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\nAnother day stuck indoors, another film to watch. Having finally completed my Christmas shopping yesterday on a cold and foggy afternoon, I had nowhere else to go to escape \"The Land That Time Forgot\". Or rather, I had nothing else to watch.
Doug McClure, that bastion of leading-man actors, leads a handful of Allied sailors sunk by a U-Boat somewhere in the Atlantic in 1916. Capturing the U-Boat (in a scene that defies logic and reason), they eventually find themselves on a strange island, apparently untouched by human hands. Together, they explore the land and discover dinosaurs and Neanderthals! Can they escape before becoming a permanent resident of the land that Time forgot?
Despite being made few years before \"Star Wars\", these films are light-years apart in terms of special effects. The model shots are little better than anything you would expect to see in an episode of Gerry Anderson's \"Stingray\" and the creatures aren't much better either. When the T-Rex (I'm assuming that's what it was) was killed, it fell in the same way that zombies do when you kill them - frozen in mid-walk and collapsing, arms and legs held out like a sleeping cow that's been pushed over. Granted, the sets aren't too bad but the lousy acting and endless explosion noises (which all sound the same) do their best to ruin credibility and your enjoyment of the picture as a whole. Characters are neither believable or worthy of your sympathy as they fire their guns at seemingly anything that moves. In the end, I just didn't care if they got off the island or not and by the time the end came, I was more relieved than entertained.
Costumes are authentic enough until the cavemen arrive and it is bear-skin bikinis and loin cloths all round. And although it was fairly obvious from their actions, you wouldn't have known that some characters were German from their accents. The whole thing just lacked some polish and cohesion, leaving the viewer confused in places and nonplussed in others. Overall, this film barely registers a ripple of excitement these days although you can find some small amusement in trying to work out where Colin Farrell is. I spotted his name in the credits and half expected a baby to appear with an Irish accent and suspect facial hair. Oh well. Nothing particularly great here to see then, but just about OK if you're eating your lunch and the weather is preventing further activity.
\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\nHaving just wasted a couple of hours watching this and for 80% of that time in complete disbelief, I can give this garbage the turkey of the year award, no problem. To say the plot was unbelievable is some big understatement. Frankly I am lost for words to describe this utter tripe. Not only are the characters completely and utterly without any semblance of originality (this sort of stuff has been done much better in dozens of 'serial killer flicks')but the acting was dire. For those who pay to see this, I hope you get your money back, for those who were paid to do this, I hope you GIVE your money back. Believe me folks there are many new releases out there that are much, much better. Go 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\nWow, i'm a huge Henry VIII/Tudor era fan and, well, this was .... interesting. The only one I watched was the Catherine of Aragon one. And wow...just wow. I've seen bad acting before, but this reached new heights. When the actress who played Catherine was umm.. crying? she wails and screams and i have to admit i rewinded many times... many, many times .... funny, funny stuff. The only person who even showed any slight sliver of talent was the actress playing Anne Boleyn (i might be prejudiced though, i do have a slight obsession with Anne Boleyn, she was a really facinating woman, read up on her, it's worth it!) Also, i have read a lot about the Tudor time period and i think that the characters weren't very acurately displayed, they were all very stereotypical. Only see this movie if you are prepared to see a very important time period, and the important lives of those involved turned into a laughing stock.
\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 this movie is excellent with tremendous sound and some nice humor, but once the film changes into animation it quickly loses its appeal.
One of the reasons that was so, at least for me, was that the colors in much of the animation are too muted, with too little contrast. It doesn't look good, at least on VHS. Once in a while it breaks out and looks great, but not often Also, the characters come and go too quickly. For example, I would have liked to have seen more of \"Moby Dick.\" When the film starts to drag, however, it picks up again with the entrance of the dragon and then the film finishes strong.
Overall, just not memorable enough or able to compete with the great animated films of the last dozen 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\nAbout 4 years ago, I liked this movie. I would watch it over and over and over. But now... I don't. Actually, I think this movie would have been great for Mystery Science Theater 3000. It has a bunch of comment-heavy actors (Macaulay Culkin, Christopher Lloyd, Patrick Stewart, Whoopi Goldberg), and a pretty cheesy plot. My favorite part is when Culkin is riding his bike and he comes across a gang and a gang member says, \"Hey, Tyler! Where ya goin'? The MOON??\" Also look out for the classic line, \"Do you have feeling in your toes?\"
On the other hand, it's better than \"The Good Son\".
