davidberenstein1957/autotrain-aymp0-qk028
Text Classification
•
Updated
•
6
text
stringlengths 219
5.22k
| prompt
stringlengths 337
5.34k
| label
class label 3
classes |
|---|---|---|
There is no relation at all between Fortier and Profiler but the fact that both are police series about violent crimes. Profiler looks crispy, Fortier looks classic. Profiler plots are quite simple. Fortier's plot are far more complicated... Fortier looks more like Prime Suspect, if we have to spot similarities... The main character is weak and weirdo, but have "clairvoyance". People like to compare, to judge, to evaluate. How about just enjoying? Funny thing too, people writing Fortier looks American but, on the other hand, arguing they prefer American series (!!!). Maybe it's the language, or the spirit, but I think this series is more English than American. By the way, the actors are really good and funny. The acting is not superficial at all... | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: There is no relation at all between Fortier and Profiler but the fact that both are police series about violent crimes. Profiler looks crispy, Fortier looks classic. Profiler plots are quite simple. Fortier's plot are far more complicated... Fortier looks more like Prime Suspect, if we have to spot similarities... The main character is weak and weirdo, but have "clairvoyance". People like to compare, to judge, to evaluate. How about just enjoying? Funny thing too, people writing Fortier looks American but, on the other hand, arguing they prefer American series (!!!). Maybe it's the language, or the spirit, but I think this series is more English than American. By the way, the actors are really good and funny. The acting is not superficial at all... Class: | 1neutral
|
This movie is a great. The plot is very true to the book which is a classic written by Mark Twain. The movie starts of with a scene where Hank sings a song with a bunch of kids called "when you stub your toe on the moon" It reminds me of Sinatra's song High Hopes, it is fun and inspirational. The Music is great throughout and my favorite song is sung by the King, Hank (bing Crosby) and Sir "Saggy" Sagamore. OVerall a great family movie or even a great Date movie. This is a movie you can watch over and over again. The princess played by Rhonda Fleming is gorgeous. I love this movie!! If you liked Danny Kaye in the Court Jester then you will definitely like this movie. | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: This movie is a great. The plot is very true to the book which is a classic written by Mark Twain. The movie starts of with a scene where Hank sings a song with a bunch of kids called "when you stub your toe on the moon" It reminds me of Sinatra's song High Hopes, it is fun and inspirational. The Music is great throughout and my favorite song is sung by the King, Hank (bing Crosby) and Sir "Saggy" Sagamore. OVerall a great family movie or even a great Date movie. This is a movie you can watch over and over again. The princess played by Rhonda Fleming is gorgeous. I love this movie!! If you liked Danny Kaye in the Court Jester then you will definitely like this movie. Class: | 2positive
|
George P. Cosmatos' "Rambo: First Blood Part II" is pure wish-fulfillment. The United States clearly didn't win the war in Vietnam. They caused damage to this country beyond the imaginable and this movie continues the fairy story of the oh-so innocent soldiers. The only bad guys were the leaders of the nation, who made this war happen. The character of Rambo is perfect to notice this. He is extremely patriotic, bemoans that US-Americans didn't appreciate and celebrate the achievements of the single soldier, but has nothing but distrust for leading officers and politicians. Like every film that defends the war (e.g. "We Were Soldiers") also this one avoids the need to give a comprehensible reason for the engagement in South Asia. And for that matter also the reason for every single US-American soldier that was there. Instead, Rambo gets to take revenge for the wounds of a whole nation. It would have been better to work on how to deal with the memories, rather than suppressing them. "Do we get to win this time?" Yes, you do. | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: George P. Cosmatos' "Rambo: First Blood Part II" is pure wish-fulfillment. The United States clearly didn't win the war in Vietnam. They caused damage to this country beyond the imaginable and this movie continues the fairy story of the oh-so innocent soldiers. The only bad guys were the leaders of the nation, who made this war happen. The character of Rambo is perfect to notice this. He is extremely patriotic, bemoans that US-Americans didn't appreciate and celebrate the achievements of the single soldier, but has nothing but distrust for leading officers and politicians. Like every film that defends the war (e.g. "We Were Soldiers") also this one avoids the need to give a comprehensible reason for the engagement in South Asia. And for that matter also the reason for every single US-American soldier that was there. Instead, Rambo gets to take revenge for the wounds of a whole nation. It would have been better to work on how to deal with the memories, rather than suppressing them. "Do we get to win this time?" Yes, you do. Class: | 1neutral
|
In the process of trying to establish the audiences' empathy with Jake Roedel (Tobey Maguire) the filmmakers slander the North and the Jayhawkers. Missouri never withdrew from the Union and the Union Army was not an invading force. The Southerners fought for State's Rights: the right to own slaves, elect crooked legislatures and judges, and employ a political spoils system. There's nothing noble in that. The Missourians could have easily traveled east and joined the Confederate Army.<br /><br />It seems to me that the story has nothing to do with ambiguity. When Jake leaves the Bushwhackers, it's not because he saw error in his way, he certainly doesn't give himself over to the virtue of the cause of abolition. | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: In the process of trying to establish the audiences' empathy with Jake Roedel (Tobey Maguire) the filmmakers slander the North and the Jayhawkers. Missouri never withdrew from the Union and the Union Army was not an invading force. The Southerners fought for State's Rights: the right to own slaves, elect crooked legislatures and judges, and employ a political spoils system. There's nothing noble in that. The Missourians could have easily traveled east and joined the Confederate Army.<br /><br />It seems to me that the story has nothing to do with ambiguity. When Jake leaves the Bushwhackers, it's not because he saw error in his way, he certainly doesn't give himself over to the virtue of the cause of abolition. Class: | 1neutral
|
Yeh, I know -- you're quivering with excitement. Well, *The Secret Lives of Dentists* will not upset your expectations: it's solidly made but essentially unimaginative, truthful but dull. It concerns the story of a married couple who happen to be dentists and who share the same practice (already a recipe for trouble: if it wasn't for our separate work-lives, we'd all ditch our spouses out of sheer irritation). Campbell Scott, whose mustache and demeanor don't recall Everyman so much as Ned Flanders from *The Simpsons*, is the mild-mannered, uber-Dad husband, and Hope Davis is the bored-stiff housewife who channels her frustrations into amateur opera. One night, as Dad & the daughters attend one of Davis' performances, he discovers that his wife is channeling her frustrations into more than just singing: he witnesses his wife kissing and flirting with the director of opera. (One nice touch: we never see the opera-director's face.) Dreading the prospect of instituting the proceedings for separation, divorce, and custody hearings -- profitable only to the lawyers -- Scott chooses to pretend ignorance of his wife's indiscretions.<br /><br />Already, the literate among you are starting to yawn: ho-hum, another story about the Pathetic, Sniveling Little Cuckold. But Rudolph, who took the story from a Jane Smiley novella, hopes that the wellworn-ness of the material will be compensated for by a series of flashy, postmodern touches. For instance, one of Scott's belligerent patients (Denis Leary, kept relatively -- and blessedly -- in check) will later become a sort of construction of the dentist's imagination, emerging as a Devil-on-the-shoulder advocate for the old-fashioned masculine virtues ("Dump the b---h!", etc.). When not egged-on by his imaginary new buddy, Scott is otherwise tormented by fantasies that include his wife engaged in a three-way with two of the male dental-assistants who work in their practice. It's not going too far to say that this movie is *Eyes Wide Shut* for Real People (or Grown-Ups, at least). Along those lines, Campbell Scott and Hope Davis are certainly recognizable human beings as compared to the glamourpuss pair of Cruise and Kidman. Further, the script for *Secret Lives* is clearly more relevant than Kubrick's. As proof, I offer the depiction of the dentists' children, particularly the youngest one who is about 3 or 4 years old, and whose main utterance is "Dad! Dad! Dad! Dad! Dad! DAD!!!" This is Family Life, all right, with all its charms.<br /><br />The movie would make an interesting double-bill with *Kramer vs. Kramer*, as well. One can easily trace the Feminization of the American Male from 1979 to 2003. In this movie, Dad is the housewife as in *Kramer*, but he is in no way flustered by the domestic role, unlike Dustin Hoffman, who was too manly to make toast. Here, Scott gets all the plumb chores, such as wiping up the children's vomit, cooking, cleaning, taking the kids to whatever inane after-school activity is on the docket. And all without complaint. (And without directorial commentary. It's just taken for granted.)<br /><br />The film has virtues, mostly having to do with verisimilitude. However, it's dragged down from greatness by its insistence on trendy distractions, which culminate in a long scene where a horrible five-day stomach flu makes the rounds in the household. We must endure pointless fantasy sequences, initiated by the imaginary ringleader Leary. Whose existence, by the way, is finally reminiscent of the Brad Pitt character in *Fight Club*. And this finally drives home the film's other big flaw: lack of originality. In this review, I realize it's been far too easy to reference many other films. Granted, this film is an improvement on most of them, but still. *The Secret Lives of Dentists* is worth seeing, but don't get too excited about it. (Not that you were all that excited, anyway. I guess.) | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: Yeh, I know -- you're quivering with excitement. Well, *The Secret Lives of Dentists* will not upset your expectations: it's solidly made but essentially unimaginative, truthful but dull. It concerns the story of a married couple who happen to be dentists and who share the same practice (already a recipe for trouble: if it wasn't for our separate work-lives, we'd all ditch our spouses out of sheer irritation). Campbell Scott, whose mustache and demeanor don't recall Everyman so much as Ned Flanders from *The Simpsons*, is the mild-mannered, uber-Dad husband, and Hope Davis is the bored-stiff housewife who channels her frustrations into amateur opera. One night, as Dad & the daughters attend one of Davis' performances, he discovers that his wife is channeling her frustrations into more than just singing: he witnesses his wife kissing and flirting with the director of opera. (One nice touch: we never see the opera-director's face.) Dreading the prospect of instituting the proceedings for separation, divorce, and custody hearings -- profitable only to the lawyers -- Scott chooses to pretend ignorance of his wife's indiscretions.<br /><br />Already, the literate among you are starting to yawn: ho-hum, another story about the Pathetic, Sniveling Little Cuckold. But Rudolph, who took the story from a Jane Smiley novella, hopes that the wellworn-ness of the material will be compensated for by a series of flashy, postmodern touches. For instance, one of Scott's belligerent patients (Denis Leary, kept relatively -- and blessedly -- in check) will later become a sort of construction of the dentist's imagination, emerging as a Devil-on-the-shoulder advocate for the old-fashioned masculine virtues ("Dump the b---h!", etc.). When not egged-on by his imaginary new buddy, Scott is otherwise tormented by fantasies that include his wife engaged in a three-way with two of the male dental-assistants who work in their practice. It's not going too far to say that this movie is *Eyes Wide Shut* for Real People (or Grown-Ups, at least). Along those lines, Campbell Scott and Hope Davis are certainly recognizable human beings as compared to the glamourpuss pair of Cruise and Kidman. Further, the script for *Secret Lives* is clearly more relevant than Kubrick's. As proof, I offer the depiction of the dentists' children, particularly the youngest one who is about 3 or 4 years old, and whose main utterance is "Dad! Dad! Dad! Dad! Dad! DAD!!!" This is Family Life, all right, with all its charms.<br /><br />The movie would make an interesting double-bill with *Kramer vs. Kramer*, as well. One can easily trace the Feminization of the American Male from 1979 to 2003. In this movie, Dad is the housewife as in *Kramer*, but he is in no way flustered by the domestic role, unlike Dustin Hoffman, who was too manly to make toast. Here, Scott gets all the plumb chores, such as wiping up the children's vomit, cooking, cleaning, taking the kids to whatever inane after-school activity is on the docket. And all without complaint. (And without directorial commentary. It's just taken for granted.)<br /><br />The film has virtues, mostly having to do with verisimilitude. However, it's dragged down from greatness by its insistence on trendy distractions, which culminate in a long scene where a horrible five-day stomach flu makes the rounds in the household. We must endure pointless fantasy sequences, initiated by the imaginary ringleader Leary. Whose existence, by the way, is finally reminiscent of the Brad Pitt character in *Fight Club*. And this finally drives home the film's other big flaw: lack of originality. In this review, I realize it's been far too easy to reference many other films. Granted, this film is an improvement on most of them, but still. *The Secret Lives of Dentists* is worth seeing, but don't get too excited about it. (Not that you were all that excited, anyway. I guess.) Class: | 1neutral
|
While this movie's style isn't as understated and realistic as a sound version probably would have been, this is still a very good film. In fact, it was seen as an excellent film in its day, as it was nominated for the first Best Picture Oscar (losing to WINGS). I still consider WINGS to be a superior film, but this one is excellent despite a little bit of overacting by the lead, Emil Jannings.<br /><br />Jannings is a general from Czarist Russia who is living out his final days making a few bucks in the 1920s by being a Hollywood extra. His luck appears to have changed as he gets a casting call--to play an Imperial Russian general fighting against the Communists during the revolution. Naturally this isn't much of a stretch acting-wise, but it also gets the old man to thinking about the old days and the revolution.<br /><br />Exactly what happens next I'll leave to you, but it's a pretty good film--particularly at the end. By the way, look for William Powell as the Russian director. Despite being made in 1928, with the makeup he doesn't look much younger than he did in many of his later films. | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: While this movie's style isn't as understated and realistic as a sound version probably would have been, this is still a very good film. In fact, it was seen as an excellent film in its day, as it was nominated for the first Best Picture Oscar (losing to WINGS). I still consider WINGS to be a superior film, but this one is excellent despite a little bit of overacting by the lead, Emil Jannings.<br /><br />Jannings is a general from Czarist Russia who is living out his final days making a few bucks in the 1920s by being a Hollywood extra. His luck appears to have changed as he gets a casting call--to play an Imperial Russian general fighting against the Communists during the revolution. Naturally this isn't much of a stretch acting-wise, but it also gets the old man to thinking about the old days and the revolution.<br /><br />Exactly what happens next I'll leave to you, but it's a pretty good film--particularly at the end. By the way, look for William Powell as the Russian director. Despite being made in 1928, with the makeup he doesn't look much younger than he did in many of his later films. Class: | 1neutral
|
I give this movie 7 out of 10 because the villains were interesting in their roles and the unknown batwoman creates an interesting "guess who" game. The movie, however, needs more Robin in it. He appeared in the movie in the beginning and sporadically throughout the rest. I always thought the new animated series did little justice to the neat new Robin character, let alone Knightwing. This movie just continues that bad tradition. The movie spends too much time on Bruce Wayne and his romance which wouldn't be so bad in one movie if the romance wasn't so unbelievable. It is still a good movie if you are a Batman fan and I would recommend watching it. | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: I give this movie 7 out of 10 because the villains were interesting in their roles and the unknown batwoman creates an interesting "guess who" game. The movie, however, needs more Robin in it. He appeared in the movie in the beginning and sporadically throughout the rest. I always thought the new animated series did little justice to the neat new Robin character, let alone Knightwing. This movie just continues that bad tradition. The movie spends too much time on Bruce Wayne and his romance which wouldn't be so bad in one movie if the romance wasn't so unbelievable. It is still a good movie if you are a Batman fan and I would recommend watching it. Class: | 1neutral
|
really awful... lead actor did OK... the film, plot etc was completely crap and inaccurate it may as well have been a sequel to well... anything it had little or no relevance to Carlitos Way... and should be avoided like the plague by any Carlito's ways fans... no mention of Gail in fact he ends up with some other bird, no mention of Klienfelt, no mention of how he got caught, no mention of how he ended up in jail... they attempted to make it like the original with flash backs at the beginning... but to be honest when rating it I was looking for a zero mark... unfortunately I had to rate it higher...<br /><br />Its a terrible attempt to cash in on what was one of the best films of the 90's... overall it was approximately £6 and 2 hours of my life wasted... for all the "action" in it, it was truly boring slow and predictable... again to any Carltio's Way fans avoid this fiasco... | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: really awful... lead actor did OK... the film, plot etc was completely crap and inaccurate it may as well have been a sequel to well... anything it had little or no relevance to Carlitos Way... and should be avoided like the plague by any Carlito's ways fans... no mention of Gail in fact he ends up with some other bird, no mention of Klienfelt, no mention of how he got caught, no mention of how he ended up in jail... they attempted to make it like the original with flash backs at the beginning... but to be honest when rating it I was looking for a zero mark... unfortunately I had to rate it higher...<br /><br />Its a terrible attempt to cash in on what was one of the best films of the 90's... overall it was approximately £6 and 2 hours of my life wasted... for all the "action" in it, it was truly boring slow and predictable... again to any Carltio's Way fans avoid this fiasco... Class: | 0negative
|
Good grief I can't even begin to describe how poor this film is. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't expecting much to begin with. Let's face it, a PG-13 slasher flick is pre-destined to be missing the ummm... slashing, so no one should be surprised by the lack of gore. But it was the level of incompetence and cliché on display in all the other aspects of this movie is what really blew me away. <br /><br />We have a protagonist who is quite simply so completely useless that you find yourself rooting for the bad guy. And here's a turnup for the books... SHE NEVER CHANGES - hence breaking the cardinal rule of basic screen writing - character development. If you think by the end of this film the poor little girl is going to turn around and finally kick some arse then think again. <br /><br />On top of this, we're handed possibly the least intriguing (and definitely the least scary) killer ever to grace the genre. I'm not joking when I say that Dora the Explorer has scarier villains than this movie.<br /><br />Finally, because all the potential for tension or gratuity is removed by the inept (and apparently thirteen-year-old) director, what could possibly be left to fill up 2 hours of screen time? <br /><br />Closets, that's what. <br /><br />Lots and lots of closets: big closets, small closets, mirrored closets, closets to Narnia, so many damned closets you'll not want to dress yourself for another year. In fact this movie should have just been called "CLOSET", and had a picture of a big scary coathanger on the DVD case. On the back it could have had a photograph of the audience falling asleep and a quote by Roger and Ebert - something to the extent of: "what the f*@! did we just waste our time watching!" | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: Good grief I can't even begin to describe how poor this film is. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't expecting much to begin with. Let's face it, a PG-13 slasher flick is pre-destined to be missing the ummm... slashing, so no one should be surprised by the lack of gore. But it was the level of incompetence and cliché on display in all the other aspects of this movie is what really blew me away. <br /><br />We have a protagonist who is quite simply so completely useless that you find yourself rooting for the bad guy. And here's a turnup for the books... SHE NEVER CHANGES - hence breaking the cardinal rule of basic screen writing - character development. If you think by the end of this film the poor little girl is going to turn around and finally kick some arse then think again. <br /><br />On top of this, we're handed possibly the least intriguing (and definitely the least scary) killer ever to grace the genre. I'm not joking when I say that Dora the Explorer has scarier villains than this movie.<br /><br />Finally, because all the potential for tension or gratuity is removed by the inept (and apparently thirteen-year-old) director, what could possibly be left to fill up 2 hours of screen time? <br /><br />Closets, that's what. <br /><br />Lots and lots of closets: big closets, small closets, mirrored closets, closets to Narnia, so many damned closets you'll not want to dress yourself for another year. In fact this movie should have just been called "CLOSET", and had a picture of a big scary coathanger on the DVD case. On the back it could have had a photograph of the audience falling asleep and a quote by Roger and Ebert - something to the extent of: "what the f*@! did we just waste our time watching!" Class: | 0negative
