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\nOh my, this was the worst reunion movie I have ever seen. (That is saying a lot.) I am ashamed of watching.
What happened in the script meetings? \"Ooooooh, I know! Let's have two stud muffins fall madly in love with the Most-Annoying-Character-Since-Cousin-Oliver.\" \"Yeah, that'll be cool!\"
Even for sitcoms, this was the most implausible plot since Ron Popeil starting spray painting bald men.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA group of us watched this film are were really disgusted. We were willing to forgive the fact that our favorite character Jo wasn't on (it's not like the writers/producers could do anything about that). The writing was poor, the script was sub-par. What REALLY annoyed us: 1. When the two guys realized they were both dating Natalie, they didn't just leave they put up with that stupid (and ultimately degrading) contest - but only because they were macho competing guys, not because they really wanted Natalie. 2. Despite being unable to choose between the two guys before the reunion, Natalie suddenly decides that she really loves one of the guys and is now ready to marry him? (and there was no foreshadowing that he was really a better guy, it's as if the writers flipped a coin and then just had her spit it out at some convenient point in the film). 3. Blair makes a point of talking about how she does not want children and then all of a sudden when her husband says he wants to have children, she blissfully agrees with him.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI tried. I really did. I thought that maybe, if I gave Joao Pedro Rodrigues another chance, I could enjoy his movie. I know that after seeing O FANTASMA I felt ill and nearly disgusted to the core, but some of the reviews were quite good and in favor, so I was like, \"What the hell. At least you didn't pay 10 dollars at the Quad. Give it a shot.\"
Sometimes it's better to go to your dentist and ask for a root canal without any previous anesthetic to alleviate the horror of so much pain. I often wonder if it wouldn't be better to go back to my childhood and demand my former bullies to really let me have it. On other occasions, I often think that the world is really flat and that if I sail away far enough, I will not only get away from it all, but fall clear over, and that some evil, Lovecraftian thing will snatch me with its 9000 tentacles and squeeze the life -- and some french fries from 1995, still lingering inside my esophagus -- out of me.
Is there a reason for Odete? I'd say not at all... just that maybe her Creator thought that writing a story centered on her madness (one that makes Alex Forrest look like Strawberry Shortcake) look not only creepy, but flat-out sick to the bone. She first of all decides to leave her present boyfriend (in shrieking hysterics) because she wants a child and he believes they're too young. She later crashes a funeral of a gay man, and -- get this -- in order to get closer to him, she feigns being pregnant while insinuating herself into the lives of the dead man's mother and lover in the sickest of ways. Oh, of course, she shrieks like a banshee and throws herself not one, but a good three times on his grave. And there's this ridiculous business that she progressively becomes \"Pedro\" which sums up some weak-as-bad-tea explanation that love knows no gender. Or something.
I'd say she's as nuts as a can of cashews, unsalted. But then again, so's the director. And me, for taking a chance on this. At least the men look good. Other than that... not much else to see here.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI wasn't really going to comment, but then I figured I had something to say. I saw this film two days ago and, although I think it's not a complete waste of time (it might have been of money though, for the producers), it's obvious it has serious problems. It's got really good cinematography and (little but) nice music. A lot has been said about Ana Cristina Oliveira but, let's be honest, over what? She is not really an actress an she balances permanently between over-acting and preposterous under-acting. Her performance passes for good because there has never been anyone like Odete in any other film: crazy? sad? childlike? an impostor? no one knows, fellows. So she's kinda sorta dictating the rules here.
I thought this film was also a good example of the problem most Portuguese films suffer from: soundtrack. There is a permanent NO to dubbing and the result is this usual mass of noise that comes out of the blue. People in other countries may think Portugal is the noisiest of places. What thrilled me though, was that some of the dialog was dubbed but it didn't necessarily solve the syndrome. Bad dubbing too, I must say. It's strange to watch a film in which the first thing that strikes my mind on the first scene, when the first character speaks is: it's dubbed. And all this to say that the film has technical problems.
It also has script problems. It tries to be classical from the first to the last scene. There was a desperate fear of leaving things suspended and that shows. The writer was obviously trying to get everything straight and he does but... it shows!! All dialog is too expositive and there isn't one single piece of talk that sounds like a line from a film. It's all a little raw and slightly unpleasant.
Not that the film is a total mess, I must stress. I just think the good parts are so obvious that I prefer to concentrate on the bad ones.
Direction brings little to the weak screenplay. All shots are classical and un-innovative, but their beautiful. Great work from Rui Poças, by the way.
