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 is just boring.
It tries to copy some effects borrowed to a creative director like Jeunet in \"Amélie Poulain\", but it is too much. The dialogs are pretty bad, some of the worst I have ever heard, Guillaume Canet is not convincing (I have almost never found him very convincing), his father in the movie plays very badly, the story is dumb, the ending is... stupid.
I think I have not dislike a movie so much since \"le pacte des loups\" (brotherhood of the wolf) from Christophe Gans (and I watch / see about 80-100 movies a year), but at least that movie had some action and lots of good actors.
I had never commented here (only rated), and when I saw the rating and the comments, I thought I had to write something down.
I guess we won't have problems to sell the DVD we were offered : not such a bad movie in our (large) collection !!!
I am open minded (I watch SF, westerns, drama, comedies, silents, horror, fantasy... movies !), but this movie was so boring that I felt like I had lost one hour and a half.
\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\nUmmm, please forgive me, but weren't more than half the characters missing? In the original novel, Valjean is a man imprisoned for 19 years for stealing a loaf of bread and then attempting several times to escape. He breaks parole and is pursued relentlessly by the police inspector Javert. Along the way there are MANY characters that weren't in this version. Some worth mentioning would be Fantine, Cosette, M & Mme. Thenardier, Eponine, Marius, Gavroche, and Enjolras. The only character with the same name is Javert. I was confused and frustrated throughout the whole movie, trying to see how it was in any way connected to Victor Hugo's epic novel.
\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 pretty obvious thriller-by-numbers, in which the only possible twist turns out to be a hiding to nothing. I was watching principally for the English-language performance by Isabelle Huppert. It wasn't great, but then it was a strange role. I wouldn't be surprised if half her contribution turned out to have been left on the cutting-room floor along with several last minute script re-writes.
The acting is the least appealing thing about this film. Steve Guttenburg looks like he's trying to flesh out his role with the charm that everyone's told him he has. There's a sensationally stupid sequence in which it's suggested that his sexual prowess will be able to help treat PTSD. It's an uninteresting performance. Elizabeth McGovern is more of a draw with genuine charm and character but it's small consolation. 3/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is, without doubt, one of the worst films I've ever seen...
The plot is so full of holes, the story is like a bad remake of a bad suspense movie and the actors sound like were reading directly from the manuscript for the first time. Worst of all is Steve Guttenberg. He plays his character like he was in \"Police Academy\" - the same foolish womanizer - and that's not suited for a leading man in what should have been a thriller.
It's really hard to believe that Hanson would make \"L.A. Confidential\" ten years later...
Avoid this like the plague...
\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 program is really overrated. A detective like Danny Pino's hot-headed character would have been transferred to the \"rubber gun squad\" years ago. The whole squad is made up of sanctimonious egomaniacs who judge people whose actions go back decades by the standards of 2007. Every Vietnam veteran character they've ever had has turned out to be the killer, unless it was another Vietnam veteran. There has only been one black murderer, and he was put up to it by his white boss. The only Hispanic killer was a \"race traitor\" who killed another Hispanic to frame a Hispanic street kid for a crime that (naturally) two rich white kids committed. What a bunch of propaganda. Hey,screenwriters: minorities and poor people commit murder too. Only on this show are most murderers upper-class whites.
What's more, the arrests of people in their 70s, 80s, and 90s for crimes they committed 50-60 years ago are a joke. No real-life DA will push for murder one because it means the state will be stuck with their humongous medical bills until they finally kick. The state would be doing their families and insurance companies a favor. The prosecutor will just plead them to involuntary manslaughter and they won't serve a day. The only really old criminals who go to prison are either organized crime figures or ex-Nazis, whose high-profile convictions boost DA's careers.
\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 hate this programme: not only is the very concept ludicrous, but it tries so hard to be feasible (something that was left out of similar \"I confess\" ending programmes like, Muder: She Wrote).
Sigh. Why is it that the writers can't ever be intelligent enough in this programme to come up with evidence that would stick and win a decision in court?
Come on: after X-amount of years of the cases being unsolved, why must EVERY SUSPECT, EVERY EPISODE *CONFESS* (damn it!) to a murder which would otherwise go unsolved?
I bet all police wish that criminals were this good sportsmen: \"Aw, shucks, officer, you're a bright one - I guess if you've uncovered enough to convince yourself I did it, I may as well admit to it and make it easier for you in court. What can I say? It's a fair cop.\"
Absolute dog s**t and an insult to those of us with with enough brains to even have heard of I.Q.