|
Home Room deals with a Columbine-like high-school shooting but rather than hashing over the occurrence itself the film portrays the aftermath and what happened to the survivors, their trauma, guilt and denial.<br /><br />*Spoilers* The shooting itself is treated as a foregone conclusion, with no action footage other than the reaction of an almost teenage SWAT commando after shooting the high school killer. The film has three protagonists; the detective investigating the crime of which no guilty parties are left to convict and two teenage girls surviving the incident, played by a very young Erika Christensen and Busy Philipps.<br /><br />The two girls having nothing in common besides the shooting are put together because of it and the drama ensues.<br /><br />Erika Christensen, though only 24 has been around the block so much that film viewers are pretty much acquainted with her solid and reliable style of acting. Busy Philipps, three years older than Christensen and altogether unknown to me, blew me away with her overwhelming dramatic strength and screen presence. This girl was the part.<br /><br />It's a great movie and it connects to you with its intimate focus on the fragile yet growing relationship between the two traumatized girls. Gus van Sant's Elephant (2003) though good, seems almost superficial and paltry compared to Home Room when it comes to dramatic flair and acting. What I can see this film got very little screen time and exposure - so much more a loss for an equally traumatized America.<br /><br />Ten out of Ten | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: Home Room deals with a Columbine-like high-school shooting but rather than hashing over the occurrence itself the film portrays the aftermath and what happened to the survivors, their trauma, guilt and denial.<br /><br />*Spoilers* The shooting itself is treated as a foregone conclusion, with no action footage other than the reaction of an almost teenage SWAT commando after shooting the high school killer. The film has three protagonists; the detective investigating the crime of which no guilty parties are left to convict and two teenage girls surviving the incident, played by a very young Erika Christensen and Busy Philipps.<br /><br />The two girls having nothing in common besides the shooting are put together because of it and the drama ensues.<br /><br />Erika Christensen, though only 24 has been around the block so much that film viewers are pretty much acquainted with her solid and reliable style of acting. Busy Philipps, three years older than Christensen and altogether unknown to me, blew me away with her overwhelming dramatic strength and screen presence. This girl was the part.<br /><br />It's a great movie and it connects to you with its intimate focus on the fragile yet growing relationship between the two traumatized girls. Gus van Sant's Elephant (2003) though good, seems almost superficial and paltry compared to Home Room when it comes to dramatic flair and acting. What I can see this film got very little screen time and exposure - so much more a loss for an equally traumatized America.<br /><br />Ten out of Ten Class: | 2positive
|
This begins a wager between Edgar Allen Poe and a journalist...Poe bets that the man can not spend an entire night in a creepy castle. Well, of course he can, but will he come out unscathed? Hard to say with all these strange people that aren't supposed to be there wandering around, including the icy Barbara Steele. This is a fairly odd film in that the presentation is both in French and English, and switches back and forth a few times. Perhaps this is done because bits of dialog were lost? It's also rather dark and claustrophobic, being that one doesn't see much beyond a small circle of light that candles and such generate, plus there's a feel of dread and impending doom pretty much at all times. This version (on Synapse) is also uncensored and I wondered what might be censored in a film from 1964 until I saw the topless scene, I guess that might be it. Overall this is pretty good and in gloomy black and white. Barbara Steele definitely makes the movie too. 8 out of 10. | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: This begins a wager between Edgar Allen Poe and a journalist...Poe bets that the man can not spend an entire night in a creepy castle. Well, of course he can, but will he come out unscathed? Hard to say with all these strange people that aren't supposed to be there wandering around, including the icy Barbara Steele. This is a fairly odd film in that the presentation is both in French and English, and switches back and forth a few times. Perhaps this is done because bits of dialog were lost? It's also rather dark and claustrophobic, being that one doesn't see much beyond a small circle of light that candles and such generate, plus there's a feel of dread and impending doom pretty much at all times. This version (on Synapse) is also uncensored and I wondered what might be censored in a film from 1964 until I saw the topless scene, I guess that might be it. Overall this is pretty good and in gloomy black and white. Barbara Steele definitely makes the movie too. 8 out of 10. Class: | 1neutral
|
Last weekend I bought this 'zombie movie' from the bargain bin and watched it with some friends thinking it was going to be a budget version of "Land of the Dead".<br /><br />Boy, was I wrong. <br /><br />It seems as if they spent a good portion of their budget on the cover-art, which is very misleading to fans of the zombie genre.<br /><br />We watched up to the point where the zombie chicks come alive and get in the car with some yuppie who is out in the middle of nowhere talking business on a cell-phone. They actually speak to the guy before one of the girls kills him; but once they started driving the car, I couldn't suspend my disbelief anymore.<br /><br />Some people actually consider this a "so bad, it's good" movie, they are liars. I didn't finish the movie, but one of the other reviews mention that they actually somehow become police officers at the end of the movie, which makes me glad to not have watched it all the way through.<br /><br />This is even worse than "Zombiez" DO NOT WATCH! | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: Last weekend I bought this 'zombie movie' from the bargain bin and watched it with some friends thinking it was going to be a budget version of "Land of the Dead".<br /><br />Boy, was I wrong. <br /><br />It seems as if they spent a good portion of their budget on the cover-art, which is very misleading to fans of the zombie genre.<br /><br />We watched up to the point where the zombie chicks come alive and get in the car with some yuppie who is out in the middle of nowhere talking business on a cell-phone. They actually speak to the guy before one of the girls kills him; but once they started driving the car, I couldn't suspend my disbelief anymore.<br /><br />Some people actually consider this a "so bad, it's good" movie, they are liars. I didn't finish the movie, but one of the other reviews mention that they actually somehow become police officers at the end of the movie, which makes me glad to not have watched it all the way through.<br /><br />This is even worse than "Zombiez" DO NOT WATCH! Class: | 1neutral
|
Well the reason for seeing it in the cinema was that it was a sneak preview, else I would never have seen this terrible teenage slasher movie. I mean haven't we had enough of this yet? Scream and Scary Movie at least did not take them self serious! The plot sucks, and the acting is the worst I've seen. (Only Godzilla can compare, which is also the only movie that competes in being the worst I've seen in the cinema with this one.)<br /><br />There is so many plot holes in the story, and the girls are so alike, that you don't even now who has been killed, and who has not. (and you don't care.) The only of them I knew in advance was Denise, and she was the most talent less actress I have ever seen in this bad excuse for a movie.<br /><br />Stay as far away from this movie as possible. (2/10) | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: Well the reason for seeing it in the cinema was that it was a sneak preview, else I would never have seen this terrible teenage slasher movie. I mean haven't we had enough of this yet? Scream and Scary Movie at least did not take them self serious! The plot sucks, and the acting is the worst I've seen. (Only Godzilla can compare, which is also the only movie that competes in being the worst I've seen in the cinema with this one.)<br /><br />There is so many plot holes in the story, and the girls are so alike, that you don't even now who has been killed, and who has not. (and you don't care.) The only of them I knew in advance was Denise, and she was the most talent less actress I have ever seen in this bad excuse for a movie.<br /><br />Stay as far away from this movie as possible. (2/10) Class: | 0negative
|
We have an average family. Dad's a famous rapper, we have the "rebelious teenage daughter", the adopted white kid, and the cute little kid. And we have careless housemaid, what show has had a housemaid like that? Do we have a messed-up Brady Bunch? Yay! When it first came out I thought it was really cool, mostly because I was young. The music was bad. The raps were so bad and they were too g-rated. All of his raps were about his family and friends and problems. The dad was kind of the "Danny from Full House" type of dad. Always gave the advice out. But he wasn't a clean freak. They had a house-keeper for that. Remember? The plots were basically Lil' Romeo was in trouble of some sort, or... not that's it. Oh and maybe some preteen drama. Yeah that stuff is good. Not really. But its still a good show for kids. But Nikelodean could do better. | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: We have an average family. Dad's a famous rapper, we have the "rebelious teenage daughter", the adopted white kid, and the cute little kid. And we have careless housemaid, what show has had a housemaid like that? Do we have a messed-up Brady Bunch? Yay! When it first came out I thought it was really cool, mostly because I was young. The music was bad. The raps were so bad and they were too g-rated. All of his raps were about his family and friends and problems. The dad was kind of the "Danny from Full House" type of dad. Always gave the advice out. But he wasn't a clean freak. They had a house-keeper for that. Remember? The plots were basically Lil' Romeo was in trouble of some sort, or... not that's it. Oh and maybe some preteen drama. Yeah that stuff is good. Not really. But its still a good show for kids. But Nikelodean could do better. Class: | 1neutral
|
when my sister said this movie was gonna be good i had second thoughts but i watched it and it was actually funny. basically the movie is made of a weird girl who goes to a small town where no one likes her and she just wants to go there and get the reading of her aunts will don so she can go. but its not all that easy. In this movie you will come across hilarious humor, a witch, a book of spells/recopies, a mentally challenged uncle and a dog. You will understand the meaning of the word freak a after anyways i hope you run right out and try to find this really old movie. hope you like it in total i will have to give it a 0.... no I'm totally joking ill give it a 9 hope you understand that you will laugh, you will scream and you may just be offended.<br /><br />love yours truly: Dakota you can email me at dakota_loves_it@hot mail.com if you wanna | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: when my sister said this movie was gonna be good i had second thoughts but i watched it and it was actually funny. basically the movie is made of a weird girl who goes to a small town where no one likes her and she just wants to go there and get the reading of her aunts will don so she can go. but its not all that easy. In this movie you will come across hilarious humor, a witch, a book of spells/recopies, a mentally challenged uncle and a dog. You will understand the meaning of the word freak a after anyways i hope you run right out and try to find this really old movie. hope you like it in total i will have to give it a 0.... no I'm totally joking ill give it a 9 hope you understand that you will laugh, you will scream and you may just be offended.<br /><br />love yours truly: Dakota you can email me at dakota_loves_it@hot mail.com if you wanna Class: | 2positive
|
I thought this was a wonderful movie. It touches every fiber of a human being. The love in the film is very intense. I thought it was Will's best performance to date. Great directing. Liked the editing. Music was great. Good use of flashback. This is the kind of movie everyone should go see. I hope people will get something wonderful from this. Overall, excellent movie. I think Hollywood should make more movies with substance. Even action films can have a caring story. I like the fact that Will was very subtle in his acting. He had a purpose and a dedication that is rare to see. I would suggest watching this alone or with someone that you really care about. For me, I found that the world stopped and my only focus was on the film. The outside world was suspended for a moment. It was a nice feeling with all this chaos going on in this world. And with this me generation it was great to see something(someone) that cared about other people more than himself. | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: I thought this was a wonderful movie. It touches every fiber of a human being. The love in the film is very intense. I thought it was Will's best performance to date. Great directing. Liked the editing. Music was great. Good use of flashback. This is the kind of movie everyone should go see. I hope people will get something wonderful from this. Overall, excellent movie. I think Hollywood should make more movies with substance. Even action films can have a caring story. I like the fact that Will was very subtle in his acting. He had a purpose and a dedication that is rare to see. I would suggest watching this alone or with someone that you really care about. For me, I found that the world stopped and my only focus was on the film. The outside world was suspended for a moment. It was a nice feeling with all this chaos going on in this world. And with this me generation it was great to see something(someone) that cared about other people more than himself. Class: | 2positive
|
Why on earth is Colin Firth in this pointless film? Has he really been that strapped for cash?<br /><br />The film isn't clear on what it wants to be about, grief?, exotic places?, ghosts?, a vehicle for Mr Darcy? It's a muddled, muddy mess.<br /><br />There seems to be some sort of idea that Italy must be good, in itself, and that Italian has something to offer as a language - but in the end the girls just want to go back to yankland.<br /><br />There are pointless episodes on the beach, in churches, on busy roads - but what it is all about, or why anybody should care simply isn't clear.<br /><br />There was also a yank woman in the film. It wasn't clear what here job was, but she seemed only to be there to make vapid, inappropriate and maudlin comments to the girl. Was it supposed to be about paedophillia??<br /><br />A pretty dreadful mess, all in all. I gave it 2 rather than 1 because it doesn't have the charm of an utterly ghastly film. | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: Why on earth is Colin Firth in this pointless film? Has he really been that strapped for cash?<br /><br />The film isn't clear on what it wants to be about, grief?, exotic places?, ghosts?, a vehicle for Mr Darcy? It's a muddled, muddy mess.<br /><br />There seems to be some sort of idea that Italy must be good, in itself, and that Italian has something to offer as a language - but in the end the girls just want to go back to yankland.<br /><br />There are pointless episodes on the beach, in churches, on busy roads - but what it is all about, or why anybody should care simply isn't clear.<br /><br />There was also a yank woman in the film. It wasn't clear what here job was, but she seemed only to be there to make vapid, inappropriate and maudlin comments to the girl. Was it supposed to be about paedophillia??<br /><br />A pretty dreadful mess, all in all. I gave it 2 rather than 1 because it doesn't have the charm of an utterly ghastly film. Class: | 1neutral
|
Back in 1985 I caught this thing (I can't even call it a movie) on cable. I was in college and I was with a high school friend whose hormones were raging out of control. I figured out early on that this was hopeless. Stupid script (a bunch of old guys hiring some young guys to show them how to score with women), bad acting (with one exception) and pathetic jokes. The plentiful female nudity here kept my friend happy for a while--but even he was bored after 30 minutes in. Remember--this was a HIGH SCHOOL BOY! This was back before nudity was so easy to get to by the Internet and such. We kept watching hoping for something interesting or funny but that never happened. The funniest thing about this was the original ad campaign in which the studio admitted this film was crap! (One poster had a fictional review that said, "This is the best movie I've seen this afternoon!"). Only Grant Cramer in the lead showed any talent and has actually gone on to a career in the business. No-budget and boring t&a. Skip it. | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: Back in 1985 I caught this thing (I can't even call it a movie) on cable. I was in college and I was with a high school friend whose hormones were raging out of control. I figured out early on that this was hopeless. Stupid script (a bunch of old guys hiring some young guys to show them how to score with women), bad acting (with one exception) and pathetic jokes. The plentiful female nudity here kept my friend happy for a while--but even he was bored after 30 minutes in. Remember--this was a HIGH SCHOOL BOY! This was back before nudity was so easy to get to by the Internet and such. We kept watching hoping for something interesting or funny but that never happened. The funniest thing about this was the original ad campaign in which the studio admitted this film was crap! (One poster had a fictional review that said, "This is the best movie I've seen this afternoon!"). Only Grant Cramer in the lead showed any talent and has actually gone on to a career in the business. No-budget and boring t&a. Skip it. Class: | 1neutral
|
It's easy to forget, once later series had developed the alien conspiracy plot arc more, that once upon a time, The X-Files' wrote episodes like "GenderBender" and "Fearful Symmetry", where the aliens weren't all little grey men or mind-control goop, but could actually surprise you.<br /><br />"Fearful Symmetry" starts with an "invisible elephant" - actually an elephant somehow dislocated in space and time, not a mile away from "The Walk" - and ends with a pregnant gorilla being abducted. And it's very much an episode of wonderful moments. The subplot is annoyingly worthy - yeah, we get it, zoos are bad except when they're not - but the ideas that within it are fascinating, visually powerful, and very memorable, and it covers an angle on abduction that is largely overlooked - why *would* humans be the only things that aliens are interested in?<br /><br />In the end, it wasn't an instant classic, but it was enjoyable viewing while it lasted, again, very memorable, and mainly, it's something that you couldn't imagine many other shows doing. | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: It's easy to forget, once later series had developed the alien conspiracy plot arc more, that once upon a time, The X-Files' wrote episodes like "GenderBender" and "Fearful Symmetry", where the aliens weren't all little grey men or mind-control goop, but could actually surprise you.<br /><br />"Fearful Symmetry" starts with an "invisible elephant" - actually an elephant somehow dislocated in space and time, not a mile away from "The Walk" - and ends with a pregnant gorilla being abducted. And it's very much an episode of wonderful moments. The subplot is annoyingly worthy - yeah, we get it, zoos are bad except when they're not - but the ideas that within it are fascinating, visually powerful, and very memorable, and it covers an angle on abduction that is largely overlooked - why *would* humans be the only things that aliens are interested in?<br /><br />In the end, it wasn't an instant classic, but it was enjoyable viewing while it lasted, again, very memorable, and mainly, it's something that you couldn't imagine many other shows doing. Class: | 1neutral
|
Grey Gardens'(1975) is the Maysles' brothers bizarre documentary of Jackie Bouvier Kennedy Onassis'eccentric aunt and first cousin who live like pigs in a run down 28 room mansion on East Hampton, Long Island.'Big Edie' Bouvier Beale,78,witty and dry and her daughter, 'Little Edie' Beale,56,(emotionally about 13) a still beautiful woman who once had a promising future,live in isolation from the rest of the world except for their many cats and raccoons in the attic. They amuse themselves by bickering all day, listening to the radio or singing to each other(They dont even own a television) Their fall from society is amazing to learn of and the viewer is drawn to these two very special, although obviously, dysfunctional people.One of the better documentaries ever made and still a cult classic today. | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: Grey Gardens'(1975) is the Maysles' brothers bizarre documentary of Jackie Bouvier Kennedy Onassis'eccentric aunt and first cousin who live like pigs in a run down 28 room mansion on East Hampton, Long Island.'Big Edie' Bouvier Beale,78,witty and dry and her daughter, 'Little Edie' Beale,56,(emotionally about 13) a still beautiful woman who once had a promising future,live in isolation from the rest of the world except for their many cats and raccoons in the attic. They amuse themselves by bickering all day, listening to the radio or singing to each other(They dont even own a television) Their fall from society is amazing to learn of and the viewer is drawn to these two very special, although obviously, dysfunctional people.One of the better documentaries ever made and still a cult classic today. Class: | 2positive
