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\nWhen Marlene Dietrich was labeled box office poison in 1938 one of a handful of actresses so named by the trades papers, it was films like The Garden Of Allah. How a film could be so breathtakingly beautiful to behold and be so insipidly dull is beyond me. Also how Marlene if she was trying to expand her range and not play a sexpot got stuck with such an old fashioned story is beyond me.
The Garden Of Allah, one of the very first films in modern technicolor was a novel set at the turn of the last century by Robert Hitchens who then collaborated on a play adaption with Mary Anderson that ran for 241 performances in 1911-12. It then got two silent screen adaptions. The story is about a monk who runs away from the monastery out in French Tunisia to see some of what he's missed in the world. He runs into a similarly sheltered woman who was unmarried and spent her prime years caring for a sick parent. She's traveling now in the desert and the two meet on a train.
The woman is of course Marlene and the runaway monk is Charles Boyer. I'm not sure what was in David O. Selznick's mind in filming this story. Someone like Ingrid Bergman might have made it palatable for the audience. But you can bet that the movie-going public of 1936 when they plunked their money down for a ticket they expected to see Marlene as a modern day Salome rather than a saint with that title. The public still remembered Rudolph Valentino and you can bet that it was some desert romance and seduction that they were expecting.
As for the monks you have to remember that they are self supporting in their monasteries and this particular one bottles a special wine of which Boyer happens to be the one with the secret. The monastery will have to rethink it's economics if Boyer leaves. The monks are a sincerely pious group, but from the head man Charles Waldron on down they've a right to be a little concerned with some self interest.
Anyway a whole lot of religious platitudes get said here by a pair of leads that really are not suited for the parts. Most especially Marlene Dietrich. I would watch this film with an eye for the special color desert cinematography and forget the plot.
\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 real star of this ridiculous story is glorious technicolor. A visual treat to the eye, the film fails to stimulate the mind and heart. I was intrigued, at first, by the idea of Dietrich and Boyer leaving religion in order to \"find\" their capacity for love. What follows is a huge disappointment. Boyer is the only real actor in the production and one feels his torment. Dietrich's amazing wardrobe outshines her performance -- at times her face is frightening to look at -- a unfeeling mask. As a monk, Boyer held the formula for the monastery's liquer (which reminds me of the true story of Chartreuse) -- when he leaves his \"marriage to god\" the reaction by his fellow monks holds the shock and fear that perpetuate organized religion. The viewer feels Boyer was well rid of his past. However, the journey that follows is all too predictable.
\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 great admirer of Marlene Dietrich, I had to (finally) watch this very, very dull picture. It is Miss Dietrich's first color film, and the world's most beautiful blond is a redhead! Bad start. The story is a tremendous bore, involving a subject which itself bores bores me stiff: religious guilt. (Who needs it???) Suffice it to say, perhaps, that of all Dietrich's films (and I have seen most, including \"Pittsburgh\") this is the only one where even her performance is barely worth watching. The color photography is OK (this is a very early Technicolor release), but to no purpose. Ridiculous casting: C. Aubrey Smith, Basil Rathbone (enough said?). The only thing of any interest at all is John Carradine's outlandish caricature of a performance as \"The Sand Diviner,\" who foretells all that will happen. The supposed \"happy ending\" is one of the most depressing ever conceived. Yet another example of David O. Selznick's highly inflated reputation (did he ever make a really good film? -- other than That One?) And, for one final annoyance, the soundtrack of the MGM DVD is a mess, with volume levels seemingly randomized. Highly unrecommended.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nMy first full Heston movie. The movie that everyone already knows the ending to. A \"Sci Fi Thriller\". The campy factor. Everything that goes with this movie was injected in my head when I rented it, and on the morning that I watched it, it was the perfect movie to watch in the mood that I was in (Not wanting to move. Put in player, hide in blankets). And though I tried to understand what was happening to lead to the ending that will be eternally ruined by pop culture, it just really didn't make it. Everything was all over the place, relationships had no backbone, the ending had no lead in. Everything was just kind of there in some freakish way and the watcher has no choice but to leave partially dumbfounded at the ending that it gets to, because even though we all know that it's people, it's quick answers as to WHY it's people makes any serious attempt at enjoying the movie for anything other than the silliness thrown out the window.
