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\nWho wrote this? Some guy named John Cohen. I guess this was the first screenplay he's ever worked on. Someone should've told him you're supposed to write dialog that sounds like something someone actually might say.
And who directed this? Scott Marshal? Son of Gerry Marshall. My the nut has fallen far from the tree. Someone might have wanted to let him know that you can, in fact, shoot a scene in a cab in New York, and it will look real, and you won't have to fake it with a blue screen for no reason. Might have also wanted to let him know he should stay away from Jessica Simpson, but hopefully he's learned that lesson now.
And Jessica Simpson... naturally she can't act. Hell, she makes Jessica Alba look like Audry Hepburn, and yet she's starring in this movie. OH wait, it was produced by her father. Okay, that's why she got the part. That's really the only reason I can think of.
So should I be surprised it's bad? No. Should I be amazed at how bad it is? I think a lot of people would if they saw as much of it as I did. I mean you expect a movie starring Jessica Simpson to be bad, but this... it's not just bad, it's the complete opposite of a classic film. Think of a great Woody Allen movie, this film is as bad as that film is good. It's the Anti-Annie Hall.
I am so glad I didn't pay to see it, I stopped watching ten minutes in cus I couldn't go on. No doubt I would've walked out of the theater sooner. In fact I wonder how many of the 6 people who saw it per theater actually stayed and watched the whole thing. The film starts out laughably bad, and then goes to the point of being so bad it becomes a kind of Chinese water torture. And then, around when the first act is ending, you realize it'll only get worse, and that's when you either need to leave, or kill yourself.
In conclusion, this film goes under the category of being so bad it should be used in place of water boarding at Guantanamo Bay. Although some prefer the water boarding.
\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 an embarrassment to everyone and everything used in making this joke. I personally don't care one way or another about Jessica Simpson and her talent or whatever so many people find fascinating about her. Just as a movie this is something that wouldn't even get a passing grade in film school. The script is a mess, the acting is atrocious, and the fact Luke Wilson (co-writer of \"Bottle Rocket\") did this makes me wonder what the hell he was thinking. He did \"Old School\" for crying out loud! This doesn't even belong in the same state as my \"Old School\" DVD! Please for whatever reason DO NOT WATCH THIS! I see there is a comment that this is so bad it's good, but that frankly is too kind. When will we stop seeing singers that obviously can't act keep trying to, I hope ends soon. The worst part is that there are actually some decent actors (Penelope Ann Miller, Rachel Leigh Cook, & Luke Wilson) who are part of this dump. As far as the plot, well it is almost non-existent and so poorly done and written (yes I know it's another rehash) I very much doubt anyone will remember anything about this. Please whatever you do don't waste your time, but if you do, feel sorry for the ACTUAL actors involved for wasting their time doing this bomb. Jessica Simpson you're pretty, but stick to singing, although I'm not much a fan of that either. And whoever did this film, I wouldn't put this on your resume. 1/10 because you can't give a zero.
\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\nBy now you should already know about this film, the Jessica Simpson \"bomb\" that pretty much went straight to video (limited, anemic theatrical run). Basically, Ms. Simpson's Katie travels from a small town in Oklahoma to visit her boyfriend, to surprise him, only to find him in bed with another woman. She is stranded, but has one friend (Rachel Leigh Cook, whom I wish we saw more often in film), who lets her stay. Katie ends up getting a job via two conniving co-workers (Penelope Ann Miller and the always amusing Andy Dick) who are just using Katie to get the president of the firm (Larry Miller) ousted. This is strictly a b movie, its not meant to be profound. Jessica Simpson is not a great actress by any means, but she is pretty much beautiful and never truly annoying. The film is watchable in that its not an abomination, but its throwaway fluff. In a cameo, Penny Marshall is funny (a subtle in-joke about Milwaukee made me chuckle), and there is a funny scene involving Norwegian priests (don't read too much into this). So, not horrible, but easy to skip. Your safe bet is to watch it on television if it ever does. Again, not good, but not a profound disaster.
\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 silly movie with a predictable storyline and dreadful acting!! Willy Nelson was as stiff as his braids. The movie just seemed like a very long advert for the bright red lipstick that Jessica Simpson wore - especially as there were so many close-ups on her face. The premise was not amusing and as I said - soooooooo predictable. Whatever money was spent on making this movie was a shameful waste. Any allusions to other old Marilyn Monroe movies did not enhance the viewing of Blonde Ambition at all. It was also so unbelievable - Jessica Simpson being able to step into an executive secretary position at the drop of a hat - that was laughable!!!