|
I'm usually not one to say that a film is not worth watching, but this is certainly an extenuating circumstance. The only true upside to this film is Cornelia Sharpe, looking rather attractive, and the fact that this film is REALLY short.<br /><br />The plot in the film is unbelievably boring and goes virtually nowhere throughout the film. None of the characters are even remotely interesting and there is no reason to care about anyone. I'm not sure why on earth Sean Connery agreed to do this film, but he should have definitely passed on this one.<br /><br />The only reason I could see for seeing this film is if you are a die-hard Sean Connery fan and simply want to see everything he's done. Save this one for last though.<br /><br />Well, if you by some miracle end up seeing this despite my review (or any of the other reviews on this site), then I hope you enjoy it more than I did. Thanks for reading. | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: I'm usually not one to say that a film is not worth watching, but this is certainly an extenuating circumstance. The only true upside to this film is Cornelia Sharpe, looking rather attractive, and the fact that this film is REALLY short.<br /><br />The plot in the film is unbelievably boring and goes virtually nowhere throughout the film. None of the characters are even remotely interesting and there is no reason to care about anyone. I'm not sure why on earth Sean Connery agreed to do this film, but he should have definitely passed on this one.<br /><br />The only reason I could see for seeing this film is if you are a die-hard Sean Connery fan and simply want to see everything he's done. Save this one for last though.<br /><br />Well, if you by some miracle end up seeing this despite my review (or any of the other reviews on this site), then I hope you enjoy it more than I did. Thanks for reading. Class: | 1neutral
|
Not funny - how can anyone link this to Monty Python? That is absolutely ridiculous - there are no laughs. This is not funny. Over the top, but ugly, weird just for weird sake and it seems to me these people were on something all the time. Unfortunately something that did not make them funny.<br /><br />It should be given some points for effort etc. whatever. Actually it appears there is a laugh track - or is there one? Hummm.... Since there are barely any laughs that's a debatable question.<br /><br />Maybe I'm doing it injustice - maybe it's some sort of exercise. Some sort of art - in that case anything goes, never mind.<br /><br />But these guys playing women with high-pitched voices, turned-up noses. Come on !!! Not funny. <br /><br />There is only one heir apparent to Monty Pythons intellectual wit and that is Stephen Colbert, and maybe Jon Stewart. | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: Not funny - how can anyone link this to Monty Python? That is absolutely ridiculous - there are no laughs. This is not funny. Over the top, but ugly, weird just for weird sake and it seems to me these people were on something all the time. Unfortunately something that did not make them funny.<br /><br />It should be given some points for effort etc. whatever. Actually it appears there is a laugh track - or is there one? Hummm.... Since there are barely any laughs that's a debatable question.<br /><br />Maybe I'm doing it injustice - maybe it's some sort of exercise. Some sort of art - in that case anything goes, never mind.<br /><br />But these guys playing women with high-pitched voices, turned-up noses. Come on !!! Not funny. <br /><br />There is only one heir apparent to Monty Pythons intellectual wit and that is Stephen Colbert, and maybe Jon Stewart. Class: | 0negative
|
Okay, I rented this movie because of the director...he has made some interesting flicks in the past (if you haven't seen Waxork you are missing a fun ride). Anyway, I had my doubts about this movie from the beginning but I decided to suck it up and give it a look. It's bad. Very bad. If you haven't seen the movie and don't mind spoilers read ahead. First of all, the old saying 'You can't judge a book by it's cover' applies here. The box for this flick seems to indicate that Jill is the stone fox with long hair with highlights. The back of the box has a cool shot of the red-leather Jill and some other shots. The description makes you want to rent the movie because it SOUNDS good. You start watching it and suddenly you find out that the movie takes place (inexplicably) in 1977. Jill is a total dog who is not the girl on the cover. The movie is not quite as predictable as you would think...and that's not a good thing. Characters do so many stupid things without any modicum of motivation...it's embarrassing to watch. 10 minutes before the end of the movie Dolph and another lady have sex for no good reason. Also, what was the point of having Dolph kill this other lady in cold blood who had been helping him. Anthony Hickox the director should have seen a stinker when he read the script. Had it been set in the underworld of the new milennium and made the characters halfway intelligent it might have been decent. To set it in the 70's makes no sense and has no bearing on the story whatsoever. Avoid it! | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: Okay, I rented this movie because of the director...he has made some interesting flicks in the past (if you haven't seen Waxork you are missing a fun ride). Anyway, I had my doubts about this movie from the beginning but I decided to suck it up and give it a look. It's bad. Very bad. If you haven't seen the movie and don't mind spoilers read ahead. First of all, the old saying 'You can't judge a book by it's cover' applies here. The box for this flick seems to indicate that Jill is the stone fox with long hair with highlights. The back of the box has a cool shot of the red-leather Jill and some other shots. The description makes you want to rent the movie because it SOUNDS good. You start watching it and suddenly you find out that the movie takes place (inexplicably) in 1977. Jill is a total dog who is not the girl on the cover. The movie is not quite as predictable as you would think...and that's not a good thing. Characters do so many stupid things without any modicum of motivation...it's embarrassing to watch. 10 minutes before the end of the movie Dolph and another lady have sex for no good reason. Also, what was the point of having Dolph kill this other lady in cold blood who had been helping him. Anthony Hickox the director should have seen a stinker when he read the script. Had it been set in the underworld of the new milennium and made the characters halfway intelligent it might have been decent. To set it in the 70's makes no sense and has no bearing on the story whatsoever. Avoid it! Class: | 1neutral
|
This obscure de Sica delivers the goods. And it is said "the meek shall inherit the earth." This tale of classes on the surface but really an allegory for all the homeless people that populated Europe after the great war. They are homeless but cheerful, in a societies too impoverished and selfish to care for or acknowledge them, footmats for the Italian carpetbaggers. de Sica chooses to tell it as a fairy tale, a Cinderella story. I have not read the book it is based on so I cannot foresay if the deus ex machina is the construct of the writer or Vittorio. It begins with the words, "Once upon a time..." to exemplify the timelessness of its tale, for the story could be set anywhere and everywhere. Caricature sketches of the aristocracy that cut to the bone, whimsical nature of the homeless especially when they begin to grant their wishes and an ending right out of a Spielberg picture makes this boulange a delight for all. De Sica's most accessible picture is also one of his best. Abandoning neo-realism, he always dallied between that and pure good old film-making, he creates a movie that breaks the heart and at the same time fills it with the yearning of hope that one needs to continue leaving in this world. Gracias Vittorio! Gracias! Gracias!!! Gracias!!!!!!!!!!!! | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: This obscure de Sica delivers the goods. And it is said "the meek shall inherit the earth." This tale of classes on the surface but really an allegory for all the homeless people that populated Europe after the great war. They are homeless but cheerful, in a societies too impoverished and selfish to care for or acknowledge them, footmats for the Italian carpetbaggers. de Sica chooses to tell it as a fairy tale, a Cinderella story. I have not read the book it is based on so I cannot foresay if the deus ex machina is the construct of the writer or Vittorio. It begins with the words, "Once upon a time..." to exemplify the timelessness of its tale, for the story could be set anywhere and everywhere. Caricature sketches of the aristocracy that cut to the bone, whimsical nature of the homeless especially when they begin to grant their wishes and an ending right out of a Spielberg picture makes this boulange a delight for all. De Sica's most accessible picture is also one of his best. Abandoning neo-realism, he always dallied between that and pure good old film-making, he creates a movie that breaks the heart and at the same time fills it with the yearning of hope that one needs to continue leaving in this world. Gracias Vittorio! Gracias! Gracias!!! Gracias!!!!!!!!!!!! Class: | 2positive
|
Wes Craven, you are having a laugh... at our expense. The Red Eye plot is preposterous... We are confronted by a guy who has apparently spent 8 weeks watching a girl, who then turns up at an airport behind her, flirts and chats her up successfully, somehow wangles a seat next to her in a two seat space, not trapped in the middle of a five seat row (contacts at check-in?) and is cheezily nice during a painfully slooooow build up. Then, once up in the air, in a confined space, surrounded by strangers, he immediately starts threatening the vacuous, if super-efficient, Rachel McAdams and saying tosh like 'we got ya daddy, do what I say, or poppa gets it'. Well, forgive me, but didn't they already have her daddy ready for slaughter-so-you-better-oughta long before she stepped on the plane and therefore wouldn't it have been oh, sooooooo much simpler to simply snatch the gal off the street and terrorise her in a room somewhere, forgetting the complicated and insecure dad plot, pulling her nails out or whatever until she made the all important 'call' required? Or even - cos this is the movies and we need a few unreal twists - keep the dumb dad-in-distress thing intact if you must, but dress it up better so that holding him in harms way until the convoluted plot had been concluded made some sense, without the plane dumbdown? Alternatively, without wanting to sound like an actual thinking terrorist/assassin - couldn't the massive bazooka-missile thang employed have been far more easily used on, say, a car driving down the highway, with the politician inside, rather than the 50th story of a Miami seafront hotel, from a fishing boat (mind you, as we already know, security in Miami is lax, so they'll speed away)? I know, I know, far more fun to go through watching a pretty girl for 8 weeks, burgle her dads house to steal his wallet (that somehow - star trek style - gets transported from Miami to Texas instantly) in order to - perhaps - get her to arrange for a politician to change hotel room and, and, and... Well, a thousand things could go wrong here, each one entirely destroying the Big Plan, so why not slim the elements down to a sensible handful, such as - 1. bazooka. 2. car. 3. boom! My 50 minute drive home from the cinema was spent highlighting the abundance of flaws and stupid cod-Hitchcockian twists, which sadly was the best fun of the whole sorry experience. And as for security back at Miami Airport... we have an apparently crazy and violent girl running off a plane, chased by cops, who during the chase sits down to have a coffee, moves elsewhere to read a magazine at a bar, then runs again like crazy up and down the whole terminal... by now also chased by crazed Cillian Murphy (no CCTV then? - I had guns pulled on me for parking in the wrong place for 10 seconds at Miami Airport a couple of years back). So instead of speaking to the cops - her allies - or getting on the blower at a call-box direct to her dad to warn him his life is in danger, McAdams prefers instead to steal a People Carrier off a family in the Airport forecourt (call the damned security...) and drives home to daddy, mowing down the assassin with the vehicle in the front garden of the house, in a rich neighbourhood-watch district, crushing the front porch in the process - an act which actually slightly wakes dad up from an afternoon snooze, after about a minute, yet which somehow fails to register with neighbours who aren't even mildly curious, thus ensuring 15 more minutes of hide and seek shenanigans as the duo run around the vast Hollodeck type house... Dohhh, it actually hurts to keep thinking about it all - Cillian (surely renamed Silly 'un for doing this one?) preposterously turns from ice assassin to comically unhinged (and inept) lunatic killer at the end, this theoretically ruthless despatcher of human life now allowing the dad to live so that he can watch his daughter getting her goose cooked. I'd better stop, because the stream of drivel I'm writing here must sound as uncoordinated as the Red Eye script. If Ms McAdams hadn't been allowed to get on the plane in the first place the title could have been altered, from 'Red Eye' to 'No Eye, Dear'. RR | Classify an input text. Only return the class label as a single word and no reasoning or other content. Class labels 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Text: Wes Craven, you are having a laugh... at our expense. The Red Eye plot is preposterous... We are confronted by a guy who has apparently spent 8 weeks watching a girl, who then turns up at an airport behind her, flirts and chats her up successfully, somehow wangles a seat next to her in a two seat space, not trapped in the middle of a five seat row (contacts at check-in?) and is cheezily nice during a painfully slooooow build up. Then, once up in the air, in a confined space, surrounded by strangers, he immediately starts threatening the vacuous, if super-efficient, Rachel McAdams and saying tosh like 'we got ya daddy, do what I say, or poppa gets it'. Well, forgive me, but didn't they already have her daddy ready for slaughter-so-you-better-oughta long before she stepped on the plane and therefore wouldn't it have been oh, sooooooo much simpler to simply snatch the gal off the street and terrorise her in a room somewhere, forgetting the complicated and insecure dad plot, pulling her nails out or whatever until she made the all important 'call' required? Or even - cos this is the movies and we need a few unreal twists - keep the dumb dad-in-distress thing intact if you must, but dress it up better so that holding him in harms way until the convoluted plot had been concluded made some sense, without the plane dumbdown? Alternatively, without wanting to sound like an actual thinking terrorist/assassin - couldn't the massive bazooka-missile thang employed have been far more easily used on, say, a car driving down the highway, with the politician inside, rather than the 50th story of a Miami seafront hotel, from a fishing boat (mind you, as we already know, security in Miami is lax, so they'll speed away)? I know, I know, far more fun to go through watching a pretty girl for 8 weeks, burgle her dads house to steal his wallet (that somehow - star trek style - gets transported from Miami to Texas instantly) in order to - perhaps - get her to arrange for a politician to change hotel room and, and, and... Well, a thousand things could go wrong here, each one entirely destroying the Big Plan, so why not slim the elements down to a sensible handful, such as - 1. bazooka. 2. car. 3. boom! My 50 minute drive home from the cinema was spent highlighting the abundance of flaws and stupid cod-Hitchcockian twists, which sadly was the best fun of the whole sorry experience. And as for security back at Miami Airport... we have an apparently crazy and violent girl running off a plane, chased by cops, who during the chase sits down to have a coffee, moves elsewhere to read a magazine at a bar, then runs again like crazy up and down the whole terminal... by now also chased by crazed Cillian Murphy (no CCTV then? - I had guns pulled on me for parking in the wrong place for 10 seconds at Miami Airport a couple of years back). So instead of speaking to the cops - her allies - or getting on the blower at a call-box direct to her dad to warn him his life is in danger, McAdams prefers instead to steal a People Carrier off a family in the Airport forecourt (call the damned security...) and drives home to daddy, mowing down the assassin with the vehicle in the front garden of the house, in a rich neighbourhood-watch district, crushing the front porch in the process - an act which actually slightly wakes dad up from an afternoon snooze, after about a minute, yet which somehow fails to register with neighbours who aren't even mildly curious, thus ensuring 15 more minutes of hide and seek shenanigans as the duo run around the vast Hollodeck type house... Dohhh, it actually hurts to keep thinking about it all - Cillian (surely renamed Silly 'un for doing this one?) preposterously turns from ice assassin to comically unhinged (and inept) lunatic killer at the end, this theoretically ruthless despatcher of human life now allowing the dad to live so that he can watch his daughter getting her goose cooked. I'd better stop, because the stream of drivel I'm writing here must sound as uncoordinated as the Red Eye script. If Ms McAdams hadn't been allowed to get on the plane in the first place the title could have been altered, from 'Red Eye' to 'No Eye, Dear'. RR Class: | 0negative
|
I love horses and admire hand drawn animation, so I expected nothing short of amazement from Dreamworks new animated picture Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron. I guess you could say I was a little bit disappointed. You have wonderful animation and at first what seems like a perfect story. A story about absolutely nothing but a horse in nature. The animals don't sing cute songs or even talk -- a major plus. Sadly, the film has an uncalled for narration by Matt Damon; a sappy soundtrack by Bryan Adams; and enough action scenes to compare it to a Jerry Bruckheimer production. If the film makers would have just stayed with simplicity, we'd have a masterpiece here. This is not a great film, but it is good entertainment for small children. I would recommend this film to families because it has its heart in the right place and its the only thing out there right now that isn't offensive to small children. Not bad, but could have been much better. Very pretty visuals though. | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: I love horses and admire hand drawn animation, so I expected nothing short of amazement from Dreamworks new animated picture Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron. I guess you could say I was a little bit disappointed. You have wonderful animation and at first what seems like a perfect story. A story about absolutely nothing but a horse in nature. The animals don't sing cute songs or even talk -- a major plus. Sadly, the film has an uncalled for narration by Matt Damon; a sappy soundtrack by Bryan Adams; and enough action scenes to compare it to a Jerry Bruckheimer production. If the film makers would have just stayed with simplicity, we'd have a masterpiece here. This is not a great film, but it is good entertainment for small children. I would recommend this film to families because it has its heart in the right place and its the only thing out there right now that isn't offensive to small children. Not bad, but could have been much better. Very pretty visuals though. Class: | 1neutral
|
The first (and only) time I saw "Shades" was during a Sneakpreview. It hadn't even been in premiere. I remember there was someone of the directors staff there, don't even remember who. It was a Belgian movie, we never heard of it, so we were quite neutral, not knowing what to expect. Mickey Rourke is a brilliant actor and he's stands miles ahead all the rest. He plays an actor who's star has long stopped rising. He's helping to realise a movie in Belgium entitled "Shades".<br /><br />As soon as the movie started, we noticed how much swearing there is. Nothing against the occasional swear word. However this was way beyond annoying. Whenever Rourke uses the F*** word to express something, it comes naturally. However, when someone from the cast, a non-English speaker uses the F**** or S*** word, it becomes arrogant and aggressive.<br /><br />We quickly lost count of how many times they used the F and S words. Everybody was just glad to be out of the theatre. And we had to give a vote, but it was hard for us because it was only from 0 to 10, and we were looking for the -10. | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: The first (and only) time I saw "Shades" was during a Sneakpreview. It hadn't even been in premiere. I remember there was someone of the directors staff there, don't even remember who. It was a Belgian movie, we never heard of it, so we were quite neutral, not knowing what to expect. Mickey Rourke is a brilliant actor and he's stands miles ahead all the rest. He plays an actor who's star has long stopped rising. He's helping to realise a movie in Belgium entitled "Shades".<br /><br />As soon as the movie started, we noticed how much swearing there is. Nothing against the occasional swear word. However this was way beyond annoying. Whenever Rourke uses the F*** word to express something, it comes naturally. However, when someone from the cast, a non-English speaker uses the F**** or S*** word, it becomes arrogant and aggressive.<br /><br />We quickly lost count of how many times they used the F and S words. Everybody was just glad to be out of the theatre. And we had to give a vote, but it was hard for us because it was only from 0 to 10, and we were looking for the -10. Class: | 1neutral
|
