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\nThe saddest thing about this \"tribute\" is that almost all the singers (including the otherwise incredibly talented Nick Cave) seem to have missed the whole point where Cohen's intensity lies: by delivering his lines in an almost tuneless poise, Cohen transmits the full extent of his poetry, his irony, his all-round humanity, laughter and tears in one.
To see some of these singer upstarts make convoluted suffering faces, launch their pathetic squeals in the patent effort to scream \"I'm a singer!,\" is a true pain. It's the same feeling many of you probably had listening in to some horrendous operatic versions of simple songs such as Lennon's \"Imagine.\" Nothing, simply nothing gets close to the simplicity and directness of the original. If there is a form of art that doesn't need embellishments, it's Cohen's art. Embellishments cast it in the street looking like the tasteless make-up of sex for sale.
In this Cohen's tribute I found myself suffering and suffering through pitiful tributes and awful reinterpretations, all of them entirely lacking the original irony of the master and, if truth be told, several of these singers sounded as if they had been recruited at some asylum talent show. It's Cohen doing a tribute to them by letting them sing his material, really, not the other way around: they may have been friends, or his daughter's, he could have become very tender-hearted and in the mood for a gift. Too bad it didn't stay in the family.
Fortunately, but only at the very end, Cohen himself performed his majestic \"Tower of Song,\" but even that flower was spoiled by the totally incongruous background of the U2, all of them carrying the expression that bored kids have when they visit their poor grandpa at the nursing home.
A sad show, really, and sadder if you truly love Cohen as I do.
\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 not consider myself as one of Leonard Cohen's greatest fans. He does however feature as an important poet / musician in my literary / musical heritage. By far the most valuable element in this documentary is to hear Leonard's reflections on his own life and career. Warming and humble.
Unfortunately the most of the musicians featured in the concert didn't converse the nuances of Leonard's musical / literary manner. Nick Cave, Jarvis Cocker & Beth Orton were the exceptions, even though Leonard highly values Rufus Wainrights interpretations of his songs.
What particularly failed in this documentary was the ability of the filmmaker to allow the viewer to see who Leonard Cohen is and how these musicians connect to him. A lot is said in this respect, but the viewer is not drawn into the person Leonard Cohen. This failing is especially evident with the interviews with Bono and the Edge. They view Leonard as a special icon, but can't translate their exact value of Leonard Cohen. The collaboration with U2 is a farce. The entire live registration looks like a rushed job. And just as in the whole film, only Leonard Cohen remains his part and can tell about his own part.
The entire montage and screenplay is much like a high school extramural project. The use of effects such as echo, slow-motion or flashed images are ill placed. Some of the camera-work is dismal. Part of the score hardly recalls any associations I may have expected. At times it seemed the filmmaker was adding psychotic elements to the film. Perhaps a reference to his once use of LSD.
Some unintentional humor ... at some point Leonard tells how he influenced a musical genre. Initially he can't recall the genre's name, until eventually he says it was punk, the punksters really picked up on his music. The next scene in the film is a live cover of 'I can't forget' ...
\"And I can't forget, I can't forget I can't forget but I don't remember who\"
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI've been a fan since his first album. This film is a disservice to him. The performances, except for one by Rufus Wainwright and Teddy Thompson are simply terrible.
Those by Martha Wainwright, Nick Cave, Antony, and Jarvis Cocker were particularly annoying. Even the one by the McGarrigle sisters was ruined by the so called harmony of Martha Wainwright.
I've never seen my wife get up and walk out of the room on a film before and I found myself fast forwarding through the performances to get to the few interview segments, which were also difficult to watch due to the poor camera work.
There are many who have been able to interpret Mr. Cohen's songs, Jennifer Warnes, KD Lang, Billy Joel, Aaron Neville, and Willie Nelson come to mind, but those people selected for this performance were just awful.
Hopefully there will be another attempt at capturing Leonard Cohen on film that will illustrate his insight, talent, and intelligence.
So sad
\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 kind of a documentary about a musician fails to include a single track by the artist himself?! Unlike \"Ray\" or countless other films about music artists, half the fun in the theater (or on the couch) is reliving the great songs themselves. Here, all the tracks are covers put on by uninteresting characters, and these renditions fail to capture Cohen's slow, jazzy style. More often, the covers are badly sung folk versions. Yuck.
The interviews are as much or more with other musicians and figures rather than with Cohen himself. Only rarely does the film feature Cohen reading his own work (never singing)-- like letters, poems, etc. The movie really didn't capture much about the artist's life story, either, or about his development through the years. A huge disappointment for a big Cohen fan.