\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\nWatching this I mainly noticed the ad placements. DHL, Aquawhite Strips, Rockstar and more. It's one product placement after another. It's quite obvious how this movie got its funding. Jessica Simpson's \"acting\" is laughable. Any Dick shouldn't ever get work because he plays the same lame character. The \"story\" is just a backdrop for this very long commercial. I can't believe this movie was even considered for theatrical release. The longer you watch this movie the more you're embarrassed for everyone involved. The only minor saving grace is Larry Miller and Rachael Lee Cook, who gets almost no screen time as Jessica's cousin. I'm embarrassed I watched the whole thing. I would recommend avoiding 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\nThis movie had all the elements to be a smart, sparkling comedy, but for some reason it took the dumbass route. Perhaps it didn't really know who its audience was: but it's hardly a man's movie given the cast and plot, yet is too slapstick and dumb-blonde to appeal fully to women.
If you have seen Legally Blonde and its sequel, then this is like the bewilderingly awful sequel. Great actors such as Luke Wilson should expect better material. Jessica Simpson could also have managed so much more. Rachael Leigh Cook and Penelope Anne Miller languish in supporting roles that are silly rather than amusing.
Many things in this movie were paint-by-numbers, the various uber-cliché montages, the last minute \"misunderstanding\", even the kids' party chaos. This just suggests lazy scriptwriting.
It should be possible to find this movie enjoyable if you don't take it seriously, but it's such a glaring could-do-better than you'll likely feel frustrated and increasingly disappointed as the scenes roll past.
\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 story goes something like this: A small-town girl, Katie (Jessica Simpson), decides to visit her boyfriend in the big city. When she arrives she discovers he isn't quite as faithful as he should be. Katie then ends up venturing into the adventure that is New York. Filling in as bike messenger comedic and charming mishaps ensues. She falls into a hole in the ground and thus meets charismatic good-guy Ben (Luke Wilson). It's not love at first sight, at least for her, but destiny and Ben, won't give up quite that easy. Being \"just\" a small-town girl AND blonde a couple of evil executives at a building firm decides she's the perfect scapegoat for their cunning plan. Misunderstandings with hilarious and sad consequences follow. However, this is one blonde who won't take it lying down!
People being judgmental of this film will soon enough be proved wrong. The jokes are confident and fitting, and the story well developed. The relationship between Katie and Ben feels so natural that it puts anything Godard has created to shame. The multi-talented Jessica Simpson once again surprises with a strong role only she could pull off. Simpson really is the Marilyn Monroe of our day (there's even one scene honoring her!). She balances perfectly between vulnerable and whimsy. Katie really does show us that you can't judge a book by its cover! Luke Wilson is as charming as ever. Even if he was covered in manure that man would be as appealing as anyone. His light touch, puppy dog eyes and laid back manner makes it difficult to resist. Andy Dick plays the role he was born to play, one of the two diabolical executives. He really cannot be underestimated. The strength of the performance lies in his restraint. It's remarkable, because most actors would just run away with it and play it for cheap laughs. Not this guy!
In conclusion, director Scott Marshall has crafted an intelligent and frequently hilarious comedy that is destined to become a classic alongside masterpieces of cinema like Epic Movie and Norbit. Kudos to everyone involved in this, especially Jessica Simpson. Her sincere smile and whole-hearted laughter would make even the toughest man break out in a big grin. You may be tough, but you're not THAT tough! Warmly recommended to everyone who wants to be swept off their feet and see a romantic comedy that for once, feels honest. Thank you for this film! Oh, and the soundtrack rocks!
Now if you still haven't gotten it. I'm being sarcastic. 1/10
\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 might be unbelievable, but this movie has grossed $878,138 in Russia! It's shown in almost all cinema theaters and still running! Well, I have no idea why distributors put their eye on this particular uh \"movie\", which had almost no screening around the world. That's some kind of enigma! Haha! Maybe it was based on the fact that another movie, \"Pledge This\" with Paris Hilton, which was as well released only DVD almost everywhere, had major screenings in Russia and grossed more than 1mln$. Besides, both movies had a lot of promotion, like there were the banners all over the city, TV commercials and etc. Speaking about movie, I'd say it's dull and absolutely boring. It could be better, really. Even if it has Jessica Simpson.
\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 knew this movie wasn't going to be amazing, but I thought I would give it a chance. I am a fan of Luke Wilson so I thought it had potential. Unfortunately, a lot of the movie's dialog was very fake sounding and cheesy. I think that Aquafresh gave some money towards the production of the film because they were seriously dropping some hints throughout. There is a shot where the Aquafresh sign sticks out at you that you can't help but notice it. Maybe they should have focused on writing and acting more than how many times can we drop Aquafresh products in the movie without people getting annoyed. The movie had its moments, but I'm glad I didn't spend $9.50 to see it in the theater.