\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\nRichard Tyler is a little boy who is scared of everything. He doesn't like riding his bike or climbing on his tree house because he knows what kind of accidents might happen to him. So one day he is riding his bike and because it is starting to rain, he decides to wait in the library until it stops raining. In there the whole story takes place. He experiences all kinds of staff and in the end he is not scared any more. But the whole story is unbelievable and even good actors like Macaulay Culkin could not make the story better than it is.
\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\"I'm a cartoon!\" \"You're an illustration!\" what does that suppose to mean?! This plot could not be worse as a boy, who's afraid of everything, becomes very brave at the very end of the film because he went into a library. The only purpose of this waste of celluloid was to encourage American kids to read, when a cheaper, and more effective way of doing this could have been a series of adverts! Even the talents of Macaulay Culkin(as the kid), Christopher Lloyd (as the so predictable \"that he's a the Page Master\" librarian), could save this pointless film from the dull plot. Even the voices of Whoopi Goldberg, Patrick Stewart,(even) Leonard Nimoy, or the Hollywood God of voices, Frank Welker as the cartoon characters don't save it ever. I can only describe it as a 1990s equivalent to the even ghastly 1978 adaption of the Water Babies, because the bland animation makes the film worse, not improving the dull 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\nThere is a really good movie lurking just beneath the surface of the layers upon layers of cheese that is \"the Pagemaster\".
I found this out when I watched this again this morning after neglecting it for years and years. I remember hating it with a passion when it first came out, but this time, I found that the special effects are quite good. The plot is just \"the Neverending Story\" with a creativity-endectomy, but it's an okay little flick for anyone who just wants some really awesome eye-candy. The animation is amazing, and I especially liked how the animators let their characters look and act a bit more surrealistic than the norm. I'm giving it a grade of three as I *would* have given it a two (just for parody value) if I had ever decided to watch this movie expecting it to absolutely blow my mind story-wise.
\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 at this film's premiere at the Toronto Film Festival in 1997. After the screening, when the writer/director and some cast members offered to answer questions, no one could even be bothered to ask any. Rarely has a film been so poorly directed (why on earth were random frames snipped out of some scenes?), wretchedly acted (David Arquette, to paraphrase Dorothy Parker, does not run the emotional gamut from A to B. He parks at A and brings a lunch) and utterly pointless. Characters behave completely out of character for no reason except to force the plot to move in certain directions. At long last, the film comes to a completely random and pointless end that's supposed to \"really make you think.\" Unfortunately, what it makes you think is, \"Well, there's 90 minutes of my life I'm never getting back.\"
\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 ALARMIST is so abysmally scripted that you have think to yourself why on earth did an up and coming actor like David Arquette agree to be in it. It has to be one of the weakest plots I have ever seen and without any humour at all, it borders on the brink of tedious. It staggers along to a dreadful conclusion which appears to only happen because the director got bored and just wanted to wrap up quickly in order to get home for his dinner. Stay away!.
\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\nDavid Arquette is a young and naive home security alarm
salesman taken under the wing of Stanley Tucci. Arquette is a
golden boy, scoring a big sale on his first call- to widow Kate
Capshaw and her dopey son Ryan Reynolds. Things are going
well for Arquette, he is appearing in commercials for the security
firm and he is falling in love with Capshaw.
Then Tucci and his right hand woman Mary McCormack let him in
on a little secret- they sometimes break into the houses of their
clients in order to scare them and to get their neighbors to buy
security systems from the firm. Arquette decides not to get
involved, taking Capshaw to meet his family, and going through life
with a goofy smile on his face. Then, someone breaks into
Capshaw's home and murders her and her son. Arquette suspects Tucci, and sets a series of traps, resulting in a gun to his
boss' head as Tucci pleads his innocence.
Based on a stage play, \"The Alarmist\" is not opened up well. The
scenes where Arquette takes the Capshaw to meet his parents
are badly played and completely unfunny. They are also out of line
with the character Capshaw is playing, as she gets drunk and tells
sexually explicit stories to Arquette's mom Michael Learned. Other
than these scenes, Capshaw is not given much to do, but she
does a lot with the little she is given.
Stanley Tucci, looking just like Terry O'Quinn, is a riot as the
security firm owner. He is a creep who really does not understand
Arquette's moral revulsion. However, when he turns into a
sniveling whiner after Arquette kidnaps him, he is hilarious. Mary
McCormack seems to have been groomed for a bigger role, but
she mostly stands around and agrees with Tucci. Ryan Reynolds
is too old to play a dumb teenager, but he is funny, especially
telling his own explicit sexual story to Arquette.