\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 should have been only 10 minutes. I mean there is really only 10 minute worth of watchable content in this thing (I even hesitate to call it a movie). The opening credits of the film was somehow promising. As the film begins by short comments of the man himself, you really rub your hands and stay tuned for more footage from Cohen's life. Well, Nick Cave does a reasonable job covering one of Cohen's famous songs. The length of Cave's performance makes you even more eager to see more of Cohen whose wit and well spoken words have already tickled your fancy. But as it turns out Cave's performance is only the start of lengthy super boring performances by literally a bunch of no ones who don't even have a minimal attraction to keep you on your seat. I mean what does the filmmaker really think? five-minute close-up shots of wanna be singers in a fake concert in Australia!!! What does the filmmaker really think to insult the audience by adding \"fake applause\" to these endless nasty performances. The film is a perfect torture that shows you very little of what you came to see. There is not a single footage of Cohen's past. In fact, except for a few photographs of his early days as a singer/poet there is absolutely nothing! If you add up all the minutes that Cohen talks it may not even reach 10 minutes. But these 10 minutes are tortuously presented bit by bit in between disastrous camera-work that captures some of the most unattractive people screaming Cohen's lyrics. If you ever decided to waste your money on this film, DON'T! just throw it in the garbage and at least save your time.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nHey,
If your going to make a documentary about Leonard Cohen try making it about Leonard Cohen! This is filled with only enough Leonard to anger the viewer who will be left wondering why they are listening to all these other singers (some of them questionable) talk about themselves. Puleeze....sounds like them reliving their diary entries in junior high - who cares about you, what about Leonard? Guess what people, if you \"do something\" worthy maybe someone will make a documentary about you. I found particularly insulting the parading of U2's members as if that would add credibility to this movie - NOT. Leonard doesn't need Bono or the Edge talking about his spirituality. What would have been nice would have been for the filmmakers to embody some piece of his spirituality through the film. Gee, what a concept! I will give props to Rufus Wainwright and Jarvis Cocker for their covers of Cohen tunes - the rest of the performances were a bore and some were unbearable.
Cohen fans, don't say I didn't warn you!
\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 people who are praising this film are the real disappointments -- I am hoping at least that Leonard will see some good $$ out of this, as his life savings were embezzled away by a manager a couple of years ago and he's over 70 now. But this film is simply terrible. At the beginning Leonard himself says he is not sentimental about his past, and then for the next hour and a half the film emphasizes all the worst sentimental elements of Leonard's songs. It is so bloody PRECIOUS with its endless close-ups of over emoting singers. Cohen's interview is all done in lo-fi video closeups and I so wanted to see a medium or a long shot of his whole body! I couldn't care less about the comments of the performers, especially those overblown ego boys Edge and Bono. None of the performers in this film have done even one song as good as Leonard's own music and if you are thinking about seeing this and you have any doubts at all, heed them. This would be an acceptable PBS special, maybe, for a one time showing. But I will even hesitate at getting a DVD of this. When the film finally shows Leonard semi-performing \"Tower of Song\" it's ruined by Bono taking a verse. Even the occasional good performances (Antony, Rufus' first number, Martha's The Traitor) are spoiled by the context of the rest of this turgid blabla. Forget this one, and go buy Leonard's most recent album if you want to pay tribute to him.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI just don't get some of the big premises of this episode - that Miranda is so remarkable, and that there's anything so ugly it would make you insane. Someone here made the remark that maybe it's the frequency of the light waves or something rather than it being ugliness. Miranda is just a jerk. The episode is slow, inconsistent and way too talky. I also don't quite understand why Kolos is an ambassador - why doesn't the Federation just leave the damn Medusans be? There's one part I do like, when Kolos is speaking through Spock about the loneliness of the human experience. Overall, I love TOS and even at its lamest, I'll always tune in. This episode though - mmm, I wouldn't purchase it except for a used copy under $3.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI am very unpolitically correct guy, so when I say sexist I really mean it reduced the female guest lead, Dr Miranda Jones played by Diana Muldar. in spite of all her supposed brilliance and self control, to nothing more inside but a big, jealous unreasonable baby You prolly got the plot by now, after her technical sidekick Marvik, also a spurned lover, flips out when he tried to kill the Medusan, Ambassador Kollos, out of a jealous rage, but glimpsed first it instead. (You think he could have just walked in to the room with his eyes shut and phasered the box, too easy) he takes the Enterprise into un-navigable space outside the galaxy before the boys could subdue him. Well, the ship is stuck in limbo, at that point they could have gone to the good lady doctor-liaison and discussed it. \"Spock has to make a mind meld with the Medusan so we can get home. I mean like beetch do you want to stay adrift until we run out of supplies and die?\" But the lady in true Star Trek fashion is a jealous monsters who whines and wails when the idea is broached, even when her Medusan idol told her to shut up & go along with them. So the beetch out of spite messes with the melded Spock causing him to forget to put on his visor which makes Spock go insane. Kirk, naturally, figured out what a total twit she was and shamed her into fixing Spock up with her superior telepathic powers. Of course, at the end the Lady and Medusan leave and all is forgiven. You almost wish the President from Battle Star Galactica showed up to jettison the witch out of an airlock for her destructive stunt. But in Star Trek land, ladies are permitted to be totally unreasonable and cruel, yet at the same time supposedly there is sexual equality. This is what I mean by sexist.
