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\nJust recently, I've been obsessing over and anticipating this movie so much that I almost had to see it. Well, having just seen it today, the 5.8 rating is completely understandable. I think that if you anticipate something so much that it becomes a dire need, it turns out not to be worth it.
Sure, The Hills Have Eyes 2 has its moments. It has a very cool and well-developed storyline that ties in well with the actual product itself, but the whole thing is so self-indulged that it becomes so hard to follow. And if it weren't for Wes Craven's production on this film, it wouldn't be anything to do with The original remake.
But the whole thing makes you go \"Is this supposed to be horror or COMEDY?\" because there are lots of ridiculous, randomly placed jump moments and stupid one liners (I.E. \"There's a hand in the sh**er!\" or \"You motherfu**er! I'll kill you all damn sons of b**tches!\") and the acting (God don't even remind me how bad it was.
STORYLINE: (this part contains spoilers, beware!) The movie begins with a woman giving birth to a mutant baby (ooh la la!), and then the screen fades to black with the movie's title appearing, and a monologue. Then we go to this office where there are randomly placed war veteran mannequins. We find that this is for this one scientist keeping track of people looking for mutants. The box to keep track of audio feeds is gone, and everyone dies! After that tone-setting opening, you'd expect more.
Then, we go to this one team of military recruits training in Baghdad. As the captain parades them \"A good job at stupidity\", their last day of training is in New Mexico, the desert where the family in the last THHE had stayed because they were stuck. While in training, things go ultimately wrong, people die, and... do I need to tell you any more? Because right now I have the attention span of a goldfish just forcing myself to sit here and type this.
The thing that's wrong with THHE2 is that it just dosen't work. No flashbacks here, and the ending is pretty safe... but with a twist! A stupid one, that is. I'm pretty sure the Ultra Super Director's Cut with a holographic cover and a ticket to The Hills Have Eyes 3 will showcase all of it's alternate endings, but at this point, I'm not sure if I care.
So by all means, if you loved the first THHE so much it's almost a sin not to see this, then by all means, see it. But if else, then, Avoid at all costs. It's for your own good.
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\nYou know, I went to see \"The Hills have eyes 2\" wanting to like it. I really enjoyed the original, and the remake was fairly entertaining. They obviously had more money to throw around than Wes Craven did on special effects the second time around. Even though I still prefer the original film, the remake was done well, and it was kind of a guilty pleasure for me. Bloody, intense, and great special effects. In short, a great popcorn movie for any horror fan.
Which brings us to \"The Hills have eyes 2\". Man, where do I start? The plot, or lack of one, is paper thin. We are not exactly breaking new ground here.The military has decided to monitor the area, and all of these people turn up missing. So what do we do now? Let's send in the National Guard to investigate. In true Hollywood fashion we need to make them the dumbest, and worst soldiers ever seen. Gee, I've never seen that premise before. To make a long story short, you have the mutants killing off the moron soldiers one at a time in graphic fashion. Once again the special effects by Nicotero are great, but the kills no matter how graphic become boring, and predictable. Honestly it seemed to me that this flick was done just to grab a quick buck. It was bloody, and graphic, but I found it predictable, boring, and not scary at all. For me it would have been nice if this film contained one original thought.Wes Craven and his son shared the writing duties, and he has been involved with many of my favorite horror films, but sadly this isn't one of them.
\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\nNo one goes to a movie like The Hills Have Eyes 2 and expects the second coming of Citizen Kane. The same is true for the majority of low-rent horror flicks, especially those Roger Ebert has dubbed \"Dead Teenager Movies.\" The Hills Have Eyes 2 definitely qualifies as a Dead Teenager Movie, only here, the teenagers have been given the superficial appearance of military trainees.
Some will argue the line \"it's only a movie\" when questionable facts are raised in a movie review, but I've always been a firm believer that all good fantasy must be rooted in reality in order to be effective. In the Hills Have Eyes 2, we're to believe the main characters are military people on a training exercise, but they look and talk like high school kids camping in the desert. The dialog is awful and frequently vulgar to excess. Though the films aren't nearly comparable, I kept imagining these \"soldiers\" being in Platoon, and shuddering with dread.
Very little about the characters evokes a soldier other than rifles and fatigues: radio transmissions are carried out like teenage phone conversations; a Colonel is addresses as \"hey, asshole\" by a Private. And nobody seems to have the slightest idea what to do, or any sense of command structure, when things begin to go wrong. I think of the soldiers in James Cameron's Aliens, a film of pure fantasy, and how even those futuristic Marines behaved like real soldiers despite their fantastic situations. Fantasy rooted in reality.