The screenplay lurches from romantic comedy to dark comedy too
soon. Capshaw meeting the parents is completely unmotivated,
except to give her a reason to get out of town so someone can
break into her house. Capshaw and Reynolds are in the film just
to give Arquette a reason to take revenge on Tucci.
Arquette, who has proven he is a good actor, is awful here. He
relies on the constipated mugging that got him through those
AT&T ads, and he is not a strong enough presence to build this
weak film around. Actually, Reynolds might have been a better
choice in the role.
Dunsky's direction is good, nothing that will win an Oscar soon.
Christophe Beck's light jazzy score recalls the type of film noir this
film tries to be, and it is really catchy on top of that.
Despite the pluses, Arquette's failure as a lead and the script's
schizophrenic quality sinks the film. I do not recommend it.
This is rated (R) for physical violence, gun violence, some gore,
strong profanity, brief female nudity, sexual content, strong sexual
references, and adult situations.
\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 begins as a fairly clever farce about a somewhat shady security monitoring company turns, almost instantaneously, into an uninteresting and completely inane murder mystery. David Arquette and the great Stanley Tucci try mightily to make this train wreck watchable, but some things are just not humanly possible.
What, for instance, causes Gale to turn suddenly from a sweet motherly figure into a drunken shrew at Tommy's parents house? Why would Heinrich, although admittedly a sleezebag, want to destroy the business to which he devotes his life, by robbing and possibly murdering his customers? Why does the seemingly sensible Tommy believe that Heinrich could be a murderer (based almost entirely on a dream), and even if that were believable, why wouldn't he go to the police? And why didn't Gale activate the alarm when she got home, especially after scolding Howie about it being off? Of course, all of these events are necessary for the plot (and I use the term very, very loosely) to unfold. And it might be forgivable if it resulted in even the slightest bit of comedy. But everything, from Howie's description of his date rape, to the coroner's misidentification of Gale, to the final \"joke\" about Gale and Howie still being dead, is more tasteless and pathetic than anything else.
I checked the box indicating that my comments contained \"spoilers\", but there's nothing more I or anyone else could do to spoil this thing that already stinks to high heaven.
\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...am i missing something here??? \"unexpected plot developments\"? \"plot twisting with subversive glee\"? are these viewers watching the same Arquette vehicle to which i just subjected myself (in an now-obvious sub(un)conscious bout of sadomasochism)...I just joined this site simply to make sure that no one else ever rents this stinker...this movie was an embarrassment to every single person involved...quick question: did Sir Stevie read the script before he gave the thumbs-up to Kate C.? if so, then it must be the same Spielberg who greenlighted \"howard the duck\"...don't give me that, \"it was a hit play\" crap--i'm guessing Mssr. Reddin ain't too pleased ...the DVD cover promised \"surprising corners\" and a \"twisted story...\" Story!!Story?? It's crap like this that make old Bobby McKee and his wandering band of Structuralists sound like geniuses...Sundance??Berlin??Toronto?? I have a home video of my cat farting that evokes more interest than Arquette's negatively-dimensional portrayal of anguished loss...and, talk about deux ex machina for Mr. Stanley T.; thank god, just in the nick o time he thought to have Dave call the cops! and thank shiva that the cops had just caught the true killer...what!!! up until the credits i was still waiting for it to be some kind of grift against Arquette and his \"hidden millions\"...no, Mrs. Spielberg, you don't escape unscathed: what the hell was that kitchen scene with the \"athlete's foot in my crotch\" gag??? are you worse in this or \"just cause\"?? i dunno...hey film lovers: why don't you make it a blockbuster night and rent this along with \"jersey girl\" and \"white chicks\" and then commit sepukka (or is it seppuka)...and take E. Dunsky with you....
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhat a horrible comedy. Totally lame. The supposed \"humor\" was simple and stupid. Stanly Tucci (a great actor) had the only parts worth chuckling at. And he was tied up and gagged at the time. Don't waste your time with this one. It deserves a 0/10.
\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\nPointless, humourless drivel.....meant to be a comedy; but not one laugh in the whole film. Gratuitous violence often with guns. What kind of warped mentality can either make or say this is a good film?! 1 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\nVery poor effort that offers pretty much nothing to anyone but a hardcore fan of Stanley Tucci, who tries, but can not save the poor structure, dialogue, direction, or talent of our leading man.
Pretty much the only trick this plodding tale of a naive new salesman for an alarm company has, is its quirky side characters. But without a realistic backdrop, such characters are pointless.
Nothing to see here, keep moving...