Now, what I think was THE problem, the one that keeps people from believing this story and laugh throughout the film instead of taking it seriously: The guy who plays the guy who DIES is obviously not an actor. Actually, It's a rather important role and I can't see why non-actors are cast for such parts. This guy is neither an actor nor a good-looking man. Which means the whole film rolls down the mountain, since we never believe for one second that this gorgeous woman is obsessed with him even though he's gone, and that his hunky lover who survives is actually having a bad time getting over the loss, when all we see of this character is apathy. Too bad. The world is full of beautiful people who even happen to be nice seductive lovers. The world is full of good actors who are also cute boys and capable of causing obsessions on people after they's gone. The world is full of great films and also of not that great films. C'est la vie!
\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\nLethargic direction ruins an otherwise compelling period story that stars the wondrous Zhang Ziyi, in an excellent role as a woman who joins an extremist group in 1928 China, just prior to the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, and reunites with a former lover who is now working for Japan. Every bit of drama and forward motion of the story is sucked dry by director Ye Lou's somnambulist directorial style. Characters stand still staring at each other for long minutes, saying nothing, hand-held cameras hold forever on faces showing interminable reactions way longer than they need to, edits repeat the same reaction is triple redundancy. We know nothing about the characters as the story begins and are given little new information as the story progresses, only silence and static shots of lovers who don't speak, who interaction through silent dances but share no apparent emotional intimacy. A very sleep inducing 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\nClaustrophobic camera angles that do not help the movie: Too long face only shots where you most of the time get the feeling that the lower half of the film is missing (that the screen is cut off), because there seems to be important actions going on, but you cannot see them. There is anyway already too much confusion in the movie, so these viewing angles make it worse and do not contribute to artful visuals.
I like artfully made movies and unconventional camera work. I can handle deep and slow movies. But this one is trying too hard to be something artful and fails in my opinion painfully.
Nothing to get attached to, to any of the characters, because they are not worked out well enough. To work out characters more is needed, than just minute long face shots, at least with this set of script+director+actors.
I wonder whether some of the not so good acting is due to the script and director or due to the actors.
I will stay away from films both written and directed by Le You for sure in the future.
What an annoying film even for someone who would be interested in that part of history, and for someone who spent time in Shanghai.
\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 was looking forward to seeing this movie after reading a positive review in the New York Times. In addition, I'm also Shanghainese so there was more than just a passing interest in the subject matter. However, after watching it, I was extremely disappointed.
The movie's pace was excruciatingly slow and monotonous. The director lingered on certain scenes for much too long. There was no passion or chemistry between the lovers. There was barely any dialogue. Dialogue was sorely needed to compensate for the lack of acting. At the end of the movie, you didn't feel any compassion for the characters. This movie was lacking in everything. The script was weak, the acting was poor, and the editing was non-existent. The director tried to emulate certain noir film styles but failed miserably. A good movie is one in which captures your attention, maintains it and is successful in concluding without you feeling time has passed by. This movie felt as though it would never end. Don't waste your money on this movie.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI am a huge Ziyi Zhang fan and will go to any film to see her which is what took me to Purple Butterfly. As much as I wanted to like this movie, I have to agree with many others who have commented on it. It is very confusing and also extremely slow. Because all of the film appears to have been shot with a hand held camera, significant portions of it are out of focus.
The film has very little dialog and what there is doesn't tell you much. There are endless scenes of people just standing around smoking cigarettes or sitting in a room staring at each other with no conversation. The way the film time shifts is also very confusing and hard to follow. Even having read a number of reviews beforehand and having a general idea what the film was about, I still had a difficult time understanding what was going on.
I knew beforehand that the movie was not remotely similar to previous Ziyi Zhang starring films but was looking forward to seeing her in something different but unfortunately I was ultimately disappointed. She never smiles in this film although admittedly most of the time she doesn't have anything to smile about. I could have done without the sex scenes as they were about as sexless and without any obvious feeling between the participants as you could hope to find.
\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 main complaint with this film is the fact that I CAN NOT tell who is who. No racism intended, but these Asians look all the same! I can tell somewhat of the story, but heck thats about as far as it goes. The peoples identities are not a mystery, if they were a mystery I would care about them. Instead I wasn't them off the screen ASAP.
Tons of wide shots and silent emotionless faces occupy this movie. Heck is it boring, not only do I not know these people, but they are just sitting there.