I seriously love this film so much, I never get sick of watching it. The only line I really can't stomach in this is when Riff calls herself a teenage lobotomy but other than that, everything else is perfect. I've never been a fan of PJ Soles and it didn't help to hear that she didn't even know who the Ramones were until she filmed this movie, but I can ignore her snarly little face for the most part. Most people who watch this over and over are fans of the Ramones and really.. that's the only reason I love it so much. I never get tired of seeing DeeDee mess up his Pizza lines or Joey mess up the name of the teacher over and over, haha. One of the best parts of the film is seeing them sing do you want to dance , down the halls of the high school.. I love it. The special edition DVD has a good retrospective, surprisingly PJ Soles isn't on it. Maybe she was working on another project *laugh* Anyway, great film, even better if you're a Ramones fan. | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: I seriously love this film so much, I never get sick of watching it. The only line I really can't stomach in this is when Riff calls herself a teenage lobotomy but other than that, everything else is perfect. I've never been a fan of PJ Soles and it didn't help to hear that she didn't even know who the Ramones were until she filmed this movie, but I can ignore her snarly little face for the most part. Most people who watch this over and over are fans of the Ramones and really.. that's the only reason I love it so much. I never get tired of seeing DeeDee mess up his Pizza lines or Joey mess up the name of the teacher over and over, haha. One of the best parts of the film is seeing them sing do you want to dance , down the halls of the high school.. I love it. The special edition DVD has a good retrospective, surprisingly PJ Soles isn't on it. Maybe she was working on another project *laugh* Anyway, great film, even better if you're a Ramones fan. Class: | 2positive
|
this is the best sci-fi that I have seen in my 29 years of watching sci-fi. I also believe that Dark Angel will become a cult favorite. The action is great but Jessica Alba is the best and most gorgeous star on TV today. | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: this is the best sci-fi that I have seen in my 29 years of watching sci-fi. I also believe that Dark Angel will become a cult favorite. The action is great but Jessica Alba is the best and most gorgeous star on TV today. Class: | 2positive
|
It's good to see that Vintage Film Buff have correctly categorized their excellent DVD release as a "musical", for that's what this film is, pure and simple. Like its unofficial remake, Murder at the Windmill (1949), the murder plot is just an excuse for an elaborate girlie show with Kitty Carlisle and Gertrude Michael leading a cast of super-decorative girls including Ann Sheridan, Lucy Ball, Beryl Wallace, Gwenllian Gill, Gladys Young, Barbara Fritchie, Wanda Perry and Dorothy White. Carl Brisson is also on hand to lend his strong voice to "Cocktails for Two". Undoubtedly the movie's most popular song, it is heard no less than four times. However, it's Gertrude Michael who steals the show, not only with her rendition of "Sweet Marijauna" but her strong performance as the hero's rejected girlfriend. As for the rest of the cast, we could have done without Jack Oakie and Victor McLaglen altogether. The only good thing about Oakie's role is his weak running gag with cult icon, Toby Wing. In fact, to give you an idea as to how far the rest of the comedy is over-indulged and over-strained, super-dumb Inspector McLaglen simply cannot put his hands on the killer even though, would you believe, in this instance it happens to be the person you most suspect. Director Mitch Leisen actually goes to great pains to point the killer out to even the dumbest member of the cinema audience by giving the player concerned close-up after close-up. | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: It's good to see that Vintage Film Buff have correctly categorized their excellent DVD release as a "musical", for that's what this film is, pure and simple. Like its unofficial remake, Murder at the Windmill (1949), the murder plot is just an excuse for an elaborate girlie show with Kitty Carlisle and Gertrude Michael leading a cast of super-decorative girls including Ann Sheridan, Lucy Ball, Beryl Wallace, Gwenllian Gill, Gladys Young, Barbara Fritchie, Wanda Perry and Dorothy White. Carl Brisson is also on hand to lend his strong voice to "Cocktails for Two". Undoubtedly the movie's most popular song, it is heard no less than four times. However, it's Gertrude Michael who steals the show, not only with her rendition of "Sweet Marijauna" but her strong performance as the hero's rejected girlfriend. As for the rest of the cast, we could have done without Jack Oakie and Victor McLaglen altogether. The only good thing about Oakie's role is his weak running gag with cult icon, Toby Wing. In fact, to give you an idea as to how far the rest of the comedy is over-indulged and over-strained, super-dumb Inspector McLaglen simply cannot put his hands on the killer even though, would you believe, in this instance it happens to be the person you most suspect. Director Mitch Leisen actually goes to great pains to point the killer out to even the dumbest member of the cinema audience by giving the player concerned close-up after close-up. Class: | 1neutral
|
I just finished watching this movie. It wasn't ridiculously bad, but I'm really disappointed with it. I'm not really sure why someone would make a movie like this. It was marginally entertaining, but I feel like the people making it had a lot of disagreements on what they were making. Monday, the writer was in charge; Tuesday, the director; Wednesday, the guy who gets the coffee; etc. It almost seems like they really wanted to make a couple different movies, but only had the time and money to make one.<br /><br />Someone else commented that the acting was really good, but I'd have to disagree. Then again, if the actors were able to keep a straight face during the filming, perhaps they're better actors than I give them credit for.<br /><br />The back of the DVD gives the impression that the movie would be a mystery... something along the lines of a historical Law and Order or National Treasure. It starts off like that, but then, out of nowhere it takes a turn towards a bad episode of the Twilight Zone, or... what was that other show that wasn't as good... A bad episode of The Outer Limits.<br /><br />My main complaint about the movie is that it is just so played out. There's the evil guy with spiked white hair. There's the love interest, who, when she first appears, the wind actually blows through her hair. Seriously. Once you realize it's a Christian movie, the end is also pretty easy to spot.<br /><br />The cinematography was poorly done, especially in the opening scenes - way to put your best foot forward. It wasn't atrocious for most of the movie, but there was the occasional ridiculously bad shot of an old lady, praying, arms up in a dark room while lightening is striking - the sort of thing that just makes you a little bit embarrassed to be watching the movie. | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: I just finished watching this movie. It wasn't ridiculously bad, but I'm really disappointed with it. I'm not really sure why someone would make a movie like this. It was marginally entertaining, but I feel like the people making it had a lot of disagreements on what they were making. Monday, the writer was in charge; Tuesday, the director; Wednesday, the guy who gets the coffee; etc. It almost seems like they really wanted to make a couple different movies, but only had the time and money to make one.<br /><br />Someone else commented that the acting was really good, but I'd have to disagree. Then again, if the actors were able to keep a straight face during the filming, perhaps they're better actors than I give them credit for.<br /><br />The back of the DVD gives the impression that the movie would be a mystery... something along the lines of a historical Law and Order or National Treasure. It starts off like that, but then, out of nowhere it takes a turn towards a bad episode of the Twilight Zone, or... what was that other show that wasn't as good... A bad episode of The Outer Limits.<br /><br />My main complaint about the movie is that it is just so played out. There's the evil guy with spiked white hair. There's the love interest, who, when she first appears, the wind actually blows through her hair. Seriously. Once you realize it's a Christian movie, the end is also pretty easy to spot.<br /><br />The cinematography was poorly done, especially in the opening scenes - way to put your best foot forward. It wasn't atrocious for most of the movie, but there was the occasional ridiculously bad shot of an old lady, praying, arms up in a dark room while lightening is striking - the sort of thing that just makes you a little bit embarrassed to be watching the movie. Class: | 1neutral
|
Slither is a horror comedy that doesn't really have enough horror or comedy to qualify as one or the other. It has one scene that is exceptionally good, any number of zingers that work, but very few real scares and not enough humor to maintain the movie. In addition, the script does not focus on the hero and heroine, and goes off kilter in several places.<br /><br />A major failing of this film is that it introduces and then leaves its hero (Fillion) to follow Grant Grant (Michael Rooker) as he is first introduced and then becomes the monster. This whole part of the film drags - Michael Rooker's character isn't that interesting to us as a person, and watching as he goes through a series of motions while acting in the monster's interest might be interesting if this was Grant - Portrait of a Man Turning Into A Monster rather than a horror-comedy alien invasion movie. In the final analysis this movie's problems are in the script - it isn't that important to the audience how the monster acts or propagates. The purpose of a horror-comedy is to get the heroes backed up in a corner with shotguns and then throw bugs at them, with them cracking wise every time something frightening or disgusting happens. Instead we get an exploration of the alien's habits and tactics that just makes this part of the movie drag. The ostensible heroine (Elizabeth Banks as Starla Grant) is more central to this part, but nonetheless I felt the movie had left its narrative track, unless it planned on following Grant Grant all the way to the end.<br /><br />When Fillion and his posse finally confront the alien the movie does begin to cook, but once again the problem is in the script. By this point that audience knows - and the characters should know - that Grant is not just suffering from some disease, and act accordingly (shotguns) - instead they continuously parley in the face of increasing evidence that this is not something that "let us get you to a hospital" is going to help. Although their reactions might have been human and real, these are characters in an action movie and simply should have done what the movie promised - delivered action. A lack of action scenes in a movie with as few ideas as this is a great failing.<br /><br />*** SPOILERS AHEAD *** After the first confrontation and the bursting of the alien larval sack (a minor character and perhaps the best scene in the movie) the script once again betrays the movie. At this point one of the characters is almost taken over by the alien and develops an insight into the alien. The writer-director (Gunn) chooses as this character a completely new character, rather than one of already developed minor characters. Why? Why did he need to introduce a completely new character more than an hour into the movie that becomes central to the plot? By the time this character is attacked, we know hardly anything about her and could care less about her, even though she is a winsome teenage girl in her bath. Had Gunn decided not to use this character and just used one of the established minor characters, he could have completely avoided introducing her family, and saved time and money. Furthermore, the hero and heroine would have been filled in on the alien's plans without all the additional characters, and could have gotten around to blowing away aliens sooner and with more vigor.<br /><br />My last criticism is based on the movie's look. Gunn is primarily a writer, or maybe it was budgetary constraints, but this movie looked ugly and uninteresting. Most of the action takes place at night in woods or on a field, and the screen simply looks drab. The sets in Wheelsy (the fictional town where the action takes place) look cheap. The whole movie looks cheap. Box Office Mojo states the films' budget was $15 million, newspapers say $29 million, and considering they didn't use any name talent, I would say the money did not show up on screen. The monster is just repulsive, and rarely looks deadly.<br /><br />The last criticism is primarily based on the reality of the character's actions. By the time Fillion and Co have begun hunting Grant/the alien, one woman has disappeared and Grant is known to have been mutilating animals. At this point I was expecting the FBI or at least the State Police to show up and take over from the hick Sheriff. A woman has disappeared and likely been murdered, and a local has been acting psychotic. Time to call the authorities. But basically I was hoping that would happen because I just wanted some characters who would show up and ACT.<br /><br />Although this movie is ostensibly a horror-comedy, the movie it bears the most resemblance to is Dreamcatcher in terms of monstrous invasion and the type of monster and its intentions. Whereas Dreamcatcher had much bigger problems with story (especially the entire Morgan Freeman subplot) and particularly the ending, in many ways it was stronger, primarily because the main characters were stronger, but more importantly because it looked beautiful. Although that may be anathema - preferring the movie that is weaker in general plot and structural spine because of production values - that just shows you how uninteresting I found the look of Slither. | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: Slither is a horror comedy that doesn't really have enough horror or comedy to qualify as one or the other. It has one scene that is exceptionally good, any number of zingers that work, but very few real scares and not enough humor to maintain the movie. In addition, the script does not focus on the hero and heroine, and goes off kilter in several places.<br /><br />A major failing of this film is that it introduces and then leaves its hero (Fillion) to follow Grant Grant (Michael Rooker) as he is first introduced and then becomes the monster. This whole part of the film drags - Michael Rooker's character isn't that interesting to us as a person, and watching as he goes through a series of motions while acting in the monster's interest might be interesting if this was Grant - Portrait of a Man Turning Into A Monster rather than a horror-comedy alien invasion movie. In the final analysis this movie's problems are in the script - it isn't that important to the audience how the monster acts or propagates. The purpose of a horror-comedy is to get the heroes backed up in a corner with shotguns and then throw bugs at them, with them cracking wise every time something frightening or disgusting happens. Instead we get an exploration of the alien's habits and tactics that just makes this part of the movie drag. The ostensible heroine (Elizabeth Banks as Starla Grant) is more central to this part, but nonetheless I felt the movie had left its narrative track, unless it planned on following Grant Grant all the way to the end.<br /><br />When Fillion and his posse finally confront the alien the movie does begin to cook, but once again the problem is in the script. By this point that audience knows - and the characters should know - that Grant is not just suffering from some disease, and act accordingly (shotguns) - instead they continuously parley in the face of increasing evidence that this is not something that "let us get you to a hospital" is going to help. Although their reactions might have been human and real, these are characters in an action movie and simply should have done what the movie promised - delivered action. A lack of action scenes in a movie with as few ideas as this is a great failing.<br /><br />*** SPOILERS AHEAD *** After the first confrontation and the bursting of the alien larval sack (a minor character and perhaps the best scene in the movie) the script once again betrays the movie. At this point one of the characters is almost taken over by the alien and develops an insight into the alien. The writer-director (Gunn) chooses as this character a completely new character, rather than one of already developed minor characters. Why? Why did he need to introduce a completely new character more than an hour into the movie that becomes central to the plot? By the time this character is attacked, we know hardly anything about her and could care less about her, even though she is a winsome teenage girl in her bath. Had Gunn decided not to use this character and just used one of the established minor characters, he could have completely avoided introducing her family, and saved time and money. Furthermore, the hero and heroine would have been filled in on the alien's plans without all the additional characters, and could have gotten around to blowing away aliens sooner and with more vigor.<br /><br />My last criticism is based on the movie's look. Gunn is primarily a writer, or maybe it was budgetary constraints, but this movie looked ugly and uninteresting. Most of the action takes place at night in woods or on a field, and the screen simply looks drab. The sets in Wheelsy (the fictional town where the action takes place) look cheap. The whole movie looks cheap. Box Office Mojo states the films' budget was $15 million, newspapers say $29 million, and considering they didn't use any name talent, I would say the money did not show up on screen. The monster is just repulsive, and rarely looks deadly.<br /><br />The last criticism is primarily based on the reality of the character's actions. By the time Fillion and Co have begun hunting Grant/the alien, one woman has disappeared and Grant is known to have been mutilating animals. At this point I was expecting the FBI or at least the State Police to show up and take over from the hick Sheriff. A woman has disappeared and likely been murdered, and a local has been acting psychotic. Time to call the authorities. But basically I was hoping that would happen because I just wanted some characters who would show up and ACT.<br /><br />Although this movie is ostensibly a horror-comedy, the movie it bears the most resemblance to is Dreamcatcher in terms of monstrous invasion and the type of monster and its intentions. Whereas Dreamcatcher had much bigger problems with story (especially the entire Morgan Freeman subplot) and particularly the ending, in many ways it was stronger, primarily because the main characters were stronger, but more importantly because it looked beautiful. Although that may be anathema - preferring the movie that is weaker in general plot and structural spine because of production values - that just shows you how uninteresting I found the look of Slither. Class: | 1neutral
|
Gus Van Sant has made some excellent films. I truly am a fan.<br /><br />However, I can't help but feel that the cerebral edge of Tom Robbins book "Even Cowgirls Get the Blues" is lost in translation to the big screen. Alone, Tom Robbins and Gus Van Sant are incredible visionaries and towers of talent. Ultimately though this one just didn't work. <br /><br />It wasn't that the characters weren't well developed or the plot and content didn't come alive. It's just that our imaginations are much more powerful when reading a book like this. We're taken away to a different time and place and we sometimes think the worst and/or the best and it adds to the overall roller-coaster of the book as it neatly unfolds according to the author's precision. Movies however can leave one with less of the imagination and emotion roller-coaster detracting from the overall experience. This is what I believe happened here.<br /><br />I suggest reading the book! | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: Gus Van Sant has made some excellent films. I truly am a fan.<br /><br />However, I can't help but feel that the cerebral edge of Tom Robbins book "Even Cowgirls Get the Blues" is lost in translation to the big screen. Alone, Tom Robbins and Gus Van Sant are incredible visionaries and towers of talent. Ultimately though this one just didn't work. <br /><br />It wasn't that the characters weren't well developed or the plot and content didn't come alive. It's just that our imaginations are much more powerful when reading a book like this. We're taken away to a different time and place and we sometimes think the worst and/or the best and it adds to the overall roller-coaster of the book as it neatly unfolds according to the author's precision. Movies however can leave one with less of the imagination and emotion roller-coaster detracting from the overall experience. This is what I believe happened here.<br /><br />I suggest reading the book! Class: | 1neutral
|
What an appalling piece of rubbish!!! Who ARE all these people who blubber on about how good this is? Yes, it's "arty"; and yes, it's "foreign", but .... that's not enough. The plot is boring and disjointed, like a reality show but not so slickly made.<br /><br />The people are intrinsically uninteresting; but as characters they don't have enough depth to feel empathy for them. If they are based on real people then I feel very, very sorry for them.<br /><br />The violence (and some of it is very violent) seems quite ostentatious and gratuitous. It's like the producer has visions of being Quenton Tarantino. Not that I think very much of him, either.<br /><br />And oh yes: if I had neighbours like these, I'd move! | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: What an appalling piece of rubbish!!! Who ARE all these people who blubber on about how good this is? Yes, it's "arty"; and yes, it's "foreign", but .... that's not enough. The plot is boring and disjointed, like a reality show but not so slickly made.<br /><br />The people are intrinsically uninteresting; but as characters they don't have enough depth to feel empathy for them. If they are based on real people then I feel very, very sorry for them.<br /><br />The violence (and some of it is very violent) seems quite ostentatious and gratuitous. It's like the producer has visions of being Quenton Tarantino. Not that I think very much of him, either.<br /><br />And oh yes: if I had neighbours like these, I'd move! Class: | 0negative
|
