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\nThis movie was just terrible, the first movie wasn't that great i mean it's ridiculously stupid if they didn't have enough with the first 5 films you had to add another one, why just not make this into an ongoing series like James Bond, i'll tell you exactly why because the bond films are actually very very good and these films just stink, i don't understand, was this supposed to be a cross between to genres like horror and comedy for goodness sakes my 1 year old niece wouldn't be scared of such a ridiculous attempt at horror, a spit in the face of people who at least want to be scared at some point in a so called horror film. Please no more of these 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\nThe first in the series was brilliant, easily one of the best Horror films of all time. This is the crappiest. When I sat down to watch this, I was actually thinking that how bad the fourth and fifth ones were, this would have to be good after the previous terrible ones. Boy was I wrong. Incredibly wrong.
When I watched the first ten minutes of it, I was actually really tempted to turn it off, but I thought no, maybe it'll improve. It didn't.
Not only is this just a dire film by itself, it didn't need another sequel, because the last two (fourth and fifth) had already been terrible enough! Also, how many times can you bring Freddy back!? The acting in it was TERRIBLE, the story-line was predictable and crap and it also had flaws in it as well. The way they made Springwood was just totally wrong. Pays no respect to the first one at-all. To add to this, the whole thing seemed really over-the-top.
Some people are saying that this film was \"funny\". This film is not \"funny\" at all. Since when is Freddy Krueger supposed to be \"funny\"? I would call it funnily crap. This film is supposed to be a Horror film, not a comedy. If Freddy had a daughter, wouldn't that information have surfaced like in the first one!? The ending was also just plain stupid and cheesy, exactly like the rest of it. This one completely destroys the essence and uniqueness of the first one. Just shows itself up.
Such a shame that Wes Craven created something so good in the beginning, yet it has to be dragged down because of this trash that belongs in the bin. They shouldn't have even bothered making this film. Nor any of the other sequels, except the third one. The third one's the only decent one out of all the sequels.
If this was a DVD by itself and not part of the Nightmare On Elm Street DVD set that I got, I would have chucked it out when I got it.
Summary: A pathetic and poor attempt at a sequel.
- a complete MOCKERY of the first film
So please, don't waste your time on this worthless junk.
\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 easily the worst of the series. Though New Line might just be looking at sales, they all know the only reason this one made more money than the one prior was due to its 3D ending. It wasn't that the 3-D was good either, because it was 50's 3D with the red and blue lenses(anaglyph.) It was just the fact that people wanted to see what it would look like. Beyond that this movie was so poorly done! Bad script, bad characters, bad acting, worse directing. This movie is trying to push the camp factor almost to the point of being like a \"Looney Tunes\" episode.
Seriously, not for horror audience, because it is corny and not scary, and not funny or amusing for comedy crowds. Just a total mess with some really bad cameos that are still trying to play this whole thing as camp and having it fall way short of what they probably wanted.
I remember most of us who had been fans of this series were just praying that it would end at this point because of how bad it had gotten. This is one of the movies that helped take horror out of popularity and ride a fad of belief that audiences really wanted to laugh with some stupid comedy than see a good and scary horror film.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is going to be the most useless comment I have ever put down, but yet I must do it to warn you about the atrocity to cinema that \"Freddy's Dead\" is. It is not only the very worst chapter of the Nightmare series, but is right up there with the worst horror sequel of all time! It was boring, pointless, and nearly death free. The horrible 3-D ending and over-the-top CORNY kills are enough to drive this \"film\" into the ground. However, it doesn't stop there, just add bad acting, a terrible script, and a number of cheesy cameos and you've got yourself this heaping pile of guano! It's no wonder why Freddy, as always played by Robert Englund, has made two postmortem appearances. I would too if I went out like that. This is a strictly fans only movie, don't stare at our shame.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt WAS supposed to be the last Freddy movie (and it was for over 10 years)--you would think they would have tried to get a good movie done. But they turned out giving us the worst of the series (and that's saying a lot). The plot made no sense (I seriously can't remember it), all the main characters were idiots (you REALLY wanted them dead) and Freddy's wisecracks were even worse than usual. The only remotely good bit about this was a brief (and funny) cameo by Johnny Depp (the first \"Nightmare\" movie was his first).