\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(First of all, excuse my bad English) Of course only a movie starring Jessica Simpson can include serious goofs like this.. I'm a norwegian and I felt offended and shocked the makers of this movie did not take the time to do their research upon making this American/\"Norwegian\" movie. Even Wikipedia is more accurate when it comes to facts about this country.
So I'm posting my corrections out of my frustration: -The Country is named Norway, not Norwegia. -\"Da\" is Russian, not norwegian. -Norwegian priests never use those black capes with that white paper by the neck as the protestant church is the dominant by far -It's true we have a native traditional folk-outfit (that we only use like twice a year) but the outfit in this movie is more like a German outfit. -I could NOT understand the so called \"norwegian\" in this movie.. Jessica was not making any sense.. neighter did the \"norwegian priests\"
The only thing I recognise is the norwegian flag (and the viking hats, but that's so stereotypic what people think about norway - vikings!:O gosh)
Well.. I guess the people who made this film will never read this comment. but at least I cleared some things up and got rid of some of that frustration..!
I'm proud of my country and I'd love if people in the US were less stereotypic and more accurate when they talk about this country.
That was all.. Lenge leve Norge ! ;p
\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\nAhh this film had so much potential! A good cast of quality B actors, the thighs of Jessica Simpson and... that is about it!
I believe some guy in some unnamed marketing department had an idea. Basically, lets do a kind of Legally Blond film, but do it in New York. That big bright city of chances, power and money and where everyone is a heartless, power/money hungry person. Let's add to this Jessica Simpson, small town bimbo, that brother of Owen Wilson and for some no apparent reason Andy Dick (only because of him you should ignore this film).
Basic story line:
Boy leaves girl for NY, girl follows, boy cheats, girl stays in NY with cousin, gets a job under false pretenses, mucks up, is courted by other boy (Brother Wilson) and together save the day and kiss.
a few words come to mind when reflecting upon this film, i.e. dire, awful, unbearable, intolerable and xenophobic
Just don't watch this film, you will be happier. One reviewer referred to Guantanamo and i definitely agree with him. This film induces shock. And I know what you are thinking... at least at some point will I see Simpson naked or close too. It's not gonna happen, spare yourself the time and YouTube her. You will have better sexy time!
The films editing is flimsy, the acting is unbearable, and why do they use blue screens?
In conclusion; this is cinematic treason which should be punished to the maximum
Another question why does Willie Nelson always play a kind of father figure in almost every Jessica Simpson flick and why are there no black, Latin, Asian or European people in 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\nA lot of promise and nothing more. An all-star cast certainly by HK standards, but man oh man is this one a stinker. No story? That's okay, the action will make up for it like most HK action flicks. What? The action is terrible, corny, and sparse? Dragon Dynasty's releases up to this point are by and large superb and generally regarded as classics in Asian cinema. This is a blight. They managed to wrangle a couple of actors from Infernal Affairs, but they can't bring life to a disjointed script. There are scenes of dialogue where two or three lines are spoken with a cut in between each and no continuity in what the characters are saying. You almost feel like they're each giving a running monologue and just ignoring the other characters. Michael Biehn is made of wood, really? Sammo Hung uses a stunt double? No way. Yes way. 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\nAt the end of \"Dragon Heat,\" all I could think of was why I bothered sitting through the whole thing.
The film's premise is interesting and that - as well as Maggie Q - is what attracted me to the film in the first place. But was I ever disappointed. Writer-director Daniel Lee can't hold a candle to the likes of John Woo, Ringo Lam and Corey Yuen.
This has to be one of the most annoyingly-directed films I have ever seen. Lee is so wrapped up in his visual style - and I use that phrase incredibly loosely - that he fills the film with completely needless black-and-white stills, freeze frames, slow-motion, fast-motion and other visual nonsense. I suppose he did all that to make up for the lack of a good story or dialogue.
The action scenes are nothing special and play out like some hopped-up music video more than anything else. There is little to care about any of the characters - including two supposedly professional snipers who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from the inside! - who are then laden with some of the cheesiest dialogue I have seen in one of these Hong Kong actioners.
The plot is devoid of any twists and turns - from the initial set-up, everything unfolds in predictable fashion - and Lee feels the need to keep reminding us of the characters' back stories in case we didn't get it the first several times. This is awfully amateurish writing and film-making and wastes the talents of Sammo Hung, Michael Biehn and Maggie Q. Though, to be frank, I am hard-pressed to remember Biehn being in any good film that was not directed by James Cameron.