The production is typical Chinese John Woo, terrible video with blotched scenes. This looks only slightly better than Andy Lau's \"Fulltime Killer\" (Which was a great movie.) You would think with a decent budget they could at least make it look like 90s Hollywood. I didn't know the Chinese had these art-house beatniks.
\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\nYe Lou's film Purple Butterfly pits a secret organization (Purple Butterfly) against the Japanese forces in war torn Shanghai. Ding Hui (Zhang Ziyi) and her ex-lover Hidehiko Itami (Toru Nakamura) find themselves on opposite sides of the conflict after a chance meeting.
I agree with the reviewer from Paris. The film substitutes a convoluted, semi-historical conflict for a plot, without giving the audience a single reason to care about the characters or their causes. The sudden time shifting doesn't help matters as it appears completely unwarranted and pointless. Normally I don't mind dark movies, but the absence of light, the bone-jarringly shaky camera footage, and the generally bad film-making techniques really make this a tough film to watch and stay interested in. I also agree with the viewer from Georgia that this film \"has a chaotic editing style and claustrophobic cinematography\", but I don't think that helps the movie. The backdrop to the film is one of the most potent events of the 20th Century, and I don't believe you can do it any justice by editing it as if it were a Michael Bay film. The overly melodramatic moments don't add to its watchability.
The actors are all suitably melancholy. Zhang Ziyi once again shows that she has an exceptionally limited acting range as she spends the entire movie doing what she seems to do best in all her films, brooding and looking generally annoyed. However, at least she adds some variety to this role by chainsmoking and engaging in the worst love-making scene since Michael Biehn and Linda Hamilton in The Terminator.
All in all, a very disappointing film, especially seeing as how it comes from the director of Suzhou He. 2/10
\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 read comments about this being the best Chinese movie ever. Perhaps if the only Chinese movies you've seen contained no dialogue, long drawn-out far-away stares and silences, and hack editing, then you're spot on.
Complicated story-line? Hardly. Try juvenile and amateurish. Exquisite moods and haunting memories? Hardly. Try flat-out boring and trite.
This was awful. I could not wait for it to be over. Particularly when the best lines in the movie consist of \"How are you? I'm fine. Are you sure? Yes.\" Wow! What depth of character. I guess the incessant cigarette smoking was supposed to speak for them.
As a huge fan of many Chinese, Japanese and Korean films, I was totally disappointed in this. Even Zhang's sentimentally sappy \"The Road Home\" was better than 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\nRex Reed once said of a movie (\"Julia and Julia\" to be specific) that it looked like it was shot through pomegranate juice. I was reminded of that as I snored through Purple Butterfly. This one appeared to be shot through gauze.
The story was boring and it was not helped that for large portions of scenes actors' faces were literally out of focus or would only come into focus after extended periods of time.
Also, everyone looked the same so it was hard to distinguish among the characters. I call this the \"Dead Poets Society\" syndrome.
There was nobody to care about, nobody to become interested in dramatically, and the movie shed no historical light on a very interesting period of time and set of circumstances.
A total disappointment.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nDid anybody succeed in getting in this movie?
It's a total mess to me: a vague historical/sentimental context instead of a plot, a pretentious imagery as mise en scene and it lasts two hours!
Shame on those who wasted money here.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nPlot = Melissa is a new girl in town, she's fifteen years old and her birthday is coming up in one week. Since Melissa is beautiful, every boy in town wants to hook up with her, but the few that manage to catch her interest mysteriously die.
To be honest the real reason I wanted to watch this film is because Dana Kimmel of Friday The 13th pt 3 was in it which isn't a proper reason why to rush out and see a movie. When I started watching it I realized that \"Sweet Sixteen\" isn't a very good slasher, it's really dull and boring and just doesn't go anywhere. After over an hour, only three murders have occurred and the story hasn't really developed in any possible way.
The movie is nicely shot with quite nice photography and good directing but just as with many other slasher flicks from the 80s, the movie suffers from being too dark at times. The acting is actually pretty good though and Melissa's character is easy to sympathize with, even though she's a complete slut.
The story line isn't completely rubbish but it's just way too dull to keep you interested, the only things that kept me interested was Melissa she was stunning and Dana Kimmel whose really sweet and cute in this movie.
All in all pretty dull slasher flick that doesn't go anywhere I'd definitely wouldn't recommend it to Slasher fans.