\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\nAnother weak third-season entry, 'Is There In Truth No Beauty?' nonetheless has at least one key plot element that is very different and as Spock would say, fascinating. The main character is an alien who must be carried around in a black box because his appearance is so horrendous that it drives humans insane. It's too bad the episode cannot live up to this incredible premise. Obviously, I think, it was a mistake to ever 'show' the alien, as its actual visage in no way even approximates such a daunting build-up; all we get is the standard Star Trek psychedelic light display used for any number of things in different episodes, usually when the ship is passing through a magnetic storm or something similar. In any event, Kollos' appearance can at least be tolerated by Mr. Spock, and then only if Spock is wearing a special visor. (For the longest time, I thought the alien's name was 'Carlos,' which I found humorous, but I digress.) Spock is required to mind-meld with Kollos at one point so that the alien can pilot the Enterprise back to safety. This is accomplished, but when Spock/Kollos go back to end the mind-meld, by golly, Spock forgets his visor. Uh oh. He goes crazy but eventually recovers with the help of Kollos' assistant, a blind woman with psychic powers. This might have been a really bizarre, excellent episode but it is poorly directed and comes across as yet one more badly executed show of the series' last season.
\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\nIs this the \"worse\" Star Trek TOS episode? Maybe, at least it gets my vote as being in the bottom 5. I mean, this episode makes absolutely no freaking sense. Seeing something that makes you go mad? Give me a break. This episode also has a different feel to it, the music is heightened, almost forced to enhance a feeling of distress, to the point that it sucks. Give me some Klingons, Gorns, Tholians, Romulans, higher beings like Triskelion's or anything but Medusin's, these are very boring aliens to make an episode around. McCoy gets to utter his famous phrase \"He's Dead, Jim\". Spock puts on the protective goggles when transporting the ambassador away but Kirk does not. They go through that freaking \"barrier\" now for the third time that I can remember, boring. At least season three's next episodes would be \"Spectre Of The Gun\", and \"Day of The Dove\" and others to follow, making Trek a decent show to watch in syndication where it would pick people like me up as avid fans. Personal observations, Trek loved to use the color purple, its kind of a pinkish purple, like when they are in the corridor outside the compartment, the gangway that is normally grey is now purple. We never had a purple bridge but its interesting to see, I noticed it in several episodes, it was done by a light filter and it works very well but in this episode, in the ships corridor is pretty lame.
\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\nDiana Muldaur appears on Star Trek for the second time, but this time as a different character. No one on board seems to notice--maybe it was the hair. Regardless, this time she is not the receptacle for a god (see the previous episode) but is a very famous lady with magical powers that enable her to communicate and see a Medusan without going crazy (the standard human response). Unfortunately, the man that is most in love with her is a few cards short of a full deck and he tries to kill the Medusan ambassador (who, oddly, lives in a small crate--this is a lousy way to travel). And, unfortunately, Muldayr isn't wound all that well herself. What happens next is kind of dumb and by the time the episode was over the first time I saw it, I was pretty relieved. Watching all the men on board go ga-ga over Muldaur was pretty silly and the acting of Spock when he briefly went crazy was pretty campy. Do yourself a favor--if you haven't seen the show before, pick a different episode.