Also I originally saw it in a theatre were the last section (reaccounting Freddy's childhood) was in 3-D. Well--the 3-D was lousy--faded colors and the image going in and out of focus. Also the three flying skulls which were supposed to be scary (I think) had the opposite reaction from my audience. EVERYBODY broke down laughing. Looks even worse on TV in 2-D. Pointless and stupid--very dull also. Skip this one and see \"Freddy vs. Jason\" again.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIn the future of 2001, Freddy is after the last surviving teenager of Elm Street. Forsaking ANY scares whatsoever for unfunny attempts at humor and needless celebrity cameos (come on..Roseanne??? Tom Arnold??!!?? WTF?), this is tied with part 2 is the worst the demon child rapist ever got. Wow was this a piece of crap. Not even the great legendary Alice Cooper could make the stench of this movie go away. And when they hell did Freddy ever have a daughter?? The whole film is severely retarded in ever single conceivable way, shape & form. Rachel Talalay, you stink to high heaven, babe.
My Grade: D-
DVD Extras: Cast and Crew Bios; Jump to the 3D sequence and Jump to a Nightmare options (more extras for the film can be found on the seventh disc of The Nightmare Collection DVD set)
DVD-Rom content: Trivia game; Screenplay; and web link
\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\nLet's hope this is the final nightmare. This is the epitome of a good thing gone bad. Okay, there is still some enjoyment to be had, but only in the most mundane sense. Rachel Talalay had been there for the duration of this franchise, had been on the production staff and produced even. I don't know what she was thinking, but this debacle comes complete with the human video game boy and a guest appearance by
Tom and Roseanne Arnold! I wish I had a clue what she was thinking when she wrote/directed this disappointing piece of garbage. She even tried to distract her audience from the fact that this movie was nothing more than an over-glorified popcorn movie instead of bearing any resemblance to horror, with the contrived use of a 3D ending. Aren't those glasses nifty? And you get to KEEP them! It's the equivalent of, you just spent $9.00 making me rich. Here's 10 cents. Now, don't you feel special!? Sorry, but for me, it just did not make me feel special.
And Freddy's had yet another face-lift. This one was for the worst, I think. All the beautiful artistry that went into his \"look\" in the earlier films has been replaced by an obviously cheaper, less detailed set of prosthetics. He looks ... less like the burn victim he is supposed to be, and more like he has a skin disorder. Changing the lead's makeup like that so far into a series is about on the same level as changing the lead actor. But wait! They've done that, and done that. So I guess it doesn't matter. But it mattered to me. Freddy is no longer SCARY. He's just ... another low-rent monster like the Leprechaun.
It's more...a dark comedy than the horror classic this series promises; riddled with what you can only hope the writers thought were witty one-liners and clever repartee (sadly, it fell short on both accounts).
So there's nothing more to say than grab the popcorn and get ready to laugh, because there was not one scary or suspenseful moment in this entire film.
It rates a 3.2/10 from...
the Fiend :.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe film was made in 1942 and with World War 11 around, the movie industry decided to capitalize on the fact that spies were around.
The film is fun to watch due to the fabulous dancing of Eleanor Powell. The late Miss Powell was certainly a great hoofer in every sense of the word. She is again paired with a very young looking Red Skelton here. The two of them also starred in \"I Dood It.\"
Moroni Olsen, who 3 years later, was superb as the interrogating police officer in \"Mildred Pierce\" again appears as an officer asking Powell to deliver an item. Trouble is that Olsen and his rogues are really the Japanese spies.
Bert Lahr is his usual brilliant self here and he gets ample support from Virginia O'Brien.
\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 almost forever been against the inclusion of songs in a movie. My belief was that the quality of the film would automatically be improved if only those extremely annoying songs would be axed. However, things have quickly changed after watching that horrible Black (no songs) & this movie, Page 3 (plenty of songs). While Black was weak to an extreme, Page 3 delivers a gripping story with some strong acting & good direction. The songs were almost incidental & blended in almost seamlessly with the film. There certainly weren't any women getting sprayed with water for no apparent reason from mysterious water sources while gyrating wildly on the streets at night.
I was pleasantly surprised with the bold and unabashed approach used by the director. There was no glossing over of anything and almost every scene was completely believable.
I'd recommend this films for Hindi-speaking people with at least a slight understanding of Mumbai life. The former because the English subtitling was below par and contained many errors which, at times, completely reversed the meaning of the actual statement. The latter because you'll definitely appreciate the accuracy of the depiction once you've lived it yourself.