\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\nSWEET SIXTEEN (1983) **/***** 86 minutes Director Jim Sotos Cast Bo Hopkins, Susan Strasberg, Aleisa Shirley, Patrick Macnee, Dana Kimmell
Fifteen year old bad girl Melissa is new in a desert town and it isn't long before folks around her start dying off. The detective has to put together the clues with the help of his Nancy Drew good girl daughter played by Friday the 13th alumni Dana Kimmell. The local Native Americans are prime suspects since they seem to upset the prejudiced townsfolk. These events all lead up to the revealing of the killer at Melissa's sixteenth birthday party.
This below average slasher isn't too memorable. It has a made for TV feel, without much score besides the title character's own corny theme song which plays a couple times throughout. Lines like \"the killer will turn us into coleslaw.\" Fit into standard eighties slasher screenplays. Marci calls Melissa a bad name then somehow immediately they develop a friendship. Apparently Marci sees how hard it is to fit in because Melissa knows how to wear make-up. This movie would be hard-pressed to be made today with the main character being fifteen and the director inserting multiple gratuitous close-ups of her. The social commentary on Indians wasn't developed enough to be taken seriously. I am too surprised at the fairly high rating this movie gets. Both Sweet Sixteen and Ed Hunt's Bloody Birthday had the potential to capitalize on that time honored tradition of the birthday party to create an intense sequence of carnage but I feel failed to deliver. But on the bright side releasing obscure movies like this on DVD gives hope that others will follow.
\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\nMelissa's sixteenth birthday is right around the corner and she's just discovering her sexuality with boys. But it turns out that all the guys that she spends time with all wind up murdered in this generic '80's slasher film. It's up to the local town sheriff Dan Burke (Bo Hopkins, The Wild Bunch) and his annoying mystery-loving goody two-shoes daughter, Marci (Dana Kimmell, Friday the 13th part 3), to get to the bottom of these killings.
This film focuses more on the mystery and melodrama aspects of the movie and less on the killings themselves and thus is able to differentiate itself from a lot of it's '80's Slasher brethren. It doesn't hurt that Alesia has a great body (I feel the need to stress the obvious with stating that the actress is over 18 and thus convey that i'm not overly perverted). On the downside, the movie is hampered with a few plot points that are underdeveloped and unnecessary, a grating theme some that is used a bit too often, and an ending that is a tad anti-climatic. But the good outweigh the bad (barely). Give this a rent, but I wouldn't buy it.
Eye Candy: Aleisa Shirley shows her tits, bush and ass
My Grade: C
Code Red DVD Extras: An intro by star Aleisa Shirley and Director of Intruder, Scott Spiegel; Both Director's cut & theatrical version of the film; Audio conversation with star Shirley and Director Jim Sotos; interview with Shirley, Sotos & Bo Hopkins; still gallery; theatrical trailer for this film; and trailers for Nightmare, Stunt Rock, Rituals, & Balalaika Conspiracy
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI am very surprised to see such a high rating for this film, and of the few reviews that there are to be positive. I saw the movie and was pretty dissapointed. I didn't find it very enjoyable at all. It was slow, and lacks the entertainment value. Even the murder scenes are lackluster, with real close-up shots of generic stabbings that don't look good at all. And the supposed great twist ending is really not much, I did see it coming, and then the ending just seemed cliche. This movie may not get much mention, but by the little that it does get, it is overrated. I would not recommend this movie.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nMurders are occurring in a Texas desert town. Who is responsible? Slight novelties of mystery and racial tensions (the latter really doesn't fit), but otherwise strictly for slasher fans, who will appreciate the gore and nudity, which are two conventional elements for these films.
Dana Kimmell (of FRIDAY THE 13TH PART 3 infamy) stars as the bratty quasi-detective teen.
*1/2 out of ****
MPAA: Rated R for violence and gore, nudity, and some language.
\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 in a sci-fi 50-pack a friend of mine got me for Christmas. It is very similar to the first Gozilla movie, and like that movie, has scenes with American actors inserted for no real reason. One interesting thing about the inserted scenes is that there's a Cold War tension portrayed between America and Russia. Like in Godzilla, Gamera is awakened by an atomic explosion and rampages across the world, paying close attention to Tokyo because no big monster movie is complete unless Tokyo bites it. All in all, this is an okay movie. Some of the scenes involving Gamera, particularly the scenes in Toly, are quite spectacular and have special effects that were pretty decent at the time. If you like Japanese giant monster movies, you'll really get a kick out of this one. I give it a 4 out of 10. Had this been the unedited Japanese version that I watched, it probably would've gotten a 5.