If you really are in the mood for a great Hong Kong actioner, you are much better off sticking to some of the staples - John Woo's \"The Killer\" (1989) and \"Hard-Boiled\" (1992), Ringo Lam's \"City on Fire\" (1987) - which Quentin Tarantino stole for \"Reservoir Dogs\" (1992) - or his \"Point Blank\" (1967) remake, \"Full Contact\" (1992). Or, even check out Yuen's \"So Close\" (2002), a supremely entertaining, yet preposterous, popcorn flick. And there's always the terrific French police actioner, \"The Nest\" (2002).
True, most, if not all, are a bit over-the-top, but they were films that remain exciting, thrilling and even suspenseful. They have characters we care about and mind-blowing action sequences.
\"Dragon Heat,\" on the other hand, is just terribly mediocre. The trouble is that Lee has not made a bad action film, he has made a dull 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\nNon existent plot, tons of poorly directed / super-cheesy scenes (Snipers / world famous sharpshooters who can't even hit their targets a few feet away? plus what's up with the ending?---> a bunch of law enforcers vandalizing a carnival's shooting gallery? WTH?), technical mistakes (how many bullets can you fit into a magazine of a glock? 100+? These people fire their guns without the need of reloading). The movie is so bad that even senior Hollywood actor like Michael Biehn (Aliens, terminator) can't save this junk.
DO not watch this movie (I realized that I wasted some good 100 minutes of my precious life on this one). Hopefully the director would either stop making movies, or learn more for his next 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\nThis esteemed production has it's fans. But to paraphrase the classic bad review of 'Mary Reilly,' Moby Dick is like a painting, only slower.
This is because the philosophical grounds for a movie \"production\" are never to make a great film, rather it's to substitute the lack of a strong guiding idea (in this case for a books transference to film) with a list of hopelessly atomized, undynamic but dazzling conceits in an effort to trick viewers into thinking they've seen greatness. As viewers & critics are apt to fall for this, Oscars follow, feeding the whole dumb equation.
I don't share in the pleasure all these reviewers found. Moby Dick is stunningly uninvolving. Actors dutifully recite essays about Jonah, Moby Dick, the ocean, Moby Dick, Moby Dick... all things that can't respond, and not one of which is absorbing in the slightest. It's dramatically inert. It doesn't build. In narrative terms Moby Dick (as a movie) is little more than a foregone conclusion in search of an actual story. After half an hour I was muttering \"Oh terrific... another oath ...another 4 minute soliloquy!\"
In the failed effort to involve you, it's a pretty campy overacting showcase. A lot of grey hair here. Starbuck is supposed to be a golden god. (!)
One knows one is looking at a great director when he makes the medium his own rather than trying to replicate the feel of someone else's paintings & palette, or reverently embalming a classic as Huston does here. Paintings and books are nice but they're a different mediums. A movie like this fails to grasp that an honestly enjoyable piece of crap (Village of the Damned) is better in most respects than an insufferable piece of culture. This is the Eat Your Vegetables school of film-making.
One appreciates the work that must have been done to make the movie, but not the narrative. Only a few segments reflecting maritime research are interesting; the recording of shanties as a means of structuring work & various sea efforts; and the technology of whaling. And that doesn't call for a two-plus hour 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\nThis movie is horrible. Everything in it has been done before. There is nothing original. I cannot stand when writers don't come up with their own plots.
A girl makes a wish on her 13th birthday and wakes up as an adult. Hmm, sounds a lot like a movie in the 80s called Big. What is even more annoying is Jennifer Garner's acting. She doesn't act like she is 13 she just acts like she is stupid.
From then on, you can guess the whole plot. She gets a good job and it just so happens that a friend she had at 13 works with her. Wow, how awesome! But, no....her friend is bad and turns on her, trying to get her job. But, of course, she wins in the end when she comes up with a \"great\" idea.
There's also a dancing scene in the movie that I've seen a thousand times before.