I try to begin watching a movie as a 5 on a scale of 10, and judge it's strengths and weaknesses from there. You have to allow concessions for the material; there's no way Star Wars is as good of a movie as The Godfather, on equal terms. But both are excellent examples of their type.
In that respect, while the Hills Have Eyes 2 is a pretty dreadful exercise in amateur and immature writing, it's only modestly worse in that regard than the typical Dead Teenager Movie. On a technical side, the movie appears to have decent production values and is pretty well made from that perspective. Scenes that are intended to shock, or which are intended to evoke urgency or suspense generally work. So, while watching The Hills Have Eyes 2 may indeed be a fate worse than death, there are certainly far worse horror flicks in circulation.
It's worth a watch for those who enjoy this type of stuff without the usual fanboy baggage, or those who don't tend towards thinking every movie they see is either the Best Ever or the Worst Ever of all time. If you don't \"get\" horror, especially the Dead Teenager variety, you're not likely to have a good time with this one.
4/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is a weak sequel: it lacks the interest and light touch of the magnificent \"Man Called Horse\" in nearly every aspect and when compared to each other they hardly seem to be the same genre.
The Return is almost a parody of the first and tries to evoke different Indian ceremonies but comes across as trying way too hard to bottle the magic of the first. In this film the tribe is lost and abandoned, having lost their homelands, modern life has encroached on paradise and they are living in abject misery and poverty. Perhaps this is the point: the first film took us to a place where we would want to be, a simpler time. This takes us to broken Indians in a miserable world and the White Man is the hero and savior which rather negates the whole idea of the film.
The beauty of the first lay in the fact that the white man learnt and discovered that real civilization lies in values rather than western materialism. In the second film this is all but lacking and so we end up with a weak film.
A huge 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\nCaught this by accident on a t.v. showing - and could hardly believe how utterly awful the whole experience was. By comparison, the original \"A Man Called Horse\" was spell-binding because it held one's interest throughout. But this piece of nonsense - words fail me. It was bad enough to have some kind of a \"story\" presented with all the impact of a wet loaf of bread, but that error was compounded by the obvious lack of subtitles throughout whenever the so-called \"Sioux\" spoke. For goodness sake, couldn't the film-makers have found enough North American Indians who were also actors and near-actors to perform as \"Indians\" in this farrago instead of the imposters they actually used? I also found it quite embarrassing watching Richard Harris cavorting all around the countryside at the obvious behest of the director standing just behind camera, telling him to run and jump from pointless Point A to pointless Point B just to make up film footage and minutes. Absolutely terrible in all respects!
\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 thoroughly enjoyed A Man Called Horse when it was released in 1970, but Return played like a typical sequel. Everything about it -- budget, script, plot, casting, and acting -- was inferior to the original. Gale Sondergaard as Elk Woman, an elder of the Yellow Hand tribe, looks nothing like an Indian, and neither do half of the other \"Indians,\" who were played by Italians, Mexicans, and Latinos with cheap wigs. And the old guy who played the chief acted more like a fat old squaw than a fierce leader of warriors. He even used the bow like a woman! Finally, Richard Harris, who did such a superb job in the original, seems to be coasting this time around. I guess he couldn't resist the easy paycheck he got for reprising his role as Horse.
To be fair, there are some interesting moments in the movie, such as Horse's undergoing a painful purification ritual to \"find his vision\" and rally the Yellow Hands against their Indian enemies and white oppressors, but on the whole, Return is uneven, boring, corny, and predictable -- just like most sequels.
\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 told through the eyes of a young teacher at a catholic school, watching as the RAWANDAN genocide un-furls around him.
The movie starts off with a brief explanation about the past history and rivalry of Rawanda. Then it jumps to the story as told through the eyes of a young idealistic \"NEW-COMER\" a young teacher who doesn't take life or the situation too seriously. As he and the driver approach a road-block he plays around with his drivers I.D. not realizing that this is a serious moment and that if the driver can't identify himself as being of the right tribe to the soldiers they'll be killed. And thats how he treats the unfolding story of chaos and unfolding around him. Suddenly realizes that every Rawandan (including his driver) is involved and that the Europeans soldiers and tourists cannot and will not help. The media cameras cannot stop machete's, and there's too many machete wielding militia-men too shoot. the title comes from the armies captain saying he's going to shoot the dogs eating the dead-bodies around his compound, but won't shoot the Militia-men that are killing people around the compound. Mainly because they haven't fired at the soldiers yet. Finally he realizes the hopelessness of the situation and the guy who tells the evacuation team that he wants to give up his seat for one of the intended victims, flees with his tail in-between his legs, rather than face immanent death with the school kids he's promised not to leave behind.
