl refused to listen to reason and logic and used her passive/aggressive nature to control and impose her will on the guy who ultimately yielded his power and control over the relationship to her. It is not by chance that she was sitting behind the driver's wheel in the car as they drove away at the end after he had to beg her and plead with her to take him back. This movie is a victory for all women who think they should be in charge of all men and in control of their relationships with them. It was a despicable movie for that reason.
\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\nThat's a snippet of choice dialogue delivered by the evil, ballbusting lady assistant of a famous scientist to her prim maid just before she lures three incredibly dumb college girls to a mansion for behavior modification experiments. Meanwhile, at the local bar, people drink and dance to lame 80s rock songs. A biker punk has sex with a cycle slut on a pinball table in front of a crowd of people, then tries to rape the scientist's virginal daughter Jessica (Debra Hunter), who is in love with another biker (Dale Midkiff, from PET SEMATARY), who, in turn, is in cohorts with the assistant! Back at the house, the sorority bimbos swim, shower, change clothes and have sex with men from the bar. A small silver ball (part of the experiment) flies into victims mouths and turns them into drooling, killer zombies!
If that isn't enough to entertain you, there's a hilarious theme song (\"Nightmare Fantasy\"), roller skating, some serious daisy dukes and a psychic hand puppet (!?) that warns \"DANGER! DANGER!\" just like the LOST IN SPACE robot and recommends hitchhiking as one of the best ways to pick up men!
This filmed-in-Florida mess is so mind-numbingly awful that multiple viewings are recommended to soak it all in. And, hey isn't that NYPD Blue's Detective Jill Kirkendall turned CNN newscaster Andrea Thompson as one of oft-nude bimbos? Sure is! Supposedly this was started in 1982 and new footage was added later for the video release in 1985.
Score: 1 out of 10 (and I mean that in a good way!)
\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\nSurely no Saturday morning TV kids' show was ever done this poorly. After all, those producers had to count on the audience coming back. Well, in this awful offering, they could at least count the money they saved on sets. The script could have been a reject from some long-forgotten space opera serial, with a few smarmy lines added for cool-dude Gerald Mohr to murmur to Naura Hayden. No director could have done anything decent with such a loony storyline, so the action just plods boringly along. The spaceship props are absurd--a Bulova wall clock and portable typewriter, for example--but the planet sets have got to be some of the worst in cinematic history. Most are crude drawings, and it's all bathed in an often misfocused red light. Even Mohr's bare hairy chest is used as a prop. And it's a bad one--as rib-thin as the plot. Any viewer who can make it to the end of this movie will hear a message from the Martians--and will probably agree completely!
\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\nHopelessly inept and dull movie in which the characters stand around in rooms or a rocket ship and talk endlessly. You might think things would perk up when they explore Mars but these scenes are filmed through a heavy red/orange filter which makes everything very murky. The Martian landscape/vegetation consists mainly of drawings and the monsters are entirely unconvincing. There are echoes of 'Bride Of The Monster' when the heroine carefully winds the octopus like tentacle of a flesh eating plant around her before weakly thrashing about, the difference being that the Ed Wood film is a hundred times more entertaining. Better wear earplugs when watching otherwise the 'sci-fi' music score, repeated endlessly, will drive you insane. If you find yourself unable to sleep one night just slip this one into the VCR and your insomnia will be cured in no 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 gave this movie a 2, and though I consider myself a science fiction fan, I found this movie very difficult to take seriously. It was on AMC one late night, and I'm glad I saw it for free. This movie is probably good for a few laughs, but not much more.
The special effects are about average for the time period - not awful, but not great, either. Of course we know more about Mars now than we did back then, but we really can't hold that against this film. The main reason I did not like this movie is because of the story.
There were several parts of this movie that I wish would have been explored in a little more detail - the astronaut's injury/condition, the city on Mars, the creature in the lake, etc. Overall, the movie is much like a lengthy episode of the 1960s version of The Outer Limits - complete with a cheesy ending.