This is a formula B science fiction movie, and the director made no bones about it. It is about a dragon who is restored to life by a scientific team. Everything done is stuff you've seen many times before. It is a weak script, with no real characters. In fact, it is full of stereotype characters and situations. The director attacks this by just making it a formula movie, with no attempt to fool us, and that gives this movie a mild appeal, but it isn't something you're likely to remember a while. It is best seen while you're cooking, cleaning, working out. Sort of mindless fun. It has its place in entertainment, but it certainly isn't something you sit down with friends to watch, unless you're all just drunk and don't care. The mass rating of 3.2 is probably fair. I don't think it is as crappy as most people, but I am surprised that some people in the postings thought this was spectacular. That really eludes me, as I see no attempt to even make this a memorable film. | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: This is a formula B science fiction movie, and the director made no bones about it. It is about a dragon who is restored to life by a scientific team. Everything done is stuff you've seen many times before. It is a weak script, with no real characters. In fact, it is full of stereotype characters and situations. The director attacks this by just making it a formula movie, with no attempt to fool us, and that gives this movie a mild appeal, but it isn't something you're likely to remember a while. It is best seen while you're cooking, cleaning, working out. Sort of mindless fun. It has its place in entertainment, but it certainly isn't something you sit down with friends to watch, unless you're all just drunk and don't care. The mass rating of 3.2 is probably fair. I don't think it is as crappy as most people, but I am surprised that some people in the postings thought this was spectacular. That really eludes me, as I see no attempt to even make this a memorable film. Class: | 1neutral
|
I was living Rawlins when this movie was made and I got lucky enough to be able to work on it. Both as an extra and with Eddie Surkin on special effects. It was fun to see all the behind the scene workings, from the Barbedwire coming alive to the Electric chair up through the wardens office floor. Also it was a lot of fun getting to meet all the actors, from Viggo to Tiny. Also the gate that was cut into the prison wall for the movie was and still is called "Disney Gate" by locals. If anybody is interested and is ever in Rawlins, most of the movies sets are still in place and can be seen during the self guided tour. It was a lot of fun working for and with R. Harlin and wished I had a chance to do it again. | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: I was living Rawlins when this movie was made and I got lucky enough to be able to work on it. Both as an extra and with Eddie Surkin on special effects. It was fun to see all the behind the scene workings, from the Barbedwire coming alive to the Electric chair up through the wardens office floor. Also it was a lot of fun getting to meet all the actors, from Viggo to Tiny. Also the gate that was cut into the prison wall for the movie was and still is called "Disney Gate" by locals. If anybody is interested and is ever in Rawlins, most of the movies sets are still in place and can be seen during the self guided tour. It was a lot of fun working for and with R. Harlin and wished I had a chance to do it again. Class: | 2positive
|
I think that my favorite part of this movie, the one that exemplifies the sheer pointless, stupidity and inanity of the proceedings, comes at the climax of the film. DOCTOR TED NELSON and his unmarried friend the Sheriff have finally cornered the Melting Man on a landing on some stairs in an electrical generating plant. Keep in mind that Nelson has been looking for the MM for nearly the entire film, and that the MM has killed and eaten several people at this point (including his boss), and Nelson is very aware that MM is violently insane and hungry for human flesh and blood.<br /><br />So the Sheriff has his gun pointed at MM, who is, and I give the movie and Rick Baker props for this, the most disgusting and terrifying object in human form that we have ever seen. And he yells a very important question to DOCTOR TED NELSON: "WHAT DO WE DO NOW?!?!?" <br /><br />The camera cuts over to DOCTOR TED NELSON, and it's obvious that Ted has no idea what to do next. Apparently Ted was so intent on the problem of FINDING the Melting Man, he never thought to bring along some restraining devices, a lasso, or straitjacket, or a net, or some tranquilizer darts, or maybe a New Age tape by Vangelis to soothe the savage beast.<br /><br />So the sheriff panics and shoots, the Melting Man goes berserk, and hilarity ensues. <br /><br />Maybe this explains why NASA has been screwing around with the Space Shuttle program in sub-lunar space for the last 30 years instead of going back to the Moon or out to Mars like everyone knows they OUGHT to be doing. I dunno.<br /><br />Anyway, that's the kind of lousy, lazy writing and direction that undercuts every aspect of this movie. It's hard to say how good the actors actually are, because the movie has complete contempt for their characters.<br /><br />Two other incredibly painful sequences also ramp up the stupidity of the proceedings: There is a scene featuring the lumpiest old couple in the world trying to steal lemons from a grove, only to be torn apart by the Melting Man. This scene is a nadir in 70s cinema. I can guarantee you've never watched a more pointless and irritating setup with odder looking people in your entire life. And the Melting Man's assault on the lady who lives in the house where they keep a horse who pees on the walls defies every attempt to process it.(BTW, I think famous film director Jonathon Demme has a walk-on in this scene as the redneck husband who goes in first to check on the house and never comes out again). The only thing that keeps the actress from literally chewing the scenery is that, as I said, their horse has apparently been peeing on it. And we are forced to watch her hysterics for at least two minutes longer than any SANE film director would hold the shot. <br /><br />Burr DeBenning ought to beat the crap out of IMM's director and photographer. I remember him from an old Columbo episode where he looked MUCH better than he does here - no one's idea of a leading man, but solid and unobtrusive. But no one could possibly be as unappealing in real life as his director makes him look here. <br /><br />Everyone else comes off a little better except for the old couple (and shut up, I know they were being played for laughs, but I ain't laughing!) but not much. <br /><br />This definitely falls into the 'So Bad You Can't Look Away' category of cinema disasters. Still, I'd watch it again before I'd watch a lot of other 70's and 80's abortions ( "Track of The Moonbeast" and "It Lives By Night" come to mind), and MST's coverage of it is great fun, so if you get a chance, watch the MST version. | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: I think that my favorite part of this movie, the one that exemplifies the sheer pointless, stupidity and inanity of the proceedings, comes at the climax of the film. DOCTOR TED NELSON and his unmarried friend the Sheriff have finally cornered the Melting Man on a landing on some stairs in an electrical generating plant. Keep in mind that Nelson has been looking for the MM for nearly the entire film, and that the MM has killed and eaten several people at this point (including his boss), and Nelson is very aware that MM is violently insane and hungry for human flesh and blood.<br /><br />So the Sheriff has his gun pointed at MM, who is, and I give the movie and Rick Baker props for this, the most disgusting and terrifying object in human form that we have ever seen. And he yells a very important question to DOCTOR TED NELSON: "WHAT DO WE DO NOW?!?!?" <br /><br />The camera cuts over to DOCTOR TED NELSON, and it's obvious that Ted has no idea what to do next. Apparently Ted was so intent on the problem of FINDING the Melting Man, he never thought to bring along some restraining devices, a lasso, or straitjacket, or a net, or some tranquilizer darts, or maybe a New Age tape by Vangelis to soothe the savage beast.<br /><br />So the sheriff panics and shoots, the Melting Man goes berserk, and hilarity ensues. <br /><br />Maybe this explains why NASA has been screwing around with the Space Shuttle program in sub-lunar space for the last 30 years instead of going back to the Moon or out to Mars like everyone knows they OUGHT to be doing. I dunno.<br /><br />Anyway, that's the kind of lousy, lazy writing and direction that undercuts every aspect of this movie. It's hard to say how good the actors actually are, because the movie has complete contempt for their characters.<br /><br />Two other incredibly painful sequences also ramp up the stupidity of the proceedings: There is a scene featuring the lumpiest old couple in the world trying to steal lemons from a grove, only to be torn apart by the Melting Man. This scene is a nadir in 70s cinema. I can guarantee you've never watched a more pointless and irritating setup with odder looking people in your entire life. And the Melting Man's assault on the lady who lives in the house where they keep a horse who pees on the walls defies every attempt to process it.(BTW, I think famous film director Jonathon Demme has a walk-on in this scene as the redneck husband who goes in first to check on the house and never comes out again). The only thing that keeps the actress from literally chewing the scenery is that, as I said, their horse has apparently been peeing on it. And we are forced to watch her hysterics for at least two minutes longer than any SANE film director would hold the shot. <br /><br />Burr DeBenning ought to beat the crap out of IMM's director and photographer. I remember him from an old Columbo episode where he looked MUCH better than he does here - no one's idea of a leading man, but solid and unobtrusive. But no one could possibly be as unappealing in real life as his director makes him look here. <br /><br />Everyone else comes off a little better except for the old couple (and shut up, I know they were being played for laughs, but I ain't laughing!) but not much. <br /><br />This definitely falls into the 'So Bad You Can't Look Away' category of cinema disasters. Still, I'd watch it again before I'd watch a lot of other 70's and 80's abortions ( "Track of The Moonbeast" and "It Lives By Night" come to mind), and MST's coverage of it is great fun, so if you get a chance, watch the MST version. Class: | 1neutral
|
Quite possibly. How Francis Veber, one of the best comedy directors in the world (at least when sticking to his native France), managed to turn in a film so completely unwatchable is beyond the reason of mere mortal man to discern. It's not just that the characters are so unlikeable or that the film is so utterly devoid of even the lowest form of wit: it's genuinely physically painful to watch, such an endless parade of inept writing, acting and film-making that you cannot believe this is the work of experienced - and talented - filmmakers. For once the near-eternity spent in the cutting room and on the shelf before its blink-and-you'll-miss-it theatrical release tells the whole story. What were they thinking? | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: Quite possibly. How Francis Veber, one of the best comedy directors in the world (at least when sticking to his native France), managed to turn in a film so completely unwatchable is beyond the reason of mere mortal man to discern. It's not just that the characters are so unlikeable or that the film is so utterly devoid of even the lowest form of wit: it's genuinely physically painful to watch, such an endless parade of inept writing, acting and film-making that you cannot believe this is the work of experienced - and talented - filmmakers. For once the near-eternity spent in the cutting room and on the shelf before its blink-and-you'll-miss-it theatrical release tells the whole story. What were they thinking? Class: | 0negative
|
As someone who was staggered at the incredible visuals of "Hero," I was anxious to see this film which was billed as being along the same lines, but better. It also featured an actress I like: Ziyi Zhang. Well, I was disappointed on both counts. I bought the DVD of this film sight-unseen, and that was a mistake. It was not better.<br /><br />I realize these flying-through-the-air martial arts films are pure fantasy but this story is stretched so far past anything remotely believable it just made me shake my head in disappointing disbelief. A blind woman defeating hundreds of opponents? Sorry, that's going a little far. Also, the major male character 'Jin" (Takeshi Kaneshiro) was so annoying with his dialog, stupid look on his face and stupid laugh, that he ruined the film, too.<br /><br />Despite the wonderful colors and amazing action scenes, this story - to me - just didn't have an appeal to make it a movie worth owning. This film is no "Hero" of mine! | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: As someone who was staggered at the incredible visuals of "Hero," I was anxious to see this film which was billed as being along the same lines, but better. It also featured an actress I like: Ziyi Zhang. Well, I was disappointed on both counts. I bought the DVD of this film sight-unseen, and that was a mistake. It was not better.<br /><br />I realize these flying-through-the-air martial arts films are pure fantasy but this story is stretched so far past anything remotely believable it just made me shake my head in disappointing disbelief. A blind woman defeating hundreds of opponents? Sorry, that's going a little far. Also, the major male character 'Jin" (Takeshi Kaneshiro) was so annoying with his dialog, stupid look on his face and stupid laugh, that he ruined the film, too.<br /><br />Despite the wonderful colors and amazing action scenes, this story - to me - just didn't have an appeal to make it a movie worth owning. This film is no "Hero" of mine! Class: | 1neutral
|
This movie was horrible, simply put. It was so bad I registered with IMDb to warn you of its dangers.<br /><br />I am a campy horror film expert, per se. I have watched "Redneck Zombies", "House of the Psychotic Women", "Slumber Party Massacre II" and many others. I know my schlock. And I know this movie sucks.<br /><br />Three fourths of the film is comprised of scared individuals running from one side of the screen to the other. When they are not running, they are spouting non-sequitur lines, devoid of emotion or motivation. When the actors begin to be acceptable, the direction falls to pieces. There were so many jarring low-angle shots; I figured Leif Jonker had a 3 foot tall tripod. He used what I call the "Leif Maneuver" several millions times: that is, zooming out from an object of interest like an amateur. Apparently the film crew couldn't get up early enough to film a sunrise, so they filmed a sunset... and played it in reverse. With direction this lazy, you are actually impressed with the final gory scene. The only thing you can figure is that the last five minutes was filmed before the first eighty-five minutes.<br /><br />If you want a good (bad) gory movie, rent "Riki-Oh" or the foundational "Dead Alive." If you are a schlock buff, and are looking for a challenge, give "Darkness" a go.<br /><br />Quote o' the movie-<br /><br />Vampire: It's die time! | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: This movie was horrible, simply put. It was so bad I registered with IMDb to warn you of its dangers.<br /><br />I am a campy horror film expert, per se. I have watched "Redneck Zombies", "House of the Psychotic Women", "Slumber Party Massacre II" and many others. I know my schlock. And I know this movie sucks.<br /><br />Three fourths of the film is comprised of scared individuals running from one side of the screen to the other. When they are not running, they are spouting non-sequitur lines, devoid of emotion or motivation. When the actors begin to be acceptable, the direction falls to pieces. There were so many jarring low-angle shots; I figured Leif Jonker had a 3 foot tall tripod. He used what I call the "Leif Maneuver" several millions times: that is, zooming out from an object of interest like an amateur. Apparently the film crew couldn't get up early enough to film a sunrise, so they filmed a sunset... and played it in reverse. With direction this lazy, you are actually impressed with the final gory scene. The only thing you can figure is that the last five minutes was filmed before the first eighty-five minutes.<br /><br />If you want a good (bad) gory movie, rent "Riki-Oh" or the foundational "Dead Alive." If you are a schlock buff, and are looking for a challenge, give "Darkness" a go.<br /><br />Quote o' the movie-<br /><br />Vampire: It's die time! Class: | 1neutral
|
This film failed to explore the humanity of the animals which left me with an empty feeling inside. [Spoiler ahead] I was not convinced that Dr. D really had a compelling reason to forego the big buyout deal to help his furry friends. Whereas Babe (the original) bucked the trend of big-budget hits by focusing on the human virtues of the animals vs. their humans counterparts, all the animals in this film were nothing more than comical caricatures which one would gladly stuff in the meat-grinder (even more so if one could understand their pointless babble). Without Eddie Murphy's zany behavior, this film would be a flop. | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: This film failed to explore the humanity of the animals which left me with an empty feeling inside. [Spoiler ahead] I was not convinced that Dr. D really had a compelling reason to forego the big buyout deal to help his furry friends. Whereas Babe (the original) bucked the trend of big-budget hits by focusing on the human virtues of the animals vs. their humans counterparts, all the animals in this film were nothing more than comical caricatures which one would gladly stuff in the meat-grinder (even more so if one could understand their pointless babble). Without Eddie Murphy's zany behavior, this film would be a flop. Class: | 1neutral
|
THHE2 is entertaining in that you'll laugh a lot and cringe and probably say "oh sh*t!" and "get your face away from the goddamn hole you dumb**s" or things along those lines but I don't know if its really worth seeing- I was very annoyed throughout the entirety with the horrible military characters who don't seem to know the first thing about combat.<br /><br />Yes there was more violence, gore, and a higher body count than the first one but I am still am debating whether that cancels out my feeling throughout the whole movie about how ridiculous it is (and not a good ridiculousness like Dead Alive or Feast). My time would have been better spent watching Aja's remake for the 5th time.<br /><br />So go for some laughs, or go for some gore, but don't go hoping to come out of it satisfied. | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: THHE2 is entertaining in that you'll laugh a lot and cringe and probably say "oh sh*t!" and "get your face away from the goddamn hole you dumb**s" or things along those lines but I don't know if its really worth seeing- I was very annoyed throughout the entirety with the horrible military characters who don't seem to know the first thing about combat.<br /><br />Yes there was more violence, gore, and a higher body count than the first one but I am still am debating whether that cancels out my feeling throughout the whole movie about how ridiculous it is (and not a good ridiculousness like Dead Alive or Feast). My time would have been better spent watching Aja's remake for the 5th time.<br /><br />So go for some laughs, or go for some gore, but don't go hoping to come out of it satisfied. Class: | 1neutral
|
(Rating: 21 by The Film Snob.) (See our blog What-To-See-Next for details on our rating system.)<br /><br />Here's a movie that will have you clawing at your own face in an attempt to earn release from the on-screen tedium. <br /><br />You'll not be wringing your hands, nor rolling your eyes, nor sighing into your popcorn. No indeed. For a movie of *this* averagousity, only clawing at your own face will do. <br /><br />When you begin to claw your own face -- as begin you must! -- start in at the lower portion. You'll need your upper portion, with its handy tear ducts, intact for the Truly Tear-jerking third act which may bring you to your knees if you haven't clawed your way clear of the entire theatre by then. <br /><br />In a season celebrating Joe Six-Pack and Hockey Moms as the new Gold Standard for leadership and foreign diplomacy, permaybe a movie this tedium will be welcomed as A Thing that anyone could create. *Watching* it, however, is a much more dangerous undertaking. <br /><br />Here's our story... <br /><br />Sidney Young, the London publisher of a fourth-tier celebrity/entertainment magazine is just about to see his magazine go under. He needs a miracle, and what he gets is a phone call from New York City, in the USA.<br /><br />The publisher of Sharp's magazine, Clayton Harding (played by Jeff Bridges) says "Come work for me!" With his own employees carrying out the fax machine out of his apartment/office in the background, saying "Yes" is a no-brainer.<br /><br />Soon Sidney is at work in New York City, doing allllllll the wrong things. His interviews consist of asking Broadway musical directors if they are (1) Jewish, and (2) gay. <br /><br />He kills the pet dog of Sohpie Maes, the industry's hottest movie star, when she leaves it in the magazine's offices during a business luncheon.<br /><br />This is a spot of bad luck for everyone, for, among other things, Sidney imagines that he is in love with Maes, before he wakes up to the Dunst character.<br /><br />Worst of all, he totally alienates Alison Olsen (played by winsome scripting-confusion by Kristen Dunst), a colleague assigned to show him the ropes of the magazine *and* The Big Apple. (We have, of course, been to a movie before, and so we know how this relationship is going to end up. This is therefore why we'll need intact tear ducts for the movie's third act.)<br /><br />The problem with The Thing is, the script just never jells, excepting for the one tear-duct set piece in which True Love prevails.<br /><br />Publisher Harding is supposed to be a son-of-a-bitch who also wants to just throw the whole job over. The script never comes down firmly on one or the other sides of this dichotomy, however, and Bridges is left to twist and waffle in the breeze.<br /><br />Alison Olsen is supposed to despise Sidney Young, but whenever he comes up to her (as he does constantly) she makes a point of engaging him in conversation, instead of attempting to discourage his existence.<br /><br />The "comedy" of early scenes is built around a piglet destroying an expensive hotel room, and then taking the elevator downstairs to urinate on the expensive high heels of a celebrity at a cocktail reception.<br /><br />The hot starlet Maes confesses that she is attracted to Young because he is "wounded." The character never shows us *why* he is wounded, however. This is yet another resultant of the movie's mortally wounded script.<br /><br />At one hours and fifty minutes, This Thing feels longer (and more deadly) than Napoleon's retreat from Moscow. It is uninspiring, unfunny, unredeemable, and not even rentable. Run Away | Classify an input text. Only return the class label as a single word and no reasoning or other content. Class labels 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Text: (Rating: 21 by The Film Snob.) (See our blog What-To-See-Next for details on our rating system.)