id
stringlengths 6
9
| status
stringclasses 2
values | _server_id
stringlengths 36
36
| text
stringlengths 32
6.39k
| label.responses
sequencelengths 1
1
⌀ | label.responses.users
sequencelengths 1
1
⌀ | label.responses.status
sequencelengths 1
1
⌀ | label.suggestion
stringclasses 1
value | label.suggestion.agent
null | label.suggestion.score
null |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
test_6400 | pending | a34b1bb4-7278-4d84-bc53-b3c5486f62d6 | Let's get one thing straight; This was BAD! So Putrid that it doesn't even qualify to be imprinted on anyone's memories.<br /><br />The ever repeating storyline (who's constant recycling of not only jokes but story lines and character appearances.) A typical storyline goes as follows; Sue (the mother) opens the episode quoting on how she loves her baby son but smells awful (As if THAT doesn't get old! har-de-bloody-har!), some Australian quasi-nationalist "bogan" -look it up- appears to say how she thinks she's awesome because she's an ozzie while everything/everyone else that isn't sucks before disappearing for the rest of the episode. (a small mercy)<br /><br />The rest of the plot revolves around the father (Gary) getting in some kind of disagreement with Sue and him talking to members of his band for advice on how to sort it out.<br /><br />The phrase "words fail me" is an old one but this is where it is the most truthful thing to say. It is so incredibly BAD! So HORRIBLE, that I would like every trace of it's existence sent to the lowest depths of the North sea and life can go on.<br /><br />It saddens me though, to see someone as good as Sally Bretton (good actress, I like her) make a prat out of herself, Ardal O Hanlon (My Hero aside) has the ability to be pretty funny - but not here - and Ben Elton, distinguished for so much good stuff somehow manages to come up with this...thing then comedy is in very serious trouble! | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6401 | pending | 708b4240-03bf-4366-ad9b-b4a1c3f40b5e | OK, first off there may be a SPOILER here since i don't know what constitutes giving out too much information. My subject line says it all but surely people will want to know WHY it's so stupid.<br /><br />First off, this film follows a bunch of Yuppies as they go to a sports game in Chicago but wind up taking the wrong exit and winding up in the ghetto. Scary, huh? Well, first of all, Emilio is driving everyone in the world's most overblown RV/Winnebago, tricked out with satellite dishes and crap like that on it. So these guys are GOING to a sports game (i forget which, though likely the Bulls or the White Sox since they're near the oh-so-scary ghetto), yet they can't even make it down the freeway without having an onboard viewing command center that would put ESPN to shame. Yet they're smart enough to earn livings that would pay for the stuff, but are such sports fans that they don't even know which exit to get off at on their way to the game they so love.<br /><br />I gave up on the movie within a half hour after that, but the reasons were plentiful. They wind up IN THE GHETTO, yet their main danger to their existence is DENIS LEARY. A WHITE GUY. I'm no racist, but COME ON. In anything RESEMBLING reality - and this film WAS trying to be an urban nightmare - Denis Leary would not be trying to kill Emilio Estevez, he'd be hitching a ride to get the f*** out of Dodge himself!!!<br /><br />This is easily one of the dumbest movies ever created, although I'm not familiar with much of the rest of the world's cinema. If MST3K were still on, they surely would have devoted an episode to this one. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6402 | pending | cd36d8e9-bc8e-457c-8743-8be84cab32c3 | I really liked the idea of traveling between dimensions, and I even liked the Wade/Quinn tension in early episodes. Some of the worlds they created gave the main characters extremely interesting backdrops for their stories. However, as the show went on there were more silly disputes among the friends and less of a true bond. There was less wonder and excitement when they were involved in other worlds and more condescension. And every world had one of the characters falling in love. The writing just got boring and everything was way too over the top. Too bad it would've been nice to have a closely knit band of friends (a la Star Wars) traveling to different dimensions on TV for several years, rather than a tired band of knit pickers. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6403 | pending | 44351bd7-51e0-46ea-8505-75a307fb9a44 | Loving the Andersen fairy tails as a child and recently having seen some intriguing documentaries on this odd, though brilliant, author, I eagerly looked forward to see this made-for-TV film. Unfortunately the experience was nothing but a disappointment leaving me in anger and confusion. First of all the story/script is filled with inaccuracies and downright fantasies and in this way creating almost a completely new story while shamefully abusing Andersen's fairy tales, presumably in order to sell the crap to suckers like me. Secondly, pretty-boy actor (really... ever seen a picture of the real Andersen?) Kieran Brew manages to portray Hans Christian as mentally retarded rather than the brilliant though very disturbed character he indeed was. Though annoying and irritating like Andersen, Brew is missing the required charisma to create any feelings of compassion what so ever. Thirdly. The love story between Andersen and the fictional Jetta (whom actually should be Henriette, the wife of Edvard Collin)... Why? This man has lived such an interesting life, it should be enough as a foundation to a great movie!<br /><br />I could continue this to be a very long list but feel it safest to simply recommend all of you to spend your time and money on something else instead. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6404 | pending | d6a496e2-d054-4b47-b746-ac0c4a7a5497 | I did not like this movie. I rented it hoping it would be something like the 10th Kingdom. I was disappointed when I discovered it wasn't. I also found it just plain nervracking. The acting was bad, the characters where unbelievable and the time jumps were crazy. I only recomend this film if your in the mood to see a crazy dude running around, but I'm sure there are better films with the same thing. I can't believe I wasted my time on this one. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6405 | pending | 8f1680ff-a3f8-435e-9706-8e4fcb2623d3 | This script was mildly original when it was written in 1935, but the poor performances and the inconsistent quality level make it impossible to recommend. Some of the vignettes are absolutely terrible and the dialogue is never natural. A few of the plot twists were creative, but I was very surprised to see it so highly rated here at the IMDB. A few scenes are worthwhile, it's as a film that if fails completely to entertain. If you like this sort of montage, run don't walk and get "Tales of Manhattan" (1942) a marvelous film that follows the life and times of a topcoat. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6406 | pending | eaefc0b1-0048-4b06-a58e-653a8eeabb42 | This movie is by far the worst movie ever, The story line is weak and never shows what happens to the people after the 20 was left they hands. This really bugs me. It drags on and on with out any meaning, very boring. The only good thing was the cast, WOW, lots of big time actors and actress in it. But besides that it was horrible, terrible and repulsive, do yourself a favor, do not watch it.<br /><br />I gave it a 1 out of 10 | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6407 | pending | 771c983c-e8ce-439e-bb86-37d5f6292b68 | There is nothing mean spirited or evil about this movie. It's just terribly dull. Dull is the photography--- the film stock appears old and faded and washed-out. Maybe it was even 16mm blown up to 35mm, dunno. Dull is the script, which is tedious and 'Jules Pfeiffer'-ish. That is, kind of 1960s bossa-nova cocktail party cool. Like our beatnik grandparents might have spoken if they were trying to appear really straight. The 'slice-of-life' characters were mostly annoying. True, they were real to life, but hey, if I wanted to see truly ordinary people doing really mundane and ordinary things, I'd just watch myself. I wouldn't trapse all the way down to a cinema and blow five quid, and an evening, watching someone else do it.<br /><br />I expected a funny, bright rom-com. What I got was more like what two intelligent and moderately talented 19 or 20 year-olds might have produced on their first day with a new video camera.<br /><br />I gave this a 4 out 10, because it appears that someone tried, at least. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6408 | pending | 80efcb39-5de5-4566-8ffe-c26074708ae4 | This film attempts to cash in on the success of Richard Curtis movies, particularly "Love Actually" (which I loved) - a series of disparate scenes following the love lives of various couples. <br /><br />It's a great idea poorly executed. The script tries to be a little too clever and simply doesn't resonate. Most of the acting is stilted which is more a reflection on the director than the actors.<br /><br />The version I saw (on a plane) was called "Scenes from a Park", which is a more appropriate title as not all the scenes were of a 'sexual nature'.<br /><br />I was so looking forward to this movie, but ultimately it is disappointing. Don't bother. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6409 | pending | 7facc0a6-5b9e-4f35-ab50-4d815a242b0b | the acting is good.thats the positives out of the way! SOSN is shallow and superficial.Almost all the characters are middle class and English.The gay men are depicted as fickle sexual predators aiming to use children in their empty lives.This film could only appeal to people who know hampstead heath and would get minor satisfaction from pointing out any landmarks.There is no time to engage with the characters and has a result you really don,t care about them,Catherine Tate at the height of her comedic fame stars as a woman seeking a divorce from her husband and on screen for about the same time as her Nana sketches failed to convince,however if she had said "what a f****** liberty" i would have agreed <br /><br />I'd rather take a walk in the Park;unintelligent rubbish! | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6410 | pending | db50a2c5-c02b-4924-a177-10b4590d1b1a | This film is about the encounters of 7 couples on Hampstead heath in one sunny Wednesday afternoon.<br /><br />It shows 7 different types of couples: married, divorced, breaking up a relationship, homosexual, elderly, blind date and escort service. They are not connected to each other apart from the geographical location, so that is a disappointment. The film is a collage of conversations, without any discernible plot. The film jumps from a pair to another without any logic. I find this film boring and purposeless. The only redeeming feature is the great weather throughout the film. It is sad that talents like Ewan McGregor and Sophie Okonedo get wasted by this film. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6411 | pending | dcbbbd99-c198-4acb-8588-ed96af611c48 | If you never have read the book and never intend to read it in the future, go on and watch the movie (6/10). It is a nice fantasy movie with well done CGI, nice acting, a beautiful environment and an above-average fantasy story.<br /><br />If you have read the book like me about 10 times or more and really love it, don't expect too much (or better: don't expect anything at all). The story is totally different from the original book. This may explain that the movie is voted 1/10 from people around 40 or more (like me) and much better from people who most probably never read the book before and thus expect nothing.<br /><br />Most of the differences between movie and book are not really necessary and change the setting (in my opinion much to the worse): <br /><br />- The magic in the book works with rituals for classic magical effects. (Changing weather, creating illusions, transform into animals, ...) In the movie the magic is more like "jedi-school for the middle ages" (TM) (wooden sticks instead of lightsabers). That the devil is looking like emperor palpatine (after part III) doesn't make it really better.<br /><br />- The mill in the book is not totally cut off the world like in the movie. In the book the story is set near Dresden, which Krabat visits one time with his master and also he visits some nearby villages for festivities. (This part might have been changed to cut costs.) I also don't understand why in the movie the mill is located in the hills while the nearby graveyard is set in the high mountains.<br /><br />- The whole surrounding is the average run of the mill fantasy medieval style. Lots of mud everywhere, dirty faces, not an orderly kitchen, only very rough houses. The book never suggested such an environment.<br /><br />- In the book the master tries to make Krabat his successor but Krabat rejects. Krabat is somewhere between admiration, distance and silent rejection. In the movie Krabat rejects the master always openly like a stubborn schoolboy.<br /><br />- The movie is set in 1647 instead of around 1720. This makes it impossible for the master to tell some stories from his youth probably around 170x. OK, the stories are missing anyway in the movie.<br /><br />Also some explanations given in the book would have been helpful and would not cost so much minutes: <br /><br />- In the book all work done at day is effortless and work in the night is like normal work. This explanation is missing in the movie. Sometimes the boys are sweating and sometimes they are happy.<br /><br />- The book explains why only a few "Gesellen" try to confront the master: If the master dies by any mundane reasons, the "Gesellen" are free AND keep their magical powers. If the master dies at the confrontation, all will lose their power forever. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6412 | pending | 8c4109e3-9fe4-4572-bf8a-5c8efb9adf6b | My Age: 13<br /><br />James Cole, played by Steven Seagal, is sent to help Detective Jim Campbell, played by Keenen Ivory Wayans, solve a series of killings in which the victims are crucified. Since Cole has arrived on the spot, he notices that the killings have changed a little, and thinks there is a different killer. It becomes personal when his ex-wife is murdered, and Campbell finds his fingerprints on the body. Campbell investigates the mysterious Cole, and finds out about a very shady past.<br /><br />I am not a fan of Steven Seagal. I enjoy action movies, but he is the worst actor I have ever seen. This film is not much fun to watch at all, incredibly dumb, and, obviously, Steven Seagal's acting performance is absolutely horrid. Keenen Ivory Wayans isn't too bad, though. The only redeeming thing in this film is the occasional good action scene, although most come round because of insanely stupid reasons. The plot in this film is absolute gibberish. I didn't care for it at all. The whole "glimmer man" past of Seagal's character was stupid, all the Mafia fights and fights in the restaurant were there for almost no reason. Give this film a miss.