I'd definitely rank this as a work worthy of international recognition. The scenes with the gossiping drivers was a nice touch and it served simultaneously as a source of genuine humour as well as another perspective on the whole mishmash. The movie does fall short in a few places though, where the characters sometimes say the most inexplicable things which detract from the overall direction of the film.
I also thought that a couple of the sadder scenes were not done very well. It was a touch amusing to watch, rather than arouse any feelings of sadness & the whole scene tended to come across as a bit foolish. These are minor issues though, because the film, on the whole, is truly a rare treat to watch.
Overall, it's a cynical, pessimistic outlook and a refreshing one at that! Actors, not 'heroes' - that's the key. A chance to glimpse believable human beings in an extraordinary setting - everyday life. A behind-the-scenes look at the extent of the depravity and a rare ray of hope for Indian cinema.
8/10.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI do not even want to call this thing a film - it is a movie that should not have won any awards. The acting was horrible as were the silly scenarios. This is exactly the sort of film that so many folks think caters to an NRI audience but is in fact loathed abroad for its awkwardness and the overwhelming sense of \"trying\" throughout the movie.
I find it strange that so many actors conversant with the English language have such a hard time doing so convincingly in front of the camera. I'm sure many readers know what I am talking about - all those token English phrases thrown into a movie, in Hindi and in regional cinema for cool points. There are few Indian movies in which the English seems completely genuine - Being Cyrus was a recent one. Although not a great film, it was a good film and the language did not seem \"put on\".
I feel ashamed that P3 was awarded the NFA in 2005. The only semi-enjoyable parts of this rubbish were Konkana and a somewhat catchy background score. Other than that, do not even waste your time with this film.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nMadhur has given us a powerful movie Chandni Bar in the past. His next film Page 3 was one of the worst movies of all time. It apparently tells the story of some high class people in India. After seeing a scene where the man forces another man for sexual reasons to Star in a Movie. I felt like spitting and breaking the DVD. Coincidently i did. The reason why was the movie contains scenes of child pornography and molestation. I literally vomited and was shocked to see a movie showing naked children. Very disturbing stuff, there was no need to show the children fully naked. One of the rich guys likes to kidnap poor children and sell them to foreign people, British men in this movie. I am shocked to know this film was a Hit in parts of India, otherwise Super Flop in UK, USA and Australia. I'm from UK, and this kind of stuff makes me sick, shouldn't of been released in UK.
\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\nCrude, some times crass - to me that's the summation of Madhur Bhandarkar's latest work - Page 3. He has no point of view - just shallow, funny digs at stereotypes. What is the movie about?? Is it about reporting a clan of people (so called Page 3 types) who are so busy socializing and progressing their profiles in life - that they have no time for anything else. And you are either in it or out of it. Is it that there is no press at all to report everyday incidents. Madhur Bhandarkar forgets that there is a main newspaper and Page 3 is just a supplement; perhaps an entertainer for checking out who's who and what's what. Don't mix the two. And then there is power play - that would happen in every walk of life. So what have you told at the end of it all - nothing - just a few crude jokes strung together in an otherwise direction less 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 have no idea how anyone managed to stay awake during this show. The acting was ham-fisted and amateur, the story was old news, and plot development (or lack thereof) invariably had my eyelids sagging less than halfway through each episode. That's about all there is to say of it, because it genuinely lacked substance of any kind.
How can you people like crap like this? It's freaking stupid, it's an insult to your intelligence. I don't even know how to further explain it... It's as if some of you will stare mindlessly at junk like this solely because you like the way some of the actors look, or because, for whatever crazy reason, you haven't seen the same formulas in dozens of shows a million times before.
I just.. forget it. This show sucked, and thankfully it's gone forever. I wish they'd get to work on demolishing The O.C. once and for all.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis show was laughably bad. The writing sucked, the dialog sucked. The guy who played Craig couldn't act his way out of a paper sack. Being it was on Thursday night, this was definitely great to watch with some beers. Cool music, bad acting, poor writing, all came together for my entertainment.
It was a drama/unintentional comedy. I don't care what happened to any of the characters, they were all boring and stupid. The first five episodes were the worst, since they couldn't reveal who the victim was, they had to write the dialog around it, which was terrible. I mean, the eulogy at the funeral was ridiculous. Actually, all the scenes that occurred in the present were utterly horrible.