\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 original 1965 Japanese film \"Gamera\" http://pro.imdb.com/title/tt0059080/ was essentially an updating of the darker, less kid-oriented Gojira (Godzilla)for 1960s sensibilities. Gamera, of course, is a giant, flying, flame-throwing turtle who literally consumes energy - not quite as big as some versions of Godzilla, but generally similar in most ways.
This version of the original film was edited and recut by the notorious Sandy Frank. And just like the Americanized version of Godzilla (\"Godzilla King of the Monsters\"), \"Gammera the Invincible\" gets more than just the spelling wrong. The American scenes are not nearly as ludicrous and annoying as those added to the great Gojira, but don't really add much to the story either because there is little follow up on them.
The film starts off promising, there are a few scenes worth of character development, and there are enough personalities to create some tension outside of the main plot. Once Gamera appears, however, the film begins to descend into a fairly run-of-the mill kaiju film.
The acting is good enough- even the American add-ons are OK. The directing is pretty good for this period and genre, and the special effects are not bad at all for their time (all miniatures). Some of the sets and backdrops are actually very good.
The biggest problem here, of course, is that there is little to nothing original about this film. Gamera, however, develops a much more unique personality in his later films - most of which are worth watching if you are a kaiju fan.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhat's that there in the skies? Is it a plane? Is it Superman?? Errr, no It's a TURTLE!?! See, that's what becomes of the Cold War! Nothing but bad news and other issues! The Americans shoot down a Russian combat plane somewhere over Artic territory and the subsequent explosion defrosts & literally awakens the giant prehistoric turtle-creature named Gammera. He/she is not a very friendly critter as it promptly ensues to destroy everything and everyone on its path. The arguing governments finally decide to kill the ugly bastard with a brand new and super-sophisticated ice-bomb, but Gammera has another surprise in store The damn turtle can fly! The first time this happens results in a tremendously grotesque and hilarious sequence! Gammera lies on his back looking defeated when suddenly fire blows from his armpits and he skyrockets himself up in the air. How can you not love that? Then there's also a dire sub plot about an annoying kid who's able to telepathically communicate with the monster, but that's just not interesting enough. Flying turtle, people!! There's very little else to write about this Japanese (and American re-edited) Sci-Fi effort, apart from that it's an obvious and totally shameless rip-off of such classics like the original Godzilla and The Beast from 20.000 Fathoms. The effects and monster designs are extremely hokey and, unlike the aforementioned films, it never succeeds in creating an apocalyptic ambiance. Respectable actors like Brian Donlevy (\"The Quatermass Experiment\") and Dick O'Neill (\"Wolfen\") seem unaware of what film set they're on and even the original Japanese mayhem-scenes aren't very convincing. Gammera's very own and personalized theme-song is rather cool, though, so it gets one extra point 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\n\"After the atomic bombs carried by a shot-down Soviet bomber explode in the Arctic, the creature 'Gammera' is released from his hibernation. The giant prehistoric turtle proceeds on a path to Tokyo and destroys anything in his path. The military and the scientific community rush to find a means to stop this monster before Tokyo is laid to waste,\" according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.
The re-produced for American audiences version of this, the first film in the \"Gamera\" series, adds English language material that is even funnier than the regularly dubbed Japanese fare. Clearly, the monster is following in the footsteps of \"Godzilla\". Taking his cue from ABC's faddish \"Batman!\" TV series, musician Wes Farrell's ludicrous theme song heightens the US version's camp appeal.
*** Gammera the Invincible (12/15/66) Sandy Howard, Noriaki Yuasa ~ Dick O'Neill, Brian Donlevy, Albert Dekker, John Baragrey
\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\nWe now travel to a parallel universe where the appearance of giant prehistoric monsters flattening cities are part of the daily routine. It's the world of Godzilla, Rodan, Mothra Ghidrah and their kind - a strange world, and one made even stranger by the appearance of an unidentified flying turtle called Gamera.
Forever in the shadow of the monolithic Toho Studios, second rung Daiei Studios were more famous for samurai sagas than monster movies. In the mid 60s they decided to join the giant reptile race and designed a rival monster series to Toho's mammothly successful Godzilla. They wisely chose Gamera as their flagship - a giant turtle that shoots flames from between its snaggle-teeth, and spins through the air by shooting flames through its shell's feet-holes (and at one point you almost see the paper mache shell catch fire!).