<br /><br />Australian Classification: MA 15+: High Level Violence<br /><br />Rating: 35 out of 100 (quite generous) | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6413 | pending | 9923a336-044e-4a49-a475-35164c6e468b | Two L.A cops track down a serial killer nicknamed "The family man" who has wiped out whole families and when one of the police officer's wife takes the deep six, questions are raised and it turns out that a serial killer isn't responsible but rather mobsters. The idea of Seagal in a serial killer movie is an interesting concept, indeed one could see Seagal play a good serial killer however making him a cop who has a ridiculous penchant for prayer beads and razor sharp credit cards comes off more stupid than likably ridiculous. Also a running joke involves Wayon's enjoyment of eating powdered deer penis and well this raunchy material is utterly out of place. Not to mention the beginning of a school being taken hostage, due to a boy's breakup with his girlfriend. After Seagal neutralizes him, the girlfriend tells the young lad that she loves him. Now there is a lesson to be learned from all of this, if you want your girlfriend back, taking the school hostage may get you back on her good side. I myself would think flowers or the old fashioned phone call might work, then again though, i'm old fashioned. Besides who am I to put a damper on somebody else's brilliant reconciliation plan.<br /><br />* out of 4-(Bad) | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6414 | pending | 74e43afb-6fe7-478c-a990-be95305ed0de | New Year 2006, and I'm watching Glimmer Man again. Say what you like, I find Steven Seagal's movies amusing. Like many comments, good fight sequences - I particularly liked his answering of the phone at the restaurant saying how long it would be closed for restoration. Bit like Schwarzenegger's humour in the earlier action films - although that tended to be self-deprecating.<br /><br />But the one I like here is Brian Cox. One of the most versatile actors around. Pity about his hand and foot, but so much for withstanding extended interrogation - must have flunked that class at the "farm".<br /><br />As the films went on I wonder just how the ever thickening girth of Seagal affected his movement?. Never mind, it's entertainment!. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6415 | pending | c3f4c71f-41b7-439d-abba-abdd33205229 | A not so good action thriller because it unsuccessfully trends the same water as early Steven Seagal films because there is not a very good set piece. Steven Seagal plays the same kind of character that he has played since Above the Law. In my opinion the performance of Keenen Ivory Wayans is wasted in such an average film and belongs in a much better film. Bob Gunton is okay as the main heavy. The best acting in the entire film belongs to Brian Cox who is very frightening in the role of the murderer. My favorite scenes are the fight scenes with the Russian mafia. One of the film reasons to see The Glimmer Man(1996) is for the brief appearence of the beautiful and voluptupus Nikki Cox. Its too bad that there were not more scenes with her in them. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6416 | pending | 2dc047eb-7117-4572-b636-58f768d64ed7 | Imagine if you will an alternative universe where someone has made SEVEN where instead of a talented cast and crew they've cast a politically conscious environmentalist and a stand up comedian as the leads . If your imagination can't stretch that far just watch THE GLIMMER MAN as it's the next worse thing <br /><br />!!!! MILD SPOILERS !!!!<br /><br />Jack Cole is a cop with a hidden past and it's very ironic that he's played by Steven Seagal since he's also someone witrh a hidden past , but don't tell anyone because it's top secret . Perhaps the biggest secret is how someone like Seagal became a movie star in the first place since THE GLIMMER MAN continues in the vein of all of Seagal's other movies in that it's utter , utter crap . Look at the way he's introduced as his partner walks into his office " Yoi love beads man . In you're in the wrong office " Steven replies with something that is side splittingly witty , or he would if anyone was able to understand a bloody word he said because for much of the movie he just mumbles away . In fact the only time I could make out his dialogue was the scene at the school where he bursts in on the gunman holding the class hostage <br /><br />" Don't make me kill you " <br /><br />Is this what a cop would say to a suicidal gunman ? I'm just thinking that in another movie where Steven isn't the hero ( ie A good movie ) the cop would say something along the lines of " Don't kill me , I've got a wife and a couple of kids waiting at home " . So anyway suicidal gunman goes to blow his head off but Steven saves his life by hurtling them both through two sets of windows . It goes without saying that you shouldn't try this at home<br /><br />As the story progresses Steven ( I've given up on calling him Jack though credit to the screen writer for giving Steven a sensible name ) becomes involved in a case a plagiarism where someone has been stealing bits out of other superior movies featuring serial killers . As Steven finds more victims you can see him thinking " What was that movie that starred Morgan Freeman as a cop ? " as he inspects the bodies , oh and the action keeps switching back to the hero's domestic life just so we know that this guy's good as a family man , this guy's very good as a family man such a pity he's so bad as a movie star | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6417 | pending | ccaee77d-adba-418e-97cf-257f62027aae | Typical Steven Seagal fare: that is, it's crap. The plot relies on a series of incredibly improbable coincidences; there's a hefty dose of conspiracy theory which would be much more palatable if we didn't know that Seagal takes it all literally; and once again, bad-movie multi-millionaire Seagal tells us all about the evils of The Rich.<br /><br />Seagal's survival relies, as usual, on the fact that Bad Guys never fire their guns from out of arm's reach, and always like to give a little "I'm gonna kill you" speech before blowing a man's head off.<br /><br />Watch this one right after the even-worse *Fire Down Below* and note how the carpet in Keenen Ivory Wayans's apartment is more flammable than a big puddle of gasoline.<br /><br />Oh, and watch in the final fight scene for the Incredible Disappearing Forehead Wound, which is probably the most entertaining thing in the film. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6418 | pending | 9ffe5b9d-5129-4e9f-8043-d19a3addb52e | Kennan Ivory Wayans was so funny in Low Down Dirty Shame that I had to see this one and it was one of the worst he has done and Steven Seagal didn't help much. It starts off with some odd religious killings that don't make much sense to Jim Campbell (Keenan). He is surprised to see a new partner waiting for him to work by his side to crack the case but Jack Cole doesn't seem to be who everyone thinks he is until Jack's ex wife is killed in one of those ritual killings that end up making him the suspect as well. It's the same thing as all of his other movies: Smoke past, CIA involvement and now trying to be a normal cop. Why does Steven dress up like he is from a Western movie? And the prayer beeds on top of that make things a little confusing. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6419 | pending | 667fb549-7448-426c-afd7-403d9a5d4167 | Maybe it was the excessive weight gain Seagal had put on. Or maybe it was the horrible acting of Wayans in an action flick. Or was it the total lack of chemistry between the two leading characters? These and other considerations lead me to conclude that Seagal should have never made this acting nightmare. True, the story line was good. Yet, as an avid follower of Seagal's career and background, his physical appearance was inconsistent with his genre of clean, pure, healthy Zen Buddhist living, notably in his on screen discussions with Wayans. (Then again his real life affair with the "nanny" was inconsistent also!)<br /><br />If Seagal wants to become a more diversified actor, then he should do what a fellow action figure did in "Kindergarten Cop"...put humorous material or situations in the script where the actor has no choice but to react in a comical way. Otherwise, leave the wise-cracks and the futile attempts at humor out of it while chasing a serial killer. Seagal is not a natural humor type of guy. It did not work.<br /><br /> | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6420 | pending | 54c0247a-e917-4999-a249-7adee5241b4c | This (allegedly) based-on-a-true story TV movie concerns a woman on the run from the FBI and a *seriously* stupid guy.<br /><br />First, we have Roger Paulson (Tim Matheson), a "regular guy" type with a mind-numbing job, an ex-wife, a kid he hardly ever gets to see and some cats.<br /><br />Next, there is "Elaine-Lisa-you name it" (Tracy Pollan), a smart, sexy, good looking woman whose tongue would burst into flame if she ever told the truth.<br /><br />Roger and Lisa meet when she answers a lonely-hearts ad. Roger is one of these poor saps who can't seem to handle living alone, so after his wife dumped him, he places his ad.<br /><br />It doesn't take long for Roger to figure out that Lisa is *not* a good person, but he has no idea how to get rid of her. He doesn't even have enough sense to change the locks on his apartment door after he throws her out.<br /><br />Go ahead and watch this if you don't have anything else to do.<br /><br /> | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6421 | pending | 05ba7693-ef38-4cd2-90d5-e709e233000f | Although a well produced made for television movie, Dying to Love You reeks with low grade melodramatic splendor.<br /><br />The film opens up to Roger Paulson (Tim Matheson, looking much older than I remember him to be), who is a struggling businessman that leads an empty, lonely life after his wife Ruthie (who looks suspiciously like Roseanne Arnold) leaves him with the quickness. Now all Roger has is his cats....and his ad in the newspaper. <br /><br />Once his ad is answered, he calls Johnnie-Elaine-Lisa-oh it doesn't matter I'm whoever you want me to be-Lawrence. Then...they have phone sex.<br /><br />I'm not sure where you're from or when you were born, but I remember that phone-sex bit was played out by the late '80's. I'm sorry but that was trashy.<br /><br />Soon Roger and the broad hook up and have a whirlwind romance. They fall in love, visit the zoo to see gorillas, and then have some kinky sex with Roger's son in the other room. She ties him to the bed and seduces him.<br /><br />Roger is just so stupid that he does not realize that Johnnie-Eliane is just a bimbo that loves to sleep around. God forbid women only sleep with one man. Soon enough, strange phone calls begin to occur, Johnny Girl wants Roger to marry her with absolute quickness, and she keeps ranting and raving about her ex-husband who used to beat her. It's funny to see Roger believe her through all this stuff. That's until a frumpy co-worker tells him to go snooping through her belongings like a nosy housewife. He takes her crappy advice and lo and behold, he finds a suitcase crawling with fake ID cards and wigs and guns and a crossbow. He immediately takes the suitcase to the police and has her arrested. Even though all this jazz, he still loves the dumb broad. She tells so much lies, it seems her tongue will catch fire if she tells the truth once.<br /><br />Roger goes on with his life and meets an ugly woman named Angela who looks like something off of Gremlins 2. She has a child as well and Roger takes quite a liking to her. But something inside Roger's subconscious keeps him connected to Lisa Rohn (if that's even her real name) and he keeps going back to see her.<br /><br />Now Lisa is the "ex that won't go away" as she "earns" herself a get out of jail free card and shows up at Roger's doorstep and his son Matt is so busy trying to check her out, he pours juice all over the floor. IL' Rog is so stupid, he throws Lisa out and doesn't even change the locks. Boy, if all people were that stupid, I wouldn't even be writing this review. The ending of this movie is so corny, you won't believe.<br /><br />Tim Matheson is a Made-for-TV-Movie king. he just looks like such a dawm mummy in this movie. He's a little wooden and stiff. The dazzling Tracy Pollan works well with her role and her trampiness rings true. She is extremely beautiful and I do see what Michael J. Fox sees in her. <br /><br />This movie is great to watch when you're on that late night tip, but then again, you might fall asleep, considering how dull and bland it is. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6422 | pending | ce2e7c3c-06a6-4f07-954d-3e2a845d5c93 | Okay, so this was made way back in 1993. Directed loosely by Robert Iscove and written loosely by John Miglis, it's supposed to be based on a true story. Hard to believe anyone could be so stupid and blind to the truth. For certainly it was obvious from the beginning that this dame was after all she could get.<br /><br />Tim Matheson, looking somewhat older than I remember him, played the empty headed man who was looking for romance in his somewhat dull and empty life. Well, it came to him in the likes of Tracy Pollan, a somewhat vacant looking girl with kinky sex as her means of conquering her guys.<br /><br />Come on, phone sex, even in the 90s was old hat. Can't believe someone would fall for that old line. But Mr. Matheson seemed to buy it. And it cost him plenty. <br /><br />The hardest scene to take was when he finally threw the dame out of his apartment, putting all her junk in the hallway (IN FRONT OF HIS APARTMENT) and then had the stupidity not to change the locks. That's when I had enough of this trite movie. It made me want to wish the dame had tried it on me so I could have the satisfaction of telling her to take a hike.<br /><br />I give this chestnut a 1 out of 100. That's how bad I thought it was. I guess you can't blame the actors. But they were awful. Did they actually try to play this with a straight face? | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6423 | pending | f292676f-2f4a-4724-83eb-5f3a14089b01 | I decided to hire out this movie along with a few other old horror movies.This was the worst,some of the killings were good and theres a bit of humour but i couldnt stand this,everytime a killing happened they would show scenes of all these old movies that the killer used to be in,i give this 2/10. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6424 | pending | 8c1a2018-3a91-4254-a629-6845af8dae82 | The ABC gears up it's repertory company for another unrealistic representation of rural Australia. Yes folks, it's all there Baca Bourke (Jeremy Sims,an actor of little talent) Fire hero , Lill (Libby Tanner plays Bronwyn Craig in the bush), Fifi (Nadia Townsend) town slut, preggers by Baca's brother Joe (I think). Then there's Uncle Geoff the, Big Daddy of Lost Springs. Uncle Geoff's scenes are like Tennessee Williams on speed. Only saving grace is Russian actress Natalia Novikova as Baca's loony missus. She is great. I can't understand why John Waters took the gig as Lilly's psychologist husband. Must have needed the money I expect! Still, he won't last long as Lill and Baca will be having it off toute suit. Just watch this lemon to see how bad an Aussie show can be. Frankly, I'm ashamed. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6425 | pending | 391623f7-4259-4dc3-95b6-ff72da8ba590 | Let me say at the outset that I'm not a very artistic person and that I don't "get" new art. That being said, this film is absolutely crazy, and in my opinion not crazy in a good way. Filmed entirely in black and white with a series of very loosely connected stories, Avida is a film for those who can look at modern art and say "wow, I feel the energy and passion of this painting." The only reason I give this film a 3 out of 10 is because I actually did manage to laugh at some parts, though mainly laughing at the sheer insanity of the film. Two of the characters throwing chairs on a lawn, as to do what these characters were doing, I have no idea. I wouldn't recommend this film to anybody. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6426 | pending | bf4fbd25-467d-4e17-adc8-7c91c161320e | Avida is a game of words mingling life and eagerness, but I personally think this movie was overblown by its ambition and does not make justice to its title. It gathers a set of awkward characters united by unbelievable links. Furthermore, the way everything is connected at the end is, in my opinion, a bit pathetic. What remains of it was a set of images... an interesting one, but not enough to make this a good movie. <br /><br />I believe this film is supposed to be a comedy, but I surely didn't noticed! The nonsense and caricatural nature of the movie is actually the only good thing about it, but when it drags on an on and on it becomes no longer bearable. I have to say I fought hard to continue seeing it until the end, and I am still not sure it was worth it... | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6427 | pending | a75983a9-5ddd-481b-8272-7746144de24b | If you are planning to schedule your program for a film festival, do not be misled by what it says in the booklet. This is a complete waste of time and energy. I have watched Bunuel, I have seen Dali, and admired them; but this isn't surrealism, this is not supposed to BE at all. Didn't they ever think about the reputation of human race while taking this picture? After we become extinct by global warming, these will be the remainings of our civilization. What if the aliens sample this as an example of our intellectual capital? With all due respect to the effort put in this, maybe it would be a good idea to terminate all the copies of this film - or whatever it is. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6428 | pending | 78813046-ee0a-4b72-9ce5-487e49f0ae55 | Set in a post apocalyptic future, the new highlander is an effeminate little twerp named Quentin MacLeod, who is being mentored by a new Ramirez while his little sister tags along on their quest to thwart an evil immortal overlord. To do so, Quentin must absorb all the knowledge of other immortals before this overlord, Korton, does.<br /><br />In short, this is pure crap, much like the Highlander sequels. Quentin is a fairly stupid character, constantly whining and moaning and bitching in a "woe is me for I am a reluctant hero" kind of way, and he never catches on to the fact that he's an immortal and can't be killed, at least not easily. Ramirez would have done better to ditch him and thwart Korton himself. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6429 | pending | cac10dee-e5cb-4faa-95d6-fc6a5ff8ff88 | This movie had the biggest advertising campaign any movie ever had in Russia. "Epic movie about Russian culture", "Great saga of Russian spirit", endless articles and interviews. For me this movie was the biggest disappointment. The main character played by Oleg Menshikov is a stupid immature boy ready to set up his comrades because of a woman who doesn't even look like a lady. What is there to admire? In the first part of the movie the story doesn't develop at all. People's festival scenes look like boasting about Russian audacity.<br /><br />I respect Mr. Mikhalkov for his previous works both as actor and director, but this movie just demonstrates his ambitions to be considered the "Tzar" of Russian cinema. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6430 | pending | 2e7e20d7-3a6d-41f5-b7ed-631a370d4087 | I saw this ego-centric "effort" at achieving a film of "epic" status in the company of several native Russian family members. Five people gave 5 different reactions, from Mikhalkov worship to my cynicism.<br /><br />I saw a movie that looked like Mikhalkov took a lot of "Canal +" money, put some of it in his (and other's) pockets and turned the project over to a bunch of film students. I counted at least 4 different "styles" in the movie. There is no way that the same director is responsible for these different scenes. Contrast these for yourself:<br /><br />·Cadets polishing shoes with a dog.<br /><br />·Train station scene (saying goodbye to Andrei).<br /><br />·Outdoor panorama shots.<br /><br />·Ormond talking through the keyhole.<br /><br />·Initial attempt on the Grand Duke and later chase scenes to get Andrei back to sing in Figaro.<br /><br />·Fencing sequence<br /><br />Julia Ormond is faster than superman. Learning about his transfer belatedly, she gets all the way across Moscow in one minute to say goodbye to Andrei.<br /><br />The Russian natives felt that the impression given of Russian life was "caricature" and not history. They called it "tourist postcard" Russia.<br /><br />They were all proud that a Russian director/producer/fixer has managed to break into the "big time" and be able to waste over 30 million dollars of other people's money while maybe putting a little into local pockets during filming.<br /><br />If you want to "think" you have seen Russia go see this movie. Drink some coffee before you go. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6431 | pending | 96aca7d3-8ce6-46da-a109-8954a5ee9a4d | Most critics have written devastating about that Michalkov-movie, but I wanted it to see myself. And, unfortunately, they are right. The film had the greatest budget ever in Russian movie history, two international stars, colorful mass scenes, apparently shot quite close to the Kremlin - but in the end it appears to be a nice, sweet nothing. You would not believe, that this director earlier has made masterpieces like Urga and Burnt By the Sun. The characters in the storyline are not convincing, neither Jane nor McCracken nor Andrej. Only general Radlov worth being mentioned. It remains on the surface all the time. Politically it is to me a glorification of the army, and especially the Russian one with values like honor and duty. And, having lived at least half a year in Siberia: My Russia is much more than the one that is depicted in Michalkovs movie. Regarding "Burnt By The Sun" by the same director as a no-question-10-points-movie, one of the best I ever seen in my entire life, I was totally disappointed by that one. Sorry. Nevertheless, Michalkovs unique talent in delivering amazingly beautiful pictures is still there. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6432 | pending | 2588a4ca-ccef-4788-bebc-70a74ae01e71 | This movie suffers from the fact that for years Hollywood had no clue as to how to package Jackie Chan for the masses. His low-budget Hong Kong movies were all fast-paced kinetic thrillers that highlight his amazing gymnastic skills and talent for light comedy. His early Hollywood films stuck him in the same movies that were being packaged for Stallone or Chuck Norris. There is nothing about Chan's character in this movie that requires the character to be Asian except for his being the star. In his Hong Kong films Chan is never dull, with the movies being one rapid-fire martial arts sequence after another, but "The Protector" is lifeless throughout. Danny Aiello isn't given much to work with either and the lacking chemistry between the two probably is more a result of the script and direction than how the two actors got on together. Both have been better in worse movies. The best thing about the movie is the Hong Kong settings. The worst part is the appalling way that Jackie Chan comes off so colorless and drab. It wouldn't be until the made-in-Canada "Rumble in the Bronx" that the west would finally figure out how to make a good Jackie Chan movie. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6433 | pending | e1b7f8de-a36b-46c2-9355-3945b9b30127 | THE PROTECTOR. You hear the name. You think, "ah, it's a crappy Hong Kong movie." Guess what - it's not Hong Kong. And yes, it is crappy. This amazingly stupid Jackie Chan film, ruined by us, yes us, the Americans (I'm boiling with anger, ooh, I think I'll jump out that window!), has Chan as a New York cop hunting down a gang, avenging the death of his buddy. Sounds cool...but it's not. Don't waste your money renting it. To prove he could make a better cop film, Chan made the amazing POLICE STORY (1985). | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6434 | pending | 0eb33bd6-4c8c-420e-a9e8-29fa720c5e5c | This is a very mediocre Jackie Chan film and one of his absolute worst James Glickenhaus ruined it!. All the characters are decent i guess, but the story is so so, however Jackie Chan is still amazing in this even if he did look bored. Jackie and Danny Aiello had zero chemistry together, and it was very boring a lot of times, however the finale was above average and managed to be fairly entertaining, and had some good stunts!. I have not yet seen the Hong Kong version, however i'm sure it's better then this dud, plus the twist is very predictable!. It's really lifeless and bland, and i don't blame Jackie for not looking happy in this, and if he didn't star in this it would have been unbearable and completely unwatchable. The opening is supposed to be memorable, but it's nothing i haven't seen before and done better at that, and i thought the whole film was rather lazy and could have been an awesome film if Jackie had control of it!, plus i really didn't root for any of the characters. This is a very mediocre Jackie Chan film, and one of his absolute worst James Glickenhaus ruined it!, not recommended even for Die hard Jackie Chan fans. The Direction is terrible!. James Glickenhaus does a terrible job here, with extremely bland camera work, bad angles, and keeping the film boring for the most part throughout. The Acting is so so. Jackie Chan is AMAZING as always, however he is not his usual energetic self, and looks bored and Ps*ed off throughout the film, had zero chemistry with Danny Aiello, and i really don't blame him either! (Jackie Rules!!!!!). Danny Aiello is OK here, as Jackie's partner, but his character is a bit of an ass, and he had zero chemistry with Jackie, he did OK i guess. Roy Chiao is decent as the main villain, but was just going through the motions and wasn't all that menacing, he still is damn cool though. Rest of the cast are average at best. Overall Not worth your time or money. *1/2 out of 5 | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6435 | pending | 2992c88d-8d07-41dc-b6e7-63d56747c15e | Robert Lansing plays a scientist experimenting with passing objects through solid matter, but he goes too far one night and unintentionally makes himself four-dimensional! Atomic-age fantasy is rather charming in a very cheesy way. Perhaps it was considered a thoughtful sci-fi in its time (with psychological overtones), yet seen today the film is mildly overbaked and naive; it's a camp-fest tailor-made for TV's late-late show. Wooden performances by Lansing and Lee Meriwether barely rate as one-dimensional, though Patty Duke (playing a cute brat pre-"Miracle Worker") gets a colorful, memorable exit. <br /><br />** from **** | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6436 | pending | 87e0867a-5910-4268-adb8-7090e8ad44d9 | One of the worst films of it's genre.<br /><br />The only bright spots were Lee Merriwether showing some of the sparkle she would later bring to the Time Tunnel and Batman.<br /><br />A young Patty Duke also outshone the more established actors.<br /><br /> | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6437 | pending | ab87ce9e-e404-41b7-b2ad-f08c470eece1 | Charlie (George "Norm" Wendt) and Rhonda ("Just Say" Julie Brown) are a pair of cheerful, murderous aliens who become stranded on Earth and stumble upon a tiny western town. They become deputy sheriffs and dish out a deadly form of justice to speeders, murderers and others, while getting on the bad side of some of locals (led by Wayne Grace). Meanwhile, their sexy alien daughter (Anastasia Sakelaris) arrives in a skimpy/shiny outfit with her black human husband (Christopher M. Brown) to find them and TV reporters and government agents turn up to fill up time.<br /><br />From what I can tell, this is a deliberate attempt to cover every possible genre (comedy, sci-fi, horror, western...) in one movie, and what a stupid, unfunny mess it is, despite energetic acting from the two stars. The script is downright atrocious. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6438 | pending | 5257bf3e-1d55-48ea-a69d-518aa0bc76a8 | the real plot...<br /><br />A group of post-Civil War prostitutes seek alternative housing in FORT BOOM. Lacy Everett and a close-knit family of call girls have been eating date expired sausages for days and plan to move into the former Fort McMillian. Locals warn the women of eating more of the dated sausage. Because there is a vicious pyromaniac loose in the area and he refuse to shuttle them out to the property. When they finally arrive at their destination, they discover their stomach is full of gass after all the bad sausage. It is not long before they learn why their new home is called FORT BOOM. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6439 | pending | a9bcdeff-ce74-49e5-bc26-250ba1aa00b5 | This movie is about a group of women (perhaps not of the highest repute) who are heading to a small fort to take over a recently departed uncles property where they plan to set up shop. Upon arrival in a nearby city they find no one will go there (even though its only 15 miles away), so they walk. When they get there they find there are no soldiers but a good amount of people who have taken over use of the fort and built up a small city nearby. They soon find that something isn't right here and Fort McMillan (Ft. Doom as the locals call it) is in some serious trouble. <br /><br />Rather than go into the plot line I will make some comments about things I noticed about the movie. First off the acting is very flat, only a few of the people seem to be real enough to believe in. My first though was poor acting, but at the end I watched some of the outtakes and these same people became alive. So my only thought left is this is how the director wanted it. On top of the bad acting I have a great problem where the people don't react right to a given set of circumstances. Take for example no one would take them to Ft McMillan for any price even though its only 15 miles away. Yet when we arrive at the Fort we find it is well maintained by a decent population of people, all of whom must get supplies from some one, not to mention mail etc. It is supposed to take place in 1867, yet we can see the railroad car has electric lights (they aren't on at least) and a locomotive engine that is at least 30 years later, not one of the general style of locomotives so popular at that time. There are also places where you can see paved blacktop, (and maybe a car at one point, didn't want to bother to go back and look) and other anachronistic items. If they had followed the rules of the "world" they made and let the actors be actors it might have gotten a 4 from me instead of the 2 I gave it, and they rewritten it about 4 more times it might have done even better. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6440 | pending | c7340026-8215-4d7d-9a30-0a2062fb3de0 | Alleged "scream queen" Debbie Rochon and her group of frontier prostitutes travel west to the title location and encounter grisly killings that turn out to be the work of a cult of ex-Confederate psychopaths attempting to resurrect the south through pointless massacre.<br /><br />Action and suspense take a backseat to loads of boring dialog and uninteresting character development.<br /><br />Billy Drago is good in the thankless (not to mention pointless) role of the town mortician but everything else about this wannabe slasher western is extremely poor, including the town and the fort, both of which look like modern made western tourist traps and costumes that look like they were bought at Party City.<br /><br />Do yourself a big favor and watch Ravenous instead. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6441 | pending | 2d77e34a-98d4-421e-91fe-8dc0520dc46a | An interesting premise, and Billy Drago is always good as a dangerous nut-bag (side note: I'd love to see Drago, Stephen McHattie and Lance Hendrikson in a flick together; talk about raging cheekbones!). The soundtrack wasn't terrible, either.<br /><br />But the acting--even that of such professionals as Drago and Debbie Rochon--was terrible, the directing worse (perhaps contributory to the former), the dialog chimp-like, and the camera work, barely tolerable. Still, it was the SETS that got a big "10" on my "oy-vey" scale. I don't know where this was filmed, but were I to hazard a guess, it would be either an open-air museum, or one of those re-enactment villages, where everything is just a bit too well-kept to do more than suggest the "real Old West". Okay, so it was shot on a college kid's budget. That said, I could have forgiven one or two of the aforementioned faults. But taken all together, and being generous, I could not see giving it more than three stars. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6442 | pending | 1a561dcd-85f5-4456-b921-e04e61b77cc7 | I bought this 'film' from a gas station in the 3.99 bin for one reason: Billy Drago, who is one of my favorite actors. He is terrifically creepy and good, but that's where it stops. The movie itself is a dirt cheap, gratingly awful attempt at a horror western, and manages neither, never mind a successful merging of the two genres. The acting besides Drago's is so bad I wanted to put the couch cushions over my ears, the production values are nonexistent and the script , I don't even know where to start.<br /><br />Avoid at all costs unless you are a die hard Drago fan like me.<br /><br />Terrible, shameful unforgivable. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6443 | pending | 2cd308c9-92ad-49ad-b1ec-f285b41a5a1a | Royal Rumble 1988 bored me pretty damn good. The rumble itself is pretty uneventful, filled with mid carders, and a winner that really had no point in winning, and why on earth did The Young Stallions Vs The Islanders main event? half the crowd left. Jessie Ventura sounds bored, through half the thing, and you can tell when he mentions he finds the development of Hogan Vs Andre more interesting. McMahon and Ventura don't have the chemistry of Gorilla and Jessie.<br /><br />Ricky Steamboat Vs Ravishing Rick Rude. Heavily disappointing match, with too many rest holds, and too much of a sluggish pace, sink this one. When it picks up like crazy in the last 5 minutes, it's too little, too late. Steamboat wins by DQ.<br /><br />2 1/2 /5<br /><br />Next is up Dino Bravo attempting to set a new bench press record, with Ventura spotting him. Horrendous segment, with no entertainment value what so ever. Ventura is not nearly enough to carry this segment, and even McMahon admitted it was boring. Controversy or not, I wasted enough time on this crap.<br /><br />0/5<br /><br />WWF Woman's Tag Team Championship.<br /><br />2 out of 3 falls.<br /><br />The Glamour Girls|C|/W Jimmy Hart. Vs The Jumping Bomb Angels. This is the best match of the night, no I'm not kidding!. Very exciting stuff for Woman's wrestling, and you'll be hard pressed to find stuff this good, now a days. The Jumping Bomb Angels were way over, and the crowd went ape sh*t for their title win.<br /><br />3/5<br /><br />Contract signing between Hulk Hogan and Andre The Giant. Hogan gets a decent pop, but there a few noticeable boo's for him, probably because its in Canada. A bit too drawn out for my liking, but it was necessary for the storyline. It got it's point across, and had some effective moments, but a lot of the times, I kept saying "Get on with it". Both sign, and Andre slams Hogan's head on the table, and pushes the table on him.<br /><br />2 1/2 /5<br /><br />Royal Rumble Match. Very weak Royal Rumble, probably due to awkward pacing, and the true lack of star power. I think Vince was testing the waters with this one, and it showed. Ventura seems uninterested, and I don't blame him. Crowd clearly wanted Roberts to win, yelling DDT almost every 5 minutes he was in there, and while Duggan got a good pop, I don't believe he was the winner they wanted, and where did this take his career? Nowhere. Bret's 1st ever Royal Rumble, and he made an impressive showing. It wasn't terrible, but it was quite lackluster, and it didn't have enough to make the show, considering this was what the show was based on.<br /><br />2 1/2 /5<br /><br />Hogan has an interview with Craig DeGeorge. Standard Hulkster interview, but not with the same craziness, and outrageous remarks he usually pulls.<br /><br />2/5<br /><br />Ted and Andre get interviewed. Andre claims he will deliver the Championship to Mr. Dibiase. Short, but effective.<br /><br />3/5<br /><br />2 out of 3 Falls.<br /><br />The Islanders Vs The Young Stallions. Crowd is completely dead for this, and half of them bolted for the exit's. It's quite dull, and had no business being in the main event. Jessie and Vince seem bored, and argue about other things while the match is taking place. Islanders win, due to taking advantage of Roma's injury.<br /><br />2/5<br /><br />Bottom line. Historically important I suppose, but there is really nothing to see here. This was just a starting cue for great things to come for The Royal Rumble, and while you can see glimpses of potential here, there is nothing on here, going out of your way to see. I usually recommend everything once for Die Hard Wrestling fans, and considering it's the 1st Royal Rumble event, I suppose I have too, but prepare to be bored a lot of the time.<br /><br />3/10 | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6444 | pending | b42f24e0-a3ab-4c4f-b4ea-336765adeb10 | With Al Jolson at the height of his popularity and Warner Brothers's the Jazz Singer having been the highest grossing film of 1927, it was inevitable that the other studios would churn out a few vehicles for their own Jolson-esquire characters. But while the Jazz Singer was a sensation for its being the first part-talkie, the Matinée Idol lacks the singing voice of its star (the now obscure Johnnie Walker), and has to make do with just his visual antics.<br /><br />The Matinée Idol was an early directorial assignment for the renowned Frank Capra. Capra's first couple of full-length features for Harry Langdon reveal a very showy, excessive style, which made Langdon's already mediocre slapstick almost unwatchable. A couple of pictures later and Capra has learnt to ease off a bit, with some fairly regular and decent camera-work. However he still shows no aptitude for shooting physical comedy. The longest comic routine - the stage performance - seems to have a few good gags, but it's all cut up into lots of different camera angles, and there is no chance for the comedy to flow naturally from the performances. Theoretically, a good portion of the jokes are in the intertitles, but there are far too many of these and none of them is especially funny.<br /><br />Of course, Capra would eventually mature into a fine dramatic and romantic director, and you can see him beginning to develop in this respect. He cuts down the line, closing in on Walker and Bessie love in the scene where she first lays eyes on him in his Don Wilson get up, neatly establishing the wordless connection between them. Then there is some beautiful and tender framing of the couple in their scene together at the masquerade, which is all very reminiscent of the love scenes in Capra's early 30s output.<br /><br />Johnnie Walker, Columbia's answer to Al Jolson, is not an exceptional talent. His comic timing is good but there is nothing to make him stand out. Bessie Love on the other hand is a pretty good actress too, with a very expressive face. Kudos to her for getting involved with the physical comedy and losing her dignity with the boys. There's also a good role for Lionel Belmore, that rotund and jolly character actor who seems to turn up in absolutely everything in the late 20s and early 30s.<br /><br />The Matinée Idol is one of those pictures that has gained more than its fair share of attention thanks to its director later having made a handful of masterpieces. In and of itself it is a very uninteresting piece, and like most of Capra's work before he met Robert Riskin, a disappointment. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6445 | pending | 01366c50-3a06-44a9-830c-11a0c45ecb6b | Role-reversal remake of 1942's "The Major and the Minor" has Jerry Lewis stepping into the part originally played by Ginger Rogers, but unfortunately this anemic outing is missing a lot more than just Ginger. Lewis attempts to pass for a child when boarding a train; he's successful, but the deception leads to a string of comic and romantic confusions. Sidney Sheldon adapted the screenplay, tossing in musical moments for Dean Martin (playing yet another in his stable of second-bananas) and a jewel-robbery subplot (which is dire). Diana Lynn, who played the wily teenager in the original film, plays Lewis' love-interest here. She's cute; Jerry isn't. *1/2 from **** | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6446 | pending | 2447bd21-3242-45fb-9a25-cef940adc478 | The movie isn't too bad, up until...<br /><br />The main problem is with the ending, so it's a pretty major spoiler...<br /><br />For the time it was made, it's a beautiful movie, and does get a lot of it right.<br /><br />However...<br /><br />In the book, Sam succeeds and lives his dream, whereas in the movie, he gives up and goes back to the city, completely destroying the "you can do what you put your mind to" theme of the book.<br /><br />This movie is a desecration, and instead of remaking classics that don't need redone, the Hollywood types who haven't any better ideas should do this one, right this time. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6447 | pending | fc04e42c-d4e3-4aed-9f4f-47a73e58ec21 | I hardly know where to begin.<br /><br />Huge continuity issues, bad acting, etc. For example, Sam is supposed to be far from any people yet you can see the ski slopes cut into the mountain next to his head.<br /><br />But the most fundamental problem is that the essence of the book, Sam's adventurousness paving the way to improve the lot of his entire family, is not even touched upon. Instead, in the movie, he gets ticked off at his family and leaves his wealthy parents to be by himself and, when he gets tired of it, he goes home. Where is his development? Where is the arc?<br /><br />If you have never read the book and can get through the hokey 60isms (double/triple/quadruple visions of the falcon) and terrible production quality (crackling, ahem, fire, winter winds stopping their howling for the dialog and then restarting, etc.) I guess it *might* be OK for an 8 year old. <br /><br />But compared to the sophistication of the book it is a terrible disappointment. <br /><br />Read the book instead. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6448 | pending | cc311415-cb59-4a3a-87e6-518403780a1d | This movie is one of the poorest adaptations of a fabulous book that I've seen. Jean George's novel is a fantastic book that I think is an outstanding read for any child. I can't give the same endorsement to this movie. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6449 | pending | 43182fe1-a1cd-4f69-a5b5-ae35d43b3793 | Ouch. This is one ugly movie. Not only is it badly acted, but it absolutely destroyed the book as well. Horrible. How you could mess up such a classic book is beyond me, but they sure did. Don't even think about even renting this. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6450 | pending | 7f302341-8fb4-4ed7-8f1b-abfb853dcaa2 | I guess there are two ways to make a movie with kids as the intended audience. You can either say to yourself a) "Let's make a movie that kids today will love!" or b) "Let's make a movie that I would have loved when I was a kid!" The second approach explains why Steven Spielberg often make movies that appeal to a younger audience. Prime examples are E.T., The Goonies or Indiana Jones. That Darn Cat is an example of the first approach. You see these flat, unbelievable characters saying things that is supposed to be funny but isn't. The plot itself is enough for a ten minute short, but instead it goes on and on. And although I'm not a kid, I don't quite understand what in this movie is supposed to be fun for kids? The clumsy cops chased by a dog, the old lady with a tweety bird or Christina Ricci's sarcastic oneliners? One actor showed a spark of talent with his very acrobatic humour: Doug E. Doug playing the FBI agent. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6451 | pending | b6703c61-ee76-499d-a640-1d07661a78c2 | I was 12 years old when I saw the original film (I lived in Italy and the Italian title was "FBI, OPERATION CAT!") That was a fun film and not just for kids. This awful remake it's pathetic even for a 5 year old! What possessed Disney to ruin their reputation and the memory of a lovely film I don't know and I just can't believe it. Even the title song in the original film (both original version and the dubbed Italian version) was extremely nice and creating the mood for the story. On this remake the title song is even worst than the movie itself. It was just nice to see Dean Jones even if for just a cameo appearance, he was a regular on the great old Disney's films. I cannot honestly see anything else positive in this remade movie. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6452 | pending | 449312fe-a687-4787-acb1-c0306575561c | Chris Ricci sleepwalks her way through most of this, but then quickly takes on an air of boredom and disdain - much as I did when watching it. Without her this would be no more than a cheap kids' movie, but at least she does add an air of quality. There are few, if any, more visually striking and charismatic young actresses in the business.<br /><br />There's not much wrong with it as long as you accept it for what it is - a cheap Disney re-make aimed at very undemanding children. I could watch Ricci all day so I'm probably oblivious to many of the movie's shortcomings, but unless you too are a Ricci fan, a cat-lover, or very small child, I doubt you will find this very entertaining. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6453 | pending | 22c7511a-4e36-48f2-9d52-7de04e01dd1e | The Disney studios' remake of their own 1965 slapstick classic concerns a clever feline leading an F.B.I. agent to a kidnapped woman. Christina Ricci gives a churlish, let-me-outta-here performance as the cat's owner and the fed is played by Doug E. Doug, embarrassingly over-the-top, like a human cartoon. A pair of rich neurotics (Dyan Cannon and original "Cat" cast member Dean Jones) are funny and the formula-plot still has a little juice left in it, but the handling here is so heavy and lugubrious, and the cat is so lifeless, that it's strictly D.O.A. <br /><br />* from **** | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6454 | pending | 65327225-4425-4b20-ad1a-35e069f6072f | But I still enjoyed watching her, so I gave it a 3 instead of a 1. Her expressions are priceless. Some of the other cast members (e.g., Michael McKean) are really slumming, too. The cat himself is somewhat amusing. Aside from that, the movie is all cliche, culminating in a much-too-long car chase. (It's also at this point that the movie becomes unnecessarily crude, having been very "family" until then.) | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6455 | pending | 28dcaafc-074e-4c30-aef6-96a30ba57073 | This remake is entitled "That Darn Cat", but D.C. the cat is more of a sideline than the major character. Patti Randall was not likable at all in this remake either. She reminded me of one of those high school Goth jerks you read about who have been angry since the day they were born, so they end up opening fire on the rest of the school one day. The federal cop, Kelso was okay, but not as good as the one in the original. I guess Disney was trying to make Christina Ricci and Doug Doug (or whatever goofy name he has) into stars, but they don't hold a candle to Hayley Mills and Dean Jones in the original. I'm an animal lover and a cat lover and I don't blame D.C. for the remake being so much more inferior to the original movie. After all, they nearly cut him out of the whole movie. All in all, a very poor remake. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6456 | pending | cb60fcba-ce33-4f7d-8402-8e262a274b10 | I really enjoyed the first film and when it turned up again, without thinking, or checking, I took a family of friends to see it. I was ashamed that I had enthused so much about it to them.<br /><br />Disney processed the original film just like the human body processes a delicious meal - takes in something good and turns out ... well, you know. And by having a dark-skinned person as the FBI man, the results of fingerprinting the informant were subdued.<br /><br />Taken as an isolated film, I suppose it is not too bad if one likes that weird sort of thing, but when one has read the book or seen the first film - horrible! | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6457 | pending | e1d0d5fe-31cc-42e0-a62d-b7541a0e5bda | `It's as if this town has the power to suck your brain right out of your head.' -Patti<br /><br />Patti (Christina Ricci) is a sarcastic teenaged girl, bored with her all-too-average little town. Bored that is until a woman is kidnapped and she finds what she believes to be clues to the poor lady's whereabouts. Now, with the help of her precious cat `D.C.' and an inept FBI agent (Doug E. Doug) she must find her.<br /><br />That Darn Cat is a bad movie. It is quite foolish and it has humor that often falls quite flat. There are, however, a few buds of talent in it. Doug E. Doug was good in Cool Runnings. His performance as `Senga' was really funny. Here he is wasted as the bumbling FBI agent. He does have a good scene when he imitates the cat, though. Micheal Mckean plays Patti's father. His character must be the most understanding parent to ever live. This poor guy has his expensive cigar crushed, gets arrested for picking up his own cat, and gets bitched-at by his snippy wife and STILL doesn't get angry at his daughter for causing all of his troubles. I wish my old man was like that. The only real good performance is Christina Ricci's. She entertaining as the ever-annoyed Patti, but her occasional very bad dialogue pulls her performance down. You might also recognize Peter Boyle (Young Frankenstein, Everybody Loves Raymond), the old lady from Wings and Cliff from Cheers, in this movie. This is a movie that all these actors would probably like to forget. Even the cat isn't very good... I really can't recommend 1997's That Darn Cat. Some young children (under 8) might enjoy it a bit, but every one else should look elsewhere. If you're looking for a good Christina Ricci movie, I suggest Addams Family Values, The Opposite of Sex or Sleepy Hollow. If a fun family film is what you're after, try Snow Day, instead.<br /><br /> | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6458 | pending | 6abf6ab1-92a2-4f7c-b2bd-25d31f2b9043 | this movie wasn't good. i thought it'd be a cute disney movie just like the original. wrong. it was awkward for christina ricci, whom i expect so much more than this, you could just tell by watching. i think doug e. doug did the best he could. sit 5 year olds in front of the this, any older, and they might start to fall asleep. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6459 | pending | 63327d2b-9217-418f-b35d-f14cf1923ed7 | I am really at a loss as to how anyone could give this movie a 10 (or even more than a 2!). It is full of bad lines, bad acting, bad slapstick, etc. I never thought I could see worse acting than the purposefully badly acted scenes at the beginning of UHF, but this was it. And just when you think it can't possibly get any worse, it does! Over and over again! You actually could have watched this in a theater? It wasn't worth free on TV! My 4-year-old and 1-year-old liked it some, but they wanted to see the cat more and the cat was almost never on. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6460 | pending | 6cf32dfd-6c95-43d0-8ae0-dac666c29fa0 | The only entertaining thing that I found about watching this movie was listening to Star Wars coming through the wall of the movie theatre (yes I go to a really bad movie theatre). This movie is so mind numbingly bad that I think I would rather have my eyes scratched out by a cat rather than watch it again.<br /><br />Let's compare it to the original. One is charming, funny, exciting, well acted, and one of the best movies ever made, the other is so far from funny that all you can do is hope that your eyeballs will fall out so you don't have to watch any more. I'm sorry Christina Ricci is a fine actress but cannot compare with Hailley Mills, and don't even get me started on Doug E. Doug in a part one occupied by the amazing and absolutely charming Dean Jones. Dean Jones' tiny part in the new version is the only partially redeeming part of this movie, and it is the only reason I can justify a 1* rating (also because the imdb doesn't go into negatives). | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6461 | pending | 7f273543-1b0f-4651-bb41-e0fb02bd67ce | Ladies and Gentlemen, may we present the worst of all Disney remakes. Although the name of this movie is "That Darn Cat", it should have been "That Darn Teen" or "FBI Agent". The cat didn't get any real good scenes, Ricci's character was more annoying than funny, Doug E. Doug didn't get any good lines, even Dean Jones's cameo role couldn't save this movie! The only really good characters were the town's only two auto mechanics, but their scenes were only brief. In all, I'd say that if you are considering watching this movie, go get something more intelligent like a Barney video. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6462 | pending | d009a5b6-67af-497c-a678-0f7157930a85 | This is definitely a "lesser known" comedy short from the 1920s. The only reason I saw it was because it was on a DVD by Kino Films featuring non-Laurel and Hardy shorts featuring Ollie. They are interesting and historically important, but also generally average to below average for the style film. Compared to shorts by Chaplin, Keaton, Arbuckle and Lloyd, they are definitely a step below them in quality and humor. Also, the accompanying music was pretty poor by the standards of other silent DVDs. I ended up turning OFF the sound due to the inappropriateness of the music to set the proper mood. But, despite this, they are still worth seeing.<br /><br />I've gotta be honest about this short. It was the last of 8 on this DVD and by the time I got to it, I was pretty bored with the mediocrity of 7 of the 8 shorts. So, it is possible the film might be A LITTLE better than a 4--but certainly, if this is the case, no better than a 5! The film is a pretty standard short about an incompetent bellboy. Nothing especially interesting and there are certainly MUCH better silent shorts out there. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6463 | pending | cce110d6-bb92-4624-b497-f27c3ea69a34 | Not too long ago I bought a cheap VHS tape entitled "Just Rambling Along" supposedly featuring Laurel and Hardy. Being somewhat familiar with their output and not recognizing this title, I made the agonizing decision to part with a whole dollar and buy it. Upon playing it, I identified the film as HOP TO IT. Of course, Mr. Laurel was nowhere in the cast, making the packaging of this product criminally deceptive. Even worse, the quality is terrible. It looks like it was duped from an 8mm film source. It did have a somewhat appropriate musical score. Actually, in all seriousness, the tape is worth a buck if you just want to get an idea of what the movie is like. In my opinion, it is a decent but unexceptional short. IMDb should add JUST RAMBLING ALONG as an alternate title for this film, which incidentally was the name of a 1918 Stan Laurel film! | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6464 | pending | d3013466-6f77-4255-a51e-ce277b5a9868 | On one Thursday evening at 10:00pm, my local west coast ABC affiliate aired the pilot episode of "Northern Exposure". The ABC Network usually airs "Men In Trees" in that time slot but the program was preempted for a live sporting event.<br /><br />Despite both shows are set in Alaska and filmed on location in the Pacific Northwest (Exposure in Washington state, Trees in Vancouver, BC), re-watching "Northern Exposure" (as well as few episodes of "Sex and the City") reminds me how disappointed I am with the poorly conceived hybrid "Men in Trees". <br /><br />Anne Heche can be a good actress with the right material. Unfortunately her role as a writer who ends up in a small town in Alaska grates on my nerves. Perhaps because I feel that Heche is miscast, I am not convinced of her "fish-out-of-water" character.<br /><br />I also cannot help but feel that the supporting cast fits the typical quirky stereotypes. The hot-looking local, the kindly bar owner, the bush pilot, the local police officers, the dim but well-intentioned radio DJ, etc.<br /><br />The only stereotype that may have been broken was teddy bear and veteran "ER" actor Abraham Benrubi as the local bartender in love with two different women. Considering that one of the executive producers is filmmaker James Mangold, (his movies "Heavy" and "Cop Land" had lead characters who were large men) then I am not surprised why Benrubi was cast in a non-typical role.<br /><br />Nonetheless, I can see why there are a lot of dedicated viewers who love "Men in Trees". It fits the quirky niche for television audiences. I wished the show could find its own voice instead of borrowing ideas from better shows. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6465 | pending | 15bc59cd-6274-4282-8c04-ae814ed8cbbe | I am a huge fan of Northern Exposure. Men In Trees is a complete knock-off of Northern Exposure. There's the city-folk from New York stuck in a remote backwoods town (Marin Frist / Joel Fleishman). She immediately doesn't hit it off with a local (Jack Slattery / Maggie O'Connell). The town only has one pilot who is not often available. Ther is only one radio show. And the entire show is about quirky people with sincere and odd relationships. Too many parallels. Just like Northern Exposure except one obvious demographic has been altered in each character. I'm bored. Give me something new to think about.<br /><br />On the upside, the writing is pretty good. But if this was a school project, it would certainly have earned the stamp of plagiarism. <br /><br />Perhaps people who love this show were sheltered from the dedicated creativity and hard labors of Joshua Brand and John Falsey. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6466 | pending | 53a1f03f-e716-4d26-aa96-a7d4fad1cdbc | This show is awesome and we have been enjoying it thoroughly. Set in Alaska, I don't agree with the homosexual content on tonight's show. I feel that you are pushing too hard to bring New York to Alaska. Its one thing to have a New Yorker struggling in the Alaska wild, but to try to turn the Alaska town into New York? This is a nice show about dainty women and true Alaska Men and to bring a same sex couple into the mix is throwing the balance way off. Alaska should be Portrayed as a man and New York as the woman. I think the first 9 shows have the perfect balance with what you all are doing. Can't we have a nice show without the imbalance of nature. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6467 | pending | 1edfe14b-1f1b-44c7-9fb6-f556b4dcb36b | Why is Guy working for Buddy? Probably because Ari was not around in 1995. Why does Dawn want to be with Guy? For access to Buddy. Why does she stay with Guy? I am not sure.<br /><br />There are bunch of things about this movie that I am not sure about. But, Kevin Spacey is an excellent, verbal tsunami as Buddy Ackerman and totally believable because he is a great actor.<br /><br />Frank Whaley's Guy is certainly out of his element working for Buddy he wants to write and make meaningful movies, not be a gofer that is verbally abused for getting Equal instead of Sweet & Low. <br /><br />Michelle Forbes' Dawn, who also wants to make meaningful movies, seems way out of Guy's league.<br /><br />The ending leaves a lot to be desired. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6468 | pending | 50d7e943-925d-41b4-b1f1-e0ad595c3263 | I was recommended this movie by one of my film-making friends, and was therefore expecting something good. Sadly, I was very disappointed by the first half -- ah, a movie about a wimp taking revenge on their a**hole boss, how original -- and watched the second half on fast forward hoping to find something that would justify the 45-odd minutes I'd already wasted. But all I got was the 'shock' ending...