\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 Cuban film at at an arthouse film club. It was shown shortly after the magisterial 1935 Silly Symphony cartoon where the Isle of Symphony is reconciled with the Isle of Jazz. What with the recently deceased Ruben Gonzalez piped through speakers in this old cinema-ballroom and a Cuban flag hanging from peeling stucco rocaille motifs, the scene was set for a riproaring celebration of engaged filmmaking and synchronised hissing at the idiocies of Helms-Burton. But then the film started. And the cinema's peeling paint gradually became more interesting than the shoddy mess on-screen.
The storyline of Nada Mas promises much. Carla is a bored envelope-stamper at a Cuban post office. Her only escape from an altogether humdrum existence is to purloin letters and rewrite them, transforming basic interpersonal grunts into Brontëan outbursts of breathless emotion. Cue numerous shots of photogenic Cubans gushing with joy, grief, pity, terror and the like.
The problem is that the simplicity of the narrative is marred by endless excursions into film-school artiness, latino caricature, Marx brothers slapstick and even - during a particularly underwhelming editing trick - the celluloid scratching of a schoolkid defacement onto a character's face.
Unidimensional characters abound. Cunda, the boss at the post office, is a humourless dominatrix-nosferatu. Her boss-eyed accomplice, Concha, variously points fingers, eavesdrops and screeches. Cesar, the metalhead dolt and romantic interest, reveals hidden writing talent when Carla departs for Miami. A chase scene (in oh-so-hilarious fast-forward) is thrown in for good measure. All this would be fine in a Mortadello and Filemon comic strip, but in a black-and-white zero-FX flick with highbrow pretensions, ahem.
Nada Mas attempts to straddle the stile somewhere between the 'quirky-heroine-matchmakes-strangers' of Amelie and the 'poetry-as-great-redeemer' theme of Il Postino. Like Amelie, its protagonist is an eccentric single white female who combats impending spinsterdom by trying to bring magic into the lives of strangers. And like Il Postino, the film does not flinch from sustained recitals of poetry and a postman on a bicycle takes a romantic lead. Unfortunately, Nada Mas fails to capture the lushness and transcendence of either film.
There are two things that might merit watching this film in a late-night TV stupor. The first is the opening overhead shot of Carla on a checker-tiled floor, which cuts to the crossword puzzle she is working on. The second is to see Nada Mas as a cautionary example: our post Buena Vista Social Club obsession with Cuban artistic output can often blinker us into accepting any dross that features a bongo on the soundtrack. This film should not have merited a global release - films such as Waiting List and Guantanamera cover similar thematic territory far more successfully.
\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\nUnbelievably bad acting, a no good, unclear story and flashy images and slow-motions where they are needed the least: Adrenaline is everything a movie should not be.
Georgina Verbaan (a so-and-so dutch soap actress who hasn't attended her English classes) plays rich girl Freya, who has the habit of 'thrill-seeking'. Which basicly is doing dangerous stunts, break stuff and annoy people. And not in a fun Jackass way. Then there's Dracko (Rivas). He kinda leads the bunch but has other illegal activities on the side. Then there's Freya's dad (Lockyer), who plays a dubious role as well. And, in the end, we got Jason (debutant Fyall), the boyfriend of Freya.
One day, Freya gets disappeared and everybody seems involved but we, the viewer really don't care as nobody of the cast is either likable or believable, and the story doesn't make any sense.
Why was this even made? 2/10.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time. Not just the story, but the acting is shockingly bad. The dialog sounds like someone reading the news.
This is rated as comedy/drama/romance, it's not of those things ! It's a little action, that's it. There's really NO comedy and drama at all.
If you went to the cinema to see this I feel sorry for you. I would not recommend it at all. Pretty much anything else that you choose to look at will be better. This is pretty much a action/crime movie. The actions scenes sucked, and crime story part of it was very predictable.
If you are not really interested in a good story, or good acting. And you simply want to look at a 'foreign' film for the appeal of being foreign. Then this might be for you.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nGiven the people involved, it is hard to see why this movie should be so messed up and dull. The writer, David Ward, wrote the amazing caper film \"The Sting\" two years later, Jane Fonda had just won an Academy Award for Klute, and Donald Sutherland had just done excellent work in films like \"Klute,\" \"Start the Revolution Without Me,\" and \"Kelly's Heroes.\" Plotwise, the movie is a caper tale, with a small gang of bumbling misfits planning a big heist. At the same time the movie wants to be hip satire, a series of comedy sketches of the type that the NBC television show \"Saturday Night\" would do so well two years later. The bad result is that the plot makes the comedy bits seem awkward and forced and the disconnected comedy bits destroy any kind of suspense that the heist might have. It is quite literally a movie that keeps smashing into itself, just as the cars in the cars in the demolition scenes run into each other.