The first Gamera film \"Gamera The Invincible\" (as it was sold to the US) is a virtual mirror of the first Godzilla film, only 10 years behind. American fighters chase an unmarked plane over the Arctic to its fiery demise - the nuclear bomb on board ignites and awakens the giant Gamera from its icy slumber. Feeding off atomic energy, it immediately goes on a rampage, and the world wants to destroy Gamera once and for all, but a little Japanese boy named Kenny, who has a psychic connection with the giant turtle and even keeps a miniature version in an aquarium by his bedside, believes Gamera is essentially kind and benevolent. He's like a little Jewish kid with a pinup of Hitler. \"Gamera is a GOOD turtle,\" he pleads, then sulks, and puts on a face like someone's pooped in his coco pops. Miraculously the world's leaders listen to him, and so begins Z-Plan to save the world AND Gamera from complete destruction.
Released in 1965, Gamera was a surprising hit. The annoying infantile anthropomorphism actually worked on kiddie audiences in both Japan and the US, and the sight of Gamera on two feet stomping miniatures of Tokyo and the North Pole is gloriously chintzy. Most surprising of all is the longevity of the series: eight original Gamera films, plus a slew of recent remakes. Not bad for a mutant reptile whose only friend is mewing eight year old milquetoast - and if I hear \"Gamera is friends to ALL children\" one more time I'M going to crush Tokyo. Which appears to be an easy task in the parallel universe where children are smart and turtles are bigger than a Seiko billboard in the 1965 turtle-fest Gamera.
\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\nFlame in, flame out. That seems to be Gammera in a nutshell, a prehistoric creature who can take it and dish it out with equal abandon. I'm not a fan of Japanese monster films, but wound up committed to viewing all the flicks on the fifty film DVD sci-fi collection put out by Mill Creek/Treeline Films. It's a great value at about twenty five bucks, so at fifty cents per movie, it really boils down to an investment in time to watch some of the goofy offerings.
Gammera is riled from a centuries long slumber by a nuclear blast, and he's not happy. Like Godzilla, he takes it out on Tokyo, setting the United Nations into motion to try and come up with a plan to save the planet. They arrive at 'Plan Z', the hope of the world, and wouldn't you know it, there's a scene where a huge shed is shown that's called the 'Z Plan' building; that was a nice touch.
By the mid 1960's, this country still wasn't quite politically correct. One of the American military scenes at the Alaskan Air Defense Sector has General Arnold asking a female sergeant to make coffee. I guess there weren't any privates around.
Good old Gammera was quite the sight though, walking around on two legs and going for the flame throwing routine when challenged. That's why it surprised me how Plan Z managed to capture turtle man in the nose cone of a hidden space ship, whisking him off to Mars to save the world. High fives all around for the American and Russian team that made the save, now let's get back to the Cold War.
Like Godzilla, Gammera spawned at least a good dozen films, but having seen this one pretty much satisfies my interest in flying, flaming turtles. Especially since that DVD pack I mentioned earlier has \"Attack of the Monsters\" with a featured guest appearance by the Big G. It took all I had to make it through to the end of both films; it was such a relief to get to the final frame in this one that said 'Gammera, Sayonara!\"
\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 \"clever\" film was originally a Japanese film. And while I assume that original film was pretty bad, it was made a good bit worse when American-International Films hacked the film to pieces and inserted American-made segments to fool the audience. Now unless your audience is made of total idiots, it becomes painfully obvious that this was done--and done with little finesse or care about the final product. The bottom line is that you have a lot of clearly Japanese scenes and then clearly American scenes where the film looks quite different. Plus, the American scenes really are meaningless and consist of two different groups of people at meetings just talking about Gamera--the evil flying turtle! And although this is a fire-breathing, flying and destructive monster, there is practically no energy because I assume the actors were just embarrassed by being in this wretched film--in particular, film veterans Brian Donlevy and Albert Dekker. They both just looked tired and ill-at-ease for being there.
Now as for the monster, it's not quite the standard Godzilla-like creature. Seeing a giant fanged turtle retract his head and limbs and begin spinning through the air like a missile is hilarious. On the other hand, the crappy model planes, destructible balsa buildings and power plant are, as usual, in this film and come as no surprise. Plus an odd Japanese monster movie cliché is included that will frankly annoy most non-Japanese audience members, and that is the \"adorable and precocious little boy who loves the monster and believes in him\". Yeah, right. Well, just like in GODZILLA VERSUS THE SMOG MONSTER and several other films, you've got this annoying creep cheering on the monster, though unlike later incarnations of Godzilla, Gamera is NOT a good guy and it turns out in the end the kid is just an idiot! Silly, exceptional poor special effects that could be done better by the average seven year-old, bad acting, meaningless American clips and occasionally horrid voice dubbing make this a wretched film. Oddly, while most will surely hate this film (and that stupid kid), there is a small and very vocal minority that love these films and compare them to Bergman and Kurosawa. Don't believe them--this IS a terrible film!