It's more of character study, and a come to Jesus moment for one character, than a story about the genocide in \"RAWANDA\". This movie didn't have to take place in RAWANDA, it could have taken place any one of the Genocidal hell holes going around this world at any given 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\nSerge Farnel made a very precise critics of this film in the revue \"The Rwandese night\" (www.lanuitrwandaise.net)
A critics which shows how France was behind all the situation undergone by the United Nations in Rwanda.
The UN soldiers were in a dangerous situation while the french soldiers were warmly welcomed by the genocide forces.
The day before, ten UN soldiers had been killed by the genocide forces.
That is why the UN soldiers decided to protect their own lives by driving behind the french trucks.
By doing so, they gave up the Tutsi which is unforgivable of course.
But we must keep in mind that the french soldiers organized this situation.
\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 basically Velvet Goldmine if the writers of party of five got a hold of it and made it a t.v. movie. The film lacks what Velvet Goldmine had which was good acting, writing, and basically everything else. The film had some of the worst writing I've seen since Wild Wild West. It definitely needed to be interesting. I know vh 1 has become a household name for their behind the music shows. which are a lot better than all this which would have worked if it was a behind the music episode but didn't and feel flat on it's face.
\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 episode set the bar quite high i thought. It starred William Hurt as a hit-man who is contracted to kill a toymaker. We are given very little information on his character or who is paying him to kill, indeed the episode is notable for having no dialogue at all. Returning to his modernist penthouse he is delivered a package containing toy soldiers, this gives him a smile but he dismisses it and goes about his business. But he is in for a night of hell, the soldiers are alive and are about to wage war, driving jeeps, shooting machine guns and bazookas and even flying helicopters!. The special effects are good for a TV show and it becomes quite tense as he dodges around the apartment using his wits to survive, sometimes getting the upper hand and other times not. I wont spoil the ending but suffice to say it was a clever little twist. This gave me hope for the rest of the series but i was in for a disappointment, the other episodes were all rubbish and i lost interest by the fourth one. Stephen King adaptations are always a mixed bag and these are no exception
\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\nMan, I really wanted to like these shows. I am starving for some good television and I applaud TNT for providing these \"opportunites\". But, sadly, I am in the minority I guess when it comes to the Cinematic Stephen King. As brilliant as King's writing is, the irony is that it simply doesn't translate well to the screen, big or small. With few exceptions (very few), the King experience cannot be filmed with the same impact that the stories have when read. Many people would disagree with this, but I'm sure that in their heart of hearts they have to admit that the best filmed King story is but a pale memory of the one they read. The reason is simple. The average King story takes place in the mind-scape of the characters in the story. He gives us glimpses of their inner thoughts, their emotions and their sometimes fractured or unreal points of view. In short, King takes the reader places where you can't put a Panavision camera. As an audience watching the filmed King, we're left with less than half the information than the reader has access to. It's not too far a stretch to claim that One becomes a character in a King story they read, whereas One is limited to petty voyeurism of that same character when filmed. For as long as King writes, Hollywood will try shooting everything that comes out of his word processor, without any regard to whether or not they should. I don't blame the filmmakers for trying, but it takes an incredible amount of talent and circumspection to pull off the elusive Stephen King adaptation that works. The task is akin to turning lead into gold, or some arcane Zen mastery. Oh well, better luck next 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\ni usually don't write reviews but i can't understand why this is rated so high and wanted to give a warning to horror lovers since i can only assume that all those high ratings were given by average TV watchers.
i have only watched the first two episodes but those two were so cliché, it wasn't even funny any more. the same old stories you've probably seen/read a couple of times already - living toys, evil things from other dimensions... and it's not just that these stories aren't innovative, they are also pretty bad versions of those clichés. i'd prefer e.g. \"chucky\" and \"silent hill\" over those two episodes anytime. and don't even ask about the visual effects... the ones in the first episode are alright but the ones in the second... awful. looks like some film student's project gone wrong. blood... or gore... erm... nothing worth mentioning.
it might be interesting for some ten year old kid who probably hasn't seen/read that many scary stories yet (although i'd rather recommend \"beyond belief\" - now that's what i call a decent mystery TV show). but for an adult horror fan this is worthless. i only gave the 3 points because there is in fact some beautiful cinematography (especially in the second episode) and some nice acting.