\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 Angry Red Planet (Quickie Review)
Like \"The Man From Planet X,\" this is a bizarre science fiction tale culled from an era where fantasy and science fiction were still damn near the same thing. Meaning, we have some highly laughable special effects and rampant pseudo-science masquerading as science fiction. And yes, it's another \"classic\" released in a high quality transfer with a crisp picture and sharp sound--by Midnite Movies.
So, the main reason to watch this film? Oh, it's definitely the whole time our space crew is on Mars. (What, you thought \"Angry Red Planet\" referred to Neptune?) Prior to that is some rather poor quality space crew boarding a space ship, inside of which they smoke and toss around sexist chauvinistic banter aimed at the \"puny female\" member of the crew. It'd be somewhat offensive by today's standards if it weren't so damn funny. But Mars is the real reason we're watching this thing. The film is generally black and white, but Mars, well Mars is screaming bloody red. It's filmed in this bizarre red plasticy sheen giving the angry red planet quite an interesting look of overexposed redness. It's really quite a sightas are the (ha ha) aliens viewers are to witness. The best being the \"ratbatspidercrab.\" You think that's a joke? That's what they call it in the movie! It's a gigantic chimera (small puppet) of a thing combining traits of rats, bats, spiders, and crabs. It bounds along all puppety and scares the sh*t out of our \"heroic crew.\" There are other weird, and poorly imagined, aliens to be seen, but that one takes the cake. Eventually, after their harrowing experience on Mars, the sexist crew boards their \"ship\" and returns to whatever planet it was they came from.
This ain't for everyone. Science Fiction film buffs & curiosity seekers, and some general film buffs. Fans of Mystery Science Theater 3000 will have a field day with this one (if they never got to it on the show).
2/10 Modern score, 6/10 Nostalgia score, 4/10 overall.
(www.ResidentHazard.com)
\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\nPLEASE TAKE A MINUTE TO READ MY ENTIRE REVIEW. I AM NOT KNOCKING THE FILM ITSELF - ONLY THE DVD VERSIONS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE.
***
I really wanted to give this film even two stars. I mean how could it possibly rank a mere 1 out of 10!?!
Here's how: An epic film adaptation of Tolstoy's novel \"War and Peace\" with historically accurate battle scenes, courtesy of the Red Army, and an extremely faithful, scene-for-scene adaptation of the novel would be difficult but worth sitting through for seven hours - if that's what you were seeing.
The trouble is you can't see that film - anywhere as far as I know.
I am attempting to watch the RusCiCo DVD version - widely considered the best version available since it's letter boxed and restores the scenes that were cut from other DVD releases.
But, it is one of the worst film prints I've ever seen transfered to DVD. The picture is muddy and inconsistent, often strobing. It's almost tolerable if you crank your brightness, color and picture levels up to maximum.... but the problem doesn't end there.
The sound is also way inconsistent, blaringly loud in parts, virtually inaudible in others.
And as for languages, it's a HUGE problem for English speakers - the dubbed option has some good actors, and some really terrible ones whose performance grates, and parts of the film just aren't dubbed at all, slipping back into Russian and even French randomly.
The subtitled option isn't much better. The subtitles don't appear below the image, but right over it - obscuring some of the beauty (or what's left of it) in the scenery. Furthermore, the subtitles are often a poor translation (a shame given that the script took pains to hew so close to Tolstoy's actual words), and the subtitles too seem to just drop out in parts.
So, even if you max out the color, brightness and picture settings, and turn the volume way up, and choose subtitled *and* English dubbed, you're still going to get a film that's annoying to watch and listen to.
Can it's content overcome that? It might have been able to, but at seven hours - who can stand it for that long?