<br /><br />Here's a movie that will have you clawing at your own face in an attempt to earn release from the on-screen tedium. <br /><br />You'll not be wringing your hands, nor rolling your eyes, nor sighing into your popcorn. No indeed. For a movie of *this* averagousity, only clawing at your own face will do. <br /><br />When you begin to claw your own face -- as begin you must! -- start in at the lower portion. You'll need your upper portion, with its handy tear ducts, intact for the Truly Tear-jerking third act which may bring you to your knees if you haven't clawed your way clear of the entire theatre by then. <br /><br />In a season celebrating Joe Six-Pack and Hockey Moms as the new Gold Standard for leadership and foreign diplomacy, permaybe a movie this tedium will be welcomed as A Thing that anyone could create. *Watching* it, however, is a much more dangerous undertaking. <br /><br />Here's our story... <br /><br />Sidney Young, the London publisher of a fourth-tier celebrity/entertainment magazine is just about to see his magazine go under. He needs a miracle, and what he gets is a phone call from New York City, in the USA.<br /><br />The publisher of Sharp's magazine, Clayton Harding (played by Jeff Bridges) says "Come work for me!" With his own employees carrying out the fax machine out of his apartment/office in the background, saying "Yes" is a no-brainer.<br /><br />Soon Sidney is at work in New York City, doing allllllll the wrong things. His interviews consist of asking Broadway musical directors if they are (1) Jewish, and (2) gay. <br /><br />He kills the pet dog of Sohpie Maes, the industry's hottest movie star, when she leaves it in the magazine's offices during a business luncheon.<br /><br />This is a spot of bad luck for everyone, for, among other things, Sidney imagines that he is in love with Maes, before he wakes up to the Dunst character.<br /><br />Worst of all, he totally alienates Alison Olsen (played by winsome scripting-confusion by Kristen Dunst), a colleague assigned to show him the ropes of the magazine *and* The Big Apple. (We have, of course, been to a movie before, and so we know how this relationship is going to end up. This is therefore why we'll need intact tear ducts for the movie's third act.)<br /><br />The problem with The Thing is, the script just never jells, excepting for the one tear-duct set piece in which True Love prevails.<br /><br />Publisher Harding is supposed to be a son-of-a-bitch who also wants to just throw the whole job over. The script never comes down firmly on one or the other sides of this dichotomy, however, and Bridges is left to twist and waffle in the breeze.<br /><br />Alison Olsen is supposed to despise Sidney Young, but whenever he comes up to her (as he does constantly) she makes a point of engaging him in conversation, instead of attempting to discourage his existence.<br /><br />The "comedy" of early scenes is built around a piglet destroying an expensive hotel room, and then taking the elevator downstairs to urinate on the expensive high heels of a celebrity at a cocktail reception.<br /><br />The hot starlet Maes confesses that she is attracted to Young because he is "wounded." The character never shows us *why* he is wounded, however. This is yet another resultant of the movie's mortally wounded script.<br /><br />At one hours and fifty minutes, This Thing feels longer (and more deadly) than Napoleon's retreat from Moscow. It is uninspiring, unfunny, unredeemable, and not even rentable. Run Away Class: | 0negative
|
Back in the days before the Toxic Avenger, the low-camp kings at Troma Films tried to take the high (OK, somewhat-less-low) road of producing straight slasher pics. I'd like to think that viewing the results here is what convinced them to give up all pretension and go for self-conscious parody.<br /><br />Splatter University is another film for the masochists in the audience. As it meanders about through two separate casts and innumerable pointless subplots, it actually becomes painful to watch. Let's see if I can summarize.<br /><br />After learning that a dangerous psychopath has escaped from a local hospital, the action moves to a Catholic university (I don't recall the name, but in honor of the title, let's call it St. Splatter). The students are listless and sullen, and argue pettily with each other, slackers ahead of their time. Meanwhile, the new professor, Julie Parker, proves utterly incompetent at her job. The kids deal with relationships, infidelity, unwanted pregnancies, lecherous priests, and how to avoid doing any work in class; Julie deals with a creepy boyfriend, the inflexible administration at St. Splatter, counseling unwed mothers, and the blank, expressionless looks of her students. None of it means a darn thing or gets resolved in any meaningful way. Oh, and every once in a while, a POV shot comes along and stabs one of the girls to death, but don't hold your breath waiting for it. There's a Red Herring Killer, and then a sadly anticlimactic confrontation with the Real Killer, then it's back to the asylum and roll credits.<br /><br />The slow pace and numerous inane subplots seem almost calculated to produce a mounting sense of frustration in the viewer, which is helped along by choppy editing, coffee-can sound quality, and dialog that just doesn't make any sense. And the most agonizing thing about this movie is the killer's fixation on women - the men in this movie are just so deserving. I'd've paid good money to see someone off the jerk with the pregnant girlfriend, or the lunkhead Lothario who was fooling around with his girlfriend's roommate, or any of the creepy priests. There ain't no justice. | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: Back in the days before the Toxic Avenger, the low-camp kings at Troma Films tried to take the high (OK, somewhat-less-low) road of producing straight slasher pics. I'd like to think that viewing the results here is what convinced them to give up all pretension and go for self-conscious parody.<br /><br />Splatter University is another film for the masochists in the audience. As it meanders about through two separate casts and innumerable pointless subplots, it actually becomes painful to watch. Let's see if I can summarize.<br /><br />After learning that a dangerous psychopath has escaped from a local hospital, the action moves to a Catholic university (I don't recall the name, but in honor of the title, let's call it St. Splatter). The students are listless and sullen, and argue pettily with each other, slackers ahead of their time. Meanwhile, the new professor, Julie Parker, proves utterly incompetent at her job. The kids deal with relationships, infidelity, unwanted pregnancies, lecherous priests, and how to avoid doing any work in class; Julie deals with a creepy boyfriend, the inflexible administration at St. Splatter, counseling unwed mothers, and the blank, expressionless looks of her students. None of it means a darn thing or gets resolved in any meaningful way. Oh, and every once in a while, a POV shot comes along and stabs one of the girls to death, but don't hold your breath waiting for it. There's a Red Herring Killer, and then a sadly anticlimactic confrontation with the Real Killer, then it's back to the asylum and roll credits.<br /><br />The slow pace and numerous inane subplots seem almost calculated to produce a mounting sense of frustration in the viewer, which is helped along by choppy editing, coffee-can sound quality, and dialog that just doesn't make any sense. And the most agonizing thing about this movie is the killer's fixation on women - the men in this movie are just so deserving. I'd've paid good money to see someone off the jerk with the pregnant girlfriend, or the lunkhead Lothario who was fooling around with his girlfriend's roommate, or any of the creepy priests. There ain't no justice. Class: | 0negative
|
Written by a woman, and directed by another. Whoppie. Are we in for a feminist ride or what. Fasten your seat-belts, ladies, for we are about to enter a world of mean men and innocent, well-intentioned women.<br /><br />In this soaper Trish comes across a guy in the employment agency who behaves, looks, and dresses like a pimp(!) and gives her a job with the hope of nailing her some time later. In his office he even touches her chin the way a megalomaniacal heavy in a Bond movie would a touch a girl just after he's captured her and just before he is ready to kill her alongside with Bond. Some time later the pimp/employment guy stalks Trish in a ladies' dressing-room, harasses her, and even comes close to raping her. Oh, these evil, evil men. They are ALL bad, don't you know. You can't even look for a job nowadays without getting raped, right ladies? Well, we'll show 'em! In this film there is some kind of a divorced women's club or something, headed by a Janet Leigh who speaks for all women involved in this film when she says that "men are all s**t". She moans about how terrible men are; she has been divorced five times. Now, seriously: any woman who marries twenty times and then uses that statistic as an argument that men are all "bad" must have realized eventually that the explanation might lie elsewhere, or? It must occur to her that: a) she is a bad judge of male character, or - much more likely - b) SHE is the one impossible to live with - her ex-husbands were probably the victims, or if they were indeed a**holes then she probably got what she deserved. (Don't the likes of Zsa-Zsa Gabor and Liz Taylor prove this point? Show me a likable woman who got married this often and I'll show you a way to reach the planet Mars using only roller-skates and a ladder.) Trish eventually meets a computer guy who restores her faith in men - but hold your horses; this guy turns out to be married, therefore proving WITHOUT a doubt that men are indeed all "bad". Were it not, of course, for a kindly old vegetable seller around the corner who loves his wife even though she's still dead - proving that all men are "bad" except for kindly old men whose penises don't work and they "can't get none" anyway so they are forced to abandon a life of a**holocolism and finally give women the respect they deserve. Even the supporting male characters are all "bad"; the black guy in the employment agency is unfriendly, and the guy in the mortuary is out-right rude - and insensitive (the bastard, *sob*...*sniffle*
) And what's with this corny, corny ending?... Minutes before court-time Trish abandons the claim to any of her husband's money, realizing that she is now "free" and that she can finally do that jump into the swimming pool...?? What's all that about?? Her jump into the pool is then - very predictably - frame-frozen as the credits start to role in, while life-inspiring I-don't-need-revenge-nor-my-husband's-money music starts kicking in. Her girlfriends are shocked by her abandonment of money claims, but they don't stay shocked for long and soon start kidding each other about what a heart-attack Trish's lawyer will get when he hears about this. The shyster lawyer is naturally a man. An evil, evil, terrible "bad" man, whose only interest in this world is money... Ah, these men; all they care about is money; they know nothing of the higher values in life - like shopping. I am glad we have movies like this; they bring the sexes closer together, but most importantly, they teach girls and young women that men are all horny, selfish, skirt-chasing bastards who will dump you into a world of poverty and misery the first chance they get. So, girls, open your mouths an stick your tongues into your girlfriend's mouths. Lesbian power! | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: Written by a woman, and directed by another. Whoppie. Are we in for a feminist ride or what. Fasten your seat-belts, ladies, for we are about to enter a world of mean men and innocent, well-intentioned women.<br /><br />In this soaper Trish comes across a guy in the employment agency who behaves, looks, and dresses like a pimp(!) and gives her a job with the hope of nailing her some time later. In his office he even touches her chin the way a megalomaniacal heavy in a Bond movie would a touch a girl just after he's captured her and just before he is ready to kill her alongside with Bond. Some time later the pimp/employment guy stalks Trish in a ladies' dressing-room, harasses her, and even comes close to raping her. Oh, these evil, evil men. They are ALL bad, don't you know. You can't even look for a job nowadays without getting raped, right ladies? Well, we'll show 'em! In this film there is some kind of a divorced women's club or something, headed by a Janet Leigh who speaks for all women involved in this film when she says that "men are all s**t". She moans about how terrible men are; she has been divorced five times. Now, seriously: any woman who marries twenty times and then uses that statistic as an argument that men are all "bad" must have realized eventually that the explanation might lie elsewhere, or? It must occur to her that: a) she is a bad judge of male character, or - much more likely - b) SHE is the one impossible to live with - her ex-husbands were probably the victims, or if they were indeed a**holes then she probably got what she deserved. (Don't the likes of Zsa-Zsa Gabor and Liz Taylor prove this point? Show me a likable woman who got married this often and I'll show you a way to reach the planet Mars using only roller-skates and a ladder.) Trish eventually meets a computer guy who restores her faith in men - but hold your horses; this guy turns out to be married, therefore proving WITHOUT a doubt that men are indeed all "bad". Were it not, of course, for a kindly old vegetable seller around the corner who loves his wife even though she's still dead - proving that all men are "bad" except for kindly old men whose penises don't work and they "can't get none" anyway so they are forced to abandon a life of a**holocolism and finally give women the respect they deserve. Even the supporting male characters are all "bad"; the black guy in the employment agency is unfriendly, and the guy in the mortuary is out-right rude - and insensitive (the bastard, *sob*...*sniffle*
) And what's with this corny, corny ending?... Minutes before court-time Trish abandons the claim to any of her husband's money, realizing that she is now "free" and that she can finally do that jump into the swimming pool...?? What's all that about?? Her jump into the pool is then - very predictably - frame-frozen as the credits start to role in, while life-inspiring I-don't-need-revenge-nor-my-husband's-money music starts kicking in. Her girlfriends are shocked by her abandonment of money claims, but they don't stay shocked for long and soon start kidding each other about what a heart-attack Trish's lawyer will get when he hears about this. The shyster lawyer is naturally a man. An evil, evil, terrible "bad" man, whose only interest in this world is money... Ah, these men; all they care about is money; they know nothing of the higher values in life - like shopping. I am glad we have movies like this; they bring the sexes closer together, but most importantly, they teach girls and young women that men are all horny, selfish, skirt-chasing bastards who will dump you into a world of poverty and misery the first chance they get. So, girls, open your mouths an stick your tongues into your girlfriend's mouths. Lesbian power! Class: | 1neutral
|
Frailty--8/10--It's non-sensical title and "Bill Paxton Directs" headline aside, this is a pretty good old fashioned rip snorting biblical horror thriller. In the end, it may end up only being the inbred Southern Gothic cousin of Kubrick's "The Shining"---but hey, that's a pretty damn entertaining notion. It's also got a doozy of a plot twist...and a very ambiguous moral message. This is the kind of movie that years from now people will catch late at night on basic cable and scare the beejesus out of themselves watching it. Too bad director Bill Paxton had to go hire himself to star...oh well....still a devil of a good rent. | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: Frailty--8/10--It's non-sensical title and "Bill Paxton Directs" headline aside, this is a pretty good old fashioned rip snorting biblical horror thriller. In the end, it may end up only being the inbred Southern Gothic cousin of Kubrick's "The Shining"---but hey, that's a pretty damn entertaining notion. It's also got a doozy of a plot twist...and a very ambiguous moral message. This is the kind of movie that years from now people will catch late at night on basic cable and scare the beejesus out of themselves watching it. Too bad director Bill Paxton had to go hire himself to star...oh well....still a devil of a good rent. Class: | 2positive
|
The Sopranos is probably the most widely acclaimed TV series ever, so naturally my expectations were through the roof, and yet the show surpassed them. I love the mafia and crime genre in film and I enjoy following the compelling stories set in these worlds, but this is so much more. 86+ hours of material gives the story a chance to not only be one of the most thrilling and unpredictable mafia/action stories, but also to be a great family drama, a shocking character study, a laugh-out-loud comedy, a brilliant psychological examination dealing with the nature of good and evil, and an intellectual arty collaboration of representative dreams and hallucinations all in one. David Chase's epic series manages to accomplish all of this and more, and cements HBO as the closest TV can get to cinematic perfection, paving the road for a number of other series to continue blowing audiences away.<br /><br />Realism is present when it is needed, but Chase's decisions to depart from it for effect on occasion for "dream episodes" and the like only adds more layers to the series. Chase--along with a strong writing staff including Matthew Weiner and Terrence Winter, future creators of Mad Men and Boardwalk Empire respectively--turns New Jersey into an intricate universe full of the greatest cast of characters I've seen on TV.<br /><br />James Gandolfini domineers the show as Tony, one of the most groundbreaking characters on TV ever. Tony adheres to half of the mobster stereotypes from pop culture, but he defies the other half entirely, and through his family interactions and his therapy sessions with Dr. Melfi (Lorraine Bracco, with whom he has a considerable chemistry that ensures that the therapy scenes always have a completely different feel to the rest of the show), we see nearly every side to Tony Soprano and learn that he is more of an everyman than one would expect.<br /><br />Edie Falco matches the power of Gandolfini's performance as Tony's wife Carmela. From her mixed feelings about Tony's lifestyle, to her suspicions about murders, to her torment over Tony's cheating, to her own thoughts about infidelity, Carmela runs the gamut of emotions throughout 6 seasons and Falco makes her the prime vehicle for the non- mafia viewers to have eyes into such a corrupt world. Scenes between Tony and Carmela provide some of the most heartwrenching and painfully realistic drama ever seen on television.<br /><br />The supporting cast is almost as phenomenal, and a wide array of characters populate the cast over all six seasons, somehow without any redundancies. Nancy Marchand steals the show as Tony's overbearing mother Livia, an insight into Tony's personality problems and panic attacks. The familiarity of Marchand's incessant complaints is almost gruesome since she takes the character so believably far. Michael Imperioli is Christopher, Tony's protégé, whose various poor choices lead him down a road that is painful to watch but brilliantly executed. Drea De Matteo plays Christopher's girlfriend Adriana, and is so well- meaning and loving that the dark arc her character takes as she gets too involved with Christopher's career. Tony Sirico is Paulie, introduced as the ultimate mafia stereotype and a source of comic, but eventually he becomes one of the most sympathetic and complex characters on the show, and nobody plays true anger better than he. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.<br /><br />Familiar faces such as Peter Bogdanovich, Jon Favreau, Ben Kingsley, Lauren Bacall, Will Arnett, Nancy Sinatra, David Strathairn, Robert Patrick, Hal Holbrook, Burt Young, and Eric Mangini make appearances over the course of the show, while names as notable as Joe Pantoliano, Steve Buscemi, and Steven Van Zandt have regular roles as main characters in the series. There are 50+ great characters with powerful arcs, and the excitement and tension never let up in any of the various subplots throughout the show.<br /><br />Comedic elements and entire episodes filled with brilliant hilarity dilute the powerhouse dramatic intensity of the series, which is so multipurpose that for one reason or enough, the credits of nearly any episode left me somewhat bewildered. The Sopranos is the most powerful and addicting series I have seen overall, and its highs are so mindblowing that I would have to call it my favourite show in spite of arguable lows (most of which I disagree with).<br /><br />Whether you love or hate the ending, or what you make of it is irrelevant: the discussion it has created is an achievement in itself. The iconic nature of the entire series makes it an essential part of television history. There are multiple elements for anyone to love and marvel at in this show, so if you're thinking of watching something else instead, do yourself a favour and fuhgeddaboutit. | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: The Sopranos is probably the most widely acclaimed TV series ever, so naturally my expectations were through the roof, and yet the show surpassed them. I love the mafia and crime genre in film and I enjoy following the compelling stories set in these worlds, but this is so much more. 86+ hours of material gives the story a chance to not only be one of the most thrilling and unpredictable mafia/action stories, but also to be a great family drama, a shocking character study, a laugh-out-loud comedy, a brilliant psychological examination dealing with the nature of good and evil, and an intellectual arty collaboration of representative dreams and hallucinations all in one. David Chase's epic series manages to accomplish all of this and more, and cements HBO as the closest TV can get to cinematic perfection, paving the road for a number of other series to continue blowing audiences away.<br /><br />Realism is present when it is needed, but Chase's decisions to depart from it for effect on occasion for "dream episodes" and the like only adds more layers to the series. Chase--along with a strong writing staff including Matthew Weiner and Terrence Winter, future creators of Mad Men and Boardwalk Empire respectively--turns New Jersey into an intricate universe full of the greatest cast of characters I've seen on TV.