\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\nAnyone who has a remote interest in science fiction should start at the basics. Everyone says STAR WARS and STAR TREK are the best science fiction films to begin at, which is fine but the truth is THE TERMINATOR and this movie, SOYLENT GREEN, are far better choices than those series. SOYLENT is probably science fiction 's best kept secret. It remains one of the biggest, yet most forgotten films but the impact of its setting is becoming more a reality with each passing day. Charlton Heston overdramatizes his role, yet it works. Edward G. Robinson, in his final role, makes the most out of it in SOYLENT GREEN more than anyone else and his final scenes are touching.
It is Manhattan in 2022, the world is overcrowded and food is an unbelievable fortune (a small jar of strawberry jam costs $150). A big executive for the Soylent company is murdered and police detective Thorn is on the case.
The secret of soylent green is not a mystery if you do research on the movie. SOYLENT is enjoyable to watch, but the whole screenplay is a joke. It is just as cheap as the entire production. The screenplay and the over dramatics of the actors made the movie, yet were completely hilarious. Everyone seems to be a moron and no one knows the rules, specifically cop Thorn who likes to just waltz into people 's apartments, peruse around shamelessly and steal anything he wants. The character 's interactions keeps your attention on the movie, but still you realize that SOYLENT GREEN sucks. An enjoyable piece if you have the time, but do not expect anything more.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI watched this movie recently together with my sister who likes the performances of Sophia Loren. I'm a person who they call a Cultural Barbarian. I hate art in any kind of shape or form. Rambo is more my kind of movie, action, kills, blood, horror. If you recognize yourself in this avoid this movie like the plague. No one dies, no action, no nudity, nothing of the kind. Let me give you a résumé in a few sentences. It starts out with 5 minutes in black and white Nazi propaganda. Every Italian in a housing block attends a parade in honor of Hitler, except for a housewife, an anti fascist and a caretaker. The housewife who is cheated by her husband, meets the anti fascist. She falls in love with him, wants to make love to him, but the anti fascist is gay. Despite of this they make love with each other. At the end of the day, the housewife reads a book from her gay lover, and the guy himself is deported by agents. The end. You want an even shorter résumé? BORING... That short enough? The guy should have used his gun in the beginning of this movie and shoot himself, to save the audience from this atrocity. On a side note my sister loved this movie. Like I said, I'm a Cultural Barbarian...
\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 generally more willing to be open minded about rom coms than many, but this was simply not a very good attempt. Its got nothing to do with comparisons with the British original -- have not seen, and doubt I will. It has a whole lot to do with a meandering plot, lack of chemistry between the leads and a godawful performance/character from its supposed male lead (Jimmy Fallon).
Fallon walks onto the screen wearing the clothes and hairdo of a 15 year old and acting a decade younger than that. He's supposed to be a teacher you see, and of course its well known that school districts the world over love to hire individuals less mature than the children they purport to teach. The character is so extremely disturbed and irrational that I have my doubts whether any actor could have made him likable, but old reliables like John Cusack or Adam Sandler might have been able to give it a shot. Not Fallon, who is neither funny, nor an actor, but appears to think he is both. Not once in the entire course of the movie do you either believe Fallon in his role, or believe that there is any way these two people should, or would be together. Near the end of the movie there is a scene where Barrymore (who was cute as usual but could not carry this one alone -- its hard to have a one person romance) tells Fallon that its over, too much has happened, and she's moving on. And rather than feeling bad about the scene, or sorry for Fallon, you are actively cheering her on -- finally she does what she should have done months ago. But of course the plot mechanics won't allow that to be the end of it (an end which actually might have made a statement out of this mess), and instead we get to see the rational career girl throwing it all away to chase after this childish idiot and encourage his delusions. Its of course meant to be gooey and satisfying, but it actually made me more disgusted than anything else.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI saw this director's \"Woman On The Beach\" and could not understand the good to great reviews. This film is much like that one, two people who are caught in a relationship with very little dynamic and even less interest to anyone else. Like his other films, you have to want to listen to vacuous dialog, wade through very little and become enchanted with underwritten, pretty uninteresting characters. If you feel you can like this film, don't let my review stop you. I do like minimalism in films, but I feel Tsai Ming-Liang's films are far superior. He has a fairly terrific actor in Lee Kang-Sheng in his films. There is nothing here. I wish IU liked it, but I don't. Oh, well.
\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 sounded like it might be entertaining and interesting from its description. But to me it was a bit of a let down. Very slow and hard to follow and see what was happening. It was as if the filmmaker took individual pieces of film and threw them in the air and had them spliced together whichever way they landed (definitely not in sequential order). Also, nothing of any consequence was being filmed. I have viewed quite a few different Korean films and have noticed that a good portion are well made and require some thinking on the viewer's part, which is different from the typical Hollywood film. But this one befuddled me to no end. I viewed the film a second and third time and it still didn't do anything for me. I still don't really understand what the filmmaker was trying to convey. If it was to just show a typical mundane portion of a person's life, I guess he succeeded. But I was looking for more. Needless to say, I can't recommend this movie to anyone.