Maybe someday, someone will come along and restore this - and maybe then I will see a masterpiece - but for now, I just can't give more than one star to something I've only been able to stand watching about the first 12% 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 is not a commentary on the actual movie, but on the RUSCICO DVD release for North America. I don't know if there have been different releases and updates, but the disks we rented had a 2000 copyright on them, if that means anything. Anyway, the sound mixing on these DVD's was absolutely horrible. The levels often yo-yo-ed up and down; when the scene cut to a battlefield panorama, the orchestral track would thunder so loudly that I didn't know which would blow out first -- my eardrums or my speakers. When it was time for dialog, the volume would usually drop to something barely audible. Occasionally, the orchestra and Foley-work would stay loud while the dialog was superimposed at a much lesser level. My wife and I found that the only way we could watch this movie at all from these DVD's was if one of us kept a hand on the remote to continuously modulate the volume. And, like another user has already commented, when we selected English audio the dialog kept switching back and forth between Russian and English; and occasionally when the characters spoke in French on the native track the dubbing was in Russian, so you're SOL if you understand neither. Ultimately, we gave up watching after the first disk. Before you fork out $50+ for this movie on DVD for your own library, I'd heartily recommend getting your hands on a rental copy to see whether you can really enjoy this epic flick when burdened by such bad sound, particularly if you've never read the book and really want to understand the storyline.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'm probably not giving this movie a fair shake, as I was unable to watch all of it. Perhaps if I'd seen it in a theater, in its original presentation, I might have appreciated it, but it's far too slow-moving for me.
I read the book some 25 years ago and the details of the plot have faded from memory. This did not help the film, as it's something less than vivid and clear in its presentation of events.
This is really four linked films, or a film in four parts, and was, I believe, intended to be seen over four nights in a theatrical presentation. I found Part I to be enjoyable enough, but it was all I could do to sit through Part II, which drags interminably. Reading Tolstoy's philosophizing is one thing. If you get a good translation or can read it in the original, his brilliant writing far outweighs any issues one might have with the pace of the story. On film, however, it's hard to reproduce without being ponderous.
I have other issues with the parts of the film that I saw. It's very splashy, with a lot of hey-ma-look-at-this camera work that calls attention to itself, instead of serving to advance the story.
Clearly, I'm missing something, but I just couldn't summon the enthusiasm to crank up parts III and IV.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhile Bondarchuk was by no means a young man when he was commissioned to work on this project, he was still a novice director with only a single pictures, a successful adaptation of a short WWII story, to his name. Bondarchuk of course had already been an established acting star for a decade but thespian skills mean little behind the camera, and as a director he was woefully unprepared to undertake a production of such scale. And it shows through muddled shot compositions especially apparent in group scenes, often unfortunate camera positions, performances of wildly varying quality for the director was apparently so overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude of the task actors were apparently left to their own devices, awkward voiceovers that sound like radio broadcast announcements.
Vidor's \"War and Peace\" was probably the main reason that prompted the Soviet government to spare no expense on this production. The USSR release of the Vidor's picture made quite a splash. Certainly, Bondarchuk wanted to emulate the greatest strength of the Hollywood film and find his own Audrey. His final choice, Lyudmila Savelyeva, a big-eyed sprightly dark-haired thing indeed somewhat resembles Hepburn. Unfortunately she was a Kirov ballet dancer without neither acting experience nor talent, so unsurprisingly the most kind word that I can find to describe her performance is \"awful\".
Though it might be expected that Soviet actors, speaking the same language as Tolstoy's characters, would have better understanding of them than foreigners but this War and Peace often proves that not to be the case. The revolutionary upheaval swept away the thin upper layer of Russian cultural soil, that the world of War and Peace grown out of, so a good share of these big name Soviet actors involved in this production often look as clueless as Americans performing Shakespeare ( I don't mean of course that American actors can't possibly play Shakespeare credibly, but you'll know what I mean if you witnessed American members of the cast in Branagh's adaptations). Of the three main characters only Bondarchuk's Pierre is commendable, but even he was too old for the part and feels out of place in the early going.
\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\nFilmed in a documentary style, but you can pretty well tell participants had been coached. A recently divorced wannabe film maker(Myles Berkowitz)sees a chance to liven up his love life and step into the movie biz at the same time. He intends to make a documentary piece about finding love by filming twenty dates including ramifications. The comedy is spotty at best; the rest is mishap after mishap. Also taking part are Richard Arlook, Robert McKee and the enticing Elisabeth Wagner. Trying for credibility the fetching Tia Carrere is talked into a cameo. This will suffice as a handbook on how NOT to get a satisfactory date.