<br /><br />The basic problem is that this is a movie which seems unable to decide what it wants to say, and says whatever it does say (hard to tell what that is) badly. Great acting does not save a bad script full of characters I can't care about.<br /><br />Now maybe if I didn't moonlight in the movie industry I'd be shocked to discover the dumb politics and exploitation going on behind the screen, but as it is my feelings are as summed up above: 'Ho Hum'.<br /><br />2/10... would have been 1/10 if it weren't for the acting and the paper cut scene. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6469 | pending | fe7212f5-1a4c-450f-a345-b70f561fc0b4 | The role of Buddy Ackerman is no stretch for Kevin Spacey. He's played version of that character many times other, better films. This is fortunate because it gives his performance a certain resonance without which Buddy would be as flat and incomplete as all of the other characters in this pointless little farce. The script leaves little time for plot or character development, resembling a porn flick in its rush to get to the "good stuff". The difference is that here the "good stuff" isn't people pleasuring each other but inflicting pain, making it appropriate viewing for young adults.<br /><br />Of course there's nothing wrong with a porn flick if you want to watch people having sex, and I guess there's nothing wrong with "Swimming with Sharks" if you want to watch people undergoing physical, emotional, and psychological torture. But if you're looking for incisive satire, interesting characters, or anything else that even attempts to engage more than your basest passions, you should probably look elsewhere. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6470 | pending | c6a87d45-8915-4cae-b566-4ac8cc9ce887 | Talk about false advertising! What was this doing in the comedy section of my video rental place? I think there was maybe one laughable part in the movie. I can appreciate black comedy, but this had only the blackness without any comedy. The movie was generally disturbing and un-funny. Yes, Kevin Spacey was good as Buddy and the rest of the cast was also good, but generally the movie falls apart because we don't really see a good enough reason for Guy (Whaley) to lose his mind so badly. The ending was disappointing as well. What would Buddy's motivation be for letting Guy get away with what he did? This isn't really explained AT ALL. Why would Buddy go for such a plan? Wouldn't it be more like Buddy to screw Guy completely by turning him over to the police? The ending didn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to me no matter how I looked at it.<br /><br />Generally, I disliked the film despite the good acting. Spacey essentially chews scenery for most of the film, but towards the end he gives Buddy a bit of needed humanity. The story just wasn't as good as the cast. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6471 | pending | 0b174fe3-74aa-425d-a67e-0b75a67a6143 | There's something wonderful about a "revenge" film. Everyone wakes up in the morning believing he/she is the star of "the movie," and that anyone who interferes with one's own personal agenda is in some way the enemy. Revenge plot films work particularly well if a person has low self-esteem. Rather than fighting back in the moment, the "hero" draws upon built-up inner anxiety to engage in a single act of power in an attempt to restore equilibrium. Quite naturally, in the "real world" this type of revenge seldom relieves the tension because life is not a movie; after the revenge is enacted the actions taken have their own consequences. A good revenge flick helps people ignore this bitter pill. In the movies the end credits roll and all responsibility resolved.<br /><br />"Swimming With Sharks" is advertised as a comedy, no doubt an act on the part of the producers to figure out just how to sell this oddity. It's dark, but it isn't dark comedy ("Company Of Men" and the works of Todd Solondz come much closer). Parts of the film are so brutal they pre-date the current "torture-porn" genre everyone is so obsessed with ("Saw", "Hostel"). There are some laughs. There are laughs in "Saving Private Ryan" too, but it isn't labeled comedy.<br /><br />The intrinsic problem with this film is that it hasn't earned its revenge case. It is ostensibly about a young man who is abused by his boss and eventually takes his boss hostage to "pay him back" for all the mistreatment. The hero (aptly named "Guy") is an "everyman" so vague we know literally nothing about him...what does he do with his spare time? Does he have friends/family? How did he get where he is? What are his interests (this becomes a running motif through the film, no doubt inspired by the film's author's own struggle..."What do you want?", the answer to which we are denied by a vague, cheat of an ending)? It's very difficult to care for such a character, even if acted well (even Tom Hanks becomes a creep in the wrong roll, such as "Punchline"). Kevin Spacey as the boss, "Buddy," is supposed to be a monster but he's too charismatic as an actor. The best laughs came when he abused his assistant--he seemed almost as surprised as the audience probably is at what Guy will endure. When Kevin's character is being tortured, the view taken suddenly becomes empathy for him. Guy is suddenly filmed as a leering monster without rationality. At this point any message the author had has been lost; there's no "hero" in this film, ergo, no reason to care at all.<br /><br />It's not a stretch to assume this story is based on the author's own troubled career in the film business. I worked for a similar boss and can vouch that it's not that far-fetched. I had similar wish-fulfillment fantasies at that time and thought that I was justified. I thought you could win over the most beautiful woman in the story (actually, the ONLY woman--there seem to be all of about four people in the universe of this film) just by being your eager, naive self, that eagerness won accolades and that a boss abused you because he was a mean person. Time and tide have revealed the truth that most "monsters" are really just the demons of an individual's personal psyche and resentment is usually based in the self. As the film points out, if Guy was so unhappy he only had to leave. The film doesn't offer any denouement at all, "surprise" ending notwithstanding. We still know nothing about the protagonists, we can't even be sure anything they said was based in fact and everyone magically gets to have his cake and eat it too. In short, there was no point to this story at all other than to point out that (shock!) the film business can be pretty brutal.<br /><br />There are plenty of good films that tell solid and satisfying revenge-style fantasies, both the feel-good variety ("9-to5," "Working Girl," "The Devil Wears Prada") and not so much ("War Of The Roses", the remake of "The Hills Have Eyes"). This isn't one of them--despite a fun turn by Benicio Del Toro in the Emily Blunt role from "Prada" and some interesting work by Spacey and Michelle Forbes, this is a frustrating, mean, confused and slightly dull creation of self- indulgence from a director who has, one hopes, "worked it all out" by now... | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6472 | pending | 8dbfc784-87bb-4495-bdbf-c0727ca70d8d | Yes, this review may contain spoilers, but you'll thank me for it. This is the worst film I've seen in quite some time. I came to this board expecting to see the same response I had, but inexplicably, there are several people who love this film and Spacey's performance in particular.<br /><br />Some will chastise me for saying it, but I find Kevin Spacey's acting quite limited despite the world's admiration for him. I felt like I was watching a meaner version of Kevin's "American Beauty" role. His character in this film is ridiculously overacted, all the way down to his laughable insults he throws at his assistant.<br /><br />There are all-world trite and boring scenes like when Spacey is tearing into Whaley about bringing him Equal instead of Sweat and Low. Somehow, I suspected this particular scene was supposed to be funny, but by this time I was ready to hit the stop button (this is approximately 20 minutes into the film).<br /><br />What about the faux-homage to "Resevoir Dogs"? Whaley proclaims, "I think I saw this in a movie once," as if he's going to cut off Spacey's ear. But what does he use to cut him? An envelope! That's right, he's going to give him paper cuts! That has to be one of Hollywood's all-time worst scenes, and the fact that the actors and director tried to carry it out with a straight face makes it even more appalling.<br /><br />I will admit that I didn't see the end of this film (my DVD mercifully locked up about a half hour before the end), but anyone who wishes to say so could spare me the line that I missed a great twist and everything would have made sense. Well, I don't care what happened in the end, because it could never make up for all that bad acting and relentlessly over-the-top dialogue. I even got the feeling that the actors themselves wanted to get out of this film as bad as I did. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6473 | pending | a4d5466d-062f-4d9c-ab4a-6dd300fef4d4 | Ugly, heartless Hollywood crap that expects nothing but ugliness and heartlessness from its audience. The scenes WITHOUT Spacey reveal how truly awful the film really is. But the scenes WITH Spacey are just so entertaining that you hang on in there right to the end. Yes, he could play this part in his sleep but he does it so well, he's such a joy to watch, so believable and marvellously monstrous. Enjoy it for his performance, but don't expect anything else from this movie. If you want to see a great film about the evils of modern Hollywood, check out Robert Altman's "The Player". This sad little potboiler is not remotely in the same league. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6474 | pending | 28258615-27ee-4aaf-ad04-014093f496e9 | I tried to like this movie. I love Kevin Spacey and I knew the other guy from his role as "Big Brain on" Brad in Pulp Fiction. But I just didn't care about the characters at all. Kevin Spacey is a prick through the whole movie and even finding out some horrible things that happened to him, I didn't like him. Especially the ending---that made me hate him even more. This was like watching a bad car wreck. Spacey played a prick well (he does it all well), but other than that, I don't recommend it. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6475 | pending | 28c7559f-8a4c-4b8a-8eaf-2713b55a8fdf | Ill-tempered, verbally abusive movie studio chief runs his male assistant ragged with nit-picking requests, keeping the young man firmly under his thumb with constant threats of unemployment; after a year of office-terror, the working stiff finally cracks. Writer-director George Huang has possibly bit off more than he can chew here. His "Swimming With Sharks" isn't a diatribe against Hollywood, nor is it a tribute to the hard-working underling...instead, it's stunt film-making with a twist, a one-trick pony with tunnel-vision. The surroundings don't look or feel like Tinsel Town (perhaps due to a limited budget), and we never get a sense of this stressful environment as a movie-making entity (it could be a realtor's office in the Valley, for all we know). Lead Kevin Spacey, who also served as one of the film's producers, gives a controlled and focused performance as the power-mad mogul whose ego is out of control; he does good work, and yet the character doesn't ring true. We learn so little about him and his acquaintances that his important position and high-ranking status fail to jibe with what we do see; who does this man answer to? what drives him beyond humiliating others for sport? what projects is he juggling aside from the one script we see passed around? The film is so emotionally stunted and underpopulated, it begins to seem like a stage-play padded out for the big screen--and yet one without enough characters or motivations in it. Perhaps Huang wanted to keep things simple, but instead his movie looks like a half-baked project which needed a lot more insight, humor, and atmosphere. ** from **** | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6476 | pending | 0ac2df2a-7e7a-4b29-8c5b-b523541c5d9a | This movie was a low point for both Jason Robards and Sam Peckinpah. Major plot points are taken directly from Sergio Leone's masterpiece "Once Upon a Time in the West" (released two years earlier and also featuring Robards): A man finds a watering hole is found in the desert, being the only water for many miles in every direction, he plans to build a 'station' around the hole and to ensure there's a love interest, he falls in love with a prostitute. To this add an intemperate preacher, bad music, silly fast action shots, even sillier T&A shots - and there you go. There is little question why it failed at the box office. The real question is "how did it make it that far?". | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6477 | pending | f81bc93d-c3ed-4fa3-8d78-20586c08aa76 | Tug-3 is absolutely right. Although I am sure that Mr. Osmond wanted to make a sincere, heartwarming Christmas movie, this one is as cynical and creepy as they come. The religious significance of Christmas is forgotten and replaced with cute kids, clueless grownups, and dopey villains. The production values demonstrate that this was either filmed on a shoestring or by truly inexperienced filmmakers-- I suspect the latter, unfortunately. The worst part, oddly enough, really is the music. You would think someone with a long-standing musical career could do better than the title song, but you would be wrong. Even my mom didn't like this movie, and she likes the Osmonds AND sappy stuff. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6478 | pending | 4937e49d-0eb9-4ee3-b21f-b91834fa3cec | This gawd-awful piece of tripe is all over the place. The script is bad, the plot is bad, the acting is bad. There are a couple of decent actors in it (Charles Durning, eg.), but the director got nothing out of them. The plot line has Santa, feeling dejected and thinking no one needs him any more, taking a little girl across country to try to get her father back together with her mother. It includes a con-man in a Santa suit with a stuffed parrot on his shoulder (played by "Isaac" from The Love Boat), the world's largest elf (played by Bruce Vilnach - a very funny man, but no actor), a hardened factory owner who works his employees overtime on Christmas eve, and a sleigh race where someone cuts one of Santa's skis trying to win. If the plot sounds bad, it's worse on the little screen. If you see this movie coming up next, run, do not walk, to your television and unplug it. You may want to boil your television to remove any remaining infection. If you accidentally watch more than 10 minutes of this, you may have to burn your television, and have the cable company install entirely new lines. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6479 | pending | 17f7c6fe-8af1-46dc-9d03-042f4f42eae6 | Amanda Bynes is an enormously talented actress, and I've really enjoyed all of her roles in the past, especially in the fantastic "She's the Man." For that reason alone, "Sydney White" was a huge disappointment for me. The real reason for my dislike of this film is the poor use of characters. In a good fun teen comedy, its perfectly alright to have a cast of all fairly reality-based teen characters. In "Sydney White," this idea is thrown out the window.<br /><br />Amanda Bynes makes a fine Sydney, but she is really lacking in a lot of what usually makes her sparkle as an actress. I blame this on the script, which makes her character too bland and restrained, and on the hair/makeup department, which gives her a detestable plastic look and an annoying hair style. The seven "dorks" that Sydney eventually befriends are far worse. They are so dorky that it's impossible to like them or even respect them as characters. They're essentially repulsive gag fodder. As is the story's "Prince Charming," who is completely unbelievable as a character and is about as cheesy as can be.<br /><br />Perhaps the film's biggest star-to-be (with the possible exception of Amanda Bynes) is Sara Paxton, who's actually very good as the conniving Rachel Witchburn. It's just a shame that the script-writers didn't make her a bit more gray than black.<br /><br />The plot is basically that of "Snow White." What kills it is that it is too blunt and obvious a re-imagining. The connections to "Snow White" are thrown at us so much throughout the film that they are ultimately annoying and overblown. Prince Charming is unrealistically charming, the "witch" is far too despicably witchy, the seven "dorks" are too dorky, and Sydney is just too pure of heart. Now, this is not to say that the movie is all bad. Though Bynes is forced down by the script, she still has her moments. As does Sara Paxton, who brings physical comedy to the max in her scenes. Sydney's room-mate, named "Dinky" is also great fun as a character. It's a somewhat funny film at parts that is ultimately just too cheesy and clichéd to recommend. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6480 | pending | 651d29ea-a009-4b40-a30a-e3c9a4efdf7e | I rated this one better than awful because I liked seeing Jonathon from Buffy in something again -- even if it was the same role.<br /><br />First, the concept is kind of cute for a short, but not an entire movie. The writing was forced and contrived. I have the feeling that the movie suffered the most during editing.<br /><br />Second, Amanda Bynes always looks like her eyes are crossed -- even when she's not trying to do it. She's just not funny. She always plays some sort of misfit girl who triumphs by being herself -- ironic, considering Amanda seems to always be a caricature. I would actually like to see her in something serious. I really want to give her a chance, but she is always cast in these trite roles where she wiggles and makes faces and somehow that's a good thing?<br /><br />Finally, the whole "I'm a Dork" segment was ripped off from Revenge of the Nerds. There was nothing in this movie that was unpredictable.<br /><br />Shame, shame, shame. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6481 | pending | 1e70a07d-d382-431d-8708-c7f90563844c | My 15 year old daughter asked me to watch this movie with her on Cable TV. As someone who saw Revenge of The Nerds in a movie theater, I found this movie to be an extremely predictable remake of it. The Nerds were simply replaced by Dorks. I drove her crazy by being able to predict precisely what would happen in each scene. The cast was cute, especially Amanda Bynes.<br /><br />Screenwriter Chad Creasey should be ashamed for writing such an obvious remake of an early 1980's flick. The title should have simply been "Revenge of The Dorks." Perhaps the sequel will be Revenge of the Dorks 2. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6482 | pending | 4e2151cc-ed81-4b4f-8bc0-7de8608e2efb | It is fitting that the title character in Sydney White is defined from the beginning of the film by her awkwardness because the film, like the character, tends to begin every scene with a well-meant but inappropriate statement, then backtracks inadvertently making it worse and leaving the viewer in total confusion.<br /><br />This scenario gets old quick. Now imagine a hour and a half of this, throw on the most predictable storyline imaginable; add some vague Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs references and Amanda Bynes blinking in wide-eyed puzzlement and you have Sydney White...for more of my review http://www.helium.com/items/1433421-sydney-white-review | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6483 | pending | fc496de8-f4a1-4455-80b7-b62ec34748c4 | It must say something about the state of our nation that this programme is one of the most popular currently screened. <br /><br />The 'square' is peopled by such a miserable, untrustworthy, amoral, spiteful, unrelentingly dour group of characters as can be imagined. Everyone is stabbing someone in the back, everyone is attempting to commit adultery, everyone is trying to cheat someone. That, or they are being stabbed, cuckolded or swindled. Nobody is cheerful. Nobody laughs. Nobody has a blinding stroke of luck or a really nice day. It's hell, with cockney accents.<br /><br />I suspect this programme must be sponsored by The Samaritans. It's perfect viewing for the depressed. It doesn't cheer them up; what it does do is present a whole community of such terminally despondent sad-arses that viewers are moved to believe their lot really could be worse - they might be living in 'Albert Square'.<br /><br />Apart from the above; as a representation of London's east end, it is pure hokum. The programme-makers have evidently never been across town. The first thing you encounter on the Mile End Road is a colossal mosque. And this pretty-well defines the racial majority of the population. White British Londoners are a dispersed and rapidly diminishing minority. A large advertisement hoarding presently near the Bow Road flyover, and sponsored by Tower Hamlets Health Care boasts that 'Eight out of ten members of the community can now see their doctor more quickly'. Ten healthy, smiling faces beam down at the observer in confirmation. Eight of them are dark-skinned... <br /><br />What's more, I used to work with a bunch of Anglo-Saxon - dare I say 'pukka' - cockneys a few years ago. And I can tell you that a more obnoxiously racist experience I've never had. Each day was like an Oswald Moseley rally. They couldn't pass 5 minutes without denigrating some other race or nationality than their own, and in terms that were repulsive and obscene. 'Fackin' Pakis' and 'fackin' Maceroons' were the small change of conversation. In fact their entire (and extremely limited) stock of adjectives fixated upon sex-organs and their application. Alf Garnett was a paragon of liberal virtue in comparison.<br /><br />Any programme that purported to represent London's native east-end Caucasians in their true nature would be completely unfit for broadcast - even after the 9 o-clock watershed. Imagine a Ku Klux Klan script written by Quentin Tarantino and you'd be somewhere near the mark. But when they weren't being inveterate bigots they were at least extremely cheerful.<br /><br />I don't know how such a soap-opera came to be. This imaginary castaway island of white misery has absolutely no bearing upon real culture whatsoever. And if you're of a comparatively sanguine disposition, it will quickly reduce you to tears of grief. Comparatively ordinary actors pretending to be comparatively ordinary chronic-depressives with cockney accents - what's the point of that?<br /><br />Dull, dreary, unrelentingly disillusional, and ethnically preposterous. The most popular programme of an apparently diseased and dying nation.<br /><br />Avoid it like the plague. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6484 | pending | 7966d3ea-4f73-4737-8c77-9a2b957dad5a | My wife and I watched this abortion from its beginning. I hated it immediately but my wife became hooked on it for a couple of years.For me it just got worse and worse and the characters were all without question dreary and depressing without any redeeming features. My wife then grew tired of it and we stopped watching altogether. Occasionally I catch a clip of it or pass through it when channel surfing.There is always someone yelling at someone else or doing something dreadful. There never seems to be any lighter moments or happiness of any kind. That was always my main gripe with it when we first watched it- no humour. The writers seem to have no idea about drama - they seem to think conflict IS drama, and of course that is only one element of it. Light and shade is sorely needed and actors who can bring something to it. I am sure the actors in Eastenders are competent but they have nothing to work with. It must be the most depressing acting job in showbiz. I fail to understand why the British public watch it and love it. What on earth does it say about our psyche? I have heard it said that it is "just like real life"-its nothing like my life or anyone's life I know, otherwise we would be flinging ourselves from high buildings or under public transport. The themes it tackles are far from family viewing but still are shown pre-watershed. I love series like Breaking Bad or The Wire but I would not expect to see them at 7.30 or 8.00 in the evening. The programme is trash writ large and should be avoided at all cost. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6485 | pending | fa3859b1-9b28-4c2a-81b5-a27e9fbecda2 | I spent three months living in the East End of London in the latter half of 1987, when the show had been on the air for almost two years. It was considered a running joke there.<br /><br />Why? Because it had an all-white cast. Every cast member and extra in the first couple of years was white.<br /><br />The street where I lived was a long one, with over 800 houses, and to the best of my knowledge I was one of only three or four white faces living on that street. We were on the corner of the Indian and Turkish "quarters", and even if you excluded those two races the Asians and Afro-Caribbeans outnumbered the white people twenty-to-one. Plus, of course, of the very few white people who *did* live in the area, the vast majority were Scots like me - a "Cockney" accent was never heard.<br /><br />That wasn't a racist rant, just a simple statement of fact. The BBC either couldn't be bothered crossing London to do their research before writing this soap, or else they only had white actors available and decided to bluff it out.<br /><br />Either way, as I say, in the East End of the time, we considered it a comedy show. :-) | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6486 | pending | fd841af9-975e-4ee3-9078-9e5b9adf3c89 | Eastenders has gone full circle from unmissable in 1985 to totally abysmal now. It's such a bad reflection of the nation this crap tops the ratings.<br /><br />The ideas for plots can consist of nothing more trivial than putting ever characters name in a hat. The first two out (regardless of their sex) will sleep with each other, the 3rd & 4th out will have a fight in the Vic, the 5th one will be arrested, the 6th develop an addiction, 7th get pregnant etc etc.<br /><br />The producers are clever though. The 30 minute show is only actually ever comprised of 3 lines.<br /><br />1) Someone will walk in the Vic & say "What's goin on?" 2) Someone else will stand up say "leave it aht" (out) 3) Then a woman will say "Doan choo come in ere 'n' insult mah fam'ly"<br /><br />That's it. That's every show. Apart from the occasional "Get it sort-id / Is it sort-id?"<br /><br />The show was once a realistic portrayal of East End folk & their way of life. The buffers came off when 1) They extended it from two nights a week & 2) The Slater family turned up. How they attract viewers is beyond me. The Kat character symbolizes everything that's gone wrong with society, treating anyone else like something she's pulled off the bottom of her shoe.<br /><br />The people who vote her the best character, in these polls, must the same as the ones that vote Jamie Redknapp 'Best Sportsman' despite the fact he hasn't played a game for 3 years.<br /><br />What I can never understand is if the show is the pinnacle of British TV why do all the biggest names leave? Ross Kemp, Martin Kemp, the list is endless.<br /><br />How long has the longest couple's marriage lasted, with them being faithful to each other? Yes, people leave, but until the script writers realise that characters, couple can be interesting & likeable without sleeping around the show will continue to deteriorate. An episode last week had 3 separate plots of exactly that. And Zoe & the doctor top even Lofty & 'Shell' as 'Most Unconvincing Couple Ever to appear on TV.'<br /><br />Yes, Eastenders is the most watched show, thats undisputed. But many external factors contribute to that. 19.30 / 20.00 is the perfect time of day to gain the most audience figures, it has an omnibus edition for 2 hours, and more than that, millions of the viewers watch it, out of nothing more than habit, but if they were completely honest to themselves, they would admit that (in 2002, more than ever), it can be absolutely pitiful. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6487 | pending | c14d0987-0366-4b0f-a8aa-30a4daa47112 | I don't know how people can watch this - the only people who enjoy watching this are those who have no feelings and emotions and enjoy watching people die, houses burn down, car crashes, babies die, and cast members being killed off every week. Its the most absurd thing on television and i still don't know how it pulls in the ratings. Its so depressing. I can imagine the writers sitting down and saying - 'so who shall we kill of next week then' or 'whose house shall we torch in a months time?'<br /><br />Its the most depressing, absurd and most stupid thing on TV at the moment, and i cant understand peoples motives for watching this depressing pile of crap anymore | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6488 | pending | f060ea29-de52-42c1-8388-cdc95f2686e7 | I think this programme is a load of rubbish. All they do is argue and slap each other across the face and they call this acting?! These people get paid lots of money for this and most of them can't even act to save their lives. Also, the story lines are awful and after watching it for a few minutes, I am bored with it. I like the way that Harry Hill takes the mickey out of it on his TV show 'TV Burp' e.g. the weak joke "The Princess and the Pea isn't exactly Shakespeare is it?" that had Sonia and Naomi in stitches. I don't see how that is funny. I think this is a waste of everybody's money for their TV licence so this can be shown 4/5 days a week. Isn't there anything better than this? | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6489 | pending | fb90966a-584f-4b23-80ce-f6c0a268749c | This soap is worse than bad: it's poisonous. Of the many television shows that have had a corrosive influence on British society over the past twenty years, Eastenders is the prime example. For two decades this show has celebrated the oaf, the thug, the wide-boy, the tart, the gobby, the violent, the sexually-incontinent, the criminal, the ignorant, the unambitious ...