\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 typically melodramatic Bollywood film has inexplicably become a favorite of Western critics. The script is ludicrous, the acting is over-the-top, and it looks cheesy. The only reasons for watching this soap opera are the wonderful songs sung by Mangeshkar and the curtain call of the legendary Meena Kumari. Watching the actress, who was ill during the filming and would drink herself to death at age 40 shortly after the film was released, has the same fascination as watching a train wreck. Her ex-husband, Amrohi, wrote and directed, but lacks the competency to execute either task well. Bollywood has produced far better films.
\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 was a disappointing horror film about a snotty young girl and her nightmares. For a horror or \"thriller\" film and hype, it's way too tame. There are only a few tense moments in here, not anywhere as near as many as should have been for a film of this genre. Even those \"tense\" scenes weren't much. The music made them more dramatic that they actually were.
There is a lot of symbolism in here, so the elitist critics label this \"a thinking person's horror film.\" Well, if they think about it, I'm sure they will come to the same conclusion I did - a waste of money at the video rental store.
Summary: a yawner that offers an unlikeable lead character and generally poor acting. Vastly overrated and certainly not what it is advertised.
\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 reading some very good reviews about this film I thought I would give it a watch and after being very disappointed with the film I thought I would give it my own review. This is my first ever so bare with me.
First of all I would scratch horror from the genre as in no way is it horrific or scary in the slightest (with the exception of a few feeble attempts to make you jump unfortunately one of which worked on me.) I would say that calling this film a thriller is pushing it as I wasn't particularly thrilled either! The film is about a spoiled mischievous girl who faints a few times. During these times she visits a house which she has been drawing, after each visit she decides to add something else to the house to make it a bit more lively one of the features being a sad little boy who is also ill in reality. As she befriends the boy she realises that her imaginary world that she created is actually better than the real world that she is in. Until she adds her constantly away father to the house, due to a misdrawing her dad turns out to be evil and her and the boy must escape from his clutches.
Think its an attempt to be a slightly more mellow version of A Nightmare On Elm Street but is more like a trip to the beach.
In conclusion my generous 3/10 will hopefully stop at least one of you from watching this drab!
\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\nnormally i'm not the sort to be scared by horror movies, but this movie is the exception. some how this movie got into my mind!!! it is a very simple movie but at the same time extremelly effective, it has great atmosphere and this leads to some shocking moments, the girls father coming down the hill is a real standout. Another seen was the family photo i wasn't expecting that and i jumped out my seat!!! i would recommend everyone to see this movie, with the lights out it will stay with you for a long 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 was rooting for this film as it's a remake of a 1970s children's TV series \"Escape into Night\" which, though chaotic and stilted at times was definitely odd, fascinating and disturbing. The acting in \"Paperhouse\" is wooden, unintentionally a joke. The overdubs didn't add tension they only reinforced that I was sat watching a botch. Casting exasperated the dreary dialogue which resulted in relationships lacking warmth, chemistry or conviction. As in most lacklustre films there are a few good supporting acts these people should be comforted, consoled and reassured that they will not be held responsible. Out of all the possible endings the most unexpected was chosen ... lamer than I could have dreamt.
\"Escape into Night\" deserves a proper remake, written by someone with life experience and directed with a subtle mind.
\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\nAn intriguing premise of hand-drawn fantasy come to life in a child's fever dreams. However, I imagine the average nonfictional child is far more adept at scaring themselves than Bernard Rose is at riveting the viewer. The duel between Anna's two realities drags on far too long to sustain interest, especially considering that the little girl playing her is the most abrasive child actor I've ever seen.
Use only for kindling.
\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 1988, Paperhouse was hailed as a \"thinking man's horror film.\" Wow, you might say, sign me up. This thing is a mess. It features a one time young actress who has a range of like 1 to 2. G. Headley with a bad British (dubbed) accent, and a story with no chills, thrills or spills.
It isn't even interesting psycho-babble. One will only laugh at its cheap effects and long for a showing of Leprechaun 5.
The story involves a girl with glandular fever who escapes in her dreams. WHat you get isn't good horror, art house or even a decent after-school special. I found myself after the two hour point saying..where did my two hours go.
The direction is uninspired and I wished it could even be pretentious...something interesting..it seems like the producers were on lithium.
Even in the dream world things are boring.