I hate 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\nI'm beginning to see a pattern in the movies I give a 1 to. They are almost all movies that my wife made me watch. Maybe I should stop having faith in her taste in movies. Anyway, this is typical drivel aimed at pre-teen girls but done even more poorly than usual. Once again, the writer broke the cardinal rule of any movie. He/she made the main character unlikable. She starts off by being a complete b*tch to her friend at the beginning, and then finds out when she becomes 30, that she's basically a sh*tty person (having affairs, etc.). Why the F would we feel for this person? OK, let's say we can get past that. Jennifer Garner is about as far from attractive as you can get without having some sort of deformity. I don't know if it's her or the writer's fault, but her character goes well beyond my threshold for annoyance. Here's a tip for future filmmakers: 13 year olds are NOT entertaining, they're annoying. Far and away the most embarrassing moment in the movie came when they danced to \"Thriller\". Holy crap that was painful. It showed her practicing that dance at the beginning. That explains why she knows it, but an entire club full of people?!? Argh!!! The Macarena would be more believable! All of a sudden she's completely incompetent and has no clue how to do her job and no one notices? At least Tom Hanks' character on \"Big\" had a job that made sense to a child. These body-switching/child becoming adult overnight movies are really getting out of hand, and this is by far the worst one yet.
\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 the *bliep* is it with this movie? Couldn't they fiend a better script? All in all a 'nice' movie, but... it has been done more than once... Up till the end I thought it was okay, but... the going back to the past part... *barf* SO corny... Was waiting for the fairy god mother to appear... but wow, that didn't happen... which is good.
I loved Big with Tom Hanks, but to see such a movie in a new form with another kid who wished that he/she is older/bigger; that just is so pasé
Just watch till it comes out on TV. Don't get me wrong, but it ain't all that
\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\nShe has been catapulted from 13 to 30, with magic dust involved, courtesy the 13-year-old Matt, but nothing is made of that except as an unexplained device. New York City, especially Central Park, but also every other slice of the place incorporated into the movie, seems hope-filled and easily livable, and save for Lucy there's no villain in Jenna's adult life, and even Lucy is not cast as monstrous, only as a nasty 13-year-old grown 17 years more devious. Chris, the one-time boy object of Jenna's yearning, is now a porky cab driver, and you have seen enough films to know that Matt will play a major role in Jenna's future. You don't know quite what might impede this before it is finally achieved, though I'm here to whisper in your ear, so to speak, that the device is not unique. In fact, not only is this a variation on the theme of Tom Hanks' \"Big,\" though nowhere near as fine, it is also a strictly by-the-book version of this subset of the Cinderella story.
\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 film where the actors are all fine, especially Brigitte Bako and Erik Palladino, in a film where every one of the three couples meet in a situation that feels verrrrry forced to be either cute or to set the story in motion. In other words, it feels like they are contrived movie scenes, not like real life. Even if women who work at peep parlors ever go out with one of their customers, it just doesn't seem realistic at all the way it is written in this film. Also, when one of the characters meets the overweight woman in the film, it feels artificial, the way they look at each other seconds after arguing. Again, the actors are all good, and moments of this film are nice, but overall yet another indie that could have used some rewriting before production got rolling.
\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'Mojo' is a story of fifties London, a world of budding rock stars, violence and forced homosexuality. 'Mojo' uses a technique for shooting the 1950s often seen in films that stresses the physical differences to our own time but also represents dialogue in a highly exaggerated fashion (owing much to the way that speech was represented in films made in that period); I have no idea if people actually spoke like this outside of the movies, but no films made today and set in contemporary times use such stylised language. It's as if the stilted discourse of 1950s screenwriters serves a common shorthand for a past that seems, in consequence, a very distant country indeed; and therefore stresses the particular, rather than the universal, in the story. 'Mojo' features a strong performance from Ian Hart and annoying ones from Aiden Gillan and Ewan Bremner, the latter still struggling to build a post-'Trainspotting' career; but feels like a period piece, a modern film incomprehensibly structured in an outdated idiom. Rather dull, actually.
\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 truly terrible: painfully irritating stylised performers screech and mug gratingly incoherent dialogues which take place in scenes which seem to have no purpose, no beginning, middle or end, cut together without any apparent narrative or even cognitive intention, all in the service of some entirely uninteresting and almost undetectable \"story\". What makes it worse is the film's pretentions to \"style\": suddenly a remote-head crane shot spirals downwards, and, without any apparent reason there are sudden whip-pans or wobblyhand-held sections: all this \"style\" merely serves to magnify the almost unbelievably huge misconception of the project and the almost offensive vacuity of the material. Definitely a candidate for the worst film ever made.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI looked forward to watching this film and then realised that any hope of a coherent dialogue between the actors was swamped by the unnecessary swearing. Now I am not a prude in any way, but to shout obscenities at each other does not a good film make. Ewan Bremner is arguably one of the worst actors in the world at this time (witness his performance in the god awful Life of Stuff) & his \"Cockney\" accent is almost as bad as his Edinburgh accent. Avoid. How many more of these films \"Kiss Kiss Bang Bang\", \"Beautiful Creatures\" do we have to suffer before the film makers realise that the f-word, the c- word etc does not replace proper dialogue.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFirst off, I would like to point out that while I am not an expert, the way the trial was handled will insult your intelligence. Firstly, the prosecution never proved that 'facilitated learning' actually works. Irresponsible for both the prosecution(because they can get an appeal) and the defense for not acting on this. As another commenter said, facilitated learning was proved untrue. Secondly, they used Terry as the translator who has personal interest, and even will testify, in the trial which is just stupid. If the court had allowed him to testify that way, they would have brought in someone neutral otherwise they would be just asking for an appeal. Thirdly, this child was never asked specific questions about the defendant by the prosecution(birthmarks, details of the event, etc.) and even when asked by the defense specific questions like when it started, he could not answer. If that isn't reasonable doubt I don't know what is and a competent lawyer would have gotten an acquittal.