\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 is pretty funny and involving for about four dates, then it becomes a blatant commercial for some guy you (and even his \"friends\") really can't stand. It is a pretty interesting concept; film dates on a quest to find true love in modern LA. The problem is that it feels incredibly (and badly) scripted at times and blatantly self-promoting. It is difficult to care about and be drawn into any of the characters because the writer/actor is so egotistical, uncool, untrue, and simply unlikeable. You end up feeling sorry for his dates.
\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 went to a screening of this movie and while it had a couple moments that made me laugh, it had some very major flaws. It first of all presents itself to be the humorous exploits of a real-life divorcee trying to find love in LA. What it morphs into is a depressing, narcissistic, and unfunny romp through the history of the film director's love life and professional life. Jokes wear thin quickly and you find yourself suddenly not caring how this man's dates progress. The ridiculousness is that the director simultaneously presents himself as an extremely annoying and heavily flawed character and then expects us to be concerned.
\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....ripoff of a dozen better films. Particularly Steven Martin's \"LA Story\", which at least had the grace to be obviously fictional even though it starred his then-girlfriend playing his girlfriend in the film.
Yes, naive boys and girls, \"20 Dates\" IS a mockumentary, although I am not absolutely certain that was Myles Berkowitz's intent when he started. My impression is that he started the project semi-seriously, then quickly realized that it would be pathetic and not funny unless he made the situations more and more ridiculous. As a result, the whole thing has an uneasy, cheap and insincere feeling about it.
As someone smartly pointed out, the film has two of the \"dates\" suing and putting restraining orders on Myles and yet they appear in the film, which would be impossible as it would require a consent form. It also appears to me that the majority of women who appear as \"the dates\" are professional actresses (albiet not famous ones, excepting Tina Carrere) -- they are simply too obviously pretty, polished, thin and comfortable in front of the camera to be average civilians.
Mr. Berkowitz makes a classic error in only casting this kind of very pretty thin actress, instead of utilizing a variety of believable women, which might have made the premise (even in a mockumentary) more believable and funnier. He also skates over what is probably his real-world problem, and which is that both the movie character and the real world Myles Berkowitz appear to be functionally unemployed (his real life IMDb credits are practically non-existent, excepting this film). Even in the world of the movie, his ex-wife divorced him for never being employed. I think the viewer (let alone Mr. Berkowitz's real life dates) are deserving of an explanation of he manages to live in one of the most expensive urban environments in the US, in a luxury apartment, driving a fancy car and eating out at pricey restaurants when he doesn't seen to have any source of income whatsoever. (Is he drug dealer? Living off his rich parents? No clue!)
You can get away with most anything in a film, if the jokes are really funny. \"20 Dates\" is painfully, embarrassingly UN-funny. Mr. Berkowitz's idea of a joke is to have his character, while on restaurant dates, announce to his companions how the food served is likely to give him either diarrhea or constipation -- the WORST kind of childish potty humor.
It is not very surprising to discover that Mr. Berkowitz never made a film before \"20 Dates\" and in the last 8 years, has not made a single film, appeared as an actor in anyone else's film OR had a writing or producing credit of any kind. My gut instinct tells me that this film was not financed by \"Elie\" (the gangster money man who appears off-camera) but more likely by Mr. Berkowitz's affluent parents, or perhaps represents a shocking abuse of credit cards. Whichever it was, we can all rest easy that we are unlikely to have to see Myles Berkowitz or any of his creative efforts EVER AGAIN. Hallelujah!!!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is not a boring movie, the audience might stay on its chair fascinated by this selfish character, Miles Berkowitz, both film-maker and actor here. The storyline is simple : after a divorce and ten years of a hollywoodian non-career, the author plays is quest for love in front of the camera. The first question is about how true is all that : what is written, what came by chance ? Both answers, \"yes\" or \"no\" portrays M.Berkowitz as a low average human beeing. If you look for a self-fiction about love like this one, I recommand you to read some independant comic books : Chester Brown, Joe Matt...