A short no on 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\nFilms starring child actors put themselves on the back foot from the very beginning. While there are some exceptions, the majority of kids just cant act and even the ones that can normally become annoying after a few minutes. The kids in Paperhouse have managed to capture the worst of both worlds, as they're both very annoying and they don't have an ounce of acting ability between them. In short; they're rubbish. This isn't good considering that they're the leads, and it especially isn't good when you consider the fact that it is virtually impossible to take this film seriously because of the rubbish actors. It's a shame that this film is such a dead loss as the plot isn't (not completely). It follows a young girl who, after drawing a picture of a house in her notebook, wakes up in the fantasy world that she has created. It soon becomes apparent to her that she can manipulate this world through her drawings, and so sets about making various changes, until her dream eventually becomes a nightmare. Oh dear.
As you can see, this plot line gives a nice base for a good fantasy horror movie. However, it is squandered through a number of fatal faults. First and foremost, in spite of the premise being an excellent premise for lots of inventiveness; the movie is extremely stale. The central plot is hardly played with at all, and the result is an entirely boring experience. The lack of tension is another huge gaping flaw in the movie, as it sees fit to drag every sequence out to a point that you just don't care any more (which is due to a lack of ideas). Thanks in part to it's lead characters, the film feels like a kids movie throughout. This is to be expected as it stars kids, but Bernard Rose should have decided the slant that he wanted to put on the story; as the horror in the movie is laughable at best. The film is also very cheesy, and the 'romance' between the two leads is extremely cringe-worthy, and makes for very painful viewing. In fact, if I had to sum this travesty up in one word, I would choose 'painful'. Paperhouse is poorly acted, laughably plotted, very corny and dull on the whole. Save yourself the pain, see something else.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFirst I liked that movie. It seemed to me a nice comedy with some silly moments. The costume designer Albert Wolsky did his best!!! The same as wonderful set decorator Robert R. Benton - this man really had a very good taste!!! But the script writers disappointed me extremely. The best ending would be the scene on the ladder, but instead of it, they decided that the father and his daughter should be together. Don't like the ending. The father becomes boyfriend of his own daughter and his ex-wife knows about it and finds it alright. It would be OK, if the scriptwriters would for example say that now there is a different soul in the body, but they did not, they only deprived him of memories. The actors were good, they were really funny. Cybill Shepherd was charming, Robert Downey Jr. was very funny in the dancing scene : )))... But some of the moments spoil even the impression of good acting. For example, Corinne Jeffries, played by Cybill Shepherd after the death of her husband was waiting for him 23 years (it's a long time!), she was true to him, she loved nobody but him, and when she met him and was just about making love to him, after a scene with her friend Philip Train (Ryan O'Neal), she very easily betrayed the man she was longing for so many years!!! It would be a good movie, if not the ending and some missed human psychology.
\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\nPredictable plot. Simple dialogue. Shockingly unemotional performances. But Robert Downey, Jr. is so cute, I gave this \"poor man's afternoon special\" a 3 instead of the 1 or 2 it so richly deserved.
\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'Chances Are' a big mistake to see. You could know director Emile Ardolino from 'Dirty Dancing' and 'Sister Act' and should expect something amusing from him. But I guess I have to disillusion you. He made a really, really bad movie.
According to the story Christopher McDonald dies to reburn as a baby. The baby grows up Robert Downey Jr, and Jr returns his former home town where she meets his former daughter, Mary Stuart Masterson (complicated, huh?).
They fall in love with each other. Then appears Jr former wife, Cybill Shepherd, and Jr falls in love with her too. I guess I don't even have to mention that she loves Ryan O'Neil.
In one of his first roles Robert Downey Jr's on his worst. He copies Michael J Fox.
After the 'Moonlighting' Shepherd proves that she's not suitable for acting in movies.
Anyway, there's one thing this unfunny comedy can be used: as antidote to insomnia.
\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\nChances are if I watched this again I might get physically sick, the film is so annoying.....unless you believe in psychics, re-incarnation and the other hocus- pocus which this promotes big-time. The \"re-cycling of souls,\" they call it here. Puh-leeze.
This story has been done several times before with such films as \"Heaven Can Wait.\" It's also been done a lot better. Too bad they had to waste the talents of Robert Downey Jr., Cybill Shepherd, Ryan O'Neal and Mary Stuart Masterson.
At least it's a pretty tame film, language-wise. That's about the only redeeming quality of 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\nSilly, simplistic, and short, GUN CRAZY (VOLUME 1: A WOMAN FROM NOWHERE) goes nowhere.