\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\nDuring the Civil War, there were many cases of divided loyalties; obviously, many occurred \"In the Border States\", where North met South by happenstance of geography. From the border, young father Owen Moore goes off to join the Union Army. Shortly, Confederate soldier Henry B. Walthall, separated from his regimen, wanders onto the enemy's property, desperate for water; he finds a supply where the Unionist's young daughter Gladys Egan sits. When the Yankee soldiers track him down, Little Gladys innocently helps the Confederate hide. Later, when he returns to kill her father, the little girl's kindness is remembered. A sweet, small story from director D.W. Griffith. Location footage and humanity are lovingly displayed.
**** In the Border States (6/13/10) D.W. Griffith ~ Henry B. Walthall, Owen Moore, Gladys Egan
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nMy mother keeps a cassette of this film as a general threat to any film loving person who annoys her. Everything about it stinks.
As such it is a true classic.
Who gave it 10/10? Were you inadvertently watching a good film and accidentally voted for this one?
Everyone involved in the movie making process should be forced to watch at least a small section of this film. It should be an indelible stain on the minds on all that hold film sacred and be revered as the tide mark of the cinematically dire.
\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 exactly was going on during World War 11 in New Zealand when American forces were there?
This awful story of 4 sisters was really pathetic to view. Can you imagine casting Joan Fontaine as the older sister to Sandra Dee? Fontaine looked more like her mother. Even funnier was that Fontaine becomes pregnant in the film.
Piper Laurie and Paul Newman who showed such great on screen chemistry 4 years later in \"The Hustler,\" have no scenes together in this film. Laurie plays another sister who goes off to Wellington to tramp around there, despite the fact that she is married. Woe to her when her husband comes back from the war.
Jean Simmons is widowed and finds romance with a much subdued Paul Newman. There is even romance for the young Miss Dee here.
The picture has little to no meaning. Are they trying to say that all is fair in love and war? If they are, they did a poor job in selling this.
The conflict of interest with Newman and Simmons is quickly disposed of. That is what should have been quickly done to this terribly disappointing film of 1957.
\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\nUnusual? Yes!
Unusual setting for an American wartime movie, New Zealand.
Unusual subject matter, four sisters and their relationships with American soldiers, from one bearing the illegitimate child of the dead son of a Senator, to another living with seven Marines (one at a time) before being murdered by her returning POW New Zealander husband.
Unusual to see Paul Newman deliver such a poor performance so soon after his unforgettable role as Rocky Graziano in the brilliant \"Somebody Up There Loves Me\".
Unusual for two fine \"Stars\" Joan Fontaine and Jean Simmons, to leave so little of themselves on a movie.
Unusual that I could be bothered to write a review of such a poor film, give it a miss!
\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 rented this movie yesterday and can hardly express my disappointment in little Laura Ingalls for getting involved in something so poorly produced. I am not sure if it was horrible writing or bad directing or both but it leaves a viewer very disappointed in having wasted the time to watch this swill. It consisted of a weak naive story line, very poor lines, and relied solely on pretty scenery, and pretty people to sell it. Unfortunately this was not enough. You would be better off to rent a tape full of static than to waste your time on this crap. Lindsey Wagner also played a pretty pathetic part as a ranch owner who apparently works very hard doing nothing, anybody who has ever been near a ranch knows that this was obviously written by a young person from los Angeles and not someone with much knowledge of the world.
\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\nCarl Panzram lived an amazing life and scribbled down his memoirs on scraps of paper for possibly the only person who ever did anything selfless for him. The book \"Panzram: A Journal of Murder\" by Thomas E. Gaddis and James O. Long, which came out the better part of a century after Panzram's death, gives the historical context to a first-generation American's account of running away from home to go west and be a cowboy, getting caught, thrown in the boy's home, getting away repeatedly and thrown into prison over and over all the time getting tortured and sodomized. As Panzram grew huge and strong, he sought to take revenge for the wrong done to him as he traveled to South America, Europe and Africa, and it didn't matter what people he raped, robbed, or murdered because we are all equally worthless.
This film casts skinny James Woods as the rough neck, mean-ass, son of a bitch Carl Panzram who in the film is a \"drunk\", overly-dramatic and emotional, and who never mentions the joy of sodomizing men and boys. The film neither elaborates on anything else particularly of note about this world traveler and career prisoner (like robbing former President Taft or being released from the Oregon prison as long as he gave his word to return). In short, I don't think Carl would be too happy.