<br /><br />James Gandolfini domineers the show as Tony, one of the most groundbreaking characters on TV ever. Tony adheres to half of the mobster stereotypes from pop culture, but he defies the other half entirely, and through his family interactions and his therapy sessions with Dr. Melfi (Lorraine Bracco, with whom he has a considerable chemistry that ensures that the therapy scenes always have a completely different feel to the rest of the show), we see nearly every side to Tony Soprano and learn that he is more of an everyman than one would expect.<br /><br />Edie Falco matches the power of Gandolfini's performance as Tony's wife Carmela. From her mixed feelings about Tony's lifestyle, to her suspicions about murders, to her torment over Tony's cheating, to her own thoughts about infidelity, Carmela runs the gamut of emotions throughout 6 seasons and Falco makes her the prime vehicle for the non- mafia viewers to have eyes into such a corrupt world. Scenes between Tony and Carmela provide some of the most heartwrenching and painfully realistic drama ever seen on television.<br /><br />The supporting cast is almost as phenomenal, and a wide array of characters populate the cast over all six seasons, somehow without any redundancies. Nancy Marchand steals the show as Tony's overbearing mother Livia, an insight into Tony's personality problems and panic attacks. The familiarity of Marchand's incessant complaints is almost gruesome since she takes the character so believably far. Michael Imperioli is Christopher, Tony's protégé, whose various poor choices lead him down a road that is painful to watch but brilliantly executed. Drea De Matteo plays Christopher's girlfriend Adriana, and is so well- meaning and loving that the dark arc her character takes as she gets too involved with Christopher's career. Tony Sirico is Paulie, introduced as the ultimate mafia stereotype and a source of comic, but eventually he becomes one of the most sympathetic and complex characters on the show, and nobody plays true anger better than he. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.<br /><br />Familiar faces such as Peter Bogdanovich, Jon Favreau, Ben Kingsley, Lauren Bacall, Will Arnett, Nancy Sinatra, David Strathairn, Robert Patrick, Hal Holbrook, Burt Young, and Eric Mangini make appearances over the course of the show, while names as notable as Joe Pantoliano, Steve Buscemi, and Steven Van Zandt have regular roles as main characters in the series. There are 50+ great characters with powerful arcs, and the excitement and tension never let up in any of the various subplots throughout the show.<br /><br />Comedic elements and entire episodes filled with brilliant hilarity dilute the powerhouse dramatic intensity of the series, which is so multipurpose that for one reason or enough, the credits of nearly any episode left me somewhat bewildered. The Sopranos is the most powerful and addicting series I have seen overall, and its highs are so mindblowing that I would have to call it my favourite show in spite of arguable lows (most of which I disagree with).<br /><br />Whether you love or hate the ending, or what you make of it is irrelevant: the discussion it has created is an achievement in itself. The iconic nature of the entire series makes it an essential part of television history. There are multiple elements for anyone to love and marvel at in this show, so if you're thinking of watching something else instead, do yourself a favour and fuhgeddaboutit. Class: | 2positive
|
Often laugh out loud funny play on sex, family, and the classes in Beverly Hills milks more laughs out of the zip code than it's seen since the days of Granny and Jed Clampett. Plot centers on two chauffers who've bet on which one of them can bed his employer (both single or soon to be single ladies, quite sexy -- Bisset and Woronov) first. If Manuel wins, his friend will pay off his debt to a violent asian street gang -- if he loses, he must play bottom man to his friend! <br /><br />Lots of raunchy dialogue, fairly sick physical humour, etc. But a lot of the comedy is just beneath the surface. Bartel is memorable as a very sensual oder member of the family who ends up taking his sexy, teenaged niece on a year long "missionary trip" to Africa.<br /><br />Hilarious fun. | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: Often laugh out loud funny play on sex, family, and the classes in Beverly Hills milks more laughs out of the zip code than it's seen since the days of Granny and Jed Clampett. Plot centers on two chauffers who've bet on which one of them can bed his employer (both single or soon to be single ladies, quite sexy -- Bisset and Woronov) first. If Manuel wins, his friend will pay off his debt to a violent asian street gang -- if he loses, he must play bottom man to his friend! <br /><br />Lots of raunchy dialogue, fairly sick physical humour, etc. But a lot of the comedy is just beneath the surface. Bartel is memorable as a very sensual oder member of the family who ends up taking his sexy, teenaged niece on a year long "missionary trip" to Africa.<br /><br />Hilarious fun. Class: | 2positive
|
Although it has been remade several times, this movie is a classic if you are seeing it for the first time. Creative dialog, unique genius in the final scene, it deserves more credit than critics have given it. Highly recommended, one of the best comedies of recent years | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: Although it has been remade several times, this movie is a classic if you are seeing it for the first time. Creative dialog, unique genius in the final scene, it deserves more credit than critics have given it. Highly recommended, one of the best comedies of recent years Class: | 2positive
|
With no affinity towards any type of filmmaking, and a healthy appreciation of documentaries, I can honestly say I was angry at myself for bothering to sit through the entire length of "20 Dates". I won't waste your time with the plot, you may read other reviews. I will say though that Berkowitz's hyper, Woody Allen-style narration was extremely annoying. You either wished he'd lay off the coffee or ingest some tranquilizers. And it's potentially apparent to Berkowitz himself that this film was a bad idea, as parts of it details his trials to finance the documentary. Forgive me for disguising insults as compliments, but I'll give credit to Berkowitz for having the skills to convince some idiot to finance this horrid piece of ****. I appreciate the boundaries & intentions of the film here, but even when regarding the standards Berkowitz sets for himself, he fires off and misses on all levels. In closing, I'm sure many of these female companions were not at ease going on a date with a twitchy wanna-be filmmaker, and therefore I question the film's sense of authenticity. Hey Myles, I loved your film the first time I saw it... when it appeared as an episode of Seinfeld or was a film directed by Woody Allen or Kevin Smith. | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: With no affinity towards any type of filmmaking, and a healthy appreciation of documentaries, I can honestly say I was angry at myself for bothering to sit through the entire length of "20 Dates". I won't waste your time with the plot, you may read other reviews. I will say though that Berkowitz's hyper, Woody Allen-style narration was extremely annoying. You either wished he'd lay off the coffee or ingest some tranquilizers. And it's potentially apparent to Berkowitz himself that this film was a bad idea, as parts of it details his trials to finance the documentary. Forgive me for disguising insults as compliments, but I'll give credit to Berkowitz for having the skills to convince some idiot to finance this horrid piece of ****. I appreciate the boundaries & intentions of the film here, but even when regarding the standards Berkowitz sets for himself, he fires off and misses on all levels. In closing, I'm sure many of these female companions were not at ease going on a date with a twitchy wanna-be filmmaker, and therefore I question the film's sense of authenticity. Hey Myles, I loved your film the first time I saw it... when it appeared as an episode of Seinfeld or was a film directed by Woody Allen or Kevin Smith. Class: | 0negative
|
When I was a kid, I totally loved both Bill & Ted Movies. The other night, Bogus Journey was on and since it was at least 5 years since I last saw it, I decided to tune in. AND I LOVED IT ALL OVER AGAIN! This film is still funny after all those years. 'Excellent Adventure' is better, but this one rocks just the same. Sure, some of the perfomances are a bit cheesy, but hey, this entire film is cheesy in a cool way. Plus it features the coolest personation of Death ever in a movie! Concluding: Totally like non bogus movie dude! Way Excellent! STATION!!! | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: When I was a kid, I totally loved both Bill & Ted Movies. The other night, Bogus Journey was on and since it was at least 5 years since I last saw it, I decided to tune in. AND I LOVED IT ALL OVER AGAIN! This film is still funny after all those years. 'Excellent Adventure' is better, but this one rocks just the same. Sure, some of the perfomances are a bit cheesy, but hey, this entire film is cheesy in a cool way. Plus it features the coolest personation of Death ever in a movie! Concluding: Totally like non bogus movie dude! Way Excellent! STATION!!! Class: | 2positive
|
CRY FREEDOM is an excellent primer for those wanting an overview of apartheid's cruelty in just a couple of hours. Famed director Richard Attenborough (GANDHI) is certainly no stranger to the genre, and the collaboration of the real-life Mr. and Mrs. Woods, the main white characters in their book and in this film, lends further authenticity to CRY FREEDOM. The video now in release actually runs a little over 2 and a half hours since 23 minutes of extra footage was inserted to make it a two part TV miniseries after the film's initial theatrical release. While the added length serves to heighten the film's forgivable flaws: uneven character development and blanket stereotyping in particular, another possible flaw (the insistence on the white characters' fate over that of the African ones) may work out as a strength. Viewing CRYING FREEDOM as a politically and historically educational film (as I think it should, over its artistic merits), the story is one which black Africans know only too well, though the younger generation may now need to see it on film for full impact. It is the whites who have always been the film's and the book's target audience, hopefully driving them to change. Now twelve years after the movie's production, CRY FREEDOM is in many ways a more interesting film to watch. Almost ten years after black majority rule has been at least theorically in place, 1987's CRY FREEDOM's ideals remain by and large unrealized. It therefore remains as imperative as ever for white South Africans, particularly the younger ones who have only heard of these actions to see it, and absorb the film's messages. In total contrast to American slavery and the Jewish Holocaust's exposure, South Africans' struggles have been told by a mere two or three stories: CRY FREEDOM, CRY THE BELOVED COUNTRY (OK, Count it twice if you include the remake), and SARAFINA (did I miss one?). All three dramas also clumsily feature American and British actors in both the white and black roles. Not one South African actor has played a major role, white, coloured, Indian or Black!). And yes I did miss another international South African drama, MANDELA and DEKLERK. Though this (also highly recommended) biopic was released after black majority rule was instituted, MANDELA was played by a Black American (Sidney Poitier, who also starred in the original S.A.-themed CRY THE BELOVED COUNTRY), while the Afrikaner DeKlerk was played by a (bald) very British Michael Caine, a good performance if you can dismiss that the very essence of Afrikanerdom is vehement anti-British feelings. Until local SABC TV and African films start dealing with their own legacy, CRY FREEDOM is about as authentic as you'll get. As villified as the whites (particularly the Afrikaners) are portrayed in the film, any observant (non-casual) visitor to South Africa even now in 1999, not to mention 1977 when CRY FREEDOM takes place, will generally find white's attitudes towards blacks restrained, even understated. Looking at CRY FREEDOM in hindsight, it is amazing that reconciliation can take place at all, and it is. But CRY FREEDOM at time shows not much has really changed in many people's minds yet, and that the Black Africans' goal to FREEDOM and reconciliation is still ongoing. This is why if you're a novice to the situation, CRY FREEDOM, is your best introduction. | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: CRY FREEDOM is an excellent primer for those wanting an overview of apartheid's cruelty in just a couple of hours. Famed director Richard Attenborough (GANDHI) is certainly no stranger to the genre, and the collaboration of the real-life Mr. and Mrs. Woods, the main white characters in their book and in this film, lends further authenticity to CRY FREEDOM. The video now in release actually runs a little over 2 and a half hours since 23 minutes of extra footage was inserted to make it a two part TV miniseries after the film's initial theatrical release. While the added length serves to heighten the film's forgivable flaws: uneven character development and blanket stereotyping in particular, another possible flaw (the insistence on the white characters' fate over that of the African ones) may work out as a strength. Viewing CRYING FREEDOM as a politically and historically educational film (as I think it should, over its artistic merits), the story is one which black Africans know only too well, though the younger generation may now need to see it on film for full impact. It is the whites who have always been the film's and the book's target audience, hopefully driving them to change. Now twelve years after the movie's production, CRY FREEDOM is in many ways a more interesting film to watch. Almost ten years after black majority rule has been at least theorically in place, 1987's CRY FREEDOM's ideals remain by and large unrealized. It therefore remains as imperative as ever for white South Africans, particularly the younger ones who have only heard of these actions to see it, and absorb the film's messages. In total contrast to American slavery and the Jewish Holocaust's exposure, South Africans' struggles have been told by a mere two or three stories: CRY FREEDOM, CRY THE BELOVED COUNTRY (OK, Count it twice if you include the remake), and SARAFINA (did I miss one?). All three dramas also clumsily feature American and British actors in both the white and black roles. Not one South African actor has played a major role, white, coloured, Indian or Black!). And yes I did miss another international South African drama, MANDELA and DEKLERK. Though this (also highly recommended) biopic was released after black majority rule was instituted, MANDELA was played by a Black American (Sidney Poitier, who also starred in the original S.A.-themed CRY THE BELOVED COUNTRY), while the Afrikaner DeKlerk was played by a (bald) very British Michael Caine, a good performance if you can dismiss that the very essence of Afrikanerdom is vehement anti-British feelings. Until local SABC TV and African films start dealing with their own legacy, CRY FREEDOM is about as authentic as you'll get. As villified as the whites (particularly the Afrikaners) are portrayed in the film, any observant (non-casual) visitor to South Africa even now in 1999, not to mention 1977 when CRY FREEDOM takes place, will generally find white's attitudes towards blacks restrained, even understated. Looking at CRY FREEDOM in hindsight, it is amazing that reconciliation can take place at all, and it is. But CRY FREEDOM at time shows not much has really changed in many people's minds yet, and that the Black Africans' goal to FREEDOM and reconciliation is still ongoing. This is why if you're a novice to the situation, CRY FREEDOM, is your best introduction. Class: | 2positive
|
This movie is like real life, by which I mean - not a lot happens in the available 2 hours or so, and not much game plan or plot is evidenced by the frequently invisible cast (their invisibility being due to the "experimental" lighting as mentioned by many reviewers). <br /><br />A big bore. No big surprise that Altman helms this - he is a very variable performer (yes we all loved "Gosford Park", but "Pret A Porter" anyone? Kansas City? Dr T. and the Women? Aaargh), but the fact that the raw material is a John Grisham tale, and the excellent cast that you will perceive through the gathering gloaming of your insistent slumber - makes this truly a masterpiece of bad film. And no, it is not "so bad it's good".<br /><br />It's just bad. | Classify an input text. Only return the class label as a single word and no reasoning or other content. Class labels 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Text: This movie is like real life, by which I mean - not a lot happens in the available 2 hours or so, and not much game plan or plot is evidenced by the frequently invisible cast (their invisibility being due to the "experimental" lighting as mentioned by many reviewers). <br /><br />A big bore. No big surprise that Altman helms this - he is a very variable performer (yes we all loved "Gosford Park", but "Pret A Porter" anyone? Kansas City? Dr T. and the Women? Aaargh), but the fact that the raw material is a John Grisham tale, and the excellent cast that you will perceive through the gathering gloaming of your insistent slumber - makes this truly a masterpiece of bad film. And no, it is not "so bad it's good".<br /><br />It's just bad. Class: | 0negative
|
I have seen "Miracles Still Happen" now at least four times. I never tire of this fantastic movie. From the very beginning, it holds a person's interest. As the movie progresses and the plane crashes the story becomes very intense as we watch this young girl trying to survive alone and frightened in the Amazon, following a plane crash in which she was the only survivor. Losing her mother in this plane crash as well makes this movie even more dramatic as we see the perils this young girl had to endure during her ten days in the Amazon. To think this really did happen is just unreal and to think that anyone could actualy survive this is unspeakable as we see the wild animals, snakes and other reptiles, the enormous forests and wildlife as well as countless insects. As the movie progresses we see the many dangers this girl has to face as she tries to follow the river in hopes of it leading her to a town. Remembering what her father told her about how a stream will always lead to a river and then into an even larger river and this means it will eventually lead to a community, this young girl keep track of the tiny stream which eventually lead into a huge river all throughout the movie. At times having to swim in dangerous waters, alone, frightened, injured, she always managed to keep going. Towards the end of this movie it was obvious she would not have been able to continue much longer as she had not eaten in ten days and only had water to drink and was very sick and tired from her perils. Eventually as she sees a canoe, she realizes there has to be a village and men find her and they take care of her and then take her to a hospital where her father comes to see her, after fearing she was dead along with the many other passengers. Such a dramatic movie and so heartwarming to see her father's face when he sees his daughter is actually still alive after all this time in the Amazon! Movies like this aren't made much those days. I will still see it again and I know I will never tire of it! To think this girl was the only one single survivor of this airplane is just unspeakable! Also the fact she only maintained a few very slight injuries was even more remarkable, whereas everyone else on this airplane perished in the horrific crash into the wilds of the Amazon. A brilliant movie, superbly acted out indeed and one I will treasure forever and love to continue watching! Strongly recommended by me for sure! | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: I have seen "Miracles Still Happen" now at least four times. I never tire of this fantastic movie. From the very beginning, it holds a person's interest. As the movie progresses and the plane crashes the story becomes very intense as we watch this young girl trying to survive alone and frightened in the Amazon, following a plane crash in which she was the only survivor. Losing her mother in this plane crash as well makes this movie even more dramatic as we see the perils this young girl had to endure during her ten days in the Amazon. To think this really did happen is just unreal and to think that anyone could actualy survive this is unspeakable as we see the wild animals, snakes and other reptiles, the enormous forests and wildlife as well as countless insects. As the movie progresses we see the many dangers this girl has to face as she tries to follow the river in hopes of it leading her to a town. Remembering what her father told her about how a stream will always lead to a river and then into an even larger river and this means it will eventually lead to a community, this young girl keep track of the tiny stream which eventually lead into a huge river all throughout the movie. At times having to swim in dangerous waters, alone, frightened, injured, she always managed to keep going. Towards the end of this movie it was obvious she would not have been able to continue much longer as she had not eaten in ten days and only had water to drink and was very sick and tired from her perils. Eventually as she sees a canoe, she realizes there has to be a village and men find her and they take care of her and then take her to a hospital where her father comes to see her, after fearing she was dead along with the many other passengers. Such a dramatic movie and so heartwarming to see her father's face when he sees his daughter is actually still alive after all this time in the Amazon! Movies like this aren't made much those days. I will still see it again and I know I will never tire of it! To think this girl was the only one single survivor of this airplane is just unspeakable! Also the fact she only maintained a few very slight injuries was even more remarkable, whereas everyone else on this airplane perished in the horrific crash into the wilds of the Amazon. A brilliant movie, superbly acted out indeed and one I will treasure forever and love to continue watching! Strongly recommended by me for sure! Class: | 2positive
|
