input
stringlengths 205
10.5k
| output
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
In what will probably find itself on my list of Fuller's best movies (that is, once I see more of them that just this and Shock Corridor), Pickup on South Street is a film noir where the femme fatale, as well as the male protagonist, are not the stereotypical ones in the genre. Like most of his other works, Fuller injects his own experiences and the sense of New York style that is usually absent in the Hollywood noirs. On a small budget- at least for the likes of Darryl F. Zanuck- Fuller and his actors create personas that are likable even in such a dark atmosphere. The good guys are basically the ones who won't get violent with you even as they're looking for an extra buck. <br /><br />Richard Widmark, Jean Peters, and Thelma Ritter are all terrific in the lead parts. Widmark is one only a few actors I can think of who could've really pulled off this character. He's a little like Bugs Bunny, as he can be a wise-ass who is a little sneaky. On the other hand, the character of Skip McCoy does have a set of values in his life. He doesn't go into other people's affairs, and doesn't try and care about much of the working world outside of his little shack on the river, after being sent away for three years. He slips up, unbeknownst to him, when he pickpockets a woman (Peters) on the train, and lifts an item that's under the eye of the Government. It may have some secrets that could make him a lot of money. But at what cost is the centerpiece of the film, as it involves stoolie Moe (Ritter is one of the finest, and most believable, character actors from the period), the woman's ex (a volatile Kiley), and the police department.<br /><br />Aside from the thematic elements, which are told with a keen dramatic, journalistic style (as was Fuller's previous position, along with boxer), the dialog is fresh and involving. There's a spontaneity in many of Fuller's camera moves. And what a third act. This is a lean, tight film-noir that is worth checking out even if you're not familiar with Fuller (it's comparatively less bizarre than some of his later works).
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
The Rookie kept me smiling from beginning to end. Dennis Quaid played the role to perfection. The little boy that plays his son was fantastic. He made this a father-son movie to remember. The messages are good ones. Follow your dreams. Failing at the pursuit is alright as long as you try. The excitement is palpable. I believe this movie will be a classic.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
This film was so predictable, that during the entire time you're hoping that the obvious suspect is innocent, and there's some other big twist still coming. However... it doesn't. He just continues to act creepy, and she continues to ignore it. Mary found very incriminating evidence at his place, and she still trusted him? And what was that "baiting the trap"? There was no trap. She confronted him, he said "excuse me. I have to go kill someone" He left, and that was the end of it. They make attempts to use other suspects, (like that one older carnival girl at the end) but they're completely underdeveloped. Actually, all the characters are underdeveloped. They have no depth, and the setting is just plain strange... who hangs out in a recycling factory?? Its choppy and nothing is well developed. For example: When she leaves his place after having the beer, and he finds the pics and she runs out and he catches her and they end up having sex in that car... what was that? Her reactions weren't portrayed. In the car she acted scared like it could have been practically rape- but then all we see is her showering the next morning. booooooooo It could have been so much better.. sooo much better.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
As a Westerner watching another culture's view and tradition of marriag, I found Just Married mesmerizing and delightful. The idea of marrying a stranger through the mutual arrangement of parents is difficult, especially in this modern age. Yet this is the case in this Hindi film. Told with humor, and fresh perspective, we learn of Abhay and Ritika who have only met once and are now on their traditional five day honeymoon. As said, it is difficult to believe in this cell phone affluent age that such an archaic custom as an arranged marriage still take place. We see the awkwardness that this young couple feels as they come together on their first night, and how they try to forge a bond, even though they do not know one another. We see different views of marriage and commitment as presented by the other couples also on holiday, from a couple of forty years married to others still unsure of making marital commitment. There's song, witty dialog, poignant moments, blending and comparison of new ways and tradition. Watching the movie with subtitles definitely loses some of the trueness of the story, yet it is still a delight to watch. Granted some of the plot is a little trite and the bus incident a bit drawn out and contrived; however the overall movie was worth watching.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
The plot of this enjoyable MGM musical is contrived and only occasionally amusing, dealing with espionage and romance but the focus of the film is properly pointed upon the tuneful interludes showcasing the enormously talented and athletic tap dancing Eleanor Powell, abetted by Tommy Dorsey and his orchestra, featuring Ziggy Elman, Buddy Rich and Frank Sinatra. Red Skelton shares top billing with Powell, and he and sidekick Bert Lahr are given most of the comedic minutes, although Skelton is more effective when he, if it can be believed, performs as Powell's love interest, with Virginia O'Brien actually providing most of the film's humor as the dancer's companion. The technical brilliance of Powell is evidenced during one incredible scene within which Buddy Rich contributes his drumming skills, and which must be viewed several times in order to permit one's breathing to catch up with her precision. Director Edward Buzzell utilizes his large cast well to move the action nicely along despite the rather disjointed script with which he must deal, and permits Powell's cotangent impossibilities to rule the affair, as is appropriate.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
"Lies" tells about an affair between an 18 year old bucktoothed female student and a scrawny 38 year old married man with the pair of protags spending about half the screen time engaged in naked sex and hokey whipping and the other half meandering through the pathetically naive storyline which seems little more than an excuse for the sex scenes. With very poor production value including obvious sanitary appliances and phony softcore sex to a story which is a messy mix of comedy and drama, "Lies" quickly becomes redundant ad nauseam. With an almost 2 hour run, subtitles, and so little substance, "Lies" is simply not recommendable. (C-)
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
amazing movie I saw this movie for the first time on a flight and could not believe that I had not even heard of it before getting on that plane. while it may seem, at first to be a "chick flick", it is a film that everyone should see and will enjoy. Men, watch this movie with someone you love. You will enjoy it as much as she does and it will score you big points.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
With 'Twelve Monkeys' you need to pay attention, but if you do that you probably find a lot to appreciate. I know I did. The story is interesting and deals with time traveling. A virus killed a lot of people back in 1997 and a guy named Cole (Bruce Willis) is send back to 1990 and 1996 to find a cure for the virus. In 1990 he is arrested and put in a mental hospital. There he meets Jeffrey Goines (Brad Pitt), who probably has something to do with the virus. He also meets psychiatrist Dr. Kathryn Railly (Madeleine Stowe) who doesn't believe him in 1990. When Cole disappears from the mental hospital while he is chained and locked in a room and re-appears in 1996 Kathryn starts believing Cole's stories.<br /><br />The movie constantly plays with time. Cole makes a phone call and leaves a message in 1996, it is picked up in the future and "they" send someone. For Cole that someone appears only seconds after the phone call. Things like this happen throughout the movie and therefore you must keep attention. You could ask some questions but since you can't have an answer yourself it is better to agree with the movie.<br /><br />'Twelve Monkeys' works as sci-fi, with some great images and a dark atmosphere, and it works as a thriller. You are never certain of what will happen next and that helps the movie. May be it has some flaws in the story, but since it is about a fictional thing like time traveling, you should accept what the movie tells us and just try to enjoy. That was the easy part for me.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. However, the little slave girl, Alice and Jared Harris imitating Christopher Walken is what makes this movie entertaining. Alice's smoking, drinking and uncanny way of showing up when her name is called is strange and interesting. I have to applaud Jared for his Christopher Walken imitation, and Christopher Walken for allowing this to be in the movie.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
This is probably the most boring, worse and useless film I have seen last year. The plot that was meant to have some philosophical aspects emerged to me as a very bad hollow copy of the matrix, with plenty of clichés: the lone wolf cop, good looking, psychologically disturbed, sleeping with his gun... + nice hard worker and shy, but good looking she-scientist, you add a 2 cent plot and you have I, Robot! I was terribly disturbed by the obvious advertising of brands like FedEx,Audi,converse etc. This movie stinks the commercialization and tend to be more a poor ad spot that unfortunately will not end after 30 sec. I wouldn't recommend this to my worse enemy, if you have some spare time, watch a good TV program instead or better read a nice book.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Colleges, High Schools, Fraternities and Sororities have been the most popular stalking grounds for maniacal madmen since the slasher cycle first became a popular cinema culture throughout the late seventies. Even backwoods cabins and campsites have rode shotgun to the amount of massacres that have taken place on campuses since Halloween categorised the genre as a cult horror category. From early entries like To all a Good Night right up until the big budgeted schlock of titles like Urban Legend or Schools Out, there's usually always been a campus slasher lurking somewhere in the pipeline. Despite being picked up by Troma - the titans of B movie badness Splatter University was heavily panned upon release and never really found an audience. Even notorious hack and slash websites like HYSTERIA-LIVES have written off Richard Haines' splatter yarn as one of the worst of the early eighties boom. I always approach criticised movies optimistically because there's often the chance than a few bad reviews can be unfairly contagious like a dose of the flu, which crowds the judgement of certain authors.<br /><br />It begins in traditional fashion at the place where any maniac worth his salts emerges. Yep you guessed it an insane asylum! It seems that one of the inmates has decided that he's unhappy with the level of service at the institution and therefore he's looking to take his business elsewhere. The unseen nut-job makes his break after stabbing an unfortunate orderly where the sun certainly doesn't shine. He obviously favours the dress sense of the murdered worker, so he takes the liberty of borrowing his uniform, blood stained trousers and all!