FYI--Apparently due to his terrific stage presence, Gamera was featured in several more films in the 60s as well as some recent incarnations. None of these change the central fact that he is a fire-breathing flying turtle or that the movies are really, really lame.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThere's not much to say about this one. Gammera is some kind of fire breathing turtle. He is loosed by a nuclear explosion. He heads for land and begins to destroy building and tanks and other junk (oh yeah, power lines. I almost forgot). At one time, early in the film, he befriends a little boy, and instead of just throwing him away, or squashing him, he places him down on the ground. Safe. From then on we have to watch this chubby faced little twerp show up and run away, show up and run away, show up and run away. For some reason, Gammera is able to hear this kid from 20,000 feet away. Oh, well, the plot is to try to get Gammera to get to a place where he can be put on board a rocket and shot into space. As usual, the monster is lumbering and uncoordinated (a guy in a Gammera suit). The Japanese army (with the help of Americans), uses up enough ammunition and fire power to solve the national debt, and, of course, it does no good. They should know this anyway. We've seen a lot of monsters stomp on Tokyo. Not to put these down because they can be fun, but it's really not very good.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nNobody, but nobody, could chew the scenery like the Divine One, Ruth Elizabeth Davis, and \"Elizabeth and Essex\" is a great example why. Although she overplays the part at times, watch her when she gawfs about Raliegh writing the lyrics to a song her ladies-in-waiting are about to play: in that one moment, she makes us understand how Elizabeth was able to rule and rule absolutely! At other times, she is done in by the script's sappiness. When Elizabeth has to be vulnerable, she comes off as weak and shrewish. This has the added effect of undermining her authority: when she blows her stack and threatens to dispense justice, it's hard to take her seriously.
Flynn exudes charm, making us see how Essex was able to worm his way into Elizabeth's heart, but he is totally inept at conveying the complexity and sheer evil of the man. It also doesn't help that Essex is badly underwritten. Why is he this hothead who wants to overthrow his Queen - even as he swears fidelity to her - except only that he is more blue-blooded, thus, more \"worthy\" of rule? And why does Raliegh betray Elizabeth by intercepting her and Essex's letters? He's in no risk of falling out of favor, and we know where Essex (and his head) is headed. So why does he risk his own head by speeding up the inevitable?
What did Curtiz do with all the $$$ he was given? He doesn't even bother to try to hide the fact that his battle scenes are shot on a sound stage. He should've ended it with Elizabeth the first time alone at The Tower; everything else that follows (especially the final scene between her and Essex) is unnecessary. The costumes are fantastic. And is it me, or does Bette look exactly like Susan Sarandon?
\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\nOh dear, this movie was bad for various reasons. I was expecting to see a very low score for this film and was a bit surprised by the over-all score.Sorry, but to rate this highly as many have, is a joke! Once you get past the one shot/black and white movie gimmick, which was a nice idea, the movie drags on, even at a run time of only 66 minutes. The credits sequence at the start was so annoying too!In the van the guys suffer a flat tyre and change the wheel, wow, that was needed in the story! How slow were the guys chasing and actually managing to wound Campbell?? They did not seem to bother continue chasing him...sigh..I am only too glad I got this free with a special Edition of Evil Dead!!
\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 one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time. The story was boring, the dialogue was atrocious and the acting hammy. I'm not sure if this movie was the result of a film school homework project, but it certainly played like one. It is not even particularly successful in its central conceit of trying to appear as a single continuous take. The whooshing horizontal camera pans are a cheap and unoriginal way of hiding cuts.
\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 the most messed up entry on IMDb that I've yet to stumble across. All the previous reviewers act like this is the movie. This is NOT the movie. Rather it's merely a featurette that's an extra on the DVD of the movie \"The One\" It also nowhere near being the 90 minutes that it's listed here as. In actuality it's barely over 13 minutes of how cool Jet Li can do martial arts. and his reflections on the movie. So yeah this IMDb entry is quite a bit fubar. Don't listen to any of the other reviews as they are ALL wrong. You can trust me, because I never feed you, dear reader, BS.
and that's the truth. i guess u can say that i'm \"the One\" Reviewer that matters.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film was a waste of time, even rented on DVD. If super-speedy camera shots get any faster than this, we might as well pay twenty bucks to get in the laundromat, get popcorn, and watch the dryer spin. Jet Li is so much better than this. One can only hope that he won't be making deals anytime soon to make another cliche-ridden film like The One.