i'm not sure if it is available worldwide - but if anyone who's deciding what is supposed to be put on videotapes and distributed in video clubs - is reading this - please , please buy it! (if I wasn't clear: GET THE MOVIE INTO VIDEOSTORES!)<br /><br />can't be explained - must see! | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: i'm not sure if it is available worldwide - but if anyone who's deciding what is supposed to be put on videotapes and distributed in video clubs - is reading this - please , please buy it! (if I wasn't clear: GET THE MOVIE INTO VIDEOSTORES!)<br /><br />can't be explained - must see! Class: | 2positive
|
A year or so ago, I was watching the TV news when a story was broadcast about a zombie movie being filmed in my area. Since then I have paid particular attention to this movie called 'Fido' as it finished production and began playing at festivals. Two weeks ago Fido began playing in my local theater. And, just yesterday, I read a newspaper article which stated Fido is not attracting audiences in it's limited release, with the exception of our local theater. In fact, here it is outdrawing all other shows at The Paramount Theater, including 300. Of course, this makes sense as many locals want to see their city on screen or spot themselves roaming around in zombie make-up. And for any other locals who haven't seen Fido yet but are considering it, I can say there are many images on screen, from the school to city park to the forbidden zone, that you will recognize. In fact, they make the Okanagan Valley look beautiful. That's right beautiful scenery in a zombie movie! However, Fido itself is a very good movie. Yes, despite its flaws, it is better then most of the 20 other movies playing in my local market. Fido is best described as an episode of Lassie in which the collie has been replaced by a member of the undead. This is a clever premise. And the movie even goes further by taking advantage of the 1950's emphasize on conformity and playing up the cold-war paranoia which led to McCarthyism. Furthermore, it builds on the notion that zombies can be tamed or trained which George Romero first introduced in Day Of The Dead.<br /><br />K'Sun Ray plays a small town boy who's mother (Carrie-Ann Moss) longs for a zombie servant so she can be like all the other house wives on her block. However, his dad (Dylan Baker) is against the idea as he once had to kill his own 'zombie father'. Eventually, the family does acquire a zombie named 'Fido' (played by Billy Connolly), and adjusts to life with the undead. Billy Connolly was inspired casting. He is able to convey Fido's confusion, longing, hatred, and loyalty through only his eyes, lumbering body, and grunts. Connolly shows that he can play understated characters better than his outrageously comedic ones. This is his best role since Mrs. Brown.<br /><br />Fido follows in the footsteps of other recent zomcoms such as Shawn Of The Dead and Zombie Honeymoon. Being someone who appreciates Bruce Campbell and Misty Mundae movies more than Eli Roth and Jigsaw ones, I prefer humor over gore in my horror. However, I understand the criticism of those horror fans who feel there is not enough 'undead carnage' in Fido. Yet, I am sure patient viewers will be rewarded by the films gentle humor.<br /><br />The movie does break down in it's third act. It's as if the writers were so wrapped up in the cute premise of domesticated zombies in the 1950s, they forgot about the story arc. However, given my interest in horror comedies and my appreciation for seeing the neighborhood on screen, I rate Fido 9 out of 10. | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: A year or so ago, I was watching the TV news when a story was broadcast about a zombie movie being filmed in my area. Since then I have paid particular attention to this movie called 'Fido' as it finished production and began playing at festivals. Two weeks ago Fido began playing in my local theater. And, just yesterday, I read a newspaper article which stated Fido is not attracting audiences in it's limited release, with the exception of our local theater. In fact, here it is outdrawing all other shows at The Paramount Theater, including 300. Of course, this makes sense as many locals want to see their city on screen or spot themselves roaming around in zombie make-up. And for any other locals who haven't seen Fido yet but are considering it, I can say there are many images on screen, from the school to city park to the forbidden zone, that you will recognize. In fact, they make the Okanagan Valley look beautiful. That's right beautiful scenery in a zombie movie! However, Fido itself is a very good movie. Yes, despite its flaws, it is better then most of the 20 other movies playing in my local market. Fido is best described as an episode of Lassie in which the collie has been replaced by a member of the undead. This is a clever premise. And the movie even goes further by taking advantage of the 1950's emphasize on conformity and playing up the cold-war paranoia which led to McCarthyism. Furthermore, it builds on the notion that zombies can be tamed or trained which George Romero first introduced in Day Of The Dead.<br /><br />K'Sun Ray plays a small town boy who's mother (Carrie-Ann Moss) longs for a zombie servant so she can be like all the other house wives on her block. However, his dad (Dylan Baker) is against the idea as he once had to kill his own 'zombie father'. Eventually, the family does acquire a zombie named 'Fido' (played by Billy Connolly), and adjusts to life with the undead. Billy Connolly was inspired casting. He is able to convey Fido's confusion, longing, hatred, and loyalty through only his eyes, lumbering body, and grunts. Connolly shows that he can play understated characters better than his outrageously comedic ones. This is his best role since Mrs. Brown.<br /><br />Fido follows in the footsteps of other recent zomcoms such as Shawn Of The Dead and Zombie Honeymoon. Being someone who appreciates Bruce Campbell and Misty Mundae movies more than Eli Roth and Jigsaw ones, I prefer humor over gore in my horror. However, I understand the criticism of those horror fans who feel there is not enough 'undead carnage' in Fido. Yet, I am sure patient viewers will be rewarded by the films gentle humor.<br /><br />The movie does break down in it's third act. It's as if the writers were so wrapped up in the cute premise of domesticated zombies in the 1950s, they forgot about the story arc. However, given my interest in horror comedies and my appreciation for seeing the neighborhood on screen, I rate Fido 9 out of 10. Class: | 2positive
|
I caught this at a test screening. All I can say is: What...the...hell? This movie plays out about as smoothly as Mickey Mouse reading the script for "Scarface." It's bizarre beyond making the slightest bit of sense; and even if you do leave your brain in the car, the film is still so bizarre that it isn't even funny.<br /><br />The plot involves crocodile hunter Steve Irwin trying to "save" a crocodile which contains a CIA probe. The CIA comes after Irwin to get their probe back, Irwin mistakes them for poachers, and sets out to "stop" them.<br /><br />That's about all the story there is; the rest is over-the-top lampooning of Australian culture ("Didja see dat?" and "Crikey!") and strangely choreographed action sequences. At one point, Irwin mounts a speeding RV and knife fights with a CIA agent on top of it. Yes, that's right: Steve Irwin knife fights a guy on top of an RV. Let that be your guide for this ridiculously bad film. | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: I caught this at a test screening. All I can say is: What...the...hell? This movie plays out about as smoothly as Mickey Mouse reading the script for "Scarface." It's bizarre beyond making the slightest bit of sense; and even if you do leave your brain in the car, the film is still so bizarre that it isn't even funny.<br /><br />The plot involves crocodile hunter Steve Irwin trying to "save" a crocodile which contains a CIA probe. The CIA comes after Irwin to get their probe back, Irwin mistakes them for poachers, and sets out to "stop" them.<br /><br />That's about all the story there is; the rest is over-the-top lampooning of Australian culture ("Didja see dat?" and "Crikey!") and strangely choreographed action sequences. At one point, Irwin mounts a speeding RV and knife fights with a CIA agent on top of it. Yes, that's right: Steve Irwin knife fights a guy on top of an RV. Let that be your guide for this ridiculously bad film. Class: | 1neutral
|
In my opinion, this is a pretty good celebrity skit show. I enjoyed seeing Greg Kinnear as the host. There are many reasons why I said that. Even though Hal Sparks was an okay host, I sometimes wish that Greg Kinnear hadn't left. If you ask me, it seems that nobody stays with a TV show throughout its entire run anymore. Still, I enjoyed seeing the various hosts and other people spoofing celebrities. If you ask me, that was pretty darn funny. Before I wrap this up, I must say that I kind of miss this show. Now, in conclusion, I highly recommend this show to all you die-hard sketch show fans. You will really enjoy it. | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: In my opinion, this is a pretty good celebrity skit show. I enjoyed seeing Greg Kinnear as the host. There are many reasons why I said that. Even though Hal Sparks was an okay host, I sometimes wish that Greg Kinnear hadn't left. If you ask me, it seems that nobody stays with a TV show throughout its entire run anymore. Still, I enjoyed seeing the various hosts and other people spoofing celebrities. If you ask me, that was pretty darn funny. Before I wrap this up, I must say that I kind of miss this show. Now, in conclusion, I highly recommend this show to all you die-hard sketch show fans. You will really enjoy it. Class: | 2positive
|
My abiding love of Italian actress Lucianna Paluzzi, who helped jump-start my puberty with her performance in 1965's "Thunderball," has led me to some fairly unusual places. Case in point, this British curiosity from 1959, "Carlton-Browne of the F.O.," which features Lucianna in one of her earlier roles. She plays a princess in this one, although the picture is actually a showcase for the talents of Terry-Thomas and Peter Sellers, both of whose stars were certainly on the rise at this point. In this cute, often very funny film, we learn of the Madeira-like island nation of Gaillardia, which had been a British colony until 1916 and then universally forgotten. Forty-three years later, however, it becomes the center of worldwide attention and international espionage when valuable cobalt deposits are discovered there, and Her Majesty sends the bumbling Carlton-Browne of the Foreign Office to take charge. Terry-Thomas underplays this part nicely, as does Sellers in his role as Prime Minister Amphibulos of the tiny country. (This was Sellers' second film of 1959 concerning a tiny country matching wits with the world, the other being "The Mouse That Roared," of course.) Ian Bannen almost steals the show here as Gaillardia's suave king, and my girl Lucianna is as appealing as can be in her minor role. The film exhibits much in the way of very dry humor, although there ARE some belly laughs to be had (the reception at the Gaillardian airport, for example, and especially that May Day-style parade of Gaillardian strength). And Sellers' seedy prime minister, with his cracked English and seemingly perpetual sweat stains, is yet another memorable character in this great actor's pantheon. Despite the occasional instance or two of indecipherable, stiff-upper-lip British gibberish, I found this picture to be a winningly modest entertainment, and well presented on this crisp-looking Anchor Bay DVD. | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: My abiding love of Italian actress Lucianna Paluzzi, who helped jump-start my puberty with her performance in 1965's "Thunderball," has led me to some fairly unusual places. Case in point, this British curiosity from 1959, "Carlton-Browne of the F.O.," which features Lucianna in one of her earlier roles. She plays a princess in this one, although the picture is actually a showcase for the talents of Terry-Thomas and Peter Sellers, both of whose stars were certainly on the rise at this point. In this cute, often very funny film, we learn of the Madeira-like island nation of Gaillardia, which had been a British colony until 1916 and then universally forgotten. Forty-three years later, however, it becomes the center of worldwide attention and international espionage when valuable cobalt deposits are discovered there, and Her Majesty sends the bumbling Carlton-Browne of the Foreign Office to take charge. Terry-Thomas underplays this part nicely, as does Sellers in his role as Prime Minister Amphibulos of the tiny country. (This was Sellers' second film of 1959 concerning a tiny country matching wits with the world, the other being "The Mouse That Roared," of course.) Ian Bannen almost steals the show here as Gaillardia's suave king, and my girl Lucianna is as appealing as can be in her minor role. The film exhibits much in the way of very dry humor, although there ARE some belly laughs to be had (the reception at the Gaillardian airport, for example, and especially that May Day-style parade of Gaillardian strength). And Sellers' seedy prime minister, with his cracked English and seemingly perpetual sweat stains, is yet another memorable character in this great actor's pantheon. Despite the occasional instance or two of indecipherable, stiff-upper-lip British gibberish, I found this picture to be a winningly modest entertainment, and well presented on this crisp-looking Anchor Bay DVD. Class: | 2positive
|
What's Good About It: Some inventive and genuinely creepy little effects that will get under the skin of even the most seasoned horror fan. Doesn't rely on the hackneyed soundtrack stabs for its "gotcha" moments. Even if you've seen everything, there's still a few things in this film that will make your jaw drop.<br /><br />What Could Have Been Better About It: The acting was, at times, flat and unconvincing. It had a "shot-on-video" quality in some places (though,it mostly achieved the atmosphere it was striving for), and the camera work is full of needless close-ups of meaningless actions. Though the effects are genuinely creepy, I think they may have gone to the well a few too many times with some of them. The ending seemed rushed, and glossed over what could have been more impactful moments. The viewer is left to figure out a lot of things for themselves, not as a challenge by the filmmakers, but because they just missed it.<br /><br />Still, a good little indie horror film that is easily several steps above the average. Well worth the rental. | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: What's Good About It: Some inventive and genuinely creepy little effects that will get under the skin of even the most seasoned horror fan. Doesn't rely on the hackneyed soundtrack stabs for its "gotcha" moments. Even if you've seen everything, there's still a few things in this film that will make your jaw drop.<br /><br />What Could Have Been Better About It: The acting was, at times, flat and unconvincing. It had a "shot-on-video" quality in some places (though,it mostly achieved the atmosphere it was striving for), and the camera work is full of needless close-ups of meaningless actions. Though the effects are genuinely creepy, I think they may have gone to the well a few too many times with some of them. The ending seemed rushed, and glossed over what could have been more impactful moments. The viewer is left to figure out a lot of things for themselves, not as a challenge by the filmmakers, but because they just missed it.<br /><br />Still, a good little indie horror film that is easily several steps above the average. Well worth the rental. Class: | 1neutral
|
Bloodsuckers 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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />Basically an okay watch is you're up for something cheesy, even if it is just for the "chestburster" scene. | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: Bloodsuckers 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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />Basically an okay watch is you're up for something cheesy, even if it is just for the "chestburster" scene. Class: | 1neutral
|
Movies have put me to sleep before, but no movie has ever done that twice, so it took me three sittings actually to finish it. The dialog was bad. Women spoke stiltedly and the men were caricatures. And two of the supposedly Japanese women looked Chinese, had Chinese names and spoke with clearly Chinese accents. I'm still trying to figure out why the Emmenthal men were sexually wrapped up with each other. 10 minus 8 1/2 equals a tough choice: Do I give this movie a rating of one? or two?<br /><br />Movies have put me to sleep before, but no movie has ever done that twice, so it took me three sittings actually to finish it. The dialog was bad. Women spoke stiltedly and the men were caricatures. And two of the supposedly Japanese women looked Chinese, had Chinese names and spoke with clearly Chinese accents. I'm still trying to figure out why the Emmenthal men were sexually wrapped up with each other. 10 minus 8 1/2 equals a tough choice: Do I give this movie a rating of one? or two? | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: Movies have put me to sleep before, but no movie has ever done that twice, so it took me three sittings actually to finish it. The dialog was bad. Women spoke stiltedly and the men were caricatures. And two of the supposedly Japanese women looked Chinese, had Chinese names and spoke with clearly Chinese accents. I'm still trying to figure out why the Emmenthal men were sexually wrapped up with each other. 10 minus 8 1/2 equals a tough choice: Do I give this movie a rating of one? or two?<br /><br />Movies have put me to sleep before, but no movie has ever done that twice, so it took me three sittings actually to finish it. The dialog was bad. Women spoke stiltedly and the men were caricatures. And two of the supposedly Japanese women looked Chinese, had Chinese names and spoke with clearly Chinese accents. I'm still trying to figure out why the Emmenthal men were sexually wrapped up with each other. 10 minus 8 1/2 equals a tough choice: Do I give this movie a rating of one? or two? Class: | 1neutral
|
It is obviously illegal. Pedophiles pray on stuff like this. How did they get away with making such a movie? This movie is all summed up in one word, SICK. Where do people get off making, and watching these kinds of films. As I was watching the movie I didn't actually think they would allow this kid that is say maybe 12 if that actually sleep with this woman. Sorry if this is a spoiler to you but I would have rater not seen this. Where has the sanity of these people gone? Maybe the makers of this movie are pedophiles? Our society today is filled with all types of sexual predators that pray upon children, yet film makers make these types of movies that do nothing but provoke this type of behavior. I noticed that on a previous comment someone asked if there was a version where it showed them naked. This is a kid here, and someone is asking something like this? What is wrong with this picture? | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else at all. Text: It is obviously illegal. Pedophiles pray on stuff like this. How did they get away with making such a movie? This movie is all summed up in one word, SICK. Where do people get off making, and watching these kinds of films. As I was watching the movie I didn't actually think they would allow this kid that is say maybe 12 if that actually sleep with this woman. Sorry if this is a spoiler to you but I would have rater not seen this. Where has the sanity of these people gone? Maybe the makers of this movie are pedophiles? Our society today is filled with all types of sexual predators that pray upon children, yet film makers make these types of movies that do nothing but provoke this type of behavior. I noticed that on a previous comment someone asked if there was a version where it showed them naked. This is a kid here, and someone is asking something like this? What is wrong with this picture? Class: | 0negative
|
I am a huge fan of the comic book series, but this movie fell way below my expectations. I expected a Heavy Metal 2000 kinda feel to it.....slow moving, bad dialogue, lots o' blood.....but this was worse than anything I could have imagined. <br /><br />The plot line is almost the same as the comic, but the good points pretty much stop there. The characters don't have the energy or spirit that drew my attention in the comic series. The movie only covers a small portion of the comic, and the portion used is more slow and boring than later parts. The focus in the movie is on the insignificant events instead of the more interesting overall plot of the comic book.<br /><br />With the right people working on this project, it could have been amazing. Sadly, it wasn't that way, so now there is yet another terrible movie that few will see and even fewer will love. My copy will surely collect dust for years until I finally throw it out. | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else. Text: I am a huge fan of the comic book series, but this movie fell way below my expectations. I expected a Heavy Metal 2000 kinda feel to it.....slow moving, bad dialogue, lots o' blood.....but this was worse than anything I could have imagined. <br /><br />The plot line is almost the same as the comic, but the good points pretty much stop there. The characters don't have the energy or spirit that drew my attention in the comic series. The movie only covers a small portion of the comic, and the portion used is more slow and boring than later parts. The focus in the movie is on the insignificant events instead of the more interesting overall plot of the comic book.<br /><br />With the right people working on this project, it could have been amazing. Sadly, it wasn't that way, so now there is yet another terrible movie that few will see and even fewer will love. My copy will surely collect dust for years until I finally throw it out. Class: | 0negative
|
if you like gangster type of movies, then this is the first one you should buy or at least rent, Al Pacino his performance is top notch. and the story is classic!! 10 / 10 !!!! Why isn't this movie in the TOP 250 list?? | Classify the text as 'postive', 'neutral' or 'negative'. Only return the class label and nothing else at all. Text: if you like gangster type of movies, then this is the first one you should buy or at least rent, Al Pacino his performance is top notch. and the story is classic!! 10 / 10 !!!! Why isn't this movie in the TOP 250 list?? Class: | 2positive
|
End of preview. Expand
in Dataset Viewer.
README.md exists but content is empty.
- Downloads last month
- 29
Size of downloaded dataset files:
213 kB
Size of the auto-converted Parquet files:
213 kB
Number of rows:
100
Models trained or fine-tuned on davidberenstein1957/follow-the-money-imdb