<br /><br />Three years later, we transfer to St Trinians College, an educational establishment that is controlled by catholic priests. A teacher is busy after hours marking her students work when all of a sudden there's a knock at the door. Before she has a chance to find out what the unseen visitor wants, he stabs her in the chest with a kitchen knife and she falls to the floor in a bloody heap. This of course means that there's a vacancy at the university and so we're introduced to Julie Parker (Francine Forbes), the lovable replacement for the recently departed lecturer. It seems that her arrival has inadvertently given the resident maniac all the motivation that he needs to go on a no holds barred slaughter-thon. Before long students and teachers alike are dropping like flies to the camera shy menace as he stalks the corridors and local areas armed with an exceptionally large blade. Suspicious suspects abound, but can professor Parker solve the mystery of the campus murderer before she becomes just another statistic? <br /><br />I'm not precisely sure how many versions of this movie are available. The UK altered video was released under the alias of Campus Killings, but the US copy that I own states that it's the complete unedited edition, which could mean that there is a censored print floating about somewhere? I'd be fairly surprised if that was the case as Splatter University certainly isn't as gore-delicious as the hyperbole packaging would lead you to believe. One or two litres of corn syrup certainly don't stand up to gore hound's scrutiny when compared to the likes of Blood Rage or Pieces, so in this instance the movie is somewhat over hyped. One thing that many critics have failed to mention is the charming lead performance from Francine Forbes, who ends up carrying the entire picture on her shoulders throughout the 79-minute running time. Despite amateurish direction from Richard Haines she still unveils some magnificent potential that should have lead to the chance of another stab at serious acting under a more accomplished helmer. Unfortunately that possibility never came, and bottom of the barrel bombs like Death Ring and Splitz certainly didn't help to nurture a talent that could have improved dramatically under the right scholarship.<br /><br />The rest of the cast members were par for the course of movie obscurity, especially the wooden plank teenagers who for some strange reason acted like they were auditioning for a remake of Grease or The Wanderers. The bog standard point and shoot direction couldn't have helped to build much confidence in the project and the fact that the few signs of potential were undermined by the clumsy handling of the script writer left the feature effectively unredeemable. Perhaps the only claim of originality to be found in Haines' slasher is the brave attempt for the contrasting conclusion. Let's just say that it's not a final that I was expecting to witness in a movie that was so typical of the cycle.<br /><br />At one point in the runtime, one of the teens says, "Man that Parker bores me to tears
" Well the same can be said for Splatter University, which never lifts the pace above slow motion. With that said though, Francine Forbes made for a delectable scream queen and undoubtedly one that I would have paid to watch again in a similar role. So that pretty much sums up this un-troma-tising ride. Slow paced, shoddy but still strangely alluring; you'd have to be especially forgiving to give it a chance
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
This film features two of my favorite guilty pleasures. Sure, the effects are laughable, the story confused, but just watching Hasselhoff in his Knight Rider days is always fun. I especially like the old hotel they used to shoot this in, it added to what little suspense was mustered. Give it a 3.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Unlike others, I refuse to call this pitiful excuse for a movie a triumph of style over substance (I don't want to give style a bad name). Still, it's the most apt description that comes to mind.<br /><br />A pointless, unpleasant and ultimately meaningless assault on the eyes and ears, "Wonderland" leaves one wondering only why the film was made in the first place and who in their right mind gave the greenlight to this dreary and tangled mess. A biography of porn star John Holmes? A study of who the man was, why he went into the business and how it affected him? Great. Bound to be compelling, bound to be entertaining. Bound to be enlightening and fascinating on about a million levels (and I have zero interest in porn).<br /><br />But a confusing, violent, Rashomon-style study of a series of murders Holmes was connected with after his career ended? Who in hell cares? What insights do we gain? This film completely ignores the most interesting aspect of John Holmes's life -- that he was a porno star! "Wonderland" might as well have been about anyone: the fact that the main character is the most famous male adult film star in history is almost irrelevant.<br /><br />To make matters about a thousand times worse, the picture is loaded down with jerkoff gimmicks -- annoying machine gun editing, sloppy Dogme-95 camerawork, unnecessary split-screen graphics and animation, etc. etc.<br /><br />In the absence of a compelling story and unique main character, the director (and I use the term loosely) has thrown together a dozen or so techniques from other films and decided to call the resulting mess a movie, among these: the trendy, bleach-bypass look of "Narc" or "Traffic" or "Minority Report;" the frantic, often incomprehensible, throw-the-pieces-of-film-in-the-air cutting style of "Natural Born Killers" or "28 Days Later;" the fill-every-moment-of-silence-with- an-old-song-to-evoke-the-period soundtrack of "Goodfellas" or "Blow;" the groovy, retro title sequence of "Velvet Goldmine" or "Autofocus" or "Catch Me If You Can." The list goes on and on and on. Pathetic.<br /><br />I wanted to like this movie. I had real hopes for it. "Wonderland Avenue" had been around for years; had the context of the murders been emphasized rather than the murders themselves, I think it could have worked. Had the murders (and Holmes's growing involvement with seedy L.A. types) signaled the end of a career, or the end of the swinging '70s, I think the film could have had meaning; it could have served a purpose. As it is -- meaningless. Pointless. Who cares how many perspectives exist on a series of murders generally unknown by the public? The case isn't famous enough to merit such painstaking examination.<br /><br />This film should have been the third act of "The John Holmes Story." That's it. Period. And it could have worked. What's that? Oh, right, right, they didn't want to tell a traditional rise-and-fall story. They didn't want to make "Boogie Nights" or "Goodfellas" or "Star 80" or "Autofocus." They wanted their film to be different. Right?<br /><br />Well, in one sense, they succeeded. There's a big difference between those films and "Wonderland." The difference is those films are good.<br /><br />
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
lets start off by saying that "JAWANI DIWANI" is just a pathetic movie. I agree with the last person who said "I missed the joyride". lol. <br /><br />The jokes were just terrible. Performances were average. Something went terribly wrong with the film. Emraan totally deserved something better. All CELINA JAITLEY did was expose. Hrishitta bhatt was OK. Emraan hashmi was OK too.<br /><br />MANN (EMRAAN HASHMI)is a desperate guy who wants to become famous. therefore, he uses RADHA and pretends he loves her, only because her father is a music director and could help him become famous (since, the father obeys everything his daughter says). One day, MANN and his friends go to GOA to have some fun. There he meets ROMA (CELINA JAITLEY) and totally falls for her looks and tries to flirt with her BLA BLA BLA. <br /><br />Then, that night ROMA cannot open the door to her room, and MANN decides to help her. Seeing that he cannot as well, ROMA goes to ask for help. While she is gone, MANN is able to open the door and decides to come inside and sits on her bed BLA BLA BLA. ROMA comes in and they have a one night stand. However, in that one night- stand ROMA falls in love with him. That morning, they spot the underworld don (MAHESH)who sees it all. The don loves ROMA and couldn't stand what he saw. He orders them to get married, and being frightened, MANN obeys the order and Merry's ROMA. Then, their marriage news ends up in the newspaper. MANN is later finds out that he loves ROMA after they do a music video together. He is now trapped between love and fame. BLA BLA BLA.<br /><br />the movie is horrible. The songs "SINI NE SINI NE" is fantastic the remix version is even better. "DIL DIWANA" is also great. The title track is also awesome. GUYS, AVOID WATCHING THIS MOVIE.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
I saw ZP when it was first released and found it a major disappointment. Its script seemed forced and arch and too fakey '60s. It's politics too upfront and ridiculous. And let's face it, I was still under a love-spell known as BLOWUP : and I still haven't completely shaken it. Now the "love" is twisted up with all sorts of nostalgia it evokes and, oh well . . . Good Luck to me!<br /><br />But time marches on and time has been kind to ZP and time has been a teacher to me. I revisit this film about every ten years and it just gets better and better with age. And ZP is it's own "experience"and is only really linked to BLOWUP through its creator, the late,great Mr. Antonioni.<br /><br />Twelve years ago, I had the great good fortune to see an absolutely pristine print, projected at its correct size (immense), restored by an Italian government cultural agency who knows a good work of art when they see it and knows the importance of keeping such a thing of beauty in good shape. To this day I remember the gasp from the audience when the first shot of Death Valley appeared. It was like a thousand volt visual shock Antonioni had intentionally delivered to wake us up to a new level of awareness. And indeed what follows from that point is an entirely different sort of "place".<br /><br />What is astonishing to me is how this film is coming into its own.<br /><br />I remember the second time around seeing it --- the early 80s --- I had begun to feel affection towards the film as a whole and towards Daria and Mark in particular. Whereas, before these two seemed like a smart-alecky shadow version of Zefferelli's Olivia and Leonard (read: Romeo and Juliet)they now were engaging me --- particularly The Girl in her insistent slo-motion-ality. She-took-her-time . . . To Live. Everything, EVERYTHING dies around her.<br /><br />Upon exciting the theater the daylight of Reality quickly began to erase my new found "enjoyment". The encroaching shoulder-padded, big haired 80s whispered "But that's a hippie fantasy --- let it go"<br /><br />The force of Antonioni's vision had, I had realised, already worked itself inside of me the FIRST time around so I answered "80s" with an "Uh-Huh" and guarded my "love" secretly, possessively and jealously.<br /><br />But, this, then is what good art does it lives inside of you, and, if you wish it has its way and "loves" you back: secretly, jealously, and possessively. And you get "changed".<br /><br />Was thrilled to see that Turner Classic Movies had decided to show ZP in its March lineup. Undoubtedly, ZP must be seen on a gigantic screen so that it can truly take you into its constructed environment. But, hey, sometimes even a glimpse of the Beloved in a newspaper photo is no better than no glimpse at all.<br /><br />Today reality hit, ZP has been withdrawn mysteriously and replaced with the whiney antics of ALICE'S RESTAURANT.<br /><br />So, it is still too "difficult", too "disturbing", too "what"?<br /><br />Maybe it's that, as with all good art, it Lives while everything dies around it. <br /><br />Peace.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
I only saw IPHIGENIA once, almost 30 years ago, but it has haunted me since.<br /><br />One sequence particularly stays in mind, and could only have been fashioned by a great director, as Michael Cacoyanis undoubtedly is.<br /><br />The context: the weight of history and a mighty army and fleet all lie on King Agamemnon's shoulders. An act of sacrilege has becalmed the seas, endangering his great expedition to Troy. He is told he must sacrifice his daughter Iphigenia to Apollo in order to gain the winds for the sails of the Thousand Ships. He initially resists, but comes around, and tricks his wife Clytemenstra to bring their daughter to the Greek camp in order to marry the greatest of all warriors, Achilles.<br /><br />Clytemnestra and Iphigenia arrive, find out about the sacrifice, and rage to the gods for protection and vengeance. Meanwhile, the proud Achilles discovers that his name has been used in this fraudulent, dishonorable way. He climbs a hill to tell Iphigenia that he will protect her.<br /><br />The shot: The camera circles the two young people, without looking directly at each other. They bemoan their fate, and the weakness of men that deceive their loved ones and lust for war. Suddenly, they gaze at each other and, for one moment, we feel both their power and beauty, and the unstated--except by the camera--irony that in another time, another place, they perhaps could love each other and be married. It is a sharp and sad epiphany that lasts only for an instant.<br /><br />What direction! What camera! What storytelling!