<br /><br />How many times has someone or other remarked that Eastenders "mirrors life"? Life on which planet, exactly? <br /><br />It's written about "working-class" characters, as imagined by middle-class people who have taken a course in creative writing. Eager to show to their middle-class peers how familiar they are with the "working-class" they dream up the lumpen rabble that is the citizenry of Eastenders.<br /><br />This has a toxic effect on some minds less well-equipped than others to handle fiction, and so we find members of the real population assuming the attitudes and demeanour of the inhabitants of Walford.<br /><br />Thus, it came to pass that Eastenders mirrors life; but only after life had been hoodwinked into mirroring Eastenders.<br /><br />Other soaps have followed in EE's footsteps, filled to their stinking gunwhales with ugly, potato-faced, shaven-headed, pot-bellied characters, scowling at each other and issuing threats constantly. This is the proletariat as perceived by the writers who produce this trash. The writers will grow rich on the proceeds of such output, and will go on to enjoy the finer things of life in their rarified enclaves. Meanwhile, the burgeoning number of new, TV-induced drones will proceed inexorably toward cultural bankruptcy.<br /><br />And there you have the new priests and the new creatures of the early 21st century. Much of this is due to the immeasurable power of that illuminated boxful of dancing pixels in the corner of your living-room. It's your fault, gentle reader: that's what you chose as the only window through which to look out from your prison. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6490 | pending | 50b89529-7844-432d-adf8-1ce327ffd90f | If this is classed as 'real life' of London, then the producers must be on different planet.<br /><br />It is the most depressing, suicidal, dark, dingy, dross on TV.<br /><br />Everyone is fighting, everything has nasty under tones running through it, nothing is done for genuine reasons.<br /><br />If you want a real life picture of people in London or the UK, then this programme is by the farthest from reality.<br /><br />There is not one good word I can say about this programme. The only certainty is that will be a great big fight over Christmas dinner.<br /><br />Even the characters are totally unbelievable! | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6491 | pending | 5e22fcf1-5062-4ab3-965d-46cf99d4a6dc | The other lowest-rating reviewers have summed up this sewage so perfectly there seems little to add. I must stress that I've only had the Cockney Filth imposed on me during visits from my children, who insist on watching the Sunday omnibus. My god, it's depressing! Like all soaps, it consists entirely of totally unlikeable characters being unpleasant to each other, but it's ten times as bad as the next worst one could be. The reviewer who mocked the 'true to life' bilge spouted by its defenders was spot-on. If anyone lived in a social environment like this, they'd slash their wrists within days. And I can assure anyone not familiar with the real East End that it's rather more 'ethnically enriched' than you'll ever see here. Take my advice - avoid this nadir of the British TV industry. It is EVIL. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6492 | pending | c1d63a88-d3f8-42f2-bfe5-72198c315b07 | Licence fees to watch this trash, And pay for it with hard-earned cash? Humourless, no hint of laughter, God knows how it won a BAFTA! <br /><br />We've now been subjected to "Eastenders" for twenty years. When, oh when is the Great British public going to see this awful soap for what it is? Crass Pap! This programme no more depicts reality in the East End of London than everyday life in Beirut, and never has done.<br /><br />The Eastenders I know (the real ones) are kind, courageous, hardworking and loyal. And one of their greatest attributes is humour. It was the Eastenders who went through the worst of the London blitz and still stuck two fingers up to Hitler. And what do we see on our screens for five days of the week (including an omnibus)? Nothing but a bunch of moaning, wailing, "dead from the neck up" wimps, who seem to do little else than sit in a pub all day sniping at each other. What a great advert for Britain that is!! Do the writers actually believe this garbage they're pumping out? Obviously the woolly-minded section of the public does, but then I've heard that apparently anyone can be brainwashed into believing anything. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6493 | pending | a992fb62-b8c2-445d-a53d-2f14954cd55b | Now the television schedules (in England, at least) are crammed with home improvement, bargain-hunting, house-hunting and cookery shows in the afternoons, the chances of any of the terrestrial broadcasters digging out a complete obscurity like this to occupy a couple of hours of screen time on a slow afternoon are slender, to say the least. But back in the eighties, the BBC did just that, and guess what, I watched it. And it's a testament to the overwhelming weirdness of this Hungarian-American co-production that I can still remember large chunks of it, over twenty years later. To begin with, the eponymous hero appears briefly during the opening titles, only to vanish again for at least half an hour. (Imagine AN American TAIL re-edited so Feivel is nowhere to be seen, and you'll appreciate how confusing this is.) There's a supremely bizarre bit of animation where one of the characters gets his elaborately waxed moustache tweaked and stretched, complete with a boingy sound effect that causes him to go boss-eyed. Probably hilarious if you're stoned, but to a child, quite disturbing. Speaking of which, the infamous 'hippo cull' scene is represented in an abstract manner - clouds in vague hippo shapes are struck by lightning - but it's still pretty unpleasant. In fact, this film is pretty cold and uninvolving throughout, a sad state of affairs hardly helped by the strange-looking production design, all muddy colours, wobbly lines, bloated forms and that uniquely European bleakness reminiscent of Jan Svankmajer, only not as compelling. Then, to cap it all, we get songs by the Osmonds! This isn't so much an awful film as a deeply misguided one, not so much phantasmagorical as a rather bad trip. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6494 | pending | 81f12bc2-84cc-482d-8048-417e52597c40 | "War is in your blood" Rambo says early in the film, "don't fight it". Say, what? Is the scriptwriter taking the Mickey out of Sly? It is impossible for any person with a primary school education to miss the joke here. Yet, Stallone utters it without a hint of irony.<br /><br />The same lack of humour applies to the movie. Rambo IV is an over-the-top, idiotic actioner that would have been funny without intention if it weren't sickeningly violent. A redneck fantasy of the basest kind where villains are so villainous, it is not enough just to kill them you have to dismember them with relish. Stallone stops at no blue-collar cliché to make his point. It is not enough for the chief villain to be feed-them-to-the-pigs, throw-babies-into-fire kind of sadist. He is also a pedophile homosexual.<br /><br />What is happening to IMDb? Is it taken over by the Rifle Society? How can this loathsome excuse for gross exploitation rate that high? I like a good action movie as much as the next man, but this is not entertainment this is pornography of violence that trivializes and ultimately denigrates the real tragedy of Myanmar. The only good thing about the movie is that Sly doesn't take his shirt off. For this I will give it one star... | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6495 | pending | 6920fc1a-da43-41c7-83be-e658fa360f8b | i hired this movie out from my local movie shop, not really expecting anything to flash or fancy. Since it was a "B" grade movie, made on a very tight budget. The opening scenes of the film were rather original and so was the plot and thats what made me hire the movie out. However the film becomes very boring and frustrating at points. The story had plenty of holes in it and the acting had its fair share of disappointments as well By the end of the film i was praying that a higher power was going to strike me down where i laid as i was extremely bored but more importantly frustrated with how the story turned out. i still don't understand what actually happened and i don't particularly care. in conclusion the devil would cry in disgust to know that Hell (his domain ) was used as a basis for such a crappy film. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6496 | pending | 6f61ffe6-f2be-475b-95e0-489074c86325 | 11:11 a.k.a. Hell's Gate (2004) is another bad horror movie that tries too hard to be something it's not. A young girl has an imaginary play mate. One day whilst out in the fields playing with her friends, a couple of fugitives visit her parents and whack them off for no apparent reason. The young girl runs off and hides from the bad men. Years later, the girl grows up into a woman with problems. Losers at her school (looking like repressed homosexuals) flaunt their manhood in front of her when she rejected one of them. The girls hate her and life in general is miserable for her. A secret from her past returns to visit her. Who or what is it? Why does everyone hate her? What's her Guardian's problem with her? To find out you'll have to watch Hell's Gate.<br /><br />The new title makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I don't know why people are given money to make such bad movies. This film is not even good enough to make fun of. It's a head ache inducing mess that'l confuse anyone who tries to make some sense out of it. Not worth your time.<br /><br />Not recommended. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6497 | pending | 34c9c241-46c9-4215-84fa-1c79f80e28b6 | First of all, this movie is so confused that it is almost impossible to summarize it, since I myself did not understand this horrible story. Further, the unknown cast, leaded by an actress called Laura Mennell, is simply awful. The expressions and screams of the character Sara Tobias are laughable and ridiculous, confusing grimaces with acting. Last but not the least, there are many favorable reviews about this flick in IMDb as follows:<br /><br />- Top Notch- Can't wait to see more of the directors work the author has only one review in IMDb on 24 September 2004;<br /><br />- Incredibly shot, amazingly intense the author has only one review in IMDb on 12 August 2004; <br /><br />- Not your typical blood and gore, in fact better. 7/10 the author has only one review in IMDb on 13 February 2005;<br /><br />- As intense as Asian horror!! - the author has only one review in IMDb on 14 November 2004.<br /><br />Coincidence? Or are they the parents, relatives, friends or people hired by the production to promote this crap? My vote is three.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "11.11 A Nova Profecia" ("11.11 The New Prophecy") | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6498 | pending | 261a7568-fb38-4b16-94e5-cd3df4b0ff34 | What can be said about such a pathetic movie ? <br /><br />- Very bad acting ! The main actress seems to know only one facial expression : fear mixed with weakness. Like a poor beaten dog... The other actress (the one who plays the evil) looks like the female double of Ozzy Osbourne, with an awful red wig. The other actors are so pitiful that they don't even worth being described. <br /><br />- There's absolutely no plot. The story begins with possibilities but goes nowhere : we don't know anything about the meaning of "11:11", nor who Rayden really is, excepted the simple "she's evil" or "she's a child of Apocalypse"... which is not an explanation. We don't know why the parents have been killed, what kind of danger is growing and why Sara was chosen. As the film goes on, we just watch pseudo-scary scenes, with a bad music. Moreover, the end doesn't tell anything : we just see two possibilities as if one of them was a bonus scene or the director's cut... There's no plot, so no possible interpretation. <br /><br />- "11:11" is just full of clichés ! It is so obvious that i couldn't help laughing. For example : the deserted library or the bathroom scenes, ghost silhouettes walking with a blast of wind, ... there's even the fashionable "little scary girl" as in "Dark Water" or "The Ring". Of course, the main character is bullied at school and looks like a stereotyped Gothic girl (dark hair, red lips, skinny, black clothes). Is it an obligation to make her credible ? I don't think so. The psychology of Sara is so few developed and so typical that it doesn't make her credible, nor endearing.<br /><br />- Terrible direction : as i said, nothing original, everything has already been seen a thousand times and is used here without any real purpose. <br /><br />- There are some funny incoherences. For example, i don't know if "ghost science", "paranormal course" or whatever is taught in American universities... In Europe it is really not the case : teachers talking about negative energies or using "unmaterial" creatures sensors... ridiculous. Also : how can you watch a movie shot in the sixties with a Super-8 camera on a computer screen without spending hours of your time for a digitalization (in the movie they watch it immediately on the computer screen) AND how can you, on this old film, isolate a tiny detail then zoom in and see a perfectly identifiable face ? I wonder if the director has ever tried to digitize an old analogical film...<br /><br />Eventually, "11:11" just worths being watched if you like to laugh at silly movies, or maybe if you want to fall asleep on your couch... But it's an expensive way to fall asleep ! | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_6499 | pending | 8572ba08-09a6-4b9c-b430-561a59961050 | Well This was a complete waste of celluloid. The preview was promising but after watching the movie, it looked like the preview *was* the whole movie. No plot, no clear storyline, just some misplaced suspense. It looks like the director tried very hard to create an atmosphere of mystique and fear, but still there are gaps to be filled. Why the drugs? Why the number 11.11? (Btw. As Sarah enteres the library, the clock says 11.14) What's the connection to the murder on the parents? What's the role of this Rayden woman? Is she one of the children or not? Who are those children anyway. There is a lot of material lying around to create the ultimate cult movie like "the Omen" but the director just leaves them lying on the floor without digging into the story. Even "the Blairwitch project" was more scary than this one. All the gaps you hope to be filled like in "The Butterfly effect" stay open as the credits start rolling.. OK. Off to the next movie... | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.