\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 barely just made it through one episode (\"Crouch End\"). The dialog was stilted and down-right cringe worthy. The acting was tragic. Eion Bailey, despite his best attempts to be dramatic, remains mostly expressionless. His eyebrows hint at a recent botox treatment. Claire Forlani could have just as easily been playing the damsel in distress in a silent movie. The characters were cartoons, each playing their stereotypical cog in the plot mostly random, meandering plot. Cheesy special effects can be excused given the TV miniseries budget. But attempts to create suspense and surprise through distracting cinematography added to the unwatchability. I get the feeling that the ending was supposed to be witty and surprising, but it was lame and had little to do with the rest of the story. If I had to compare it's overall quality to something else, I'd put this episode of \"Nightmares and Dreamscapes\" on par with the NBC's Hercules.
\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\nSo far Nightmares and Dreamscapes has been erratic and disappointing. The first segment, directed by Brian Henson, may have offered little in the way of groundbreaking storytelling or real scares, but at least it was well-directed, suspenseful, and visually interesting, with solid acting by William Hurt and very impressive special effects for a mini-series.
However, the second story in the series was just dreadful, and not in the good way. The screenplay is bad, requiring the shallow, unlikable protagonists to act illogically in order to move the plot, and having characters ramble on endlessly for the purposes of clunky, unnecessary exposition. The acting is overdone and unconvincing, and I felt far more empathy for a cold-blooded killer in the first story than for the newlywed couple in the second. The director used a million tricks to try to make the narrative spooky, but with the amateurish acting and writing, the end result looks like a freshman-year film school project, with camera moves for their own sake, and little in the way of plot or tension.
If the rest of the series continues like this, I'll be sorely let down. I look forward to William H. Macy's installment, and hope he gets a decent director and screenwriter for his segment. So far the quality is far too inconsistent to predict either way.
\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 beginning of the 90s brought many \"quirky\" and \"off-beat\" independent films, a particular sub-genre of which is the semi-spiritual desert crime movie. Others of note are \"Wild at Heart\", \"From Dusk Til Dawn\", and to a certain extent \"Natural Born Killers\". Good films like those spawned junk like \"Highway 666\", \"Destiny Turns on the Radio\" and this ineptly surreal anti-masterpiece \"Under The Hula Moon\". It's a comedy that aims for a certain emotional tone, attains it, but keeps going to the point of irritation. While the pursuit across the spirit-world of the desert and the casting of Chris Penn are good ideas, the film is not dirty enough or hard enough to be a good crime movie, and isn't focused enough on laughs to really be a comedy. I won't blow the ending, but let's just say it's bad. The film is basically a bad side effect of genre-cancer. This is the dregs of indie-mania.
\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\nAlong with 2 days in the Valley, I think this is one of worst movies I've ever seen. Just another of the long line of Tarantino rip-offs that have emerged since Pulp Fiction. The atmosphere the movie creates is amusing for the first five minutes, but then the film makers make the unforgivable mistake of allowing unnecessary and grotesque violence to up the \"hip\" quotient. You're better off skipping this one.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSpecial effects? Good.
Script? Terrible. No plot. No depth. No meaning. This film rendered Superman as a meaningless hero, a hero with no archetype. In the original film, he represented America in the Cold War. Here, he represented nothing but a Hulk.
Sure, the actors were fine. Kevin Spacey was a fine choice, among others.
This still does not resolve the problem that this film had no depth whatsoever. I cannot see how anyone can come away with anything meaningful from this film, when Superman was, and is, daily created to be a meaningful hero in not only comics but also in people's minds. This was a real waste of money considering how many directions this film could have taken.
Just a few instances: Lex Luthor could have been a villain of global corporatism, political domination, totalitarianism, and on and on and on. He was just another goofball Hackman incarnation.
And Superman? For what did he stand in this film? Nothing but another hack \"savior\" figure.
Wait until it comes to the dollar theater if you see it at all.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie is a very poor attempt to make money using a classical theme. I used to love Superman movies, but this one made me want to shoot myself. Very poor acting, outrageous special effects, and a plot equal to zero. To summarize : Superman leaves earth, because scientists discovered pieces of his home planet, some were in space (duh) , doesn't tell his girlfriend anything before leaving (duh again), takes off in a spaceship (?!?),comes back i think 5 years later, and look forward to hooking up with his girlfriend again (who is now razing his son, which son, in my humble opinion is at least 7 years old). And what about that Lex Luthor ? Trying to grow a new continent in order to sell land ? Please !!
I vote 1 out of 10 for this movie, only because i am not allowed to vote 0. If you have anything else to do with your time, don't go to see this movie, and even if you don't have anything else to do, stay home and watch TV !