\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 time I watched Cold Case was after it had run for about a year on Danish television. At the time it came to the TV it nearly drowned in 4 or 5 other American crime shows aired roughly the same time.
I saw it and I was bored to death. The substandard actors with the self righteous faces and morals were a pain in the behind. The entire premise that so much money was given a team of investigators to solve murders dating back 10-20-30 or even 60 years seems so unlikely.
The time is also a factor as they only have 50-60 min to tell the story which means that they get a break through just in the nick of time to solve the case and bring justice to surviving family members, if they are still alive. This combined with the \"personal\" problems and relations of the investigators which there HAS to be time for leaves the show a complete lackluster.
I give it a 2-star rating because of the music i the end which is really the only reason for watching it....which you then of course won't do as that is TOO lame a reason for watching this crap.
\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 one of the most wildly distorted portrayals of history. Horribly inaccurate, this movie does nothing to honor the hundreds of thousands of Dutch, British, Chinese, American and indigenous enslaved laborers that the sadistic Japanese killed and tortured to death. The bridge was to be built \"over the bodies of the white man\" as stated by the head Japanese engineer. It is disgusting that such unspeakable horrors committed by the Japanese captors is the source of a movie, where the bridge itself, isn't even close to accurate to the actual bridge. The actual bridge was built of steel and concrete, not wood. What of the survivors who are still alive today? They hate the movie and all that it is supposed to represent. Their friends were starved, tortured, and murdered by cruel sadists. Those that didn't die of dysantry, starvation, or disease are deeply hurt by the movie that makes such light of their dark times.
\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 response to previous comments made by residents of the region where this motion picture was lensed: One person suggested that the closing and destruction of the Ocean View Amusement Park led to a downturn in the surrounding neighborhoods. This is simply not true. Prior to the construction of Interstate 64, which bypasses the Ocean View area, the primary route for traffic went through the heart of Ocean View. Once the interstate was completed, Ocean View rapidly became a ghost town with businesses closing up and an increase in crime. This led to a huge reduction in revenues for the park, which also faced new competition from nearby Busch Gardens in Williamsburg. Meanwhile, in the past few years, the City of Norfolk has done a remarkable job of fostering redevelopment so that the area has become a sought-after location for construction of high-end housing.
It has also been said that the destruction footage of the roller coaster was used in the film \"Rollercoaster\". This is also untrue. Footage was shot of two coaster cars careening off the ride for that film, but the actual explosions and collapse are exclusive to \"Death of Ocean View Park\".
As to the film itself, the storyline of a \"supernatural\" force in the water adjacent to the park was certainly silly, but somewhat typical for B-grade movies of the time. With the cast involved, there should be no surprise that the scenery was gnawed in almost every scene by the primary actors. I don't believe this film was intended to be another \"Citizen Kane\"; I believe Playboy was experimenting with a new non-nude format to determine if this was an area for the company to expand into (apparently not!). A strange force in the water causing strange events in an old amusement park probably sounded good at the conference table, but proved unmanageable in execution. The roller coaster and the rest of the park was destined for the wrecking ball anyway; \"let's come up with a weird way to justify an explosive demise!\".
For the casual movie viewer, this would be a \"see once and forget about it\" film (except for Diana Canova fans); but for the thousands of people who live in the region and have fond memories of the park, this movie is like a \"walk down memory lane\" for footage of the park as well as old footage of downtown Norfolk, the first \"Harborfest\", and Old Dominion University. Even a limited release of this film on DVD would be welcome.
\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\n30 seconds into the opening credits, I had this feeling that this was going to be a bad movie, but I didn't know just how bad. Then the actor playing the evil Nazi scientist opens his mouth and my friend and I decide that in order to survive this movie, we'll have to turn the volume down, make up our own dialogue and double the speed on the DVD. But that didn't help. About half way through we turned it off. Now, I've lived through some very bad movies before, both with and without the aide of \"Mystery Science Theater 3000\" and \"Svengoolie,\" but there are just some movies which I doubt even the Bots can save. The biggest part of the movie that bothered me the most was that the people hypnotized into believing they're zombies had rotting green skin. I guess they were all hypnotized into death, then hypnotized into rotting themselves. Stick to the real B-movie cult classics like \"Plan Nine From Outer Space.\"
\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 the employees of a theater find an old reel of film, they decide to show it at the midnight screening of Night of the Living Dead, assuming it's an old preview reel. Unfortunately, it's actually an old Nazi mind control experiment that turns the audience into a horde of mindless shuffling zombies.