Beside of this, I felt quite disappointed to hear so much against my country, France. I know american people usually say that the french are arrogant (that might be true then), etc., and for sure the french (and the whole world) have lots of griefs against america, but why so much hate ? Don't think I couldn't like this movie only because of that anyhow.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe film attempts to be a mockumentary--shot in the documentary form but with many obviously scripted parts--but fails in not providing the audience with any characters with which to create the illusion of the mockumentary. Also, the film purports to be about finding real love in Los Angeles, but is nothing more than an uninteresting look at an amateur filmmaker trying to make his first \"big movie.\"
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI would rather have 20 root canals than go through this film again. The Prince of Annoying, Myles Berkowitz, has wasted nearly two hours of my life with this piece of cynical pseudo-cool. The only amusing thing in this whole mess is Mr. Samaha's obnoxious off camera patter about tits and ass. Berkowitz takes a great concept and grinds it into the dust. It is choppy and badly done, in an apparent effort to make it seem edgy or funny. It is neither. I seldom feel that a movie was a waste of film (or tape), but this one qualifies for that distinction. If a date suggests seeing this film, run.
\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\nWith no affinity towards any type of filmmaking, and a healthy appreciation of documentaries, I can honestly say I was angry at myself for bothering to sit through the entire length of \"20 Dates\". I won't waste your time with the plot, you may read other reviews. I will say though that Berkowitz's hyper, Woody Allen-style narration was extremely annoying. You either wished he'd lay off the coffee or ingest some tranquilizers. And it's potentially apparent to Berkowitz himself that this film was a bad idea, as parts of it details his trials to finance the documentary. Forgive me for disguising insults as compliments, but I'll give credit to Berkowitz for having the skills to convince some idiot to finance this horrid piece of ****. I appreciate the boundaries & intentions of the film here, but even when regarding the standards Berkowitz sets for himself, he fires off and misses on all levels. In closing, I'm sure many of these female companions were not at ease going on a date with a twitchy wanna-be filmmaker, and therefore I question the film's sense of authenticity. Hey Myles, I loved your film the first time I saw it... when it appeared as an episode of Seinfeld or was a film directed by Woody Allen or Kevin Smith.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nNo likeable characters (the lead is a combination of the WORST of Woody Allen/Paul Provensa/Reiser) and the contrived scenes (did anyone REALLY think thiat kid on the rollerblades was NOT going to knock the guy down?) were just sickeningly 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\n
However, the ladies of all ages will lap it up, no doubt; at least the opposite sex understand what it is to be a mother, and most of us men try to fathom out what it is to be a father. Whether changing nappies is not at all my favourite occupation and trying to get those bottled baby-foodstuffs into errant toothless mouths must rank very high on household duties preferably left to its mother, has absolutely nothing to do with the matter.
Some good interpretations here, and a good story idea; the handling of the matter, limited to rather scanty TV-production concepts, gives the film a rather over-mellowy taste with not much new to offer. An insipid way of delivering the goods, and in the end the outcome is so forseeable during the last 20 minutes or so, even my wife dozed off, and I was jumping up to the computer to get the on-line scoring in the Barcelona-Deportivo match, hoping the away team would do something rather good. They did. This film did not.
Better by far is Mike Leigh's magnificent \"Secrets and Lies\" (qv) which touches on the same subject matter, but with Brenda Blethyn playing a far superior part.
\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\nSean Bean is great, as are the photography, locations and costumes. However, the plot is somewhat muddled, and the conclusion flat. The plot has been SUBSTANTIALLY altered from Cornwell's novel, and not to the better. Unfortunately, this adventure is much better read than watched. Sharpe was too narrowly drawn here, in contrast with his literary alter ego, who seems more intelligent and determined despite his apprehension in his new role as an officer promoted from the ranks. I really enjoyed the brief scene in which Sharpe is tripped by a \"real\" officer, and after a quick pause and piercing stare, pushes the surprised and cowed officer right back. It sets the tone for his later trials as a commanding officer.