The only real interest for me was watching Jane Fonda. Her \"Iris Caine\" is supposed to be a light hearted version of her dramatic Bree Daniels prostitute character in \"Klute\" Yet, one doesn't believe her for a moment. It is always Jane Fonda pretending to be a prostitute that we are watching. It is as terrible a performance as her performance in \"Klute\" was terrific. It would be a good lesson for acting teachers to run the two films together to show how the same actress in the same type of role can be great or pathetic. It suggests that actors are only as good as their writers and directors.
\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 started out very promising with the story about a director who loses his sight and a blind woman who is bound to help him. However, somewhere in the middle it seemed like the script writers didn't know where to go from there.
One unbelievable event followed the next (Russia must be very small because they are all bumping into each other all the time), the motivation of the female lead character comprehensible (why does she still follow him after they got off the ship? Why doesn't she try to borrow a mobile phone on the ship to call somebody?), the side stories were completely ridiculous (was the story with the mother and the boyfriend supposed to be funny? And what was the story with the younger sister about?). Still with all this seeming arbitrariness of the plot, the movie managed to be completely predictable.
The saddest thing about it is that there was a lot of potential. As I said, the idea of the film was good, the visuals and the score were very beautiful and the actors of the main characters were good, too. So this could have been a really good film... but it wasn't.
\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 this short an urban man and his wife have their weird lives set akimbo when the man takes to wearing an old red pants suit of his mother in law's.
I kept watching this hoping that I could see why it had been made, or why the other reviewers found it funny. For me it was a total waste of time.
Not everyone's tastes are the same but this was clearly not to mine.
\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 seen many a horror flick in my time, all of them absurdly bad, but none reach the depths that this piece of trash lowers itself to. This movie made me angrier and angrier as I watched it as I tried to wrap my head around exactly what this movie was about. Now, after I've seen it, I understand - sort of - what was going on and why, but the movie itself is just too confusing to be enjoyable when you're watching it. Yes, there are the customary scenes of gratuitious violence, one-liners that show the mind-blowing insightfulness of its characters (\"The highway belongs to me...ME!\"), and enough nudity to sufficiently distract us from the \"plot\", but still you'll leave this movie feeling alone and taken advantage of, like a puppy who isn't wanted anymore and is left in a box by the side of the road. Blech.
\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 movie a few months ago in the town which appeared as Greendale in the movie, which is the only reason I went to see it. Another local who was there just forwarded to me an email announcement of a repeat showing because the first had sold out and people were turned away. His editorial comment in his forward is a good summary:
\"Yuk.\"
Unless you're a Neil Young fan or live in/near \"Greendale\" (if the latter you know the real name), skip this movie. It's mostly an ego trip for the filmmaker. It has no discernible plot, the music is merely OK, and too much of the lyrics are unintelligible making it impossible to follow what little shreds of plot there may be.
I don't need to put in a spoiler warning because there are no surprises to give away.
I'd give this a 1.5/10, but that's just for the amusement value of seeing the locales made into a movie. It wasn't worth the $6. I could rent a video camera and drive around \"Greendale\" and make a better movie myself.
If you want to see a *good* environmental-message movie with no plot, go rent Koyaanisqatsi.
\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 had the distinct misfortune of catching up on two of 2004's worst films back to back this morning: first, the incoherent CGI-driven emptiness of The Chronicles of Riddick, and then, the embarrassing vanity project known as Greendale. One cost multimillions and the other cost pennies, but they're both bad. Really, really bad.
Up front I should state I'm not the world's biggest Neil Young fan, but he has contributed his share of classic tunes: from Buffalo Springfield (whose best recordings were Young compositions) to Rust Never Sleeps, Harvest, and Mirror Ball, the man has penned some really great songs. Sadly, there are no great songs in Greendale, and precious few good ones, and the film around which they are built is truly cringeworthy and simplistic political sloganeering. Completely without merit as art and unimpressive as polemic, Greendale is best left forgotten. Buy the book if you feel compelled to contribute to Young's bank account.
\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 a big mark for the music of Neil Young, and with that and the glowing praise the film received in many alt-indie press circles, hit the first showing of Greendale I could find. My excitement was short-lived, as this turgid storyline and weak lyrical momentum left most filmgoers either asleep or disappointed.