I can't understand the hate for this movie. It is a low budget independent production with a lot of camp, but it doesn't deserve a \"1.1\" here on IMDb. It is just so much fun. It is obvious that the filmmakers have a reasonable knowledge and love of old horror movies, and they have created an entertaining tribute to them sprinkled with references and homages to a variety of them. It has the feel of such things as Night of the Living Dead (in many ways, very similar), Evil Dead 2 and Army of Darkness, and various others.
I liked the explanation of how the zombies, though really just hypnotized into thinking they are zombies, actually come to have the physical attributes of the living dead-unbelievable, perhaps, but I appreciate the effort by the writers to explain it. The gore effects were decent for the budget, the acting was all right, and the story was entertaining.
I liked it.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis wasn't what i wanted to see. I bought this on DVD and under the movie i found myself irritated and turned off the movie for a moment.
Heres what i didn't like:
1 They were shooting at the father
2 The tribes was really annoying
3 the dinosaurs (mostly)looked to faked
4 The bad scientist well he was annoying
5 The picture quality on the DVD was really bad
What i DID like:
1 The music by Jerry Goldsmith. This music is really great. I have the bootleg soundtrack from this movie. Sadly the sound quality is not good, but its OK for its time.
2 The first time we see the dinosaurs they inspire a sort of awe.
3 Baby is kinda cute when he is in the water and is playing
4 That funny scene with the tent.
5 The children who sees this film would hopefully learn that evil always loses.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n... and I actually gave it a ZERO on my personal 1-10 scale. I have been attending movies since 1952 and have seen well over 1000 in the theater (I don't rate movies that I see only on TV). This is the ONLY movie I have ever rated ZERO.
My wife and I took our four children (then aged 15, 11, 8 and 6) and even the kids thought it was terrible. In fact, it was my daughter (now 26) who alerted me to this site (amazed that the movie was getting an overall rating of 4+).
The animation of the dinosaurs looked amateurish at the time (and is even worse in retrospect), the acting (particularly by Sean Young) is atrocious and the story line is simply silly.

\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 the movie as a child when it was released in the theater and it was so bad that it became the makings of a family joke. If the ranking had a zero, this movie would get it. The dinosaurs were awful. The storyline was ridiculous. The acting really doesn't qualify to be called acting. The only reason I even remember the name of the movie so well is because my family still talks about how BAD it really was.
\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\nOkay, if you have a couple hours to waste, or if you just really hate your life, I would say watch this movie. If anything it's good for a few laughs. Not only do you have obese, topless natives, but also special effects so bad they are probably outlawed in most states. Seriuosly, the rating of 'PG' is pretty humorous too, once you see the Native Porn Extravaganza. I wouldn't give this movie to my retarded nephew. You couldn't even show this to Iraqi prisoners without violating the Geneva Convention. The plot is sketchy, and cliché, and dumb, and stupid. The acting is horrible, and the ending is so painful to watch I actually began pouring salt into my eye just to take my mind off of the idiocy filling my TV screen.
\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\nFor those who are too young to know this or for those who have forgotten, the Disney company went almost down the tubes by the end of the 1980s. People were NOT seeing their movies anymore and the company was not producing the usual wholesome material....at least no what people expected. A major problem: profanity.
Yes, the idiots running the Disney movies during that decade would produce films with swear words - including the Lord's name in vain, if you can believe that - interspersed in these \"family films.\" In fact that happens twice here in the first 20 minutes!
This movie, in addition to the language problems, has a nasty tone to it, too, which made it unlikeable almost right from the beginning. Thankfully, Disney woke up and has produced a lot of great material since these decadent '80s movies. (\"Touchstone\" is Disney, just under another name.)
\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 think this movie was rated correctly. I took my copy and blacked out the PG rating and wrote down R. I would NOT recommend this for anyone under 17 or 18, whatever the R limit is.
Why? It contains a scene in the jungle with several topless Indian women. I don't know about you, but that's not something for little children to be watching. True, it might be the traditional \"clothing style\" of the African (?) Indians, but... I think partial nudity should give a movie an R rating.
I haven't seen the movie recently, but I guess otherwise, it was alright.
\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 really bad sequel. Part 1 had a lot of funny moments - part 2 is just bad (in a boring way) and obviously made to squeeze money out of the fans.
Shame on you, Otto Waalkes!
The only slightly amusing moment in the film is Helge Schneider who apparently seems to be pis*ed about the other characters. It's quite easy to identify with him...
The screenplay is sloppy/non-existent. The director should do everyone a favor and quit his job immediately. The acting is worse than a 2nd grade school play.