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
I guess this is meant to be a sort of reworking or updating of "Beauty and the Beast", but I can't say I've ever watched a movie that began with several minutes of graphic horse sex. Wow. Anyway it seems that a young woman and her..aunt? Have traveled to this castle in France where the woman is to be married to the son of the castle owner, who is the man who takes care of making sure the horses get their rocks off. It seems that there are legends in that area of a beast that was rather, uh, frisky, I guess you could say, with the ladies, or at least, one in particular. There are all kinds of references tucked away in that regard but every time the soon-to-be-blushing young bride gets her curious little hands on one the groom's father removes it from her sight. Anyway, the young bride-to-be goes upstairs to sleep while the family is waiting for a Cardinal to show up to the wedding (a family member, I guess) and as she dreams she dreams of a beast in the woods that has its way with her. The effects in this leave a little to be desired, and any attempt at eroticism (not that I know much about that) is kind of rendered laughable, especially when certain featured appendages appear about as realistic as a bed post or a baseball bat. This has a rather strange and abrupt, yet twist ending, with not really any clues or much build up to it, but it was kind of fitting and definitely not what I expected. I don't know, this is kind of a tough one to get through but it has its moments and is definitely weird. 7 out of 10.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
If you were born around the time this movie was finished, and had a liberal/open minded household that I had, I'm sure during the early 80's you'd be first introduced to walking in on your parents watching dirty movies or extreme dirty movies. You know, not 100% pornographic but rather an alchemical mixture of actual drama and pornography, or that you'd sneak into their collection and pop in the plastic rectangle representation of such a film in a big dookie machine called a VHS. You had to be very quiet and ninja like but still having minor heart failure when huge pop noises were made when pressing the tablet-like buttons out of fear of being discovered. Whatever the case, such films were sent into the back of your mind, waiting and waiting to be reunited with such visual "art". Needless to say, this movie fits into the aforementioned description to a "T". Many people will comment on the extreme sexual nature of the film but perhaps due to me being desensitized, I am more disturbed by the subtleties. Was the creator speaking to us on deeper levels of human carnality and or what could be considered a true abomination, interracial relations, bed frame masturbation, voyeurism, or could it be desperation for social status to the point of murder, pedophilia/homosexuality, or the repressed sexual nature of social elitist females in 18th century France? Who can say, but despite Mr. Borowcyzk's taste for vivid, raw sexuality being the "norm" for his works, I'd say that indeed this movie does speak to the viewer on a deeper level concerning bestial carnality. Once I have learned this, the story became much more interesting beyond the giddiness of shock value and there fore, it is well worth checking out.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
This is it. This is the one. This is the worst movie ever made. Ever. It beats everything. I have never seen worse. Retire the trophy and give it to these people.....there's just no comparison.<br /><br />Even three days after watching this (for some reason I still don't know why) I cannot believe how insanely horrific this movie is/was. Its so bad. So far from anything that could be considered a movie, a story or anything that should have ever been created and brought into our existence.<br /><br />This made me question whether or not humans are truly put on this earth to do good. It made me feel disgusted with ourselves and our progress as a species in this universe. This type of movie sincerely hurts us as a society. We should be ashamed. I really cannot emphasize that our global responsibility as people living here and creating art, is that we need to prevent the creation of these gross distortions of our reality for our own good. It's an embarrassment. I don't know how on earth any of these actors, writers, or the director of this film sleeps at night knowing that they had a role in making "Loaded". I don't know what type of disgusting monsters enjoy watching these types of movies.<br /><br />That being said, I love a good "bad" movie. I love Shark Attack 3, I love Bad Taste, they are HILARIOUS. I tell all my friends to see them because they are "bad".<br /><br />But this.......this crosses the line of "bad" into a whole new dimension. This is awkward bad. This is the bad where you know everything that is going to happen, every line, every action, every death, every sequence BEFORE they happen; and not just like a second or two before, I mean like, after watching the first 5 minutes before.<br /><br />Every cheesy editing "effect" is shamelessly used over and over again to a sickening point. I really never want to see the "shaky" camera "drug buzz rush" effect or jump cuts or swerve cuts or ANY FANCY CUT EVER AGAIN EVER. This is meticulously boring, repetitive and just tortures the audience.<br /><br />But.......and let me be specific here, the most DISTURBING thing about this movie is that given the production, it appears that a somewhat decent amount of money was actually put into this excrement. I personally will grab the shoulders of the director if I ever see him and shake him into submission, demanding that he run home and swallow two-gallons of Drain-O or I will do it for him.<br /><br />If we ever needed a new form of inhumane torture for our war prisoners abroad, just keep showing them this movie in a padded cell over and over again. Trust me, I think they will become more extravagant with suicide methods after the 72nd time of sitting through this.<br /><br />Stop these movies, they are just the most vile of all facets of our society. Please. Stop. NOW.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Another of many nearly forgotten movies cranked out by Poverty Row in the 1930's, resurrected by the magic of DVD.<br /><br />Starring stock Universal player Lionel Atwill (often a supporting actor in numerous Frankenstein movies) as a pair of twins involved in a murder racket. One kills the victims (stockbrokers involved in a scam) and asks witnesses for the exact time, while the other is deaf and is proved "innocent" because he could not have spoken to witnesses.<br /><br />Of course, where it falls apart is if it was a congenital deafness, wouldn't they both be deaf? Oh, well.<br /><br />Atwill does a pretty good job here, faking being deaf and mute. Unfortunately, no one else here can really act worth a darn.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Basically this is a pale shadow of High Fidelity, which was a witty and wonderfully acted film with several truly winning character turns. Watching the Detectives has none of that.<br /><br />The premise of a video store geek swept off his feet by a quirky mystery woman is a good one but is never fully or adequately explored, thanks to a very weak script and the miscasting of the leads, not to mention the lack of any real visual story-telling style. I mean, this film is centered around MOVIES, yet is itself incredibly uncinematic! That's a major failing right there.<br /><br />But the main problem is we simply don't care about the main characters because the script and the actors (Murphy and Liu) fail to make them true or sympathetic in any real way. So the film just becomes a series of episodes involving two people who seem, well, not terribly interesting.<br /><br />Oh, yeah, another thing: For a romantic comedy? It's not funny. And the romance isn't terribly romantic, either.<br /><br />So avoid it. Even at its 90-something minute running time it's just not worth sitting through...
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Five years on from the Tenko survivors returning home, and from Marion's double-edged "Well that's that".<br /><br />It's now 1950: reunion time. The gang's all here: Marion, Bea, Ulrica, Kate, Dorothy, Christina, Dominica, and latecomers Maggie and Alice. The story that unfolds is a beaut: as perfectly written and acted, and as thought-provoking and moving, as the original series.<br /><br />All the questions left hanging at the end of the series are neatly answered here. From Marion's family to Joss's health centre, everything has changed in five years, and not everything has changed for the best.<br /><br />A trip to Dominica's plantation brings plenty of shocks and some truly edge-of-the-seat tension. There's a real sense of tragedy and disaster as, once again, fate takes over and the women struggle for their lives. Dominica finally shows her true colours, and there are some shout-at-the-telly moments of drama.<br /><br />Lush location filming in Singapore, and an opportunity to catch up with a group of women who feel like they have become friends. It's such a shame that this really is the end. I could watch it all over again. Perfection.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Imagine turning out the lights in your remote farmhouse on a cold night, and then going to bed. There's no need to lock the doors. The only sound is the wind whistling through the trees. Sometime after midnight a car with lights off inches up the driveway. Moments later an intruder beams a flashlight into your darkened living room.<br /><br />What makes this image so scary is the setting: a remote farmhouse ... at night. Based on Truman Capote's best-selling book, and with B&W lighting comparable to the best 1940's noir films, "In Cold Blood" presents a terrifying story, especially in that first Act, as the plot takes place largely at night and on rain drenched country roads. It's the stuff of nightmares. But this is no dream. The events really happened, in 1959.<br /><br />Two con men with heads full of delusions kill an entire Kansas family, looking for a stash of cash that doesn't exist. Director Richard Brooks used the actual locations where the real-life events occurred, even the farmhouse ... and its interior! It makes for a memorable, and haunting, film.<br /><br />Both of the lead actors closely resemble the two real-life killers. Robert Blake is more than convincing as Perry Smith, short and stocky with a bum leg, who dreams of finding Cortez' buried treasure. Scott Wilson is almost as good as Dick Hickock, the smooth-talking con artist with an all-American smile.<br /><br />After their killing spree, the duo head to Mexico. Things go awry there, so they come back to the U.S., stealing cars, hitchhiking, and generally being miserable as they roam from place to place. But it's a fool's life, and the two outlaws soon regret their actions. The film's final twenty minutes are mesmerizing, as the rain falls, the rope tightens, and all we hear is the pounding of a beating heart.<br /><br />Even with its somewhat mundane middle Act, "In Cold Blood" stages in riveting detail a real-life story that still hypnotizes, nearly half a century later. It's that setting that does it. Do you suppose people in rural Kansas still leave their doors unlocked ... at night?