Rating: \"4\" 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\nThis is a rip off of the old Frankenstein premise. An acclaimed scientist is killed in a freakish accident and his father, a noted brain surgeon saves the brain. It is then put into a robotic body of his own design. His brother, an electrical genius, gives the 'colossus' impetus to transfer thoughts into motion. The whole project goes bad, when the creation goes berserk.
Special effects are undeveloped. The script is lacking. And it is humorous that this is not scary a bit. Well, very small kids will think this is good. If you are wide awake at three in the morning and this comes on....night, night.
The lead characters are played by Otto Kruger, John Baragrey and Ross Martin. Ed Wolff played the 'Colossus'.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nYou know this is gonna be a cheesy movie when:
1. It was made it the 50's 2. It's in black and white. 3. It has no name actors! 4. Screaming makes up for the lack of special effects!
Well not to be outdone - this movie brilliantly incorporated all four of the above elements to turn this into a true cinematic blunder.
Okay - shhhhh but I am gonna discuss special effects here - or lack of them -
Did you catch the underwater scenes? It looks like it was poorly filmed through an aquarium - note the cape flapping in the breeze.
And the repeated re-use of Stock Footage, (exterior house shots, the bridges scenes -- great enhanced the K-R-A-F-Tiness of this film - not since \"PLAN 9\" - have I seen such creative usage of stock footage.
And hey where there was a lack of special effects - not to worry - screaming DOES take the place of special effects in this movie as well. Yes this movie even cleverly used that old hack trick.
Grab the popcorn - set your brain on stun (several fermented beverages DEFINITELY helps), sit back, and wonder: why the heck did they put this on film again?
Wayno

\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\nUnless you are geeky film student who has to see everything, this film will not only be a waste of your time and money and a huge disappointment, but it will also make you angry beyond belief.
There might be a story worth telling somewhere inside, but Hopkins decided to hide it and encode under so many incessant chaotic layers of apparently random audio video microcuts, making the viewer's patience run thin after a very short while.
Why would someone like Hopkins choose such a heavy, most difficult and highly unstable project as his first script, first score and third film can by anyones guess. Maybe he played with it in his mind for such a long time until it became unrecognizable as what it became, not even for himself. The result proves that he has by far not enough experience or skill to achieve the desired result.
Even the weirdest Carpenter and Lynch films, to name just two uncoventional filmmakers, had 90% more coherence, 95% less characters and 99% more story flow.
Sir Anthony you aimed for the stars, but unfortunately missed by a couple of light years. Please stick to acting, in that department you are a unequaled giant and nobody should ask more from you, not even 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\nA confused mess from start to finish. Like they used to say about the Beatles'songs, there was a secret message if you played the LP backward. If one had the patience to watch this films scenes from finish to start, you'd come away with the same degree of disappointment.
Apart from all of this psychedelic hodge podge of flashbacks and false starts, the clearest characters were the movie backers, out for revenge if the movie didn't get sorted. There was nothing to like about these two either. Overacting, shouting and threats were delivered in comic book fashion. I think one dimensional was an overstatement.
Okay, so maybe the artsy types are rolling their eyes reveling in the fact that unlike them, we plebeians just didn't get it. Well I'm afraid there was nothing to get. And the two cardinal sins of any bad movie carried from start to finish. A non-existent and pathetic story line if you want to call it that, and by far the worst, not a single character you cared about in the least.
\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\nWhy did I waste 1.5 hours of my life watching this? Why was this film even made? Why am I even commenting on this film?
One reviewer said this film took patience to watch and it was n't for everybody. I cannot figure out who this movie is for. maybe after dropping a hit of acid, SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE could watch this and make some sense out of it. It is incoherent, it isn't experimental, it's plain and simple garbage. The film follows no plot line whatsoever, just when you think you have something, well.....you don't.