So, let's review. Everything happening in present time sucked. The flashback scenes, only the writing, dialog and Craig's acting sucked. The music ruled though.
\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 was a great film to be made about Steve Biko. Sadly this wasn't it. Denzel Washington - never the most flexible of actors - is totally unable to convey the great charisma that Biko had. Attenborough's big crowd scenes are laughable. The Soweto massacre wasn't like this, three neat lines of children ( some doing cartwheels!) marching happily into the guns of the soldiers. With Biko dead the film rapidly descends into farce. If the struggle against Apartheid was anything it was a black people's struggle yet somehow we are all supposed to be gripped by the escape of a white man and his family. I'm sure Donald Woods was a decent man and he would be the first to say that Biko was important while he wasn't. Penelope Wilton's accent is pure Hampshire and she seems completely unaware that she is in South Africa at all. at all. The Wood's family dog gets more lines than the black maid. As the family make their escape one the women I saw the film with - incidentally one of only about a dozen black people in a large, full cinema - whispered \"This is like the sound of music.\" She had a point.
Overall this is a film by a well-intentioned if somewhat inept white liberal about a radical black people's struggle. And really South Africa needs well-intentioned white liberals like it needs a hole in the head.
\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\nAshley Judd, in an early role and I think her first starring role, shows her real-life rebellious nature in this slow-moving feminist soap opera. Wow, is this a vehicle for political correctness and extreme Liberalism or what?
Being a staunch feminist in real life, she must have cherished this script. No wonder Left Wing critic Roger Ebert loved this movie; it's right up his political alley, too.
Unlike the reviewers here, I am glad Judd elevated herself from this moronic fluff to better roles in movies that entertained, not preached the heavy-handed Liberal agenda.
\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, let me state that I am a big fan of Ashley Judd; that's why I was curious to check out this, her debut role. No argument that her talent is apparent and her performance excellent. I guess I can also see how the professional critics liked the aesthetic content of the story. However, I like to think that movies are meant to entertain us and that is where this movie fails.
By the halfway point, I found myself thinking, \"How much longer do we have to watch a bored shop girl, idly standing around a deserted souvenir shop, rearranging the merchandise?\" It seemed to go on forever!
Then, I thought, maybe this is one of those movies where the director tries to lull the audience into a relaxed state before hitting them with some dynamic event. No such luck. The movie continues it's bland, boring, uneventful story all the way to the end.
I'm not saying this because I'm an action-junkie. I like all kinds of movies, especially romantic-comedies. But I expect to be entertained.
Add the fact that the cinematography and sound quality are comparable to your neighbor's bad home movies. Depressing!
I just don't get how anyone could like this movie. Zero-entertainment value. The longest 114 minutes of my life.

\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI saw this film for the first time not too long on TCM's \"Essentials\" series. The eye of the beholder cliché was never more apropos. This beholder saw little of value in this one. I was puzzled by the infinite attraction that Lucy (Lauren Bacall) possessed. Granted, Ms. Bacall was a beautiful woman, but in this film her character comes off more mousy than attractive. I would think men like Mitch Wayne and Kyle Hadley would more likely ignore Lucy than fall into an instant infatuation with her. In Bacall's defense, this film was made at the time of Humphrey Bogart's last illness and the weight of his deteriorating health may have affected her performance. Of course part of this mousiness on the part of Lucy was to contrast her to slutty Marylee, played to the hilt and beyond by Dorothy Malone. The scene where she engages in a wildly sensual dance while her father wearily climbs the stairs to a fatal heart attack is far and away the best scene in the film. Malone's performance outshines the rest, although Jasper Hadley's weariness at the disappointing behavior of his two children is brilliantly portrayed by Robert Keith. Generally, though, I would have to say that I'm just not much of a fan of melodrama. The cartoonish behavior of the characters just makes for a story too implausible for my tastes.