\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 the movie-makers even preview this before they released it? The script jumps from place to place without giving much explanation. The beginning doesn't clarify if its a prequel or not. It starts with Superman's beginnings on Earth and then jumps to a point after the last movie - but doesn't really alert the viewer of this. VERY confusing! Superman himself is weak and in need of Prozac. He is portrayed as a potential home-wrecker, a stalker, and someone who is clearly depressed and confused. This type of character rarely makes for an interesting hero. The ending is absolutely ridiculous. Superman ending up in a hospital just made me want to kill him off myself. I'm seriously waiting for a SNL skit where Superman appears on Maury Povich and Maury says, \"The results are in - in the case of the child, Superman, you ARE the father.\" To sum up - OK acting by this Superman and Kevin Spacey, but HORRIBLE script. The movie is basically unwatchable.
\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...This would be the worst film i'd ever seen. Hmmm, OK maybe tied with Boogeyman then. Awful, truly awful.
I had low expectations and it failed to meet them! I honestly cant think of one good thing. so here are the worst points...
1. THE ACTING 2. THE PLOT 3. THE CGI (Xbox 360 has better graphics....seriously) 4. THE PLOT 5. THE DIALOGUE and finally.... 6. THE PLOT
There are so many unanswered questions, Did they make a 2:32 hour long movie then realize they hadn't put Lex Luthor and Superman in a scene together and were forced to settle for the 3 minute bit or did they actually think no-one would notice that the main hero and villain have less screen time together than Superman's son and the henchman he kills?!!
Was half the budget spent on persuading Kevin Spacey to do it?
When Superman goes to hospital, why don't the doctors ask \"What the F*** do you want us to do?! He's a F***ing alien! We don't know jack about his anatomy!\"?
What happened in the 5 years Superman was away to cause technology to advance 28 years?
Where the people who wrote good reviews watching the same movie?
and finally, Why? Just, Why?
BTW, for those of you wondering how come Superman could lift an entire continent of krypyonite, i think i've figured it out...
...since superman is unaffected by the kryptonite till he sees something green in the rocks, it is clearly all in his head. therefore the continent thing is just him suppressing his fear of shiny green rock....
either that or the writers are slack-jawed half-wits who didn't think that was a fairly obvious mistake.
\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 usually don't walk out of a movie, but halfway thru I did. This movie promised something different, but I kept thinking haven't I seen that before? Spoiler Alert! Back in 1, the spaceship crashes and lands on earth, well, all these years later, with a super adult on board no less, this thing still manages to burn up and crash! What, this advanced civilization can't seem to develop landing gear? For an industry that's so liberal, we get to see another Woody Allen movie, no blacks please! Superman runs around saving people, making sure he sticks to Europe and the US, don't go into darkie areas please. Maybe I could stomach this about 30 years ago, but now now.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nat the beginning i was happy to know about a new superman movie , i though that will be great but it wasn't.
is a bad copy of the Richard Donner work,Lex is again a villain that makes no more else , even played by Kevin spice.
the evil plan is the same of the first movie of Donner just a lot forced.
the script is predictable and simple (all stuff Luthor finds in a museum or an old lady).
the story is the wrong thing , it must be the Kevin Smith Script and may be it could be better.
i just hope a sequel without Brian Singer and with a new talent director to do something new and not a copy.
all read you later
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt really doesn't matter that Superman comic books are unbelievably naive and their target is ten year old. What matters is that \"Superman Returns\" is bad movie.
In the beginning,a question for You Dear Readers, how many of You actually believe that Superman will be defeated by bald Kevin Spacey? Anyone? Just as I thought. No spoilers here. So let's get to some major issues right now.
Firstly, this movie looks like commercial (scene in the bar with Superman/Clark Kent drinking Budweiser is only scene which looks as it supposed to). Imagine commercial of Superman, two and half hour long. Let's be serious this isn't \"Amadeus\" or \"The Departed\". You actually feel, that this movie is way too long. And special effects are not so special by the way.
Secondly, scenario is silly. Sometimes even if something is acceptable in comic, in cinema it looks just stupid. And it's like that in this case. Of course dialogs are disgrace. I can't believe somebody took money to write them. How many times we will be fed with villain making speeches? How many times laws of physics will be raped? (Jesus, it's not only the matter of Superman's strength but also a resistance of materials his dealing with.) How many times Lois Lane will be fooled by Kent? How many times Hollywood producers will seek for a story in a trashy comic books? Since there's hard to make a good story, why having a weak story for a starter? It just doesn't work. Guys, get a grip. Try harder, please. Or just stay on this strike forever, who cares. I got the feeling that WGA is permanently on strike. No offense. I'm not questioning the lame money those people are paid, but the quality of the product they deliver. In this case there is no quality at all. (At this point You may ask yourself: is it that bad? Yes it is.)