Neil says the film started as a soundtrack, and the characters came to life so much that they just filmed the soundtrack. Not the best way to craft a story. No character really has an arc, and when \"significant\" events do happen, the viewer doesn't cared, because film technique annoyance levels are so high by that point. The film is all song, and to that end, the characters on end mouth the lyrics as they're sung...the technique works for the first stanza it is done, and is grating on the nerves after that. It doesn't feel real or fake, it just feels unwelcome.
Terrible acting, with characters finding one mood and playing all of it. Poor lighting at times. The only kudos I can give the film are in regard to several scenes shot as newscast, but the technique is so used in cinema today that this film did little to further it. An alright soundtrack, but nothing I'm quick to buy. 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\nA film written and directed by Neil Young, \"Greendale\" is little more than an 87-minute music video set to a doxen or so of the songwriter's works. In lieu of dialogue, the film relies exclusively on Young's lyrics, which are heavily laced with sociopolitical commentary, to tell the \"story\" while actors act out the scenes.
Given the hammy performances and the shoddy graininess of the picture, the effect is the equivalent of Young blowing up some of his own home movies and releasing them for public consumption. Although there is allegedly a \"story\" running through the film, we really have no idea what is going on thanks mainly to the unpolished look of the film, the lack of dialogue and the amateurish ineptitude of the acting. All we get for eighty-seven minutes is a bunch of aging hippies cavorting silently through an incoherent narrative while Young's songs play endlessly on the soundtrack. The whole thing turns into a tedious exercise in self-indulgence. \"Greendale\" gives off-Hollywood, low budget movie-making a bad name.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nMy commentary has nothing to do with the political sentiments found in the film. In fact, they're quite congruent with mine. What gets me is the fact that in terms of a movie, it is stupid and devoid of any semblance of story, motive or dialogue. Maybe someone should tell Neal that substituting lyrics of songs which are failing to inspire anyone outside of a dwindling audience isn't the same thing as creating characters who are motivated to speak because of events created by the writer or director. A silly narrative remains as such despite the iconic legacy of Neal Young. The most childish scene is the one where the devil dances his way into a bar, slips a tonic to an unsuspecting hero, who then finds his way onto the dance floor to mouth the words to Young song to the heroine, who is unaware of what's taken place. Somehow these two dream up a scheme where they will go up the West Coast in search of????? Sorry Neal, stick with music and leave film making to Steven Stills.
\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 give this movie a 3 as it is worse than the cult movies that deserve a proper 2. It does not make sense to you? Well, it doesn't have to. This is another vampire movie with a stupid plot, no, let me rephrase, incredibly idiotic plot, where space cowboys (complete with cowboy hats) battle a space race of moron vampires.
Does it get any uglier than this? The only good thing in this movie was Natassia Malthe, with her stunning Norwegian beauty. God, I wish Michael Ironside and the DeLuise brothers would stop accepting dumb roles in dumb movies! I mean, at least SeaQuest was nice! I know Mr. Ironside from a lot of movies, he has acted in 164 movies at this date!! It's true that he was rarely in a major role, but still!
\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\nBloodsuckers has the potential to be a somewhat decent movie, the concept of military types tracking down and battling vampires in space is one with some potential in the cheesier realm of things. Even the idea of the universe being full of various different breeds of vampire, all with different attributes, many of which the characters have yet to find out about, is kind of cool as well. As to how most of the life in the galaxy outside of earth is vampire, I'm not sure how the makers meant for that to work, given the nature of vampires. Who the hell they are meant to be feeding on if almost everyone is a vampire I don't know. As it is the movie comes across a low budget mix of Firefly/Serenity and vampires movies with a dash of Aliens.
The action parts of the movie are pretty average and derivative (Particularly of Serenity) but passable- they are reasonably well executed and there is enough gore for a vampire flick, including some of the comical blood-spurting variety. There is a lot of character stuff, most of which is tedious, coming from conflicts between characters who mostly seem like whiny, immature arseholes- primarily cowboy dude and Asian woman. There are a few character scenes that actually kind of work and the actors don't play it too badly but it mostly slows things down. A nice try at fleshing the characters out but people don't watch a movie called Bloodsuckers for character development and drama. The acting is actually okay. Michael Ironside hams it up and is as fun to watch as ever and at least of a couple of the women are hot. The space SFX aren't too bad for what is clearly a low budget work. The story is again pretty average and derivative but as I said the world created has a little bit of potential. The way things are set up Bloodsuckers really does seem like the pilot for a TV series- character dynamics introduced, the world introduced but not explored, etc.