This brief (just over sixty minutes) tale isn't so much inspired by the classic spaghetti Westerns as it is a rip-off of Sam Raimi's THE QUICK & THE DEAD (his admitted homage to the spaghetti Westerns) brought into a contemporary setting. In QUICK & DEAD, Sharon Stone's character seeks revenge against the dastardly sheriff (played by Gene Hackman) who, when she was but an urchin, placed the fate of her father (a brief cameo by Gary Sinise) in her hands; she accidentally shot him through the head. In GUN CRAZY, Saki (played by the nimble Ryoko Yonekura) seeks revenge against the dastardly Mr. Tojo (played with minimalist appeal by Shingo Tsurumi), who, when she was but an urchin, placed the fate of her father in her hands; she let her foot slip off the clutch, and dear ole dad was drawn and quartered by a semi truck. The only significant difference, despite the settings, is the fact that Tojo sadistically cripples Saki with  well, I won't spoil that for you in case you decide to watch it.
In short, Saki  a pale imitation of the Clint Eastwood's 'Man With No Name'  rides into the town  basically, there's a auto shop and a tavern alongside an American military base, so I guess that suffices for a town  corrupted by Tojo, the local crimelord with a ridiculously high price on his head for reasons never explained or explored. Confessing her true self as a bounty hunter, Saki takes on the local gunmen in shootouts whose choreography bares more than a passing similarity to the works of Johnny To and John Woo. Of course, by the end of the film Saki has endured her fair amount of torture at the hands of the bad guys, but she rises to the occasion  on her knees, in a laughable attempt at a surprise ending  and vanquishes all of her enemies with a rocket launcher.
Don't ask where she gets the rocket launcher. Just watch it for yourself. Try not to laugh.
The image quality is average for the DVD release. There is a grainy quality to several sequences, but, all in all, this isn't a bad transfer. The sound quality leaves a bit to the imagination at times, but, again, it isn't a bad transfer.
Rather, it's a bad 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\nOh dear. I was so disappointed that this movie was just a rip-off of Japan's Ringu. Well, I guess the U.S. made their version of it as well, but at least it was an outright remake. So, so sad. I very much enjoy watching Filipino movies and know some great things can come out of such a little country, so I can't believe this had to happen. Claudine and Kris are such big names there, surprised they would be affiliated with plagiarism. To any aspiring movie makers out there in the Philippines: You do not have to stoop this low to make money. There are many movie buffs that are watching the movies Filipinos put out and enjoying 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\ni would have given this movie a 1 out of 10 if it weren't for ms. Claudine Barretto's performance. and i will take this time to overlook that Kris Aquino's here. and... end.
i really AVOID watching Pinoy horror movies because stories lack originality and i really think that (some) writers don't give enough attention to the characters (and their progression) in their stories (redundant??). it was as if they 'pushed' the movie onwards when their storytelling stank. and my goodness, creative exhaustion led them to rip-off other movies. why?? why did this movie get a good review?? i wouldn't give it that much merit. the movie was KIND OF scary, but the movie seemed more freaky as it deals with Filipino folklore... it goes into my list of 'most likely to happen' category. i just wished they spent more time improving the story lines and fix those flash back sequences, never mind if the lighting sucked, it wouldn't matter much if the content would blow you away.. SAYANG.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nHow did this become a blockbuster? Dear God I don't know where to start why this movie sucked too much. The movie was predictable & there was no originality. The only thing I can admire is the acting of some characters. The movie was too bright, they should have done something with the lighting, eg. making the environment more darker. The make up on certain dead characters made this movie look like a 1970 horror flick. This is 2006! People don't get scared by other people wearing heavy make up. Most of the horror scenes we're taken from other Hollywood or Asian horror movies. Total rip off! This is why I don't watch tagalog movies. The only reason why so many people \"screamed\" while watching this movie is because of conformity. How many times do we have to copy scenes from The Ring and improvise it that instead of the girl coming out of the TV, its now coming from the window next door? No matter how you put it, ITS STILL A RIP OFF. If you want a good horror movie, go watch the 50 best horror movie listed on this website.
\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, I got a hold of this as an assignment for Trent Harris, who teaches occasionally in the film dept at the U of U. I guess this is his only real way to get anyone to see his film...
The documentary section at the beginning dragged on. Yes, the kid is a nut-job from no where, but that's not good enough to keep it interesting.
Seeing Sean Penn dressed as a ONJ is the only highlight... and after about thirty seconds it loses all humor.
When Crispin Glover takes on Larry, the story-telling was better, but I just couldn't take anymore...