\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 watched Written on The Wind starring Rock Hudson,Lauren Becall,Robert Stack & Dorothy Malone- Robert Stack was terrible- just bloody horrible- he was supposed to be a charming jet-setting millionaire- instead he came off like a jerk from the word go- the plot was stupid and overwrought and the 3 \"romantic\" leads had no chemistry. Somehow Dorothy Malone won an Oscar for best supporting actress- although her campy tramp character was boring- think the older sister from Splendour in The Grass filled with malice and bitterness and lacking charisma. Director Douglas Sirk has the entire cast overact their way through dialogue that felt forced and the end result was a waste of 99 minutes. Had a cameo by the actor that played the chief on Get Smart
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nTo me this just comes off as a soap opera. I guess any depiction of profligate people can be considered \"social commentary.\" But in the final analysis, I simply don't care how you characterize this film. None of the characters are very likable or engaging. I felt no chemistry between Hudson and Bacall. If there is a love story here, it is lost in the malaise. And despite the twist ending provided by a complete and immediate (and therefore, incomprehensible) reversal by Dorothy Maguire on the witness stand, the story is insufficient to hold my interest. No matter how much Freudian symbolism and psychology are throw in, this story is sleazy, melodramatic and trite.
Rock Hudson is nobly wooden. This is Lauren Bacall's least engaging role and one of her poorest performances. Dorothy Maguire and Robert Stack deliver more inspired performances, but her character is vile, and his is pathetic. Robert Keith, as the loving, out-of-touch father of two miscreant adult children, is the most sympathetic character. Most interesting of all, however, is the severe-looking Robert Wilke in a small role as the bar owner. He is best remembered as a nasty henchman in countless Westerns, but here he is an honest, likable fellow.
I take my social commentary with an interesting, engaging story and a few likable characters, thank 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\nWhat we have here is a classic case of TOO much patriotism. This is what happens when you live in a small country with very little (next to none, even) cinema history. Whenever somebody does come up with a slightly more ambitious film project  other than the usual dramas about struggling farmer families or long feature slapstick movies of local comedians  everybody feels obliged to love it and even responsible to spread favorable reviews across the countries' borders. This is especially the case when the writer/director of this particular film is already a nation's sweetheart, because he's also the founder and lead singer of a popular rock band. \"Any Way The Wind Blows\" is by no means a bad film, but it's definitely overrated (if that is even possible within the boundaries of a small country) and has absolutely nothing new or even remotely original to offer. This is basically the Flemish version of classic movies such as \"Short Cuts\" and \"Magnolia\" and illustrates a mosaic of characters whose daily lives initially appear to be unrelated but eventually come together in the end. The only thing that seems to unite the eight protagonists at first is the city of Antwerp, where they all live and work, but gradually the deeper relationships between them become transparent and near the climax they all gather for a party. The main problem with \"Any Way The Wind Blows\", at least according to yours truly, lies with the characters. They really are random, uninteresting and honestly don't experience anything that could be considered out of the ordinary. It was presumably writer/director Tom Barman's intention to depict the average & regular inhabitant of Antwerp but then, seriously, what is the point? One of the characters gets fired from his film projectionist job, another one is a failed novelist struggling with a marriage crisis, two siblings recently lost their father and the most \"mysterious\" one of them all is followed by the wind wherever he goes. There are a couple of more characters regularly walking through the screen, but they're even less worth mentioning. These people simply drivel on and on about very random topics (like life in the 80's, dates and each other's bowel motions) and philosophy about matters nobody cares about. Some of the dialogs do evoke mild chuckles, especially the interactions between the two twenty-something guys from Ghent, but still nothing extraordinary or even memorable. The film actually works best as a touristy video to promote the city of Antwerp and as an extended & versatile music documentary. There are several stylish & nifty sightseeing images of Antwerp and there's always beautiful music playing, whether really loud or subtly in the background. Generally speaking \"Any Way The Wind Blows\" is a competently made and stylish effort, but too mundane and slightly boring, and I honestly wonder most of its fans would even had bothered to watch if it weren't a Flemish production.
\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 don't know what would be so great about this movie. Even worse, why should anyone bother seeing this one ? First of all there is no story. One could say that even without a story a movie could be worth watching because it invokes some sort of strong feeling (laughter, cry, fear, ...), but in my opinion this movie does not do that either.
You are just watching images for +/- 2 hrs. There are more useful things to do.
I guess you could say the movie is an experiment and it is daring because it lacks all the above. But is this worth 2 hrs of your valuable time and 7 EUR of your money ? For me the answer is: no.
\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 is about the life of common people from Antwerp, living their lives. So I said it, and there is nothing more actually to tell about the story. The movie is fast, like an MTV-flick, and well photographed and we feel that the director is talented and should do more films. So let's forget about this one and hope for the best with the next Deus-Barman picture.