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
I really enjoyed this movie. Most of the reviews have been bad, but most critics think a movie should be like an idea drama. This movie has a little bit of drama, but the rest is just clean fun and very entertaining. Forget about Julia Roberts being a Pretty Woman, Emma Roberts is a beautiful young lady and there is more to her than just that. Emma was so much fun to watch in the role of Nancy Drew. It is good to see a new face. I believe she will go far.<br /><br />Nancy Drew may not be based upon the books, but the story is still good. There is also a good blend of other character actors and supporting actors like Pat Carroll, Barry Bostwick, Rachel Leigh Cook and Chris Kattan - not credited. I'm surprised Disney did not release this movie. Some people may not like this movie because it does not contain sex, violence, and cursing. This is a good family film which is rare in this day in time. So take your family, see this movie and judge for your self how good it is. I can't wait for the sequel.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
The poster who called this "Plotless and pointless" literally took the words I would have used in my subject line. The only thing I'd add is "passionless." For a film made by a real life married couple and featuring lots of graphic sex scenes this movie manages to make what should be a sultry situation into one beyond ice cold. Dafoe and Colagrande look bored during the sex scenes, and the viewer might as well take a Valium and have done with it. Also, please, the women in the audience have seen WAY too many used tampons in their time, and any guy who is turned on by seeing Willem Dafoe pull a bloody tampon out of his wife's vagina really needs to get therapy.<br /><br />I think the key to the film (if there is one) is the restaurant scene where a waiter explains to the perpetually sleepy-eyed Dafoe what a "deconstructed jambalaya" is. (All the ingredients of the dish still separate rather than simmered together.) This movie is a "deconstructed thriller". All the elements are there: spooky, isolated house, dead spouse,creepy violins on the score, weirdo caretaker who comes and goes as he pleases, auto accident deaths and near deaths, characters with a secret past. Basically every thriller cliché you can think of, but NOTHING comes together. Everything just sits there and never meshes into a coherent plot or even an artsy mood piece. At the restaurant, Dafoe passes on the "deconstructed jambalaya". Prospective renters of this mess would do well to leave this deconstructed thriller on the video store shelf.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Trio's vignettes were insightful and quite enjoyable. It was curious seeing so many soon to be famous actors when they were very young. The performances and attention to detail were wonderful to watch.<br /><br />Observation. In film it isn't necessary that source material be in alignment with the contemporary era to be interesting or worthwhile. "Small morality" storytelling is quaint (or coy) only in the eye of the beholder--thankfully. Story content--well told--can overcome it's time, subject or place.<br /><br />Ironically, there are quite a few contemporary films today that have not overcome the conventions or cutting edge mores of the present era. Inserting "small morality" content--occasionally--might provide a dimension lacking.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Thre isn't a single Scorsese movie I'd place on a list of my favorite movies. But this is the best thing I've run through my DVD player in about five years. Scorsese's patient elucidation of favorite film moments, and how Hollywood works is incredibly gracious, calm and intelligent. <br /><br />It's 3 DVD-sides worth of material. It would have to be a British production, since everything about American corporate culture would have trampled the quiet, methodical, no frills, put-the-focus-on-the-content approach that is taken here. And an American production would have demanded he say he liked only movies that were popular favorites. I wish everyone took a page from his love of movies. You should love the movies you do for personal, idiosyncratic and specific reasons. Not just more "Me-too" votes for The Godfather, etc.. People have no clue what ideas are being explored in their favorite movies. If they did, movies would be more interesting than they are. Scorsese DOES know what ideas are being explored, and that makes him a compelling, involved speaker on the topic. I really appreciate his articulate, generous interviews over the last decade.<br /><br />On a negative note, Scorsese is best when he's excited to show you some obscure movie, rather than when he's didactically teaching you something well-established about film history. And I do wish he pluck those three hairs out of the bridge of his nose. It's very distracting.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
This is a fair little show about the paranormal although it feels as if Art Bell and his ilk figured out how to carve a career out of the attitude that Carl Kolchak exemplified. Of course there probably wouldn't be an X-Files if this show hadn't prepped this audience for it so well. Darren McGavin is not exactly the super-heroic type but he is a plausible(enough) guy to deliver heroic deeds. Check out his work on some of those old Alfred Hitchcock Presents. Here he is the main attraction, there doesn't seem to be a girlfriend or wife who's a distraction. In fact there isn't a whole lot of sex appeal to the show. Something I'm noticing as well is that the pacing isn't really suspenseful in a typical way. There's a lot of throwaway humor to this show. Sometimes its just pokey to get to the climax. There's a thread from this show coming all the way up to the present MAD MEN show in terms of style. Not that David Chase writes Mad Men but the people that worked under him on The Sopranos definitely have emulated and inherited his serio-comic tone.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Okay, I know this does'nt project India in a good light. But the overall theme of the movie is not India, it's Shakti. The power of a warlord, and the power of a mother. The relationship between Nandini and her husband and son swallow you up in their warmth. Then things go terribly wrong. The interaction between Nandini and her father in law - the power of their dysfunctional relationship - and the lives changed by it are the strengths of this movie. Shah Rukh Khan's performance seems to be a mere cameo compared to the believable desperation of Karisma Kapoor. It is easy to get caught up in the love, violence and redemption of lives in this film, and find yourself heaving a sigh of relief and sadness at the climax. The musical interludes are strengths, believable and well done.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Robert Altman's downbeat, new-fangled western from Edmund Naughton's book "McCabe" was overlooked at the time of its release but in the past years has garnered a sterling critical following. Aside from a completely convincing boom-town scenario, the characters here don't merit much interest, and the picture looks (intentionally) brackish and unappealing. Bearded Warren Beatty plays a turn-of-the-century entrepreneur who settles in struggling community on the outskirts of nowhere and helps organize the first brothel; once the profits start coming in, Beatty is naturally menaced by city toughs who want part of the action. Altman creates a solemn, wintry atmosphere for the movie which gives the audience a certain sense of time and place, but the action in this sorry little town is limited--most of the story being made up of vignettes--and Altman's pacing is deliberately slow. There's hardly a statement being made (just the opposite, in fact) and the languid actors stare at each other without much on their minds. It's a self-defeating picture, and yet, in an Altman-quirky way, it wears defeat proudly. ** from ****
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Lethargic direction ruins an otherwise compelling period story that stars the wondrous Zhang Ziyi, in an excellent role as a woman who joins an extremist group in 1928 China, just prior to the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, and reunites with a former lover who is now working for Japan. Every bit of drama and forward motion of the story is sucked dry by director Ye Lou's somnambulist directorial style. Characters stand still staring at each other for long minutes, saying nothing, hand-held cameras hold forever on faces showing interminable reactions way longer than they need to, edits repeat the same reaction is triple redundancy. We know nothing about the characters as the story begins and are given little new information as the story progresses, only silence and static shots of lovers who don't speak, who interaction through silent dances but share no apparent emotional intimacy. A very sleep inducing film.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
After the opening credits, there's a black screen for about a minute. A minute of nothing, then a girl wakes up and takes a shower.Then her and two college friends are driving to a rock concert, after much padding, they hit something and skid off the road. They awaken in a cabin inhabited by a wheelchair-bound old lady and her offspring.The killings are sadly very tame for a supposed Video Nasty. The twist ending silly and predictable. No one involved in the mess would ever make anything of note again. So there are still happy endings sometimes.<br /><br />Eye Candy: Sara Ansley gets topless, and Laurel Munson has full frontal on display <br /><br />My Grade: D
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
This is undeniably the scariest game I've ever played. It's not the average shoot-everything-that-moves kind of fps (which I usually don't care much for), but the acceptable gfx, interesting weapons and magic, great surround soundeffects ("Scryeeee, scryeeee..") and above all incredible atmosphere. I love the Scrye, which enables you, at certain places in the games, to see or hear events that happened there in the past. The only game I've had to take regular breaks after a few minutes of playing just because of the intensity of the atmosphere. I'm a great horror fan, escpecially of Clive Barker's stories and movies, and participating in a horror story like this makes me yearn for more games that emphasizes atmosphere and a more involving story. 9/10 (-1 because I'm no fps fan, and perhaps the game was a bit short?)
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Devil Dog sets your heart racing. It's brilliantly paced, the ending comes like a bolt out of the blue and plunges itself into the very centre of your being. You'll never look at your dog the same way again. In fact you'll start thinking of having it put down - BY A PRIEST! FANTASTIC!
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
The movie is pretty funny and involving for about four dates, then it becomes a blatant commercial for some guy you (and even his "friends") really can't stand. It is a pretty interesting concept; film dates on a quest to find true love in modern LA. The problem is that it feels incredibly (and badly) scripted at times and blatantly self-promoting. It is difficult to care about and be drawn into any of the characters because the writer/actor is so egotistical, uncool, untrue, and simply unlikeable. You end up feeling sorry for his dates.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Just saw the movie, and the scary thing was, the people talking during the movie sounded just like the actors. The movie had its moments, but also lagged and was rather sick. It was all meant to be a farce, but once you see the pathetic lives of the people in the movie, you think to yourself "People like this are all around us" All attempts at getting the audience's sympathy are dashed as the actors do one stupid thing after another. On the plus side, there are some great (and funny) insults. I think I would wait for video- but it was a good laugh. WARNING- Jerry takes his shirt off during the movie!! (not a pretty sight!)
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
OK, first of all, ignore the last person' review. They admit to falling asleep through it so it's no wonder they didn't understand what was going on!!! As thriller/horrors go, this film ain't too bad, it is certainly very watchable. Right from the opening scenes you get a general idea exactly what is going to be the cause of all the craziness that follows, and come the end you are proved right with everything being made clear.<br /><br />I enjoyed this movie, it was quite eerie at times and as old films go it was passable. Great to watch late at night! I give it a generous 7 out of 10.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
This was directed by Ruggero Deodato, a true icon to many horror film fans after he directed the seminal and notorious Cannibal Holocaust. However, don't expect to find any such notoriety in the film reviewed here as it proves to be incredibly tame in comparison and plays more like a Conan inspired outing for a young audience.<br /><br />Such a description may instantly put off most fans of the whole Conan inspired Sword & Sorcery genre but before you turn your nose up at this, it has to be said, this movie is just so much fun!<br /><br />It's mostly played for laughs and features two HUGE and highly likable heroes in the form of David and Peter Paul aka. the Barbarian Brothers who both seem to be having a ball with their characters.<br /><br />B-Movie favourite Richard Lynch turns up as the main villain in the piece and it's also great to see roles for Big George Eastman and Michael Berryman.<br /><br />Added to this, the ladies are stunning to behold and suitably scantily attired throughout the films duration (a staple and much welcomed ingredient in the genre!)<br /><br />What can I say, - this simply is a really fun and lighthearted take on the genre and I recommend it wholeheartedly!