\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's amazing that this movie turns out to be in one of my hitlists after all. It is by far the number 1 worst movie I have ever seen.
Not only have I ever been this bored before (luckily not for more then 1,5 hours), the pre-adolescent attempts at humor that feature it are not even close to getting but one of the corners of my mouth slightly tilted. After the first very awkward part, you tend to hope that the other parts will be at least slightly better. You hope in vain, it only goes downhill from there.
The movie has no story worth telling whatsoever and repeats this non-story three times. One can only hope that by some miracle all remaining copies of this movie are lost forever and Trent Harris never lays his hands on a camera again...
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI don't think any player in Hollywood history lasted as long as David Niven did given most of the weak films he had to carry by dint of his incredible charm. He could act, got an Oscar for it, but most of the material he did was as light as one ply of two ply tissue paper.
Happy Go Lovely is a case in point. It's a musical and for the most part you'll remember Vera-Ellen's dancing. You'll remember that they are in Scot's costume as the film is set in Edinburgh during their festival. But if you can recall a single song from it you must have a photographic memory.
The plot is light. Vera-Ellen is the American lead in a musical that apparently is getting its out of town tryout in Edinburgh. She starts in the chorus and runs late one day. She gets a lift from the chauffeur of a millionaire greeting card king. Everybody now assumes she's the main squeeze of the millionaire. Doors open up as they've never opened before.
The millionaire is David Niven and he goes along with it and the various situations that are engendered by the mistake. Cesar Romero has some good moments here as the frantic producer of this musical.
In the end though Happy Go Lovely is light and harmless fluff which David Niven did so much of and got so tired of.
\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 oddly-named Vera-Ellen was to movie dancing what Sonja Henie was to movie ice-skating: blonde, girlish, always delightful to watch, but not an especially good actress and usually lumbered with weak material. When I watch Vera-Ellen's sexy apache dance with Gene Kelly in 'Words and Music', I can't help noticing that her blouse (yellow with narrow red horizontal stripes) seems to be made out of the South Vietnam flag. For some reason, the very American Vera-Ellen starred in *two* musicals (made several years apart) set in Edinburgh, a city not noted for its tap-dancers: 'Let's Be Happy' and 'Happy Go Lovely'.
In the latter, Cesar Romero plays an American impresario who for some reason is staging a musical in Edinburgh. There's a vague attempt to link this show to the Edinburgh Festival, which is nonsense: the Festival is not a showcase for splashy leg-shows. We also see a couple of stock shots of the Royal Mile: apart from a few Highland accents, there's absolutely no attempt to convey Scottish atmosphere in this movie. The funniest gag occurs at the very beginning, when we learn that the title of Romero's show is 'Frolics to You': this is a cheeky pun that Britons will get and Yanks won't.
Vera-Ellen is, as usual, cute and appealing and an impressive dancer, but the very few musical numbers in this movie are boring and bad. The plot -- mistaken identity between magnate David Niven and reporter Gordon Jackson -- is brainless, though no more so than the plots of several dozen Hollywood musicals. Romero is less annoying than usual here, probably because (for once) he isn't required to convince us that he's interested in bedding the heroine.
The single biggest offence of this movie is its misuse of Bobby Howes. The father of Sally Ann Howes was a major star of West End stage musicals; his wistful rendition of \"She's My Lovely\" was a big hit in Britain in 1937. Here, he shows up in several scenes as Romero's dogsbody but never has a chance to participate in a musical number, nor even any real comedy. It's absolutely criminal that this movie -- with a title containing the word 'Lovely', sure to evoke Howes's greatest hit -- would cast a major British musical star but give him nothing to do!
The delightful character actress Ambrosine Phillpotts (whom I worked with once) shines in one restaurant sequence, and there's a glimpse of the doomed beauty Kay Kendall. As Vera-Ellen's confidante, somebody named Diane Hart speaks in one of the most annoying voices I've ever heard: it sounds like an attempt to imitate Joan Greenwood and Glynis Johns both at the same go, but doesn't match either. Val Guest has a story credit, but this movie doesn't come up to the quality of his brilliant comedies. The colour photography is wretched, though I realise that postwar Britain could not afford Hollywood's process work. 'Happy Go Lovely' is at utmost best a pleasant time-waster, with 'waster' being the operative word. I'll rate this movie just 4 out of 10.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n\"Happy Go Lovely\" has only two things going for it. And those two things are Vera-Ellen's legs. This is a British (Excelsior Films) version of an M-G-M musical complete with second tier stars. I would imagine that Vera-Ellen took this role thinking that it might finally propel her to the status of a major musical star. But, I'm sorry to say, Ms. Ellen's chance did not pay off.