Technically the movie is awful as well, but who can blame the cinematographer/sound guys who had to work with such an untalented director?
\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 most of the other guys. A waste of photons and valuable time.
Nearly no joke is worth the paper is was written on. The only highlight from my pov is Olli Dittrich as Pinocchio. (\"Egal, ich muss eh Waldsterben\") This reminds of old times with RTL Samstag Nacht. It is hard to describe the performances of the actors, since most of them don't even seem to have a good time during production and just \"do their thing\". Camera is OK, plot is laughable, I think you would be ashamed even if you discuss this with lots of beers.
Apart from this I yawned all the time, wondered about how a script like this could even be considered for production and waited for the end.
My 9 year old son was pleased, but then he is pleased by so little at this age :-)
Anyway, a 1 point rating here nearly is 1 point too much...
\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\nDespite what a lot of other people thought about the first movie, I really liked it. This one however. How to sum it up in one word?: This movie is (and here comes the word): CRAP!
But let's look at it part by part: Here is the plot: Finally the old queen has been removed from her castle, but her successor: Snow white has problems of another sort: The Court-Jester, Father of her son, has gone astray, as the super, Spliss, goes to the extreme, to battle his gray hair and sells the royal offspring for some blond and full hair. In her desperation Snow white seeks the help of Bubi (Otto Walkees),who must first find his other six dwarf companions and then try to find the royal offspring or at least try to find the name of Rumpelstiltskin.
The whole plot seems to have been written on a weekend, where the writers were very drunk but were just under pressure from the studio to write the screenplay.
Yes, there are some good jokes. Even for fans of the first part, or for fans of any of the other actors, it's really not worth buying the the DVD. Believe me.
The only thing, that at least kind of saves the movie from complete oblivion, are the performances of some of the actors. That's why I gave the move 3/10. Sadly, the script is so bad that none of the actors or all of them combined can make up for the bad story.
For example, at one point, they even cross over in our reality, and sadly.. they don't do anything funny while being here.
Still, a lot of great actors in this movie: Otto Waalkes, Ralf Schmitz, Martin Schneider, Nina Hagen, Cosma Shiva Hagen, (Especially funny): Rüdiger Hoffmann as the mirror, Helge Schneider and many more but sadly all these comedians aren't able to bring this really bad script to life.
Maybe it is a treat for some hardcore fans but for regular movie goers or by now DVD Renters or buyers it's not worth the money.
I even regret renting the 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\nThere are a lot of highly talented filmmakers/actors in Germany now. None of them are associated with this \"movie\".
Why in the world do producers actually invest money in something like this this? You could have made 10 good films with the budget of this garbage! It's not entertaining to have seven grown men running around as dwarfs, pretending to be funny. What IS funny though is that the film's producer (who happens to be the oldest guy of the bunch) is playing the YOUNGEST dwarf.
The film is filled with moments that scream for captions saying \"You're supposed to laugh now!\". It's hard to believe that this crap's supposed to be a comedy.
Many people actually stood up and left the cinema 30 minutes into the movie. I should have done the same instead of wasting my time...
Pain!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI've seen the first of the dwarf-Movies and sometimes I had little fun watching it. There are many famous TV/Comedyactors appearing in the first part and presented, in fantasy costumes, typical little episodes of their Stand-Up-Program and exactly that is the problem the second movie has to struggle with. Everything was already there....nothing new to obtain. You're familiar with most of the often boring and dumb \"jokes\" and you always feel like their goal was to put in every Comedylooser of the last decade who wants to get back on stage. There's nothing important about the story: typical fairy-tale story of Rumpelstiltskin, without any importance. I expected something like that but that's nothing I could complain about. I'm actually complaining about the lazy story writers who had an entire background story; their only business was to get many jokes and parodies inside but they didn't get it anyway. This crap is except the great appearance of Helge Schneider a total waste of time and money.(if you don't like him then remove 2 points of my evaluation) If you like to save your money and get bad jokes then watch the crap that's broad casted every Friday evening on SAT1 or RTL for free. I'm sure you will recognize some \"laugthers\" I saw last night in 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 guess I have still enough brain left to NOT find this movie funny. -Great comedians - but a very poor movie! The \"best\" performance still did NINA HAGEN
TRIVIA: Did you realize that it the \"real world\" scenes (in Hamburg) the cars are almost ONLY new BMWs ??