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
1936 was the most prolific year for Astaire and Rogers. Their second film for RKO that year is the third film in this collection Mark Sandrich's 'Follow The Fleet.' This time out Astaire is painfully uncomfortable as Bake Baker, a seaman on leave who just happens to stumble into the seedy waterfront café where Sherry Martin (Rogers) is warbling romantic sweet nothings in everyone's ear. Yep, you guessed it they're hot for each other once again. Only this time Sherry's spinster sister, Connie (Harriet Hillard) threatens the whole fine romance by falling for Bake's robust seafaring buddy, Bilge Smith (Randolph Scott); a sort of use 'em up and toss 'em out kind of guy, thus forcing Sherry to reconsider her opinion of all sailors in general. Irving Berlin lends immeasurable class to the proceedings with his classic, classy score, including standards 'Let Yourself Go', 'I'm Putting All My Eggs in One Basket' and 'Let's Face the Music and Dance;' the latter a divinely inspired skit about suicide that turns into another immediately recognizable and thoroughly sublime pas deux for Fred and Ginger. <br /><br />The transfer on 'Follow The Fleet' is a tad weaker. The gray scale remains nicely balanced but now it's a tad thick looking with not nearly as much tonal variation as the previous titles. Grain is still present. So are age related artifacts. Once you've settled into to the slightly dense and sometimes more softly focused image quality, the overall impression is more than acceptable for a film of this vintage. The audio is Mono but very nicely balanced. Extras include a featurette, theatrical trailer and short subject, but oddly no audio commentary. Considering the importance of this film in the overall canon of Astaire/Rogers this is an uncharacteristic oversight from Warner Home Video.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
This 1919 to 1933 Germany looks hardly like a post WWII Czech capitol. Oh sorry, it is the Czech capitol and it is 2003, how funny.<br /><br />This is one of the most awful history movies in the nearest past. Röhm is a head higher than Adolf and looks so damned good, Göring looks like 40 when he just is 23 and the "Führer" always seems to look like 56. And the buildings, folks, even buildings have been young, sometimes. Especially 1919 were a lot of houses in Germany nearly new (the WWI does not reach German cities!). No crumbling plaster! Then the Reichstagsbuilding. There have never been urban canyons around this building, never. And this may sound to you all like a miracle: in the year 1933 the Greater Berlin fire brigade owns a lot of vehicles with engines, some even with turntable ladders, but none with a hand pump.<br /><br />One last thing: What kind of PLAYMOBIL castle was this at the final sequence? For me this was a kind of "Adolf's Adventures in Wonderland"
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
The actual crime story at the core of In Cold Blood might seem a little 'tame' for those who are weened on the classic serial killer stories (Gein, Bundy, Dahmer), or just the more notorious cases out in Hollywood (OJ, Manson). The essential facts in the case don't amount to anything terribly convoluted: Perry Smith and Dick Hickock (here played by Robert Blake and Scott Wilson respectively) met by some luck, conspired to rob a man's farmhouse safe out in Kansas, and after killing a family of four with a shotgun and dagger came away with 43 dollars. Aside from their returning to the US after fleeing briefly to Mexico, there isn't a whole lot of mystery to the resolution either. They were caught by some stroke of ironic chance (a cop followed them and stopped them for having a stolen car after Smith and Hickcock helped out a boy and his old man collecting bottles for change), and sentenced to hang by the neck until dead. The story ended in 1965.<br /><br />But it's the handling of the story, moments of moot, the performances, a pure cinematic touch that Brooks and his absolutely marvelous (the late/great) DP Conrad Hall provides in crisp widescreen black and white, and a storytelling style that feels realistic without going into too much naturalism or too much melodrama (save perhaps for near the end, which is pitch perfect). The air of tragedy hangs over the story, and not so much because of the killings themselves, no matter how brutal they are as the "third" man that is conjured up, as the narrator observes, by Smith and Hickcock teaming up, but because of the inevitability of the story. You feel somehow for these criminals, who in any other hands would be just be conventional figures or something out of a B-movie. These aren't good people, but they aren't necessarily monsters either, at least all the way through.<br /><br />It's also an excellent 'road-movie' as we see Smith and Hickcock on the road down to the Clutter residence (the actual night-time scene of the crime taking place late in the film), then on to Mexico, then back to America towards Las Vegas. We get to soak in the personalities of these two, probably even more than that of the police detectives who at first have no leads and then finally get a break with an inmate. It's actually kind of disturbing to get this close to these two (sort of akin to the aimless quality of Malick's Badlands characters), and it's also a sign of daring for the period. There's no sermonizing, like "he did this because of that and this or the other." We see how Smith had an abusive, psychotic father, but that Smith loved and hated him. The complexity there is too much for the movie, maybe even too much for Capote's book (which, I should confess, I've still yet to read, though I plan to). And we see Hickcock is this creature of slick confidence (i.e. getting the suit and other things with bad checks), but without any deep-rooted explanation to it all.<br /><br />The streak of fatalism in In Cold Blood is some of the starkest of the 60s, and it's the luck of Brooks to have its stars as Blake in his top-of-the-pops performance (this and Lost Highway, oddly enough considering his real life saga in recent years, his quintessential pieces of work), and Wilson's breakthrough before becoming a character actor. While they're surrounded by fine supporting work, they themselves are eerily absorbing, driven more or less by greed and fantasies of escapism with treasure, and staying pretty much grounded in their situation through the death row and on through their ends. Is this a morale of the story, if there could be one, that it's more horrifying to confront the possibility that those who kill can't be classified, of good vs evil getting smudged? Smith apologized for his crime before being hung, and he points out, "but to who?" This is a story bound to give the most hardened fans of true-crime the bonafide chills, and it's quite possibly the best American film of 1967.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
This movie is so bad it's good -- in an unintentionally funny way. I couldn't stop watching it, I was laughing so much! It's like a parody of a romantic thriller, except it's not a parody. <br /><br />Alexandra Paul plays Emily Wendell, an oppressed preacher's wife who falls hard for Luke (Corey Sevier), a hunky and mysterious drifter who we eventually learn was in prison; the only thing Sevier is guilty of, though, is bad acting! Mind you, he's no worse than the other actors. You get the sense that the actors have *no* idea they're in a really awful film; they're playing it straight. Everything about the film is bad: the acting, the script, the love scenes, the pacing, the plot twists, the choice of music. The climactic scenes are just so ludicrous -- first the shootout in the church, then Luke's final words to Emily -- I was howling with laughter. <br /><br />Evidently Luke did a lot of weight lifting and ab crunches in prison, and we get to see plenty of his naked torso. That's probably the highlight of the film.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
This film is so incredibly bad, that I almost felt sick watching it. Up until this point, the other installments had at least one good thing about it. Part 1 was suspenseful and gory. Part 2 was off beat and entertaining. Part 3 was interesting with great effects. Part 4 had great music, good special effects, and a new entertaining Freddy Krueger. Part 5 is more boring than anything I've ever seen before. Alice, a much prettier blond, from Part 4 is back with her boyfriend Dan. At parts, this supposed Elm Street installment turns into a daytime soap. The newer characters seem harsh, and even that sweet Alice has a chip on her shoulder. Freddy seems to be completely out of this one. He looks tired, and doesn't seem to be as gruesome. His one-liners seem out of place and different, where as in Part 4 they could be pretty funny. Leslie Bohem's story never gets off the ground and Stephen Hopkins' direction is so bad, that it makes my grandmother look good! The whole plot of this movie is ridiculous and unrealistic. It's also confusing and pretty stupid. Avoid Part 5 at all costs!
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
This movie describes the life of somebody who grew up in the worst of circumstances but unlike many people he actually grew up to be a respectable person. Whats more is that this is a true story.<br /><br />Antwone Fisher is so innocent and yet he was abused such just because he was not white. Antwone Fisher has been married to the same women for ten years and he never fooled around with women, coke, cigars, weed, alcohol, or any of those things that are very popular in the places he was growing up. <br /><br />There is not much more to say about this movie it is excellent. The only rating I can give it is a 10/10.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
This is a big step down after the surprisingly enjoyable original. This sequel isn't nearly as fun as part one, and it instead spends too much time on plot development. Tim Thomerson is still the best thing about this series, but his wisecracking is toned down in this entry. The performances are all adequate, but this time the script lets us down. The action is merely routine and the plot is only mildly interesting, so I need lots of silly laughs in order to stay entertained during a "Trancers" movie. Unfortunately, the laughs are few and far between, and so, this film is watchable at best.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
This is a classic stinker with a big named cast, mostly seniors who were well past their prime and bedtime in this one.<br /><br />This is quite a depressing film when you think about it. Remain on earth, and you will face illness and eventually your demise.<br /><br />Gwen Verndon showed that she could still dance. Too bad the movie didn't concentrate more on that. Maureen Stapleton, looking haggard, still displayed those steps from "Queen of the Star Dust Ballroom," so much more down to earth from 10 years earlier.<br /><br />I only hope that this film doesn't encourage seniors to commit mass suicide on the level of Jim Jones. How can anyone be idiotic enough to like this and say it gets you to think?<br /><br />Why did Don Ameche win an Oscar for this nonsense?<br /><br />If the seniors were doing such a wonderful thing at the end, why was the youngster encouraged to get off the boat? Why did Steve Guttenberg jump ship as well? After all, he had found his lady-love. <br /><br />This would have been a nice film if the seniors had just managed to find their fountain of youth on earth and stay there.<br /><br />Sadly, with the exception of Wilford Brimley, at this writing, Vernon, Gilford, Stapleton, Ameche, Tandy, Cronyn and lord knows who else are all gone. The writers should have taken the screenplay and placed it with this group as well.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
OK, I really don't have too much to say about this film, other than this: I have seen over 4,000 films in my life, and more than 2,300 of those were horror films. While I have some difficulty deciding which is the best (as opposed to my favourite, which I can tell you is George A. Romero's DAWN OF THE DEAD), I can tell you without the slightest hesitation that Todd Sheets' ZOMBIE BLOODBATH is the absolute worst horror film I have ever seen.<br /><br />There is simply nothing positive I can say about this film. The acting, the dialogue, the directing, the make-up, the music... Every aspect of this film is simply so far below what is acceptable that it boggles my mind that this was ever even released.<br /><br />Even if you are a horror or zombie movie completist, please heed my warning and DO NOT waste your time on this garbage. There is no pleasure to be gotten from viewing this. You won't even get any laughs out of the utter ineptitude on display... Trust me. Please.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Zatoichi The Outlaw was the first film made by its hero's (Shintaro Katsu) own production company, this is perhaps why this is a slightly lesser entry in the series, though it is by no means weak overall. It tells of our hero coming across two towns, rival bosses and a mysterious ronin helping the poor and from this set up spins a tale encompassing tragedy, violence and no little interest, all served up with lashings of the unshowy but inspired swordplay that is one of the series trademarks. It is a fairly predictable plot and it mounts in unsurprising fashion, but it zips along with style and is interesting stuff. The helpful ronin for example is a nobly inscrutable revolutionary character, upsetting the established order without being painted as a truly likable or heroic figure, Zatoichi himself makes one or two mistakes and causes harm by his actions, whilst the ruling system fuels the exploitation of the poor. Its a harsh world, with one or two more visceral than expected moments in the fighting, though things aren't as rousing as they could be. Shintaro Katsu turns in a typical bravura performance as Zatoichi, mixing wisdom, deadly skill and worldliness with a subtly sad sense of vulnerability, while solid work comes also from Rentarô Mikuni and an effectively baleful Kô Nishimura (later to appear as Katsu's superior "Snake" Magobei in the Hanzo trilogy) as the two main bosses in the film. There is also a good emotional turn from Yuko Hamada as a wronged woman. The film loses out through shaky pacing and a not so well constructed sequence of events, there is at least one slightly jarring time jump and the power of the plot becomes a little lost, meaning that when things heat up towards the end the film isn't as exciting as it could be, emotional impact is lost also. The action or scenes of Zatoichi using his ingenious skills are well handled by director Satsuo Yamamoto, though some of the gambling is less interesting and the film builds up in a workmanlike rather than really inspired way, without the lively characters or strong verve of some other installments. Still, I enjoyed this one, it has its flaws and isn't one of the best of the series but it still packs a sweetly satisfying dose of entertainment, a good story and decent doses of Zatoichi's trademark ingenious and quirky cool. Recommended for fans of the series, and a reasonable entry point, classy stuff though not a true great.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