Thirdly, acting is weak, which is quite a surprise since Bryan Singer (Usual Suspects) is directing. Kevin Spacey is having fun, but he's the only one. Audience is rather not in the mood for jokes. Thing is that comic book hero can be developed into real personality, with clear motivations but also with doubts, fears, some depth. In this case nobody did that job, and characters aren't really interesting.
Finally, whole effort of creators turns this movie into parody. Second unit is so bad that attracts attention, since there's nothing interesting going on on screen anyway. The harder they try (if they try), the funnier it gets (but it isn't laugh You could expect).
Final conclusion? One word: shame.
This particular movie, ladies and gents, is camp. Don't waste Your time and don't waste Your money too. Stay home, read a book.
\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 long-time fan of Superman from the comics, through the 1950s series, the first two of the Chris Reeves films and Lois & Clark, and finally Smallville, I was *really* hoping for something clever with \"Superman Returns\".
Instead we got Lex Luthor making *another* attempt at real-estate conversion, another Superman-beaten-up-while-wearing-kryptonite sequence, and internal inconsistencies: he couldn't stop himself falling into the ocean when stuck with 6\" of kryptonite, but when Lois breaks off 3\" of it, *leaving the rest embedded in him*, he can lift *a continent* into space?? Really, the only hero in the story was Lois' partner - I can't remember his name off-hand. He did all kinds of life-saving, heroic things with nothing but guts and skill - no superpowers, no invulnerability...just a normal human.
They keep making Superman so small. Why can't we have Superman battling Brainiac or fighting to save the universe from General Zod instead of Lex's petty schemes. Oh, I forgot...they're doing that in Smallville.
Yeah...I think I'll stick to Smallville...
You probably should, too...
\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\nAfter a long period in the space, looking for the remains of planet Krypton, Superman (Brandon Routh) returns to Earth. He misses Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth), who got married and has a son with Richard White (James Marsden). Meanwhile, Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey) plots an evil plan, using crystals he stole from the Fortress of Solitude, to create a new land and submerge the USA.
After so many delightful movies of Superman with the unforgettable Christopher Reeve, or TV shows like \"Lois and Clark\" (and Teri Hatcher) or \"Smallville\", a great expectation was created for the return of Superman in this Bryan Singer's version. Unfortunately, the awful story is too long and boring, with many unnecessary parts, lack of emotion and overrated in IMDb. In addition, the romance between Lois Lane and Superman is something shamefully ridiculous. The twenty-two years old actress Kate Bosworth is wrongly miscast, playing the role of a mature reporter and experienced mother of a five years old boy. Brandon Routh is two years younger than Tom Welling, who plays a teenager Clark Kent in \"Smallville\". The character of Parker Posey, Kitty Kowalski, is actually a silly caricature. Last but not the least and in spite of being a terrific Lex Luthor, Kevin Spacey is forty-five years old, therefore older and older than the rest of the lead cast. The corny conclusion looks like a soap opera and is terrible. My vote is four.
Title (Brazil): \"Superman Returns\"
\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 my eyes this is almost the perfect example of Hollywood ego, only beaten by the new king kong movie. Superman is the original super hero and deserves to be treated with respect even though he wears tights. Brandon Routh was the worst superman I've ever seen, from the start of the movie u just wanna shove a chunk of kryptonite down his throat. He looks just silly wearing the costume. But enough about him, Kate Bosworth was a bad choise for lois lane, she is supposed to be a hard ass reporter, but in this movie she looks more like a schoolgirl. The plot was weak and predictable (WOW, He is actually supermans son, who would have ever thought....) and the acting was horrible. This movie has one good thing going for it, and it's name is Kevin Spacey. His portrayal of Lex Luthor was brilliant but even he could not save this movie. What this movie needed was the cast of \"lois and clark\" (except Kevin Spacey of course) and a different story. I watched this movie after watching \"the hills have eyes\" and I was chocked to learn that there existed worse movies then 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\nIn a summer that also boasted such repugnant stinkers as Snakes on a Plane and The Da Vinci Code, that's a pretty bold statement. But I stand by it nonetheless. Superman Returns, like King Kong 6 months before it, is overlong, hyper-indulgent and with CGI up to the eyeballs. My God, this stuff is doing my head in.