\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 wants to elaborate that criminals are a product of modern society. Therefore, can thieves, rapists and murderers (the Killer of this movie, Carl Panzram (James Woods), is all three and worse) be held fully accountable for their deeds? An interesting notion, but very difficult to bring to the screen in an intellectually and emotionally satisfying way. And this is where Killer: A Journal of Murder falls very short. Although the film tries to put Panzram's behaviour into perspective, with flashbacks to his violent youth and dysfunctional upbringing, the viewer never gets the idea that Panzram is a victim rather than a culprit. Sure, the system is corrupt, with one mobster occupying the whole sick bay of Leavenworth Prison (where most of the movie takes place), most prison guards are sadistic bullies, and the prison director something like a megalomaniacal despot. But why on earth does new prison guard Henry Lesser (Robert Sean Leonard) take such pity on Panzram? Even after having read his gruesome diaries? The movie offers some explanation: Lesser witnesses Panzram being beaten to a pulp by the most sadistic (and stereotypical) guard, and is impressed by Panzram's intelligence (though it isn't clear why exactly Lesser thinks this man is so smart). Surely this isn't enough to sympathize with a hostile man like Panzram, even though this movie tends to downplay his crimes and highlight his personality? Towards Lesser, Panzram is quite loyal, and the viewer is given the impression that for Lesser this outweighs all of the atrocities he has read about in Panzram's diaries. Does this man Lesser have so little friends that he takes at face value everyone who seems only remotely friendly to him? Perhaps it is Lesser who is a product of modern society, judging on appearance rather than substance.
I can advise Monster, starring Charlize Theron and Christina Ricci, as a movie which handles roughly the same themes with far more integrity and scope.
BTW: Killer looks as though shot for TV (not so good)
\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 excruciatingly slow pace of this film was probably the director's express intention, in order to convey what life was like growing up as a village teen in China. However, I found the combination of the glacially slow 'plot' and the general filming style so impersonal as to be totally alienating, particularly to a western audience. At times I actually had trouble telling some characters apart, as they were filmed from such a distance. Two hours in and I was totally past caring. As someone who is not only interested in music but is also very into the history and culture of China (and is by the way no stranger to Chinese cinema), I couldn't engage with a single character and found nothing to get my teeth into. It begs the question: If I disliked it, who on earth would like it? Give me Zhang Yimou, give me Chen Kaige. Give me the work of just about any other Chinese director I've ever seen. This sorry effort just doesn't measure up at all. I'd be sorry to see Chinese cinema judged against this benchmark.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI have seen many, many films from China - and Hong Kong. This is the worst. No, the worst one was 'Unknown Pleasures'. I watched 'Platform' yesterday evening and thought that Jia Zhang Ke's other two films must be better. This evening I was disappointed again. I will not be watching 'Xiao Wu' tomorrow evening because I have just placed all three films in the bin! Whoever gave this film, 'Platform' ten out of ten, needs to watch more cinema! The photography was very poor: it was very difficult to differentiate between some of the characters because of the lack of close-up work. The storyline was so disjointed that I fast-forwarded it towards the end out of pure frustration. I would not recommend this film to anyone. Give me Zhang Yimou or Chen Kage any day. These are true masters of Chinese cinema, not pretentious con men!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie is truly boring. It was banned in Chinese cinema and i can see why. It's not because it's critical of the communist regime but simply because the movie is of such low quality. I would never want to pay money to watch this. I love movies from Chen Kaige and Zhang Yimou and i am disappointed such a poor movie could come out of China. It totally seems to ignore the audience and the director seems to have made the movie for himself. The shots of a person standing there doing nothing for up to a minute are hilarious and there's plenty of them. The cinematography and video quality are unbelievably bad. I looked this film up on the Net and it seems like people actually like this film. The only explanation i have for this is that some film buffs think that if a film is not in English it is automatically good. I can't see any reason why people would like this. this is not an art film it's of waste of celluloid.(That's if they actually shot it on film , which they didn't)
\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 concept was ok but hardly original. The acting was plastic. But the real spoiler was that there was only one joke and a grubby one at that. This is a film for fourteen year olds who have been let out on their own for the first time. Don't dare to watch it with your kids.