This Worldwide was the cheap man's version of what the NWA under Jim Crockett Junior and Jim Crockett Promotions made back in the 1980s on the localized "Big 3" Stations during the Saturday Morning/Afternoon Wrestling Craze. When Ted Turner got his hands on Crockett's failed version of NWA he turned it into World Championship Wrestling and proceeded to drop all NWA references all together. NWA World Wide and NWA Pro Wrestling were relabeled with the WCW logo and moved off the road to Disney/MGM Studios in Orlando, Florida and eventually became nothing more than recap shows for WCW's Nitro, Thunder, and Saturday Night. Worldwide was officially the last WCW program under Turner to air the weekend of the WCW buyout from Vince McMahon and WWF. Today the entire NWA World Wide/WCW Worldwide Video Tape Archive along with the entire NWA/WCW Video Tape Library in general lay in the vaults of WWE Headquarters in Stamford,Connecticut.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
If utterly facile, regressive, self-indulgent, anti-establishment, anti-civilisation juvenilia appeals to you, then this is the ideal film. Very poorly scripted, with often inaudible dialogue and infuriatingly tiresome hand-held camera throughout, this is a film that presents the world in appealingly simplistic, Manichean terms: all adults (especially teachers, parents, priests and doctors) are insensitive and bumbling at best, and predatory monsters at worst. The only escape from the horrors of civilisation as a whole is plenty of primal screaming (yawn) and infantile regression (literally) in a primitive cave-like space in the woods, with utopia taking the form of a rave party - again, in the woods (naturally...). Displays all the weaknesses of a first film, and plenty more besides.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
This film takes place in the 1950s. According to this the dead (called zombies) have arisen to eat the living. However a company has developed a collar that, when put around the zombies neck, makes them docile and perfect servants. The Robinsons mom Helen (Carrie-Anne Moss), dad Bill (Dylan Baker) and son Timmy (K'Sun Ray) hire a zombie because everyone on their block already has one. Tim names the zombie Fido (Billy Connolly) and becomes friends with him. But his dad hates him and Timmy looses control of Fido and things go wrong.<br /><br />As you can see this is--among many other things--a takeoff on the "Lassie" series with Fido being a stand in for Lassie. Timmy was named that for a reason! Every single of the famous Lassie episodes are spun here. My favorite is when Timmy sends Fido off to get help before the zombies eat him! Also it's a satire of those 1950s Douglas Sirk films where everything is bright and colorful--but dark secrets are tearing people apart. The characters wear VERY bright 1950s clothes (Moss is always in a dress)--the furnishings, settings and cars especially are all 1950s in hyper bright colors. Even when the script becomes repetitious there's always something to look at. The script is good--but there are only so many Lassie jokes you can make. The melodramatics are kind of silly but the cast pulls it off. Everyone here is excellent and right on target. Even Connolly as an emotionless zombie does a good job. Moss is the best--playing each line for all its worth---but never going overboard.<br /><br />This isn't for everybody (of course). The satire may be lost on most people and the gore is pretty tame. The gore is done so casually and with happy music playing over it it's hard to take it seriously. So, for some people, this will really work. I give it an 8.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
I suppose JEDI is now chronologically to be considered the very "last" entry in the popular saga, and it's a very good one, as were several of these. I liked how directly this sequel took off after THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, and I appreciated the maturity of Luke Skywalker as a character(and also Mark Hamill, as an actor). After hearing so many negative things about the Ewoks, they weren't so bad. I enjoyed the thrilling chase within the woods, and I felt there was a lot of well-realized emotion with this chapter. The ending (with some new additions, I presume?) successfully weaves all 6 chapters into a wonderful tale of fantasy. I know many true Star Wars fans hated George Lucas for changes he made to the original films, but being a relative novice to these movies rather late in life and not missing what I didn't already know, I think he made these 6 movies work perfectly as a whole entity. Oh, and, err -- Carrie Fisher looked quite delicious in her skimpy outfit.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
If you want an undemanding and reasonably amusing hour or so, then it's OK to watch this. It's not all that bad, really. Yeah, it's got more lapses in logic than I care to describe here and might tax the patience of people - like myself, I have to admit - who are inclined to throw things at the TV on occasion, but it's funny at least. Just because it's not always INTENTIONALLY funny, there's no need to let that get you down.<br /><br />However, if you've read the book - or any of the other books by Brookmyre - then you'd probably best avoid it. I've read them all and when I first watched this film, I despised it. I've trashed it in detail and at great length on another site, in fact. The TV plot bears practically no relevance at all to that of the book and served only to outrage and infuriate many faithful (and admittedly rabid) Brookmyre fans.<br /><br />Best bit of advice..? Watch this, then read the book and only THEN make your comparisons and submit your judgement.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Story of a man who has unnatural feelings for a pig. Starts out with a opening scene that is a terrific example of absurd comedy. A formal orchestra audience is turned into an insane, violent mob by the crazy chantings of it's singers. Unfortunately it stays absurd the WHOLE time with no general narrative eventually making it just too off putting. Even those from the era should be turned off. The cryptic dialogue would make Shakespeare seem easy to a third grader. On a technical level it's better than you might think with some good cinematography by future great Vilmos Zsigmond. Future stars Sally Kirkland and Frederic Forrest can be seen briefly.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
I really didn't like this film. The plot was very predictable. Typical American plot, I'm sorry. Guy gets the girl kind of thing at the end. And London has a Monorail? Bank of London??? Bank of England is what it really is!! - I did however like the look of Tracy Island and the Thunderbirds themselves. And the Brits were baddies? (apart from Parker and Lady Penelope) What was up with that? Oh and they kept on saying stuff like "Here come 'The Thunderbirds'" - but it was never known as 'The Thunderbirds' in the series, why do that?? I'd like to see this re-made in 20 years with more British cast. I preferred the original series. Sorry!
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Let's just say I had to suspend my disbelief less for Spiderman than I did for Hooligans. That is, to say, I have less of a problem believing Toby McGuire can stick to buildings than I do Elija Wood throwing down with toughs in Manchester. I won't get into specifics, as I don't want to write a spoiler, but the idea of grown, professional, British men getting into near death scraps every weekend is, well... funny. And this film is not. The fighting, the idea of fighting, is taken far too seriously. The gravity of the pugilism, the reverence with which the subject matter is treated becomes irritating, as it neither establishes or resolves the conflict. It seems as though the plot, with holes big enough to drive a Guiness truck through, has been slapped together with a contrived "fish out of water" theme so that viewers can gaze into Woods teary eyes as he learns how to become a man ie. hitting other young men of opposing football tastes with blunt objects and then running away as fast as he can. The characters are cartoonish, especially the Americans at Harvard. The character development and story line are telegraphed to the viewer throughout the picture. Unfortunately, the absurdity of the film doesn't reach its height until nearly the end, which by then you'll have spent nearly two hours of your life you are never getting back. Pick up "The Football Factory" or "Fight Club" instead of this corny, and disappointing dud. It doesn't waste time with empty melodrama, the tired old "Yankee in King Aurthur's Court," or weepy, parables of coming of age bullsh*t. They're just pure, dark, and clever fun; the way violence is supposed to be.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Given the title, this first follow-up to QUARTET (1948) obviously reduces the number of W. Somerset Maugham stories which comprise the film. The author still turns up to introduce the episodes, but there’s no epilogue this time around; by the way, while the script of the original compendium gave sole credit to R.C. Sheriff, here Maugham himself also lent a hand in the adaptation, as well as Noel Langley (though it’s unclear whether they contributed one segment each or else worked in unison). As can be expected, much of the crew of QUARTET has been retained for the second installment – though this also extends to at least three cast members, namely Naunton Wayne, Wilfrid Hyde-White and Felix Aylmer (the last two had bit parts in the episode from QUARTET entitled “The Colonel’s Lady”). While TRIO ultimately emerges to be a lesser achievement than its predecessor (slightly unbalanced by the third story which takes up more than half the running-time), it’s still done with the utmost care, acted with verve by a stellar cast and is solidly enjoyable into the bargain.<br /><br />“The Verger” tells of a church sexton (James Hayter) – for which the story’s title is another word – who’s dismissed after 17 years of service by the new parish priest (Michael Hordern) simply because he’s illiterate. Rather than rest on his laurels, despite his age, he not only takes a wife (his landlady, played by Kathleen Harrison) but opens a tobacconist shop strategically placed in a lengthy stretch of road where no such service is offered – and, with business flourishing, this is developed into a whole chain. The last scene, then, sees him pay a visit to bank manager Felix Aylmer who, not only is surprised to learn of Hayter’s lack of education, but is prompted to ask him what his other interests were – to which the wealthy (and respected) tobacconist replies, with some measure of irony, that he had the calling to be a verger! <br /><br />The second episode, “Mr. Know-All”, is the shortest but also perhaps the most engaging: a voyage at sea is utterly beleaguered by the insufferable presence of a pompous young man (Nigel Patrick), British despite his foreign-sounding name of Kelada, who professes to be an authority on virtually every subject under the sun. Naunton Wayne and Wilfrid Hyde-White are the two passengers who have to put up with him the most – the latter because he shares a cabin with the man and the former in view of Patrick’s attentions to his pretty wife (Anne Crawford). During a fancy-dress party, however, the passengers decide to enact their ‘revenge’ on Kelada by having one of them impersonate him (a jest which he naturally doesn’t appreciate)!; still, it’s here that he contrives to show a decent side to his character – told by Crawford that the necklace she’s wearing is an imitation, Wayne challenges Patrick to name its price…but the latter realizes immediately that it’s the genuine article and that this would compromise Crawford’s position if he were to tell, so Kelada allows himself to be publicly ridiculed rather than expose the fact that the woman probably has a secret admirer! <br /><br />As can also be deduced from the title, “Sanatorium” deals with the myriad patients at such a place – run by Andre' Morell; the protagonist is a new intern, Roland Culver, who wistfully observes the various goings-on. The narrative, in fact, highlights in particular three separate strands of plot – one humorous (the ‘feud’ between two aged Scots long resident at the sanatorium, played by Finlay Currie and John Laurie), one melodramatic (the erratic relationship between disgruntled patient Raymond Huntley and long-suffering but devoted wife Betty Ann Davies) and one bittersweet (the romance between naïve but charming Jean Simmons and dashing cad Michael Rennie which, in spite of having pretty much everything against it including the fact that Morell has diagnosed Simmons as a ‘lifer’ while Rennie only has a few years left to him, leads the couple to the altar).