I guess I have still enough brain left to NOT find this movie funny. -Great comedians - but a very poor movie! The \"best\" performance still did NINA HAGEN
TRIVIA: Did you realize that it the \"real world\" scenes (in Hamburg) the cars are almost ONLY new BMWs ??
\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\nWARNING! Don't even consider watching this film in any form. It's not even worth downloading from the internet. Every bit of porn has more substance than this wasted piece of celluloid. The so-called filmmakers apparently have absolutely no idea how to make a film. They couldn't tell a good joke to save their lives. It's an insult to any human being. If you're looking for a fun-filled movie - go look somewhere else.
Let's hope this Mr. Unterwaldt (the \"Jr.\" being a good indication for his obvious inexperience and intellectual infancy) dies a slow/painful death and NEVER makes a film again.
In fact, it's even a waste of time to WRITE ANYTHING about this crap, that's why I'll stop right now and rather watch a good 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\nOtto Preminger directs this light as a feather story. Bohemian Jean Seberg and her equally bohemian widower father David Niven holiday in the South of France with nutty Mylène Demongeot. Things are fine until family friend Deborah Kerr shows up. Nivens, a degenerate womanizer, finds the conquest of Kerr too hard to resist. That's fine with Seberg, as long as Niven loves her and leaves her (as he's done with all the women in his past...including Demongeot). When it appears as though she's becoming second banana in Niven's life, Seberg exact revenge on Kerr. Preminger tells the story in flashbacks from Seberg's perspective and cleverly combines black and white with sunnier color scenes. The cinematography by Georges Périnal is stunning. The film features some of Preminger's least heavy-handed direction, although he rarely allows any close-ups, which makes it difficult to make out what the actors are really feeling. Arthur Laurents wrote the script and it's full of acidic dialog and funny scenes (mostly involving bird-brained Demongeot). Seberg acquits herself fairly well, but Niven is at his least appealing...and he shows no chemistry with either Seberg or Kerr. Preminger really mis-steps with that casting. It's a role that seems tailor made for someone closer to Charles Boyer. With Geoffrey Horne as Seberg's would-be suitor and Martita Hunt as his daffy mother. Juliette Gréco, playing herself, sings the title song in a Paris nightclub. The great titles are by Preminger regular Saul Bass.
\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 over-heated plot of \"Bonjour tristesse\" is taken from a juvenile first novel by Francoise Sagan, which became a best-seller, though God knows why. For teenagers wanting to get rid of a potential step-parent it may have a certain appeal. Don't be taken in by the fact that David Niven plays the playboy father and Deborah Kerr the step-mother-in- prospect. Unfortunately, too much rests on the frail shoulders of Jean Seberg. She's beautiful and easily fulfills the image of a spoiled teenager. The problem is that she can strike poses but she can't act. Anyone who saw her as Joan of Arc in Otto Preminger's St. Joan -- Seberg's first film -- knows she was incapable at 19 of carrying a film. This movie, also by Preminger, fulfills the \"promise\" of the first. It was her second movie; she was now 20. What was Preminger thinking? That Niven and Kerr could compensate for Seberg's lack of acting capacity? Not a chance? Seberg's character is at the center of the story and, pretty though she is, convincing though she may be physically as a 17 year old, she can't meet the emotional demands of the role. I don't know if she ever became a successful actress in her short life because she did not have an impact on my consciousness in her later pictures. But anyone who thinks this film is better than mediocre needs a taste check. In spite of Niven and Kerr, this remains a juvenile story executed in juvenile fashion by a beautiful young girl who badly needed acting lessons.
\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\nBonjour Tristesse covers similar ground as 'The Member of the Wedding.' to wit, a possessive daughter tries to prevent a relationship from forming between a beloved family member and an interloper. While critics love 'Member of the Wedding,' I find Julie Harris to be a jumbo-drag and an adenoidal, scenery-chomping thespian in everything she's been in. This portrays irritating, rich idiots as in Last Year at Marienbad, but this time it's a travelogue.
In this Preminger movie sequences develop, but characters do not. For the first 30 minutes he's content to blur the father-daughter relationship between Seberg and Niven, making uncomfortable sexual readings possible. Once the conflict is introduced, Seberg can't deliver the depth the part requires. Kerr pulls rank and turns the film into 'Endless Love.' Seberg's vacuous narration, is like something out of Strange Interlude - it is not good. I really wish someone other than Niven was in his role. He spends so much time normalizing orthodox British behavior in all his movies, he never gets around to the character.