\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\nHaving enjoyed Mike Myers previous work (Waynes World and Saturday Night Live) my expectations of a 60s bond spoof were fairly high. It became plain after the first minute that this was an exercise in how to be as puerile and unfunny as possible. I swit ched off after ten minutes. I watched it the other day a second time to see whether I had been unfair the first time. I switched it off after ten minutes. I find it hard to believe how even a twelve year-old boy could find this funny. The dialogue is an e mbarrassment, Myers is painful to watch (as is Heather Graham) and the succession of characters including Fat Bastard makes matters even worse. Apart from the mildly amusing title and the psychedelic set design this is one of the worst films I have ever seen. I personally recommend you avoid this like the plague, though several friends of mine enjoyed it (maybe they were blindfolded at the time).º
\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\nPOSSIBLE SPOILERS
The Spy Who Shagged Me is a muchly overrated and over-hyped sequel. International Man of Mystery came straight out of the blue. It was a lone star that few people had heard of. But it was stunningly original, had sophisticated humour and ample humour, always kept in good taste, and had a brilliant cast. The Spy Who Shagged Me was a lot more commercially advertised and hyped about.
OK I'll admit, the first time I saw this film I thought it was very funny, but it's only after watching it two or three times that you see all the flaws. The acting was OK, but Heather Graham cannot act. Her performance didn't seem very convincing and she wasn't near as good as Liz Hurley was in the first one. Those characters who bloomed in the first one, (Scott Evil, Number 2 etc.) are thrown into the background hear and don't get many stand-alone scenes. The film is simply overrun with cameos.
In particular, I hated the way they totally disregarded some of the scenes in IMOM. When they killed off Vanessa at the start and had Basil sat that he knew she was a fembot all along. What was the point of that? They killed off Number 2 in the first one, and now they bring him back with no explanation whatsoever. This is supposed to be a spy-spoof, I don't think any of the characters even hold a gun in the film. It just goes on a trail, further and further away from the point.
The new characters are very unwelcome. The whole Mini-Me `make fun of my size' joke gets old very quickly. Fat Bastard is just a lame excuse for gross-out humour. In total there's about two or three good jokes. The rest are either tasteless or rehashed from IMOM.
If this were the first movie of the series then I'd probably be easier on it. But the series started on a note of dry wit and then plummeted down to a level of gross out humour. So I say, only watch this film if you haven't seen its predecessor, because The Spy Who Shagged Me is one ultimate disappointment.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film is not even worth walking to the movie theatre. No jokes, but stupid and boring laughing on repeated disgusting stuff. The music and the girls are great, unfortunately you have to watch the whole movie to enjoy them. It was weak, very very weak.
\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 opening 5 minutes gave me hope. Then Meyers proved he only had one good idea for the rest of the movie. Absolute lowest common denominator humor. Painful viewing. A complete chore. Written no doubt in less than a week, just like the first one. Give Meyers the hook and lock him in a cell with Adam Sandler and Will Farrell. And don't let him out until he's developed a decent script for something, anything. He has it in him. These Austin Powers things are just embarrassing.
Let Goldmember sink without trace.
\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 one is a little better than the first one. It still relies on a lot of its humor which basically keeps saying that the old Bond movies were not realistic. That wears thin after so many parodies. The girls were more interesting in this one.
There is a tremendous amount of total gross out humor. Hopefully one day real comedy will come back.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nYeah, that about sums it up. This movie was horrifying. Two minutes in I wanted to gouge my eyes out. This has been praised as an \"innovative LDS comedy,\" but it's not even good for members of that church! I don't think any human being should be so victimized as to watch a movie of this low quality.
First of all, you can tell that absolutely no effort whatsoever went into this movie. It seems as if the horribly drab, glib, trite plot was thrown together by two crazy weasels somehow imbued with the gift for coherent (at least semi-coherent) thought. Then, there's the acting, which is dismal from *everybody* involved. Even the cameos fail to liven anything up.
And let's not forget the fact that our protagonist is a shallow jerk who we would like to believe can change, but that road is full of embarrassingly bad dialogue, appallingly hideous \"gags,\" and a lot of Mormon \"in-jokes\" that anyone in their right mind, LDS or not, should consider purely *stupid*! This has to be one of the worst films I've ever seen!
\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 was terrible. The plot sucked, the acting was bad, the editing was inept and this movie makes me want to poke my eyes out. I wish I had the time I spent watching this movie back. The balloon scene was stupid, the Mormon jokes are really old, the soundtrack sucked, I saw no chemistry between the two leads, it's full of stereotypes, stupid local \"celeb\" cameo's..most noted was Del \"I'm going to drive as fast as I want to..\" computer idiot. What is worst is that these actors had to play themselves on the spiritual side and even they screwed that up. This movie help create a long line of lackluster efforts to mainstream LDS beliefs into Hollywood. I.E. The RM, Church ball, etc. etc. I would forgo watching this movie and instead run head first into a brick wall. You will be more entertained than watching this poor excuse for a show.