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Roommates Sugar and Bobby Lee are abducted by menacing dudes while out shopping one day and taken back to a secluded island that the girls reluctantly tell the thugs that they last visited when they were ten years of age and that a fortune is located on. All that just pretty much bookends a movie that is pretty much one long flashback about the girls first visit to the island and subsequent fight with a cannibalistic family.<br /><br />This one is extremely horribly acted by everyone involved to the point that I started feeling bad for poor Hank Worden who truly deserved much MUCH better. As much as I didn't like "Barracuda" (that's on the same DVD) I have to admit that this film makes that one look like Citizen Kane.<br /><br />Eye Candy: one pair of tits (they might belong to Kirsten Baker) <br /><br />My Grade: F <br /><br />Dark Sky DVD Extras: Vintage ads for various drive-in food; and Trailers for "Bonnie's Kids" (features nudity), "the Centerfold Girls", "Part-time Wife" (features nudity), "Psychic Killer", & "Eaten Alive". The DVD also comes with 1978's "Barracuda"
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
An excellent cast makes this movie work; all of the characters are developed exceedingly well and it's clear that the actors enjoyed filming this movie.<br /><br />It's not quite the comedy I expected, much more a lighthearted look at the attempt to reclaim youthful glory than bawdy humor. For music fans there are quite a few subtle references that in themselves are intelligently funny.<br /><br />I hate drawing direct comparisons to other movies, but so much of this movie reminded me of Alan Parker films I can't help it: imagine if The Commitments actually did make it big -- and then tried to recapture said glory 25 years later.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Penn takes the time to develop his characters, and we almost care about them. However there are some real problems with the story here, we see no real motivation for the evil brother's behavior, and the time line is screwed up. Supposedly set in 1963, the music is late 60s/early 70s. The references and dialogue is 70s/80s. The potential for a powerful climax presents itself, and Penn allows it to slip away. But even with all these difficulties it is worth the watch, but not great.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Office work, especially in this era of computers, multi-functional copy machines, e-mail, voice mail, snail mail and `temps,' is territory ripe with satirical possibilities, a vein previously tapped in such films as `Clockwatchers' and `Office Space,' and very successfully. This latest addition to the temp/humor pool, however, `Haiku Tunnel,' directed by Josh Kornbluth and Jacob Kornbluth, fails to live up to it's predecessors, and leaves the laughs somewhere outside the door, waiting for a chance to sneak in. Unfortunately for the audience, that chance never comes; so what you get is a nice try, but as the man once said, no cigar.<br /><br /> As the narrator/star of the film, Josh Kornbluth (playing Josh Kornbluth), points out in the opening frames (in a monologue delivered directly into the camera), this story is pure fiction, and takes place in the fictional city of `San Franc'l'isco.' It's an innovative, if not very imaginatively presented disclaimer, and not all that funny. It is, however, a harbinger of what is to follow, all of which-- like the disclaimer-- just isn't all that funny.<br /><br /> Kornbluth plays Kornbluth, an aspiring novelist who supports himself working as a `temp.' It's a job that suits him, and it gives him time to slip in some work on his novel from time to time. But when he goes to work for a lawyer, Bob Shelby (Warren Keith), he does too good a job on the first day, and Shelby dispatches head secretary Marlina D'Amore (Helen Shumaker) to Kornbluth to persuade him to go `perm.' The thought of working full time for the same company, though, initially strikes fear in the heart of Kornbluth, but he caves in and signs on for the position. He's nervous about it, but at least now the other secretaries acknowledge his presence (which, of course, they would never do with a temp), and if things get too rough, he has seventeen important letters he's typed up-- that now just have to be mailed out-- to fall back on (he's been holding them back because the mailing is the easy part, and he needs that `something easy to do' in reserve, in case it all gets to be too much for him). These are `important' letters, however, and by the end of the week, Kornbluth still has them in reserve, on his desk. And it doesn't take a genius to figure out that when Shelby finds out about it, Kornbluth's days as the fair-haired boy are going to be over. And quick.<br /><br /> The Brothers Kornbluth, who not only directed, but along with John Bellucci also wrote the screenplay for this film, should have taken a page out of the Ben Stiller Book of Comedy, where it says `If you play it straight, they will laugh.' But, they didn't, and the audience won't. Because in comedy, even looking at it as objectively as possible, when the main character (as well as most of the supporting characters, in this case) `Plays' funny-- as in, he `knows' he's being funny-- he never is. And that's exactly what Kornbluth does here; so rather than being `funny,' he comes across as insincere and pretentious, a grievous error in judgment on the part of the Kornbluths, because by allowing it, they sabotaged their own movie. <br /><br /> In trying to discern exactly why this movie doesn't work, it comes down to two basic reasons: The directing, which-- if not necessarily `bad'-- is at least careless; and secondly, the performances, beginning with that of Josh Kornbluth. Quite simply, Kornbluth just seems too impressed with himself to be effective here. Unlike Stiller, or even Steve Martin-- both of whom use self-deprecating humor very effectively-- Kornbluth apparently has an ego that simply will not allow putting himself in that light; he seems to have a need to let his audience know that he, the real Kornbluth, is in reality much more clever than Kornbluth the character. And being unable to get past that does him in, as well as the film. Rather than give the millions of office workers who may see this film someone to whom they can relate or with whom they can identify, Kornbluth affects a condescending manner that only serves to alienate the very people he is attempting to reach. So what it all comes down to is a case of poor directing and unconvincing acting, and when you take into consideration that the screenplay itself was weak to begin with, with an inexplicably narrow focus (given the potential of the rich subject matter), it's easy to understand why this one just doesn't fly.<br /><br /> The one saving grace of the film is the performance by Warren Keith as Shelby, whose subtle delivery is convincing, and which-- in and of itself-- is fairly humorous. The effectiveness of it is diminished, however, inasmuch as Keith has to share his scenes with Kornbluth, which somewhat automatically cancels out his positive contributions to the project. <br /><br /> Shumaker and Sarah Overman (Julie Faustino) also manage to keep their heads above water with their respective performances, which are commendable, if not entirely memorable; they at least make their scenes watchable, and Overman even manages to elevate Kornbluth's performance, if only momentarily. But it's still not enough to save the day or the film.<br /><br /> The supporting cast includes Amy Resnick (Mindy), Brian Thorstenson (Clifford), June Lomena (DaVonne), Joe Bellan (Jimmy the Mail Clerk), with a cameo appearance by a disheveled looking Harry Shearer, as the Orientation Leader-- a role that begs for an answer to the question, `What was he thinking when he agreed to this?' In any work environment, there will forever be situations arising that one way or another will unavoidably become fodder for someone's comedic cannon, and the films depicting said situations will always be with us; the good ones (see paragraph one) may even become classics in their own right. `Haiku Tunnel,' however, will doubtfully remain very long amongst them, for it's destiny lies elsewhere-- in a realm known only as: `Obscurity.' I rate this one 1/10. <br /><br /> <br /><br />
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
This movie is not only a very bad movie, with awful actors --or presumed actors--, a bored direction and a story unattractive, it also copies exactly an scene from the excellent "giallio" "Torso", directed by Sergio Martino in 1973 (two years before), one of the most celebrated psycho-thrillers of Italian cinema and a cult-movie around the world. In "La Sanguinusa conduce la danza", the director replays the bed scene between the black girl and the white girl, with an peeping-tom watching from a window of the bedroom. Naturally, the scene in Rizzo's movie is ridiculous and inferior to the softness and charming in Martino's film. To put another black girl, another white girl and another peeping-tom replaying the scene is simply the most appropriate way of prove that Rizzo's movie has no ideas, no originality, no taste, and nothing at all. I think that such things are an offense to spectator.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Even if 99,99% of people that has seen this movie is Brazilian, I'll keep up with the English since it is the language of this website.<br /><br />This movie is a piece of cr*p. Worst acting I have seen for a loooong time. The kids are terrible. Specially the boy. This was the first time I saw someone with less facial expression than Arnold Schwarzenegger, and one single voice tone, like a 5 years-old kid reading in front of the class. How can someone so bad be the main actor of a movie ? The storyline is so shallow my daughter could have done better (she is 3 yrs old). It is so simple it could be written in a napkin and told in 3 minutes.<br /><br />There are only three possibilities for someone enjoy this movie: 1) you are a pre-teen; 2) you have been so brainwashed by Globo's stupidities that you think that anything that has the Globo's seal is awesome; 3) you have a serious brain damage.<br /><br />Avoid at all costs ! A shame to the Brazilian movie scene.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
I LOVE Jack's jokes like 'The cliché is...' or "Over the top cliché guy, black, oily skin, kinda spooky...". He is just hilarious! Daniel's starting to catch up on him to! Good thing Jack's not on the team anymore (in a way) or else it would have been sarcasm mania!!!!I just love all the plots (season 8, a little less, I have to admit), the characters are great, the actors are great, I'm starting to pick up facial expressions (and more) from Jack, Daniel and Teal'c...It just all theoretically possible and exciting...oops! Their I go again!!! Sorry, I'm also starting to pick up traits from Carter, and all of this is driving my parents NUTZ!!!!!!! Well, to conclude, I think it's good for another three seasons or so, especially if they keep on packing the episodes with all this humor, drama, action and so forth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