Bottom line, it starts off well with the pressures of being the parent of a child with autism, but the trial makes this movie wholly unbelievable.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI saw this movie way back when it premiered.
It was based on the notion that autistic children could communicate with typed-out messages with someone else merely aiding them and guiding their hands.
Then suddenly these children, many of whom weren't even observing the keyboard or the screen when the messages were being typed out (they could be looking up at the ceiling in some instances), but their moderators were eyes glued on the keyboard, began typing messages of abuse from their parents and other persons, sending parents and child welfare agencies in a proberbial tizzy, left and right.
This whole thing was proved a fallacy when a third person presented a folder, opened it to the child and said 'type the picture you see', then as the presenter turned the folder to the moderator, a fold would fall down, revealing another different picture.
So while the child may have seen a dog, the moderator saw something like a boat.
Every time, every bloomin' time, the name of the picture typed was what the moderator had observed, never what the child was shown.
So who was doing the typing? Never the child.
This movie further took a disastrous turn with, as the Australia poster stated, the person who molested the child in the movie was IN the situation trying to help the child.
Had Melissa Gilbert never put her son IN that place, he wouldn't have been molested, is what the movie says. He was better off under her supervision.
If I turn my kid over to your organization for aid and he gets molested instead, do you think I'm going to be keen to listen to anything you have to say after that? Not likely! I think it is a safe bet that all of these accusatory messages that these kids were typing out, that this movie was based on, they never accused someone within their operation as took place here.
Unfortunately, I do recall that the movie gave a very good performance from Gilbert as the mother of an autistic, but other than that, the movie really didn't do much.
The worst by far was the child typing at the end to Patty Duke, and we hear the mechanical voice read back what he typed, . . . . . \"we won!\" This child was molested. If you cut my leg off and I take you to court and you are found guilty of damaging me, assault, whatever, then that is legal justice, but it doesn't bring my leg back.
At best, in my condition, I will view it as a hollow victory.
Whatever chance this child had at what is perceived as normalcy with the autism alone is further damaged by the molestation.
A 'normal' child has enough to contend with from such an experience.
It's utterly superficial to think that you must look upon any situation and go 'we won' if that person is found guilty in court.
Just a bad handling of a situation and circumstances all the way around 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\nI had the good fortune of reading the book before seeing the movie. It was an epic of adolescence, a dream of summers gone, a great potential indie film or big budget drama. It somehow got into the hands of a hack, who clearly took notes watching Boogie Nights and Rushmore without actually learning anything at all. The script loses the meat of the book in favor of forced emotional notes and low brow gags. I feel sorry for the actors, since the characters in the book were rich and textured, but cut down to embarrassing charactures in the film. Mason Gamble is great when given the opportunity, as is Dylan Baker, but the skeleton that remains of the story plays out like a bad after school special. Poor people = GOOD, Rich people = BAD.
Though it's almost worth watching to see the Southern California beach where Gary Sinise parks his trailer which is meant to pass for a bay in Delaware.
It's a good book, but an embarrassing turn for first time director Mills Goodloe.
K.
\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\"A Gentleman's Game\" uses the game of golf in a country club setting to illustrate an adolescent's discovery about honesty, prejudice, and other life lessons. Several times I thought I knew where this film was heading, only to be proved wrong. Unfortunately, I'm not so sure that the filmmakers ever knew where it was heading, either. The defining moment in this movie is probably the scene in which Gary Sinise mocks \"The Karate Kid\" and debunks any notions that he's going to become a mentor to the adolescent golfer. It's refreshing, in a way, that this movie refuses to follow most of the simplistic and over-worked movie formulas. However, too much of it still comes off as contrived. At the drop of a hat people drop all pretenses of civility, or fail to stick up for the things in which they believe, or are exposed for something far less respectable than their place in society assumes. Unfortunately, there is often no resolution to these moments. And except for the fact that the club serves as backdrop for them, there is no real continuity or linking of them. It's a shame that the writers and director could not salvage a better film, especially given some of the talented actors and potential in the setup.