In the most memorable sequence, an evening out dancing becomes a free-for-all in a harbor. Bertolucci steals the entire scene for his empty exercise, 'The Conformist.' Kerr is on board to clasp her hands and portray another major pain (as in Black Narcissus, Night of the Iguana, King and I, Heaven Knows Mr. Allyson, Tea and Sympathy, etc. etc.). Really, Kerr was a horrible actress. I wish every movie with her could end with a fatal car crash, or even better, start with one.
People uncomfortable with ambiguity should avoid this.
\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 shallow hedonism and/or social commentary wrapped in a tragic tale about a jealous young woman's scheme to drive apart her father and his fiancée. Is it incest or just a view through the eyes of a daughter with an Electra complex? Who cares? All of the characters, except for Anne (Deborah Kerr) are vacuous and vile. Seberg is poor (I agree with the \"boys with breasts\" comment of an earlier review). The plot plodded. This predictable material was sufficient for about 30 minutes of film that unfortunately was stretched over an hour and a half! If you want to see great gowns and jewels on the Riviera, I recommend \"To Catch a Thief\" - in which you will get the added bonuses of an entertaining story and likable characters.
I like for films to entertain me. I personally don't really care where a film is set. Whatever the time or place, I want a good story - comedy or drama. I also want to see some enjoyable characters. It doesn't hurt if I can relate to them. Poor Deborah Kerr gives a typically good performance, and so does David Niven in a despicable role.
The \"2\" rating is solely for Kerr and Niven, and for the cinematography - the rich color scenes and the murky, foreboding black and white scenes. Unfortunately, all the great cinematography in the world cannot salvage a poor story with un-enjoyable characters. A sow's ear is still a sow's ear. Consequently watching this mess was a serious waste of my 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\nIn one respect, it's like 'The Wizard of Oz,' with Paris in black-and-white and the Riviera in color. But it's supposedly about possessive love, destructiveness and moral decadence, while actually being about designer gowns, shots of the Riveria, lots of big expensive cars, and music-and dancing interludes that suggest Vincente Minnelli on one of his off-days. Watchable, but a remarkable example of desperate, dark plot material and glitzy style heading in opposite directions. (Was this the model for 'The Talented Mister Ripley? Does anyone sense an affinity between Jean Seberg and Matt Damon?)
\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\nGreenaway's films pose as clever, erudite and innovative. Yet his style and grammar originate and remind viewers of films made in the World War 1 era of film-making: the frame composition, use of mid-shot, the static camera. It may be well to rub against mainstream movies with this style but it is not new. Perhaps like that other \"innovator\", TS Eliot, he draws more from the past than in looking forward as an authentic innovator would or could.
Yet Greenaway's biggest failing is that he cannot write. His dialog and even plot structure is mechanical and logical but without the vitality of another dramatic logician, Brecht. Where this weakness is most apparent is in his humor, which is poised and logical, so the joke is dead before it's delivered. The result is tedium: if it's not funny, it has failed: ask a stand-up comedian to justify their act if the audience doesn't respond. Perhaps the well-read director could learn something from Freud on humor.
Finally, like Woody Allen, Greenaway has manipulated his actors over the years to work like clones. They speak the lines with a bored, smug air like narcissistic adolescents.
This film, despite its design and lighting, is meretricious.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is a baffling film.
The beauty in sexual relations between men and women is shown degraded by a set of men and women who can only be described as a collection of oddballs and misfits.
Greenaway acknowledges his inspiration to Fellini's film \"8 1/2\" but whereas Fellini is a titan of world cinema, Greenaway is not.
He has none of the maestro's lightness of touch nor his ability to convey feelings and emotions with a deftness of clarity.
He is pretentious, the film being divided into chapters with a written introduction to each, as if the viewer has to be guided into the film except that the written notices only stay on screen for a few seconds, not long enough to be read by the audience with the result that they are mostly ignored.
As for the women, only two can be described as lookers, Palmira, played by Polly Walker and Giaconda played by Natacha Amal. The rest ooze with ordinariness. Both the women and the men retreat from the harsh light of reality into the dim shades of fantasy.
Greenaway obviously wants to make the point that sexual fantasy does not lead to happiness. The women themselves are depressing since they render their services in exchange for money. Relations between men and women are debased into a commercial transaction.
There is no sense of joy or happiness or love in the film, indeed there are several scenes that are deeply unpleasant :
The suggestion of an incestuous relationship between father and son, Philip and Storey Emmental played respectively by John Standing and Matthew Delamere. The callous disregard of both men that Giaconda is carrying their child, she in fact, gets pregnant twice, the first foetus being aborted and the second time, she is sent away to a destination chosen by the men from a flight book. Both men having sex with a woman who has no legs, (the half woman in the title). The beastiality that exists between Beryl, played by Amanda Plummer, with a pig named Hortense. Father and son sharing women between them. Women enjoying being beaten sexually. The father sleeping with the corpse of his dead wife.