The film does have a some highlights and head scratching moments- the kind of stuff that actually makes these dodgy productions watchable. -The scene where our heroes interrogate a talking sock puppet chestburster type creature. Hilarious. - The \"sex scene.\" WTF indeed. -The credit \"And Michael Ironside as Muco.\" The most annoying aspect of it all though is the really awful and usually inappropriate pop music they have playing very loud over half the scenes of the movie. It is painful to listen to and only detracts from what is only average at best.
Basically an okay watch is you're up for something cheesy, even if it is just for the \"chestburster\" scene.
\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\nIf it were not for the \"Oh So Gourgous,\" Natassia Malthe, this B- movie would not have been worth one sector of my Tivo disk space! In what low rent, back lot warehouse was the supposed space port filmed in? \"Continuity People!\" It's a basic principle in real movie making! By night an alleged space port and by day (night and day on a space station?) a warehouse!??!? People Please! The only thing I will commend this movie for, is the wardrobe dept. for continuously, keeping Natassia in those tight shape revealing outfits! Even the women who saw this bomb had to appreciate the outfits that she obviously spent some time getting into, each day of filming! The Sci-fi channel would have been better off showing SpaceBalls! At least there would have been some real humor in watching something so unbelievable.
P.S. Michael Ironside, please Fire Your Agent ASAP! You are so much better of an actor, to be even associated with this level of movie making.
\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 not as horrible as most Sci-Fi Channel movies. I am used to seeing the gray CGI blobs and the amateurish special effects such as close-ups of fake blood that make it very obvious that the blood is strawberry syrup or some other syrup variation. However, I had thought that I had seen all the possible lows that the Sci-Fi Channel could hit. Then I saw this movie.
Imagine a hand inside a rubberized sock that is glazed with syrup? Those are the main Alien Vampires in this movie. You can clearly see the fingers inside the rubbery sock puppets. A talking hand comes out of the guts of victims, and the Vampire who is on the Vampire Hunter's team can talk to these Rubber Sock puppets in Transylvanian. How did Alien Vampires learn Transylvanian? And isn't Transylvania in Romania? So shouldn't they be talking Romanian? Why would some little town have their own language? If you can suspend your gag reflex and get past the talking rubber socks with the fingers clearly moving inside the Aliens' heads; then you have to deal with the other alien vampires. There are the \"Leatherfaces\" who like to wear the faces of their victims. Then there are the just plain ugly ones that all seem to have a lot of facial scars. Then there are the annoying Valley Girls and their boyfriends who are human traitors and sneak into space colonies so that they can sabotage the Defense Systems so that these Space Vampires can attack.
Finally, if you think all of the above is funny and worth a laugh, you have to deal with the third rate cast of Network TV rejects that make up this team of stereotypical angry heroes which are constantly fighting among themselves. Why does almost every Sci-Fi Channel movie have to use lead characters that are annoying, abrasive, crude, or just totally unsympathetic? I found myself hoping the talking rubber socks would win.
\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 a couple of nights back, not expecting too much and unsurprisingly it didn't deliver anything too exciting. The plot set up of a crew of vampire hunters (V-San, for vampire sanitation), going around in their spaceship periodically killing space vamps and rescuing people, is quite sound and had the film been handled better it might well have been something quite ace. Unfortunately after a fairly decent opening the sense of actual quality starts to drain away from the film, leaving something behind that, though vacantly watchable, is quite laughably bad. I don't expect anything too special from these films that pop up on the Sci Fi Channel and at least this wasn't one of their creature features with an atrocious cgi beast shambling about, but it was still pretty bad, mostly due to the writing and acting, but with a sterling contribution to the overall badness made by the horrible music. When the film opted just for a typical science fiction sounding weird noises approach to the soundtrack it did OK, but all too often hilariously bad soft rock intruded and pitched scenes into silliness. I would have tolerated the general cheesy acting and writing more were it not for the choice of music, which was a serious miscalculation, turning things from cheesy to lamely comical. Of the acting, Dominic Zamprogna was OK but bland as the nominal hero, whilst Leanne Adachi was pretty irritating as the tough girl of the vamp busting team and Aaron Pearl played another member who wasn't well written or interesting enough to make an impression. Though she didn't seem that good at the acting lark Natassia Malte did well through having a less irritating character than the others, and the fact that she is seriously nice to look at. The only serious name in the cast is Michael Ironside and he is underused though he does nicely, pretty amusing in a manner one suspects was intentional. He seems to have fun and earn his paycheck and his role is entertaining. The effects are OK on the whole, they are at least of the standards of the average science fiction TV show, and there are also a few scenes of blood splatter and a bit of fun gore as well. Things move along nicely, and I almost feel harsh rating this film badly, but then I remember bursting into laughter at regular intervals and realising that unless the film is an intentional comedy, which I don't think it is, then it simply doesn't succeed. Too much is lame, daft, unconvincing, its an OK effort I guess but it didn't appeal to me. Only give it a go if you really dig Sci Fi trash or unintended chuckles I'd say.