\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\ndon't see this. this was one of the dumbest movies i have ever seen. its hard to be Mormon sometimes when there are movies like this out there. what a sad view of Mormon life. i can tell you if you did see this movie that it is not all like this at all in a singles ward. if it was i don't think i would have made it through it. its too bad that most Mormon movies are made by a group of geeks who have nothing better to do. the acting was so bad that my wife and i barely made it through. i guess you could say that it had all the signs of a B movie. or are there C movies? anyway...i just thought this movie sucked and was full of cheese. i wish some Mormons would start making some quality movies.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWith the runaway success of \"God's Army\", every Mormon with a camera seems to be trying to make a movie now. In the case of the recent \"The Other Side of Heaven\", this wasn't at all a bad thing. That film, while not great, was quite good. \"The Singles Ward\", however, is not.
Telling the story of a young, divorced Mormon guy thrust back into single life, the writing and shooting style of \"The Singles Ward\" is, in many ways, very similar to the 80s comedy \"Ferris Bueller's Day Off\". However, the similarities end there. While \"Ferris Bueller\" was funny, original, and well-acted (as far as stupid comedies like this ever are), \"The Singles Ward\" is completely the opposite. It tries very hard to be funny. However, 90% of the gags either fall flat or are cliches and jokes you've probably heard a million times before. The other 10% seem to be thrown in to fill out the time. And the acting, while not awful, is amaturish at best.
In addition, if you're not either a Mormon yourself, or very, VERY familiar with Mormon culture, you won't get hardly anything at all. Whereas \"God's Army\" and \"The Other Side of Heaven\" were appealing to a broad range of viewers, both inside and outside of the Mormon church, this film is most definitely one big inside joke, and even if you get it, it's just not that funny.
\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 live in Salt Lake City and I'm not a Mormon, so why did I rent this movie? Well because I live in Utah and thought it'd be nice to see locations I know in a film. I really knew going into it that I wasn't going to get the inside jokes so I wasn't surprised when I sat with the deer in the headlights stare. What I was surprised at was the ant-non Mormon actions that were placed in this film.
I know it's a Mormon film, catered to the members of the LDS Church, but I found it offensive because of the typical stereotype of people that isn't of their faith. Every non Mormon, which wasn't many, drank, smoked and had an amazing selfishness attitude, why?
That really ticked me off about this film, they made the Mormons so pure, yet the rest of the state of Utah I guess is filled with punk psychos just because they don't follow the scriptures of the LDS Church.
I can understand having the plots revolve around all LDS members, but you'd think Salt Lake City was 100% Mormon, which isn't even close to being the truth. And as I said, the non Mormons in the movie were portrayed as drunken jerks, please!
I guess I just don't get it because I don't belong to their faith and I guess I never will.
\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 in expecting the movie to be completely dumb. With such a low expectation, any form of entertainment would be a pleasant surprise. The soundtrack was the best part of the movie, but poking fun at the nonsense that goes on in singles wards was also amusing.
This said, there were many things about The Singles Ward that were completely annoying. The entire film was poorly dubbed and made watching mouths while listening to their voices very irritating. This lack of professionalism was surpassed only by the cameos of Mormon celebrities who have no business acting.
This film will do well among Mormondom, especially in college communities where singles ward exist. However the conclusion will offer no hope for the poor losers who find themselves unmarried. (Only the pretty girls in the Singles Ward get married, the fat, ugly ones don't, but all the ugly men do) Ultimately we realize that the whole film was an advertisement for LDSSingles.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\nSomething to Sing About was produced at Grand National Studios where James Cagney was working while under a contract dispute with the brothers Warner. He did two films for this B studio, neither of which rank high in the Cagney credits.
One of the great losses to cinema is the fact that Jimmy Cagney did so few films that utilized his terrific dancing abilities. The two that come to mind immediately are Yankee Doodle Dandy and Footlight Parade. Two lesser films are The West Point Story and Never Steal Anything Small. Cagney himself said he never used to watch anything but his musicals in retirement. So why did he make so few of them?
Well this one was all wrong. The plot of Something to Sing About concerns a hoofer who fronts for a band who's discovered and given a movie contract. There are the usual complications of a conniving studio boss and a conniving press agent played respectively and well by Gene Lockhart and William Frawley. His contract calls for a no- marriage clause, so Cagney and band girl singer lady Evelyn Daw marry in secret. Then we get the complication of a publicity driven studio romance with screen leading lady Mona Barrie. I think you can figure where this is going.