Mercifully, none of these scenes are shown sexually, only hinted at.
The hinted degradation of women is such that there cannot be any wonder that the film was booed at when it was first premiered at Cannes. What is more extraordinary is that the actresses in the film lined up to defend it, showing yet again that there is no limit to the naivety of women and that women will fool themselves into being exploited by men.
Greenaway's directorial style is pretentious, it is a triumph of style over substance, a depiction of Film as Art accompanied by the abandonment of common sense.
Greenaway tries to attain the sublimity of surrealism but only succeeds in showing the banality of human relationships.
\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\nWriter/Director Peter Greenaway cements his title as the High Lord of Art House Pretension with his latest exercise in obnoxious self-indulgence, 8 ½ Women. The film follows a wealthy Englishman and his son on their mutual quest for sexual satisfaction, as they lure and blackmail women (guess how many) into joining their personal collection of concubines.
Think of any possible way that this premise could be offensive, and chances are Greenaway's done it. The female characters are little more than a catalogue of fetishes for the two protagonists to partake of. There's the Kabuki-obsessed Mio, the ever-pregnant Giaconda and Beryl, who's got a thing for farm animals. Giulietta has no legs and uses a wheelchair, she's the \"half woman,\" get it? Greenaway vehemently denies all accusations of misogyny, but if this isn't it, then what is?
The film goes on to eroticize anything and everything having to do with Japan, a continuation of themes from his snore-worthy (but less sexist) 1996 film, The Pillow Book. But where the The Pillow Book was erotic and graceful, 8 ½ Women just gets horny and exploitative. Greenaway's work is tasteless and arrogant in its fetishism, and the only person likely to enjoy watching it is the auteur himself.
\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 dont know about you, but I've always felt drawn to 'ART' cinema. The first 'art' film I managed to get a hold of was Peter Greenaway's \"The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover\", which blew my mind and creative spiret into overdrive. The film was the ultimate paradox, both beautiful and grotesque...this is what 'art cinema' was about, exploring intellectual ideas and bringing the visceral to the screen with purpose. Life, real life, can be like living in a madhouse, and art expressed shows it for what it is. I love movies of all types, but especially those that both entertain and have something to say, whether I agree with it's stance or no...
\"8 1/2 WOMEN\", is a dry, clinical 'comedy' where a father and son gather a harem to fufill their many sexual fantasies. There is only a very brief allusion to Fellini in the film, unlike what the previews have suggested. The main focus of the film falls on the 'close' relationship between father and son, brought together after the mothers' death. In the early scenes of the film the fathers' sadness is believable, you can feel his pain. What happens afterwards is plain by Greenaway standards, the gathering of the harem, observations on love and death, and flesh displayed for the sake of flesh...One could argue this, but I feel the movie to be shallow and pointless. And the idea that this could be a comedy is perplexing to me. The acting for the most part if fine,...especially good are Polly Walker and Amanda Plummer(though poor Mandy should put her clothes back on) What the film lacks is a compelling story, and the usual Greenaway touches of excess that made his other films so wonderful to watch.
While filled with moments of insight, and the occasional taboo, \"8 1/2 Women\" is too cut and paste to be considered art, too bland to considered 'funny', and simply too dull to be considered worthwhile.
Save your money...I can only recommend this film as a sleeping aid.
4 out of 10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nStilted, stagy, strange and opaque, if visually striking ... a wannabe-erotic fantasy. Really boring, way too much male nudity (including father-son incest), and just a sort of shameless pointlessness. I will confess, however, that certain passages of dialogue, taken on their own terms, do have a lulling, haunting quality.
\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 giving this pretentious piece of garbage a 1 simply because i don't believe there is a worse movie in the world.
I hate this movie, i hate the acting, dialog, setting, writing and directing. I hope everyone that was involved in this movie burns and rots in the darkest circle of hell.
Damn this disgusting waste of time.
I pray every day that this movie is just a figment of my imagination. i pray that i dreamt the movie, and that i will never have to see it at
my local video store again.