Richard Donner had the idea of 'keep it real' for his 2 outings. And I do find his approach to the special and optical effects to be the most appropriate. Brian Singer bombards us with so much CGI that it really takes you out of the story and constantly reminds you that you are watching a wannabe blockbuster that thinks that the only way to impress an audience is to spend $250 million (a totally irresponsible amount of money) on obnoxious visual effects that don't live up to the hype. We've seen everything and been everywhere that CGI can take us. There's no real atmosphere or involvement in this. And for a film that is 95% made up of this crap...well you figure it out.
I've read so many reviews from fanboy critics about how the movie has 'soul' or 'a human heart' or 'tender character moments'. Puh-lease! We've already had brooding superheros silently screaming 'you'd love me if you knew who I am' dozens of times already in recent years and SR offers absolutely NOTHING new in this regard. Even the plot is recycled garbage. Lex Luthor (a seriously mis-cast and hammy Kevin Spacey) plotting to destroy the landmass of America was done in the first film already! And, well...that's your lot! It's amazing that they managed to draw out this junk to 2.5 painful hours! Even if the cast were likable it would make it less unbearable. But Brandon Routh has the on screen personality of a mahogany hat-stand, Kate Bosworth is completely unconvincing as a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, James Marsden is 250% wooden, as usual and Kevin Spacey really needs to either fire his agent or acquire some better judgement. The only cast member I liked was the lovely Parker Posey. But I'm into weird-looking girls.
Every year films like this get bigger and more bombastic. Pretty soon we'll have $300 million films. Studios need to realise that maybe they should start looking down instead of looking up. For all the money that Warner spent on this pile of crap, for all the resources that this movie cost to make...was it worth it? In my opinion, certainly not! This garbage has put me of Superman for life!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nHere's how you do it: Believe in God and repent for your sins. Then things should turn around within the next day or so.
Until the last fifteen minutes, this movie just plays as a bad recap of a drunk's crappy life. His mom dies. His stepmom's a b_tch. His dad dies. He drinks. He gets married. He has kids. He drinks some more. His wife gets mad. He disappoints his kids. The wife threatens to leave. He calls up a reverend late night b/c he wants to kill himself. Then after the recap happens, that's when we get the \"Left Behind\"-like subtle message.
\"He needed a paycheck\". This is the phrase I had to repeat over and over once credits started to roll so I wouldn't lose my respect for Madsen.
Madsen drops to his knees and begs Christ's forgiveness. Once he does, he walks outside and actually says that he sees the world in a different way. He tells his wife that he's found God and that's good enough for her. Flip scene four months and the wife is tired of going to church. End the movie as Madsen walks by the bar and gives a soliloquy about how happy he is with Christ and without alcohol. Final moment? He gives a little dismissive wave to the bar (i.e. sin house) and give a gay, Miami-Vice, after-school special congratulatory jump in the air as the camera freeze-frames. See why I had to repeat the phrase? \"He needed a paycheck\".
Man this movie is bad. The B-Grade 80's production values don't help much. The script could have easily been a \"Touched By An Angel\" episode. It could have been knocked out in 30 minutes plus commercials. The acting is wooden and never believable. Even Madsen, of whom I'm a big fan and is the sole reason I sat through this, makes it clear that this is his first acting job and he doesn't know his a$$ from his elbow yet on camera. 45 minutes into it I started to get discouraged. This thing was like homework. I just wanted to put it away and say that alright, I saw half of it. That's good enough. But no. If I sat through Cheerleader Ninjas, I could sit throughout this.
The only reason I'm not giving this thing a 1 is for two points: 1) I love Madsen. I know it's not fair. But it's great seeing the opening title \"Introducing Michael Madsen\". Sue me. 2) Some of the Dialogue is so bad that it's classic. I'll stick some quotes at the end of this so you can enjoy them too.
That's about it. To wrap it up ,this thing is a piece of crap that should stay flushed with the rest of the turds. But hey! Look! Michael Madsen! (See also TILT, EXECUTIVE TARGET, MY BOSS'S DAUGHTER, etc). Now I've gotta rewatch Reservoir Dogs and watch Madsen torture a cop to get my respect back for him. See ya, Kids.
\"This stuff's gonna make me go blind, but I'm gonna drink it anyway\" - Madsen's first taste of cheap alcohol
\"I don't understand! Everything seems so beautiful!\" - Madsen walking outside after confessing to God
\"I'm going downtown later and pick up a bible and I'm gonna get a haircut too\" - Madsen after converting at the dinner table, because Satan lives in your hair
\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\nAgainst All Hope is a very poorly made, sometimes painfully so, movie. This is Michael Madsen's first movie, and it shows, he isn't that good in it. Some people might find the story laughable; an alcoholic realizes his life and family are falling apart so he calls a preacher as a last resort for help. After telling the preacher his story, he accepts Jesus Christ into his heart.