\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 whirling movie looks more like a combination of music-clips at MTV than as a real movie. There is no real story and as the movie goes on you ask yourself: \"What is going to happen?\"; but nothing happens. The story around Eric Cloeck, the frustrated writer, is the only good thing. The other persons seem to have nothing in common: then why bring them together in a movie. With music you can make watchable the worst movie. When I open the tap and there comes water out with the music of Bach then most people will like to look at it but this is not a movie. The director should learn how to write a script for a movie of 100 minutes or more before starting to direct a 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\nHow is it possible that no journalist or critic reminded us of the resemblance with that other better Flemish movie \"Congo Express (1986)\"? There are also some characters in congo Express put together without having really a relation to each other: Jean, (de Congolees), the workman, the two taxi-drivers, the street-singer, Roger, Guy, Lucienne and Gilbert. Of course, Tom Barman is a star and Luc Gubbels wasn't. That should not be a reason to pardon the flaws in the script (if there is a script) of Anyway the wind blows. The joke (the only one!) at the party about the ice in the refrigerator is taken from that great Flemish movie \"De Witte (1934)\" where De Witte is putting too much salt on the potatoes. Some accidents happen in the movie but there comes no explanation after. Tom Barman delivers us here a movie that is more like an experiment to watch at the television than a movie for the theatres. Another missed chance for Flemish Cinema.
\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 dunno what the hype around this is... This is really a bad movie...it did nothing to me, the only descent scene is where everyone comes together at the party, and a nice song is playing, uplifting beat and nice cinematic shots that make you move....that was the best part of the movie... Otherwise this film lacks everything to suck the viewer in There's no story, there's nothing to think about like some people say, there's no cohesion between the different stories...it was more of an attempt to re-do Anderson's 'Magnolia' which was brilliant, but it fails blatantly... Okay it's light and easy to watch, but that are movieclips too. Maybe first write a story before you make a movie... 4/10 One of the worst Belgian movies I've 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\nI read some gushing reviews here on IMDb and thought I would give this movie a look. Disappointed. On the plus side the male leads are good, and some interesting photography but as a whole this movie fails to convince. Seems to be full of its' own self indulgent importance in trying to say something meaningful but falls way short and all in all the picture is an unconvincing mess.
It is one of those films classified as a film noir which can be defined as follows:
\"A film noir is marked by a mood of pessimism, fatalism, menace and cynical characters\".
Well that is the story here: 3 losers stumble upon each other with their collective problems that include mental illness, alcoholism, laziness, indebtedness etc and together they conspire to kidnap a child and outwit each other.
Would have been a much better movie if the story was confined more to the kidnap instead of the character failings of the kidnappers. I thought the female lead was way out of her depth and came across as an amateur actress.
Whilst some good moments, I finished up feeling I had wasted my time.
4/10.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA film so insecure the creaters perhaps hoped to milk an original film noir classic title, \"Farewell My Lovely\", thinking the gullible would assume it a remake. The characters are so foul and unappealing that it deserved its cold reception when first released. Time only adds to it its absurdity. Having none of the guile, cinematography, desperation or despair of classic noir it relied instead on a convoluted and senseless crime plot that would have easily resulted in several arrests within hours. As if that weren't enough it threw in an utterly sexless attempt at erotica in which at least one of the participants hadn't bothered to bathe in several days. This only made this mess all the more painful to watch. Find a good classic forties or fifties film noir instead of wasting two hours on this failure.
\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 had high intellectual pretensions.The main lead intends to give a \"deep\" \"meaningful\" rendering(with voice over for his frames of mind naturally) and he was certainly influenced by the fifties/sixties \"method \" -which,when the script and the direction were worthwhile did give stunning results (see Clift,Newman,Winters).But here the story is abysmal.Besides it moves too slow,you could edit at least 20 minutes -including pointless flashbacks-and the plot line would not be changed .At times ,it's very doubtful that Bruce Dern believes in his \"Uncle \"character and his portraying often verges on parody.An interesting side is only skimmed over:the relationship young boy/hero -if we admit that the hero is himself some kind of child- When he says to the young kid that he would let nobody do harm to him,some welcome tenderness emerges.But it's botched and only the final scene returns to it.