BURN IN HELL
\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 overcome the death of his wife, an old man does what anyone in his position would naturally do (at least in a Peter Greenaway movie): he and his son populate their home with eight and a half (one has no legs) women and embark on a sexual odyssey. This being a Greenaway film, there is lots of pretentious and uninteresting blabbering and of course there is unnecessary male nudity. In fact the father and son share a bed sleeping in the nude. Gross. Besides, who wants to see an old guy full frontal? For those who are not into the homo-erotic scene, one of the women likes to do the nasty with horses. There is no story - just a random collection of dull scenes.
\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 borrow from Dorothy Parker: This is not a film to be tossed aside
lightly. It should be thrown with great force.
This is an excruciating mess. And I'm a Greenaway fan.
MIND-NUMBINGLY AWFUL
\"The Mummy Returns\" has much more artistic merit
\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\nGreenaway seems to have a habit of trying deliberately to disgust his viewers. This film opens with incest--and purposeless, meaningless, casual incest at that. That's Greenaway's big problem. He prefers parlor tricks to shock over actually doing anything meaningful. Technical skill isn't enough. He's just a bit perverse for the sake of perversity.
\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 awful in the worst way: you just didn't care. You didn't care what happened in the plot; you didn't care about the characters. Everyone was devoid of heart. I ended up walking out about an 45 minutes into it because I simply didn't want to subject my mind to it any more. There is far too much sex in the film. Sex can be okay; it can even make the movie (hence Karma Sutra) but the intercourse here was not beautiful or sexy. It was just ugly. Don't see 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\nI am sorry to say that it was one of the worst films I've ever seen. Although visually fascinating (e.g. the use of colour was absolutely stunning), it was pretty boring and disturbing (see the father/son incest).
What's more, music is totally absent, and if you think of those wonderful soundtracks by Michael Nyman (who wrote the soundtracks for most of Greenaway's films) then you can imagine what a difference it makes.

\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\nsomewhere i'd read that this film is supposed to be a comedy. after seeing it, i'd call it anything but. the point of this movie eludes me. the dialogue is all extremely superficial and absurd, many of the sets seemed to be afterthoughts, and despite all the nudity and implied sexual content, there's nothing erotic about this film...all leaving me to wonder just what the heck this thing is about! the title premise could have been the basis for a fun (if politically incorrect) comedy. instead, we're treated to cheap, amateurish, unfinished sketches and depravity and weirdness for its own sake. if i want that, i'll go buy a grace jones cd.
\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\nMovies have put me to sleep before, but no movie has ever done that twice, so it took me three sittings actually to finish it. The dialog was bad. Women spoke stiltedly and the men were caricatures. And two of the supposedly Japanese women looked Chinese, had Chinese names and spoke with clearly Chinese accents. I'm still trying to figure out why the Emmenthal men were sexually wrapped up with each other. 10 minus 8 1/2 equals a tough choice: Do I give this movie a rating of one? or two?
Movies have put me to sleep before, but no movie has ever done that twice, so it took me three sittings actually to finish it. The dialog was bad. Women spoke stiltedly and the men were caricatures. And two of the supposedly Japanese women looked Chinese, had Chinese names and spoke with clearly Chinese accents. I'm still trying to figure out why the Emmenthal men were sexually wrapped up with each other. 10 minus 8 1/2 equals a tough choice: Do I give this movie a rating of one? or two?
\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 flick reminds me some really bad science-fiction movies from 50's and 60's.It is not scary or interesting,but it's dull,cheesy and stupid.Special effects are laughable,all actors are ludicrous and the ending is simply awful.Don't waste your money,rent or buy something better.I give it 3.5 out of 10( I found this turkey quite amusing because of its stupidity).
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n\"Plants are the most cunning and vicious of all life forms\", informs one dopey would-be victim in \"The Seedpeople\", a silly, flaccid remake of \"Invasion of the Bodysnatchers\", \"Day of the Triffids\", and about a thousand udder moovies. And why are seeds moore dangerous than plants, one might ask? Because, according to the same dolt, \"seeds can chase us\". Yes, I can remember one horrifying incident when the MooCow was just a calf, being chased all the way home from school by ravenous dandylion seed... Yeah, right. Unfortunately, the \"monsters\" in this seedy little turkey kind of look like shaggy little muppets, some of which roll around like evil tumbleweeds, others which sail about on strings. There's not even the tiniest inkling of terror or suspense to be found here. For reasons left unexplained, the seed monsters are knocked out by 50 volt ultra-violet lights, even though they can walk about in the daylight, which has about 1,000,000,000,000 times more uv energy. As you can see, not much thought was put into this cow flop. The MooCow says go weed yer garden instead of wasting your photosynthesis here. :=8P
\n
assistant\n0
\n"