I think the ending brought some finality to the film (no pun intended), the viewer gets a glimpse of what might have been going on. I don't think I put a spoiler in here, not that it would matter. This film is another must miss in the world of filmdom.
\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 Hopkins does succeed at with this effort as writer and director is giving us a sense that we know absolutely no one in the film. However, perhaps therein lies the problem. His movie has a lot of ambition and his intentions were obviously complex and drawn from very deep within, but it's so impersonal. There are no characters. We never know who anyone is, thus there is no investment on our part.
It could be about a screenwriter intermingle with his own characters. Is it? Maybe. By that I don't mean that Slipstream is ambiguous; I mean that there is no telling. Hopkins's film is an experiment. On the face of it, one could make the case that it is about a would-be screenwriter, who at the very moment of his meeting with fate, realizes that life is hit and miss, and/or success is blind chance, as he is hurled into a \"slipstream\" of collisions between points in time, dreams, thoughts, and reality. Nevertheless, it is so unremittingly cerebral that it leaves no room for any hint of emotion, even to the tiny, quite rudimentary extent of allowing us a connection with its characters.
I didn't think the nippy and flamboyant school of shaky, machine-gun-speed camera-work and editing disengaged me, but reflecting upon the film I am beginning to realize that it had a lot to do with it. There are so many movies of the past decade in which the cuts or camera movement have sound effects as well as other atmosphere-deteriorating technical doodads. I suppose in this case it was justified in that its purpose was to compose the impressionistic responsiveness of dreams. However, I knew barely anything about Slipstream when watching it, and I came out the same way. And I just do not care, because Hopkins made no effort to make us care. There are interactive movies, and there are movies that sit in a rocking chair and knit, unaware of your presence. Slipstream is the latter.
\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\nGiven the chance to write, direct and star in my own movie, I would probably choose something about robot women with guns. Anthony Hopkins, however, decided to make possibly the strangest movie anyone has ever seen. \"Slipstream\" is a movie that is so strange that even David Lynch would probably look at the person next to him and say 'What's going on?'.
This is a movie where, in one scene, a man crosses the road towards a yellow car facing to the right which suddenly changes into a pink car facing to the left. This is a movie where two characters have a conversation interspersed with shots of random people laughing and insects climbing up walls. This is a movie where a man starts talking about \"Invasion Of The Bodysnatchers\" only for the actor of that particular movie to suddenly show up as himself (and then disappear into thin air).
This is a movie that decides to throw the need for a coherent plot straight out of the window and use fifteen different edits whilst doing so, as well as changing from black and white to colour for seemingly no reason at all.
I must, however, commend Mr Hopkins for his choice of actors in this movie (some of whom portray multiple characters). All of those involved throw themselves into their roles, even if they probably have no idea what they're actually doing. My favourite here was Christian Slater's thug in a hat who was impressively menacing whilst babbling nonsense and singing the American national anthem.
Anthony Hopkins has been quoted saying that he did this movie as a joke and that's possibly the best way to sum up \"Slipstream\". It's a joke on the audience. You'll watch it from beginning to end, trying to understand what is going on and hoping that the answer will come, only to discover that the answer never actually does. What the punchline to this particular joke is, only Anthony Hopkins will ever know.
I mentioned David Lynch earlier and I'm a big fan of that particular director. I would guess that Anthony Hopkins shares my love for the likes of \"Twin Peaks\", \"Blue Velvet\" and \"Lost Highway\". However, \"Slipstream\" isn't as satisfying as any of the movies of Lynch despite imitating many of his techniques (although I was surprised to discover that nobody talks backwards in \"Slipstream\"). It's far too chaotic and random - as another reviewer here pointed out, it's the movie version of Alzheimer's disease. No doubt there are a small number out there who are able to watch this and draw something from it. Unfortunately for the rest of us, \"Slipstream\" quickly becomes an annoying and confusing experience that was only made due to Hopkins' involvement.
Watch at your own risk.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"