Word to the wise:Take Foley's \"at close range\" instead:it has two great actors (Christopher Walken and Sean Penn together!),it's also an offbeat movie ,but it's gripping,suspenseful.Here my hitchcockometer points sullenly towards zero throughout.
\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 dreary, hopelessly predictable film set in a most unpleasant setting (lower Coachella Valley). Acting is as amateurish as any I've seen. Looks like a screenwriting 101 script. However, it does function as a great sedative.
\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 was the purpose of this film? I suggest it was to make a handful of actors and their producers and director a big payday for doing nothing. Even my favorite actor, Bruce Dern, couldn't keep my interest in this boring movie. A braindead ex-pugilist falls in with a weird woman and her relatives. He starts out as a fix-it man for the woman, and winds up beating a man and getting caught up in a kidnapping scheme. It was so confusing I can't even write a decent critique. If you see this one, my sweet, make sure it is after dark so you can go right to sleep.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI wouldn't rent this one even on dollar rental night.
\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 liked how this started out, featuring some decent special-effects especially for a film 50 years old. There was some pretty impressive scenery. However, the film bogs down fairly early on with some very dumb dialog as the males all try to flirt with Anne Francis \"Altaira Morbius.\")
Viewing this in the '90s after a long absence, it was fun to see Francis again, an actress who has done mostly television shows since this film was released....and is still acting. It also was interesting to see a young-looking Leslie Nielsen (\"Dr. John J. Adams\"), who I wouldn't have recognized had it not been for this voice
I watched half of this movie before the boredom came almost overwhelming and I had a strong desire to go to sleep. I appreciated them re-doing this VHS tape in stereo. but it was a weak effort. This is one those overrated film where \"elites\" think is so \"heavy\" and \"thought-provoking.\" That's nonsense. It only appeared \"intelligent\" because the rest of the '50s sci-fi films were so stupid!!
Some if the early scenes would have looked great on wideescreen, which I didn't have at the time of this writing. Perhaps another look - this time on the 2.35:1 widescreen transfer would make me change this review.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhen they killed off John Amos's character they killed the show. He was the vital part of the info structure. You had a story of an inner city family's struggling to make it the best way they knew how. They were poor, they were black, and they were living proof that if you have Jesus and your family that nothing is too hard. Sure James would lose jobs and JJ would fail in school but the family always managed to find a way.
James was the strong male role model that earned the income and disciplined the children. Florida was the strong lady that would everyone including James when he needed a shoulder to cry on or hug to make it. The kids had personalities and input which made them important as a family unit. Their neighbor Willona was also a key element because she represented not only a friend but some dear enough to be family. Things were bright, gritty, funny, and honest until they changed the course of the program. James dies and JJ took over the show.
Flo was still mom, Thelma was blossoming into a lady and Michael was still the militant midget but JJ was the show. We were expected to believe that the family with no father or prominent bread winner was going to be able to stay in the apartment. I guess James's paycheck didn't do much for the family. They were only threatened with eviction because they said they were moving and not because no one in the house was working. I know that JJ, Flo, Thelma and even Michael eventually got jobs but come on here be for real. James worked so much that you could feel for him but the others weren't realistic at all and that's a shame.
JJ was the comic relief but I felt the show need substance. It's OK to be funny but they had a chance to show a real family and what it took to survive in the real world and they threw it all away on a few laughs. Michael's character almost disappeared while the rest of the cast slipped into the shadows of the JJ Evan's show. I mean really, here was a guy that was failing in school, he kept getting laid off, and he painted for money in about two episodes. James had always been there to encourage his talent but Flo and the rest of the family didn't seem to care.
Why did it take him so long to understand that painting was what he was meant to do? He could have sold painting's on the street or worked for people that print billboards and cards. (He did but something went wrong with that.) Why did he not make it and why did the others give up on their dreams? I'll tell you why, it was because they didn't have a father in their life to care and to cheer them on and their mother stopped being their to support their dreams. The show stopped teaching us about growing, building and learning and started teaching us about gimmicks and catch phrases. They should have kept James. If any show needed a father it was that 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\nI saw this recently and I must say, I was moved by the factual basis of the story. However, \"Holly\" as a movie did not quite work. I am however, looking forward to watching the documentary which the producers who organised this project had made because I think that would be a much more compelling work than this film.
The international cast was composed of B-class actors but their acting was appropriate, and I must give a special mention for the young actress who played Holly. This was her first movie role and she did a very nice job, considering hers is the most challenging part.