\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 only word i can think of to describe this movie is: Ordinary.
The plot line about Gary sinise's character attempting suicide is a ridiculous premise and c'mon..living as some sort Salingeristic hermit or recluse in a shack driving golf balls into the ocean because he couldn't handle life in the lucrative pro/am golf community? cry me a river. I wish these were my problems. I do enjoy Dylan Baker and Sinise but this movie was clearly a bad choice or a pay check for Sinise. The scene in which little Timmy Price gets verbally abused by the other club member in front of his father during the tournament is so over the top that i am embarrassed to watch 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\nAt least it's not full of sensless violence or fluff. It's also not very full of thought or a smooth storyline. This story had some potential but the director appears to have lost site of the green. The story is disjointed and goes off in strange
directions, to no conclusion. I also don't believe the director spent much time around a golf country club, either. Some of the depictions are absurd. Not very engaging.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI've seen better production quality on YouTube! I pity the actors, as the writing was terrible and the direction shocking, not sure how they could get the lines out - I really doubt any actor would have been able to salvage this movie no matter how good they were. The characters were not developed at all, and there was no real cohesion in the plot which just seemed to go nowhere much. It's a shame really, as the premise for the movie was good and with better production quality, direction and script it could have been a decent movie. It certainly was not a comedy, unless you laugh out loud at the dubbing - which was amateurish, even the English actors sounded weird.
\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 had a cute opening, I truly believed I was in for one of the best romantic comedies i've seen in a while... there was something particular \"foreign\" about the way the movie was set up, realistic yet somewhat abstract and mystical. But then the story line started becoming more and more unrealistic. To say that the ending was CORNY and PREDICTABLE would almost be an understatement... The most typical romantic ending where everything goes great for every 'likable' character. A scene where the main character realises that he has made a mistake and chases the \"woman of his dreams\" only to confess his love for her in front of a sympathetic crowd of on- lookers. Come on. In the end, the 'good guys' win, 'bad guys' loose... You get the picture. A WASTE of a potentially interesting 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\nWhattt was with the sound? It sounded like it was all dubbed.
Otherwise, bad. Plot = bad. Accents = bad (even Dougray, and we live in Scotland), Acting = bad, Harp = bad, Sex scenes - bad/cringeworthy.
Still, we watched it until the end in disbelief. How could such a good roll call of actors perform so badly? Will they ever get a decent job again?
Bad, Bad, Bad. By the way, we gave it 3 because we at least were enticed to watch it to the end due to its bizarre plot, etc.
And to the older reviewer - I totally agree, it was like a romantic farce from the 1940s. How did it get made in 2004?
OK, OK, there were some OK bits. They had a nice house in Bristol. Dougray had a nice boat. Jennifer looked nice in a little outfit. But how come the sister got all the men?
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWatching TRUTH ABOUT LOVE (is this a double entendre about the star?) is like plugging in white noise or manufactured water sounds to help you sleep - you put it in the DVD slot because there is nothing else left on the store shelves and you are in need of distraction after a hectic day. And it works for that for that purpose: being a British romantic comedy it is a bit more.
The story is a rather simple one about a wife Alice (Jennifer Love Hewitt) married to an increasingly distant husband Sam (Jimi Mistry) who has put their love life on hold due to the burdens of his busy law practice. His partner Archie (Dougray Scott) is fond of both Sam and Alice, but has a longtime attraction to Alice that goes beyond friendship. Alice pals with her sister Felicity (Kate Miles), a free love advocate, who encourages Alice to have affairs. On Valentine's Day, after a drinking binge with her sister, Alice mails a card to Sam signed 'Anonymous' as a test to see if Sam responds, testing his fidelity. At the same time Archie mails a radish seed packet to Alice on which he has inscribed a suggestive love not. Both have ex post facto regrets. Sam in fact is spending time with a lover Katya (Branka Katic) and is indeed cheating on Alice. Alice arranges assignations with Sam via email and phone calls and plans to meet Sam in disguise as 'Anonymous' to test his fidelity. The entire cast of characters gets caught up in the silly charade and the ending proves that real love must be based on truth - and how that results in the various pairings is the surprise (of sorts) of the fluffy script.