I actually found many of the religious scenes, as when Cecil Moe (Madsen) goes to a church but walks away from it, pretty realistic. I also liked how Cecil knows his life is breaking apart and tries to get help, but realizes only God can help him. At the end he realizes with the help of God he can go through life without drinking again.
This movie is not well made at all. The acting is bad, the script could use some work, and looks worse than my home videos, but it has a good message. Now, just because you become a Christian doesn't mean you will automatically be able to stop an addiction or heal your broken family, and Cecil realizes this and works hard to stay on track. Overall, if your a Christian you will appreciate how this movie portrays Christianity and if you aren't, you may find yourself being called to find out more about the faith.
\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\nDefinitely an odd debut for Michael Madsen. Madsen plays Cecil Moe, an alcoholic family man whose life is crumbling all around him. Cecil grabs a phone book, looks up the name of a preacher, and calls him in the middle of the night. He goes to the preacher's home and discusses his problems. The preacher teaches Cecil to respect the word of God and have Jesus in his heart. That makes everything all better. Ahh...if only everything in life were that easy. The fact that this \"film\" looks as if it was made with about $500 certainly doesn't help. 1/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI am a huge Michael Madsen fan, so needless to say, i bought this movie without even renting it or anything... This movie was so horrible, i didn't even take it back to the store, i wouldn't want anyone else to be subjected to this human poison, i just threw it in the trash, never mind the money, it was worth the price to be able to throw it away. The acting wasn't that bad, it wasn't good or anything. The story was horrible, and the ending was something i despise. He was a broken man, alcoholic. his life was a bunch of junk. i thought his horse, peanuts, was an awful device to show his childhood innocence, a dog would have been much much better. i also hate religion, so this ending without a doubt angered me. Jesus heals all... i hate that i know people just like this that are huge Christians and catholics, and time will show that god doesn't heal all, or anything. It was a horrible movie, if u have the option to see it, pass, or better yet buy it, or rent it, and throw it in the garbage, and leave the coffee grounds on it in the morning
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI have anticipated the various Sci-fi and thriller type movies this summer but was so disappointed about this particular film. While some people walked out of the film, I decided to stay, only to laugh along with the other moviegoers at the acting, lack of suspense, ridiculous ending and difficult to follow story line. I found myself almost as confused as the main character in the film. The only redeeming quality of the film was the soundtrack. This is one of those budding star films which they later regret doing. In retrospect, I wouldn't even rent this one, let alone pay more than $5 to see.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'm just quite disappointed with \"Soul Survivors\". It doesn't worth even a comment in this forum. The script is very poor as well as all the \"acting\" and for our entertainment it features a pointless plot.
Please, do yourselves a favor! Be a real \"Survivor\"...Don't waste your time in this piece of crap! Someday you'll thank me!
\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\nMay I start off by saying that Casey Affleck is a very talented actor and I respect his work very much. I wish he was in more movies that showcased his talent. With this said, Soul Survivors was a very, very bad movie. Very bad.
I would have to say that I lay almost all the blame on the poor script. Affleck is a very talented actress, Wes Bentley had an outstanding performance in American Beauty, Melissa Sagemiller did well, and Eliza Dushku is currently the it girl in Hollywood. I don't think any of the actors really got into the script, and I understand why. To say that this movie belongs to the horror genre is an overstatement. It did have the twists and turns you would expect, but they just didn't lead anywhere... except to more confusion. I just found the ending very anti-climatic, because it just didn't seem to make any sense or really answer any of the questions that I had about the storyline.
I wish I could give this movie a good review, but I can't. In all honesty, the only thing I think you will find scary about this movie is that you paid for 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\nWhat a bad, bad movie! I tried watching without fast forwarding...That failed. After about 30 minutes I stopped the movie, went on-line to see how many minutes this disaster was. (Only 84 minutes, Whew!) It was a confusing, boring movie. I don't think anyone can get knocked down by getting hit with a fluorescent bulb much less gutted by one!! The one funny thing is that I watched \"The Killer Cut\" version of the movie. The box boldly states \"More Blood!\" \"More Sex!\" \"More Terror than the theatrical release!\" Yikes! If this movie was horrible with all those claims I wonder just how lame the \"UN-Killer Cut\" was??? If you want to see a great movie about the world of the living & the world of the dead watch any of The Night of the Living Dead series!!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"