Opening with a horrible Scottish number and stumbling thru awful dialog to the next dull tune, this movie seems very heavy handed and sloppy. The predictable mistaken identity plot is very thin, and with the exception of David Niven, Cesar Romero (who is way over the top in his role of a Producer) and Bobby Howes (who is totally wasted in a nothing role) the rest of the cast is totally forgettable.
The choreography is boring, but Ms. Ellen gives it her all. She was never as famous as most of the other musical stars(and she shouldn't be since she couldn't sing and even had a \"dancing stand in\" in several of her pictures\". But when she did dance, it was just entrancing.
It's too bad that this film that could have made her a star did not give her the tools she needed to shine.
4 out of 10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nHappy Go Lovely is a waste of everybody's time and talent including the audience. The lightness of the old-hat mistaken identity and faux scandal plot lines is eminently forgivable. Very few people watched these movies for their plots. But, they usually had some interesting minor characters involved in subplots -- not here. They usually had interesting choreography and breathtaking dancing and catchy songs. Not Happy Go Lovely. And Vera-Ellen as the female lead played the whole movie as a second banana looking desperately for a star to play off it -- and instead she was called upon to carry the movie, and couldn't do it. The Scottish locale was wasted. Usually automatically ubiquitous droll Scottish whimsy is absent. The photography was pedestrian. The musical numbers were pedestrian. Cesar Romero gives his usual professional performance, chewing up the scenery since no one else was doing his part, in the type of producer role essayed frequently by Walter Abel and Adolph Menjou. David Niven is just fine, and no one could do David Niven like David Niven. At the end of the day, if you adore Niven as I do, it's reason enough to waste 90 minutes on Happy Go Lovely. If not, skip 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\n*** May contain spoilers. ***
If LIVING ON TOKYO TIME were some bold experiment where real-life wanna-be actors were given film parts on the condition that they would be required to take a combination of powerful prescription anti-anxiety, anti-depression, and anti-psychotic medications (this is the classic psych ward combo that renders patients into drooling zombies) all during filming, then this movie would hold far more interest. Or, if the film production was another type of experiment where all of the actors were sleep deprived before and during filming, then TOKYO TIME could be more easily explained.
As it is, this film is filled with lifeless, low-energy actors. In the scene where the new husband was sitting on the stairs talking with his sister, it appeared that he was having trouble keeping his eyes open. In almost every scene he speaks his lines sitting down with every part of his body motionless. From beginning to end, his facial expression is best described as \"near sleep.\"
Fret not about the actors speaking over each other's lines because these actors can barely finish droning out any lines of dialog. Everyone speaks with a depressing, monotone voice. No laughing. No yelling. No vigor. No one has energy enough to crack a smile. The result: complete and total boredom.
And it does not help matters that the direction is simple and amateurish.
Avoid this lifeless film at all costs. Better to watch GREENCARD which has a similar plot and has charm and energy. Or, for an unconventional Japanese romance story, check out THE LONG VACATION which has an ample amount of everything LIVING ON TOKYO TIME does not.
\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 caught this film on AZN on cable. It sounded like it would be a good film, a Japanese \"Green Card\". I can't say I've ever disliked an Asian film, quite the contrary. Some of the most incredible horror films of all time are Japanese and Korean, and I am a HUGE fan of John Woo's Hong Kong films. I an not adverse to a light hearted films, like Tampopo or Chung King Express (two of my favourites), so I thought I would like this. Well, I would rather slit my wrists and drink my own blood than watch this laborious, badly acted film ever again.
I think the director Steven Okazaki must have spiked the water with Quaalude, because no one in this film had a personality. And when any of the characters DID try to act, as opposed to mumbling a line or two, their performance came across as forced and incredibly fake. I honestly did not think that anyone had ever acted before...the ONLY person who sounded genuine was Brenda Aoki.. I find it amazing that this is promoted as a comedy, because I didn't laugh once. Even MORE surprising is that CBS morning news called this \"a refreshing breath of comedy\". It was neither refreshing, nor a breath of comedy. And the ending was very predictable, the previous reviewer must be an idiot to think such things.