British comedies work because of the quality of writing and the tight quality of acting. Perhaps had director John Hay elected to cast a British actress as Alice instead of pasting a phony accent on Jennifer Love Hewitt the result may have been improved. But in the end this story by Peter Bloore bounces between mildly humorous and pathetic in its messages. One terrible distraction is a musical score that is consistently so loud that it covers all the dialogue and is intrusive. There are some nice scenes of London and a few moments of passable humor, but in the end this little film is truly best utilized as background music/white noise. Grady Harp
\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 ordered the movie from Korea because I was an extra in it and was interested to see how it turned out.
Having watched it I can say that I am ashamed to have had any part of it. I feel embarrassed not only for myself but for everyone else who had any part in the making of this mockery of British \"comedy\".
From beginning to end the film is predictable, tedious, dull, monotonous and cringe-worthy to the point that on several occasions I actually looked away from the screen in dis-belief. Until you actually see the movie it is difficult to conceive how un-romantic and un-comedic a romantic comedy can be.
It's not only a bad story, but a badly-made film. In one scene, you can actually see a runner or assistant director showing the S.A.'s when to wipe across. I will post details of this in the 'Goofs' section.
On the up-side, it did fill me with emotions (disappointment, rage, embarrassment)
\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\nHiya folks,
Well, this movie sucks really. Think \"Love Actually\" in reverse. Nothing fits quite right, nothing is coherent, and certainly nothing makes you laugh. Love is rare in this film.
It IS a total flop. As indicated however, there are three redeeming points about this mangled potential of a film.
A) With a star billing of Jennifer Love Hewitt, there will be hordes of guys who will submit with grace to viewing this just to catch a glimpse of the petite Hewitt with form fitting clothing. To tell you now guys....there are some promising scenes....but it's really weak eye candy. The \"possibilities\" here are watered down. Nevertheless, I watched the whole thing tempted by the next scene of you know what.....titillating!
B) The ending is romantic and positive. That it's contrary and \"over the top\" is relevant.....yet for me was still a positive point.
C) Dougray Scott plays an amourous friendly guy........REFRESHING! THANK YOU!
2/5, not worthy of your 10 or so dollars.
2/3's of the way through, I was convinced Jennifer Love Hewitt was becoming the next softcore legend. Although I'll take that back for now.....it hinges greatly on her next film.
Oh, and her sister is way stupid. Her husband is way stupid...and what the heck, she's way stupid.
Next time. can't wait for the next Love Actually with JLH!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThere have been more interesting polish documentaries on worm farming, in brail_!! The competition (worm farming) had a better plot and more interesting characters. I was physically ill after watching this movie. The cheating husband (i think dougray_scott_) was a joke in every meaning of the word. Poor Jennifer must really need the work, and what was with the accent!!. The locations and random meetings reminded me of a high school prank, and showed the humility of a 10 year old in cooking class. It was that bad that I think I will write the sequel named \"this is not a laxitive\". Thank you for listening it was a great weight of my conscious.
\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\nYet another British romantic comedy which audiences all over the world seem to have a ravenous appetite for. This feeble effort is an unintentional parody of the genre - all the classic clichéd scenes are here from ridiculously elaborate misunderstandings to running after departing trains to declare one's love. The characters are one-dimensional caricatures save for Love-Hewitt who manages to bring some cohesion to the film. Things threaten to spiral out of control in the plausibility department as the film progresses; our good-natured suspension of belief finally comes crashing down during the preposterous ending. If you're looking for a Bridget Jones, Notting Hill kind of experience you won't find it 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\nDaddy's girls Florence Lawrence and Dorothy West receive some terrific news at the local post office, unaware they are being stalked by burglar Charles Inslee. Meanwhile, father David Miles receives a message (from young Robert Harron) which necessitates daddy leaving home; so, when the young women return, they can be home alone. As the vulnerable pair bed down for the evening, the local \"Grand Ball of the Black and Tans\" gets underway; and, a dark-skinned drinker portends additional danger for D.W. Griffith's dynamic duo
Mr. Inslee has one of his better Biograph roles, stealing the film from \"The Girls and Daddy\". Ironically, Director Griffith appears as one of the black-faced extras at the \"Black and Tans\" ball. \"Biograph Girls\" Lawrence and West are suggestive of later \"Griffith Girls\" Lillian and Dorothy Gish, especially in \"Orphans of the Storm\" (1921); and, they are excessively affectionate in bed! The racist tone is unfortunate, since the story of a burglar redeemed by saving his potential victims from a greater danger, is intriguing.
*** The Girls and Daddy (2/1/09) D.W. Griffith ~ Florence Lawrence, Dorothy West, Charles Inslee
\n
assistant\n0
\n"