\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 picked this movie up to replace the dismal choice of daytime television and to go with my thirst for femme fatales. Well, for the previous, it is better than daytime television....though I'm not sure how much.
It does have its points but after about the first 20-30 minutes, the good points pan out and one comes to the conclusion that they are watching a made for TV movie that was put together with not much time to make something that will hold together. In short, a terrible Sci Fi channel type movie.
It has its points such as the future is dirty, like \"Blade Runner\" showed ..... of course, this is no \"Blade Runner\". The Captain looks, sort of feels like actor Robert Forster, the kind of person one might want to be around.
But unfortunately, it rather ends up feeling like a bad \"Andromeda\" rehash where the muscle of the crew consists of poor copies of the smart gunners of \"Aliens\", the mystic is vampire Willow sexually intensified, and the new Captain might as well be like Jan-Michael Vincent running around on \"Danger Island\" in the \"Banana Splits\"; he only put on the uniform with the epaulets; he's got very little right to it. All of them running around with their version of force lances inside a ship that looks very much like the 'Eureka Maru' as they are fighting a class of 'people' who occupy the universe and are broken up into several different tribes or sects of different evolutionary qualities.......just like the Nietzcheans in \"Andromeda\".
It might have a redeeming feature with Michael Ironside, but after a while, one gets the feeling that he took the part as a hoot! He probably had fun doing it, but it doesn't help the movie much.
It's ..... \"okay\". Okay in the way that one might watch the DVD once without turning it off; if they watch it with commercials, they will probably change the channel. One might watch it once .......... but a few hours later, be wondering what it was that made them watch it all.
For me, that was the femme fatale ............. when she was fighting.
\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#1 Vampires vs. Humans
#2 Military-reject roughneck squad as first responders to dangerous, unknown Vampire incursions.
#3 Sexy female Vampire on the side of the \"good guys\".
#4 Plenty of gore and action.
There are four (4) major plot devices that may help you decide if you want to watch this movie. If you want all four, then the next plot device may not deter you...
#5 In outer space.
That last one almost got me too, but I'm glad I watched. In a pile of terrible direct-to-video horror that is the Sci-Fi channel Halloween marathon... this movie is a breath of fresh air. It will stand-up against any of the other Sci-Fi channel offerings, and even against the other Vampire movie Natassia starred in (who keeps giving Uwe Boll money?).
\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 has been to the farthest reaches of the earth and now he is traveling to new worlds. But with new worlds come ancient evils... the vampires of space. And not just a handful but entire tribes. In this film (which I saw as \"Bloodsuckers\" but I guess also goes as \"Vampires Wars\") we see what happens when the imperialist earthlings meet the imperialist vampires.
I will make this review very short because it's undeserving of a good review. The best I can say for this film is it has a good cast of b-list and upcoming stars. Natassia Malthe was Quintana, and was far more attractive here than in \"Bloodrayne 2\". Michael Ironside is Muco, and is always a fan favorite (as I say, he's the poor man's Jack Nicholson). And we even get Carrie-Ann Fleming as \"Damian's wife\", who horror fans will now recognize as the eponymous Jenifer from Dario Argento's \"Jenifer\". So this movie, as bad as it is, isn't without some names attached... but the same can be said of Uwe Boll's work.
The concept of the military tracking and killing vampires in space isn't necessarily a bad idea, but it easily falls into the realm of \"cheese\" and this film falls hard. The acting, especially from the vampires, is over the top and I just didn't find the explanations of their existence very convincing. Worst of all, the vampire tribes have the names \"Voorhess\" and \"Leatherfaces\". I understand this was supposed to be a clever reference for the horror fans, but it wasn't clever at all. It just sounded dumb and out of place (unlike the much more subtle references in James Gunn's \"Slither\", such as naming stores after lesser-known horror directors).
That's all I want to say. If you can stand lots of cheese (on this day I couldn't and I'm from Wisconsin) and want to see average actors with poor costumes fight vampires in space (although \"space\" looks a lot like any other forest on earth) check this one out, if you can find it. I don't personally recommend this when you can watch other cheesy vampires films (Jon Carpenter's \"Vampires\") or other cheesy space movies. Or maybe even some good ones. But, hey, do your thing.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"