The most disappointing thing about Something to Sing About is the lack of dance numbers for Cagney. He dances briefly at the beginning and the end of the film and nothing in the middle. Evelyn Daw had a nice singing voice and the charisma of a ham sandwich. She got the musical numbers such as they were. I'm sure the movie-going public was paying their tickets to see Cagney dance.
Also in addition to giving him some dance numbers a female dance partner would have been nice. He danced well with Ruby Keeler in Footlight Parade and with Virginia Mayo and Doris Day in The West Point Story. Weren't Ginger Rogers, Eleanor Powell or Ruby Keeler available?
No memorable songs came out of this. And Daw's voice is waisted as well. She has a Jeanette MacDonald soprano voice which was so out of place with a swing band.
No wonder Cagney went running back to Warner Brothers. But they should have given him some decent musicals.
\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\nYoung and attractive Japanese people are getting on the wrong side of some curse again, this time it involves mobile phones. Various people die until the disgruntled spirit behind it all is unearthed, so essentially if you've seen more than 2 recent Japanese horror films you can plot this film in the dark with your hands tied.
The main attraction here is the fact that Takashi Miike is behind the camera. So far I've been more impressed with his low key works like City of Lost Souls, however as One Missed Call plodded along I was yearning for his more renowned envelope pushing of Dead or Alive or the overly pseudo-Cronenberg style of Audition. Despite a lot of his films being essentially empty, at least they do have merits such as these, or at least something to keep your attention like Tadanobu Asano prancing about in shiny suits impersonating Johnny Depp. There's none of that in One Missed Call; there's just very little of credit: the acting is bland and average, there is very little (nothing, in all honesty) in the way of scares or suspense, and in places it's just downright boring.
However, there are moments where Miike's glacier-like sense of humour seeps through the bland commercialism; most notably with the instance of the TV show intent on filming the demise of one of the cursed subjects, and the TV programmer more concerned about his ratings than the girls' life. But aside from this there is nothing to suggest it is Miike behind the camera; most notably his usual visual flair has vanished without a trace (and that includes his famous gore), although it's more likely he just didn't have any enthusiasm for the project, and I can understand why. One Missed Call isn't offensively bad. It's just frustratingly average.
Miike obviously loves directing. With his huge yearly output it's obvious he isn't going to be 100% concerned about all his projects. But even with this in mind, One Missed Call felt like he was just paying the bills.
\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 all the fawning people have been doing over Miike and his work. I sat through this flick tonight. I figured, if it's half as good as Ringu, as I assumed from these comments it might be, than it will be worth my time.
No such luck.
I'm all for finding the next great director (or writer), but I don't think Miike is the one. I don't have an NYU Masters of Fine Arts, but I do know this much: a horror movie has to have pacing. It also has to give the viewer more credulity than this movie does.
This film's pacing had me shaking my head. Some of the scenes near the end dragged so badly, I went to the fridge and lingered there while Kou Shibasaki stared at the camera for seemingly minutes on end, eyes wide and mouth agape. A famous director once made the claim, and I'm paraphrasing, a movie could be made by turning the camera on a beautiful woman and letting it roll. Kou is not a good enough actress to make that work. She stares paralyzed at the undead girl for more scenes than I care to remember. And she isn't the only one doing an impersonation of a deer in headlights; other cast members apparently feel the need to imitate this non-performance. The script gives them little room to do much else for far too much of the time.
I like Asian cinema. Hong Kong action flicks from the last 30 years, Korean horror like \"Phone\" and \"Koma\", Ang Lee's work, some of the trashy but fun Filipino movies with gratuitous sex and fighting, as well as others. Chakushin Ari I could have done without.
\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\nAcclaimed Japanese director Takashi Miike can't seem to get the wheels moving with this torpid thriller, an adaptation of Yasushi Akimoto's book concerning an evil old woman (and child abuser!) who is part of a new urban legend: if your cell-phone rings with a strange tone--and you see the message 'One Missed Call'--you will replay the message only to hear your own final words before your death. Most successful part of the film is the trenchant satire of Reality TV cameras intruding on the future victims, but the not-so-elaborate deaths (which include a hidden piece of red candy!) are disappointing and dispiriting. The frequent shots of ravaged dead bodies are actually displayed rather discreetly, and this overall politeness may be the reason why the film is ultimately so staid. Hollywood predictably jumped on the far-fetched plot in 2008, yet the U.S. version fared no better. NO STARS from ****
\n
assistant\n0
\n"