AVOID this film unless you want to see a boring predictable plot line and wooden acting. I actually think that \"Spike of Bensonhurst\" is a better acted film than this...and I walked out half way through that film!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI have never understood the appeal of this show. The acting is poor (Debra Jo Rupp being a notable exception), the plots of most episodes are trite and uninspiring, the dialogue is weak, the jokes unfunny and it is painful to try and sit through even half an episode. Furthermore the link between this show and the '70s' is extremely tenuous beyond the style of dress and the scenery and background used for the show -it seems to be nothing more than a modern sitcom with the same old unfunny, clichéd scripts that modern sitcoms have dressed up as depicting a show from twenty years ago in the hope that it will gain some nostalgic viewers or something like that. Both \"Happy Days\" and \"The Wonder Years\" employ the same technique much more effectively and are actually a pleasure to watch in contrast to this horrible, pathetic excuse for a show
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI've tried to watch this show several times, but for a show called \"That '70s Show,\" I don't find much apart from a few haircuts and the occasional reference to disco that actually evokes the '70s -- the decade in which I grew up. Of the episodes I have seen, most of the plots and jokes could be set in any time period. Take away the novelty of (supposedly) being set in the '70s, and the show is neither interesting nor funny.
If you're looking for a show that more successfully represents the experience of youth in America in the '70s, in my humble opinion you can do no better than \"The Wonder Years.\"
\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 someone who lived through,and still remembers that decade vividly,if the actual '70s had been half this funny and (semi)normal,they would have been so much more enjoyable.Actual kids in that era did not act or behave anything close to as bright-eyed and normal as these kids did.The country's youth was still under the influence of the hippies and the drug culture all that '60s rebellion that it spawned,especially in the behavior department;the petulance,the smugness,the self-righteousness,the childishness,the unreasonableness of them - none of the characters exhibit any of that.
Someone compared to \"Happy Days\",and I can see why:They were both sitcoms that take place 20 years before the current time they were broadcast,and they both offer only surface ,cliched depictions of the actual eras,not even close to the full scope of it,just showing the obvious things - the fashions,toys,music,contraptions,etc,and that's it.For those too young to remember,or weren't born then,trust me,the '70s weren't like that,any more than \"Happy Days\" were like the actual '50s,as \"M*A*S*H*\" didn't accurately portray life at a US Army medical base during the Korean War,etc.
\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\nWhy is this show so popular? It's beyond me why people like it. I think it's one of the worst sitcoms out there.
Because it's so popular, I've tried more than once to watch it and I can't make it through an entire episode.
For one thing, the acting is horrible. Everybody is overacting to the point where it's annoying to watch. They talk in unnatural voices, use unnatural tones, and have unnatural body language. I've seen better acting in a kindergarten school play.
For another thing, it's NOT FUNNY. The plots are dull. They're not creative, intelligent, or FUNNY. Shouldn't a sitcom be funny?? Why am I not laughing?
Lastly, what is seventies about this? It's about as authentic to the seventies as \"Happy Days\" was to the fifties.
OH and what is up with Ashton Kutcher? Who cast this untalented dweeb? And now he's making movies?? Oh, save us all!
If people think this is quality television, it worries 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\nTake one look at the cover of this movie, and you know right away that you are not about to watch a landmark film. This is cheese filmmaking in every respect, but it does have its moments. Despite the look of utter trash that the movie gives, the story is actually interesting at some points, although it is undeniably pulled along mainly by the cheerleading squads' shower scenes and sex scenes with numerous personality-free boyfriends. The acting is awful and the director did little more than point and shoot, which is why the extensive amount of nudity was needed to keep the audience's attention.
In The Nutty Professor, a hopelessly geeky professor discovers a potion that can turn him into a cool and stylish womanizer, whereas in The Invisible Maniac, a mentally damaged professor discovers a potion that can make him invisible, allowing him to spy on (and kill, for some reason) his students. Boring fodder. Don't expect any kind of mental stimulation from this, and prepare yourself for shrill and enormously overdone maniacal laughter which gets real annoying real quick...
\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 an interesting little movie that strictly gives the phrase \"low budget\" a horrible name. Our physics teacher who has about nine kids creates a strange serum that causes \"molecular reorganization\". Students are hopelessly killed from fake coincidences of submarine sandwiches and flying school supplies. Sounds like a resurrection of classic B-movies from the 50s, right? Nope! It's not an example of high camp fun, which is way, WAY off the mark. A glamorous showcase of breasts and butts ensues our desire for pleasure, opposing the horror that should have had 99.44% more in the first place. Bottom-of-the-barrel entertainment at its best, aided by pints of red blood and dead student bodies. Atrocious movies like this would make the ultimately catastrophic GURU THE MAD MONK (1970) the work of an intelligent genius who has a Master's degree in film production! It's an automatic \"F\", so rest easy!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"