Ron Livingston was adequate but bland as Patrick, the American whose quest is to \"save\" Holly, but Chris Penn was good in this, his final role. Unfortunately, despite my mostly favourable opinion of Virginie Ledoyen and Udo Kier, both of these actors were very much forgettable and did not do their best work in this film.
I believe in the film's message and intention, but I have to be fair, so I rate \"Holly\" 3 stars based on its shortcomings as a movie. But I think the subject matter deserves serious consideration and I am pleased that the people behind this movie have made a documentary as well which I hope will have its debut on BBC and other TV networks.
\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 motion picture comes straight out of the dark dungeon of Full Moon Entertainment. This production company gained fame and fortune during the first half of the 90's by producing terribly bad and cheesy horror movies. The most famous disasters in their ouvre are \"Subspecies\", \"Seedpeople\" and \"Trancers\". None of these are recommended and neither is Doctor Mordrid, actually. Hyperactive director Charles Band did come to the right company for his film. Doctor Mordrid is amazingly dumb and cheesy and almost completely humourless. I only saw it because it stars Jeffrey Combs. I learned that it can have several disadvantages if you're a fan of him. For every good movie, it seems like he has made 5 inferior ones. Anyways, the story is about the battle between 2 ancient sorcerers. One good one who's here since 150 years to protect the humans ( Jeffrey as Dr.Mordrid ) and one wicked one called Kabal. He wants to destroy every form of human life for some reason I already forgot. Combs gets his instructions from mentor. That \"guy\" only exists of a pair of eyes in space. Very very cheesy, that is ! Every once and a while a blinding lightflash is shown on the screen but that's about the only form of Special effects this movie has got. The whole thing is just a piece of whining and nagging and when the two wizards finally face each other, it's over before you know it...I would have expected for the wicked wizard to at least fight back a little, but nooooooo.... In some scenes, you really can detect some originality and creativity ( like for example Jeffrey's lecture about the influence of the moon on criminals ) and if you really pay attention, you might even find some very small but nice aspects ( like the raven which is called Edgar Allen) but overall, it's a terrible waste of time and energy. I'm a big fan of Jeffrey and maybe he is a superhero in my eyes...but he sure doesn't have to put on a stupid maillot for 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\nDr Mordrid is terrifying. I would not recommend any adult or child see this unless they are rampaging murderers already. There is so much filth in this movie it hurts my yes. Speaking of eyes, there are eyes in the sky, against a backdrop of stars. Only the devil himself could have imagined such a wicked thing. I rented out every copy i could from local video stores and crushed them with a 5 pound crucifix. That movie should remain locked in a cellar behind the 4th dimension with all the other disgusting beasts of hell. That is where this movie belongs. I suggest if you want some scandalous entertainment, go and rent All Dogs Go To Heaven, or Angels In The Outfield. Those movies are worth seeing. If you want to commit a sin and love terrible movies, you need to see Dr. Mordrid.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nthe first Scanners may not have been a great movie,but at least it was original.there is no such novelty to this one.the acting is worse,in my opinion,and the story is slower and nothing special.i also didn't like the dialogue.and the special effects are no better than in the original.this is movie is inferior to the first one in all ways.the only thing different about it,is that it is loud and chaotic at times.but that doesn't make a good movie.if they had done something better with the story and made it interesting,this could have been a decent movie.i actually couldn't get through it all without fast forwarding through it.to me,this is a forgettable movie,and not much more.despite all that,there are worse movies.being in a generous mood,i'll give Scanners 2 a 4/10.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI agree with other users comments in that the two main roles were well acted, that being the guy that played Gary Gillmore and Giovanni's role. Too bad the story was so boring. Not hearing about the story I knew nothing of Gary Gillmore before the movie so I didn't know what to expect. I thought it would be something like Dead Man Walking or The Chamber but how wrong I was. The whole movie was just talking, talking and talking about their mom and dad. The only cool scenes were the flashbacks where the dad would lose his temper. That was the only interest I got from this borefest.
\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\nJim Belushi is having a mid life crisis, nothing is going right, when his car goes out on him..he goes into an empty bar where Michael Caine shows him what life wouldve been like if one event in high school had come out differently.. A good premise with some moments..but mostly flat and uninteresting. on a scale of one to ten..3
\n
assistant\n0
\n"