If there's one film you should avoid, this is \"The 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 rented this film just to see Amber Benson, though after reading the box I thought it sounded like a good story.....however the first problem was that there really wasn't a story...or actually there was a story but it made absolutely no sense. The second problem was there was no set up for these characters...yes I got that they all went to school together, but within the first 3 minutes of the film you realized they had nothing else in common and didn't like each other...so why did they keep getting together. Flaw number 3...the director though long pauses and tight camera shots equaled suspense (especially with the typical suspense music dubbed in)...he was sadly mistaken. It was painful to watch a terrific actress like Amber Benson waste time trying to bring this back to life....my only hope is the money she made here was put toward producing her own 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\nJust finished this movie... saw it on the video shelf and being a Nick Stahl fan I just had to rent it. In all honesty, it probably should have stayed on the shelf. The concept was an interesting one and there were several fairly smart twists and turns but somehow I guessed almost all of them before they came along. And the movie just went a little too far in the end in my opinion... if you have to suffer through a viewing of it you'll see what I mean!
On a positive note, Nick Stahl's acting was great (especially considering what he had to work with). Eddie Kaye Thomas was also good but he always plays the same type of character... too much Paul Finch from \"American Pie\" coming through for my liking.
And finally, the worst part of this movie has to be January Jones' emotionless performance... I guess a pretty face really is all that matters in Hollywood.
\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 name of Nick Stahl, the young cast and the attractive cover of the VHS made me buy and watch this flick, expecting to see a good teen slash movie. What a crap! The full of clichés screenplay, the dialogs and the performances are awful, dreadful, very bad, terrible, horrendous  summarizing, a complete waste of time. There is no horror, black humor, only an absolutely boring story, with shameful plot points. The film begins with six characters, indeed three couples, together like a group of friends, but indeed very nasty persons that seems to be enemies, playing a ridiculous senseless game called \"Taboo\", and with each one of them writing yes or no for certain taboo issues. That is it: no previous development of the characters, the viewer does not know who they are, their motives and relationship. Then, there is an ellipsis to one year later, and the same group is gathered together in a New Years Eve party, insulting each other in a very sordid way. But the plot and the twists are so ridiculous, predictable, mediocre and unbelievable that do not deserve any additional line in my review. One advice only: do not waste your time or money on this garbage, you will certainly regret. My vote is one (awful).
Title (Brazil): \"Taboo  Jogando Com o Assassino\" (\"Taboo  Playing With the Killer\")
\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\nAs a movie critic for several Dutch websites, I have to see lot's of movies, and not all very good ones. Some movies are so bad, you won't be surprised that they are released straight on video. With taboo, Iám surprised that it is released on video at all. This is really low budget bad quality bad written rubbish.
A group of youngsters plays a game of taboo. They write down their most sickening wish or act, and later on people are murdered for their taboo's. The question is, should we believe what we see?
The movie has a potential interesting plot-twist, and I won't give it away here. But what could have been interesting stays stupid, bad acted and without any reason.
Some of the actors have played in bigger titles before, so why on earth did they sign up for this? If you see this anywhere, try to dodge it. There is no logic, no human sense of quality in this movie.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe movie has the longest, most tortured and agonized ending of any movie I've seen in a long time. Unfortunately it starts right after the opening credits. January Jones gives such a wooden performance, I was surprised she didn't go up in flames when she got near the candles in the film. I don't really remember her from the other films she's done (a blessing I have to believe. I never criticize an actors performance because in film there are too many things which can affect it but in this case,it is so bad that it actually stands out from the ATROCIOUS script. Granted she's given lines and situations Meryl Streep would have trouble with but I swear at times shes reading from a cue card off set. At other times I thought she might actually be learning disabled or slow in some way. For REAL! The plot, dialog and pacing are as bad as you'll ever see but there is still no excuse for this performance nor for the director that let it be perpetrated. I feel sorry for the other actors. Cruel intentions/ 10 little indians/breakfast club shoved into a rotten burrito then regurgitated by a grade school writer- director. Take that back this has Studio exec crayola all over it.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"