If you've read Mother Night and enjoyed it so much (as I did) that you just have to see the movie, understand that you have to understand a fundamental element of Vonngut's writing - that beyond his story lies Vonnegut himself, and that you can't put a human mind on the screen. His whit and humor just cannot be transcribed by a screenplay or even the best acting performance. I believe that this movie exceeds in asking the key questions that Vonnegut poses in his book, but those frequent cynical moments of satire found on the page are not found on the screen. Does this mean that the movie misses the mark? Of course not. In my opinion, the movie succeeds because it does not try to recreate the experience of reading the book (this is not a medium for those too lazy to turn a page). It succeeds because it takes the fundamental elements of a story created by one of America's true artistic treasures and presents it in a a framework without pretense. I've seen other movie versions of Vonnegut books where the director obviously tries to channel Vonnegut's genius and loses grip on his own craft. I would not place this movie as one of the best I've seen, but it stands on its own legs as one well worth watching. By taking Vonnegut's "voice" out of the movie's narration or trying to insert it however it can, Mother Night tells his story brilliantly, and preserves the story's fundamental lessons without confusion, distraction, or disappointment.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Renown writer Mark Redfield (as Edgar Allen Poe) tries to conquer old addictions and start a new life for himself, as a Baltimore, Maryland magazine publisher. However, blackouts, delirium, and rejection threaten to thwart his efforts. He would also like to rekindle romance with an old sweetheart, a significantly flawed prospect, as things turns out. Mr. Redfield also directed this dramatization of the mysterious last days of Edgar Allen Poe. Redfield employs a lot of black and white, color, and trick photography to create mood. Kevin G. Shinnick (as Dr. John Moran) performs well, relatively speaking. It's not enough.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
The animation looks like it was done in 30 seconds, and looks more like caricatures rather than characters. I've been a fan of Scooby Doo ever since the series premiered in 1969. I didn't think much of the Scooby Doo animated movies, (I'm talking about the TV Series, not the full length movies.), but some of them were pretty cool, and I like most people found Scrappy Doo to be an irritant, but this series is pure garbage. As soon as I saw the animation, and heard the characters, (and I use that term loosely) speak, I cringed. Also, Mystery Inc., was a team, and without the entire crew to compliment each other, it just seems like opening up a box of chocolates to find someone has already ate the best ones, and the only thing left are the ones nobody wants. What's New Scooby Doo was better than this. If you're going to have a Scooby Doo TV series, include the elements that made the series endure so long. The entire cast of characters, and quality animation. They need to put this one back under the rock from where it came.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
...and not in a good way. BASEketball is a waste of film in all most every single way. It is offensive to all the senses. This doesn't necessarily bother me, I've seen plenty of bad movies, really bad movies before and will see them again. BASEketball though is a caliber film where you regret wasting ninety minutes of life sitting through it. The reason BASEketball offends me is that it stars Trey Parker and Matt Stone in a film they didn't write. Any respect I had for David Zucker has long since depleted. His recent spoof films are lazy messes that look and feel as if they were made by pre-pubescent boys snickering at penis jokes. "Airplane" was a revolutionary and very funny comedy, watching BASEketball you will be amazed to discover that they were made by the same person.<br /><br />I have so much respect for Trey Parker and Matt Stone. These men are the funniest and smartest comedians in mainstream entertainment today. Their pictures and South Park episodes are as relevant as they are funny. Every joke even the fart jokes have intelligence behind them. It's easy to forget that there is a mature way to approach immaturity. I imagine BASEketball was a major growing experience for them because they hate the film for all the right reasons. It is a stupid mess with no sense of dignity or class. Parker and Stone have essentially whored themselves out. The film plays like a 90 minute episode of Family Guy.<br /><br />Parker and Stone have never been great actors. They've been serviceable in their films. I can't really find a way to describe their performance in BASEketball, other than the fact that it feels like they are spoofing a spoof film spoofing a spoof film. Every line is delivered in such a silly winking way. It's like they are trying to make fun of the worst of these type of pictures and yet they become them in the same way. I am reminded of the South Park episode "How to Eat with your Butt" where Cartman sits in a movie theater watching a gross out comedy with no plot or plausibility except to gross out, Parker and Stone use the same voices they did in that scene for this entire picture. Really it's sad.<br /><br />And yet that is not my problem with BASEketball. My biggest gripe with the picture is that I sit there knowing that Parker and Stone are knowingly following this piece of crap script. I know that if they took the damn thing and rewrote it that this could have been salvaged to the point of being watchable. There isn't any indication that Zucker let them improv scenes either. Parker and Stone are merely tools to a bad director. BASEketball has some funny concepts and I think Parker especially if he were allowed to take Zuckers script could have elaborated on them more. Instead we get potty humor. Don't rent BASEketball you can get the same laughs watching a group of grade schoolers joking around
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Culled from the real life exploits of Chuck Connors and Steve Brodie in 1890s New York, "The Bowery" is high energy and good natured.<br /><br />But be warned: Casual racial epithets flow off the tongues of Wallace Beery and little Jackie Cooper. The very first shot might be startling. This is true to the time it was set and the time it was made. And it also speaks to the diversity of population in that neck of the woods. It certainly adds to the gritty flavor of the atmosphere.<br /><br />Beery as Connors is the blustering thunder at the center of the action, a loud-mouth saloon keeper with his own fire brigade. And he has a soft spot for ornery orphan Cooper. Raft as Brodie is Connors' slicker, better looking rival in almost every endeavor. Brodie could never turn down a dare and loved attention, leading up to a jump off the Brooklyn Bridge (it is still debated whether he actually jumped or used a dummy).<br /><br />Beery is as bombastic as ever with a put-on Irish-American accent. He is just the gruff sort of character to draw children, cats and ladies in distress. This is possibly the most boisterous character Raft ever played, and he even gets to throw in a little dancing (as well as a show of leg). And again he mistakes the leading lady (lovely Fay Wray) for a prostitute. Cooper is as tough as either of them, though he gets a chance to turn on the tears.<br /><br />The highlight isn't the jump off the bridge but a no-holds-barred fistfight between Connors and Brodie that in closeup looks like a real brawl between the principals. It's sure someone bruised more than an ego.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Meaning: if this movie got pitched, scripted, made, released, promoted as something halfway respectable given the constraints (yeah, I know, Springer, sex, violence), where is He?<br /><br />Reminded me of porn movies I saw in college, plot and dialogue wise.... shoulda just done something for the scurrilous porno market, showed penetration and be done with it-- would have made more money, the ultimate point of this exercise....
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
I used this film in a religion class I was teaching. The golden fish is swimming happily in his bowl in an upper floor apartment. A young boy and his mother are away from home. The boy has been given money to buy milk. On the way home, he stops at carnival to play a game. Next to him stands a man in a black suit looking a little scary. The boy drops the bottle of milk. It breaks. The man in the black suit gives him money to replace the milk. This scene alternates with what is happening at home. A black cat climbs the fire escape and enters the apartment. He(?) discovers the fish bowl and watches it. The fish swims energetically and flips out of the bowl. By now, a bunch of teenagers in my class and I have fallen in love with the fish. The cat takes the fish in his mouth and we all hold our breath. The cat drops the fish into the bowl. The double story line includes the suspicious man in black and the suspicious black cat. Both inspire prejudice. Both are innocent. It was a great discussion starter in my class.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Action, violence, sex and coarse language are the things that the characters do during the whole movie. And everything they do is done without reason. Mark L. Lester is (un)known for his violent (without reason)movies (Commando, The Base). The story is weird but stupid. The actors play their stupid characters very well...I'm not telling they are stupid but I mean they are very bad actors. It's another low-budget unknown B series action movie. If you saw something like Operation Delta Force, Drive, The Patriot, Sanctuary or something like these bad movies from the same kind than Misbegotten...don't rent it...and, by the way, don't rent any of the movies I mentioned....I give it 1and a half out of5.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
I'm surprised at the comments from posters stating that Jane Powell made the same type of films Deanna Durbin did. Although they were both young sopranos whose film images were crafted by Joe Pasternak, if this film is any indication, they were almost polar opposites.<br /><br />While, in THREE SMART GIRLS, Durbin plays an impulsive "Little Miss Fixit," who, after some setbacks, manages to reunite her divorced parents, in its' semi-remake, THREE DARING DAUGHTERS, Jane Powell almost destroys the marriage between her screen Mom Jeanette MacDonald and new stepfather Jose Iturbi when she refuses to accept him and strong arms her younger siblings into rejecting him, too. From the Durbin and Powell films I've seen, I'd say these disparate qualities permeate the early films of both of these talented young performers.<br /><br />As for Durbin's performance in THREE SMART GIRLS, I find it completely winning, and most impressive. Although it's clear from her occasionally shrill and over-emphatic line readings in some of the more energetic scenes that this is an early film for Deanna, watching the self-confident, knowing and naturally effervescent manner in which she delivers her lines and performs overall, and the subdued and tender manner she projects the more serious scenes, you'd never guess that this was the FIRST film role of a 14 year-old girl whose prior professional experience consisted almost exclusively of two years of vocal instruction. <br /><br />Given that this film, and Durbin herself, were much publicized at the time as "Universal's last chance," the production must have been an impossibly stressful situation for a film novice of any age, but you'd never know it from the ease and assurance Durbin displays on screen. Although she's clearly still developing her acting style and demeanor before the camera (this was equally true of the early performances of much more experienced contemporaries like Garland, Rooney, O'Connor and Jane Powell), Durbin projects an extraordinary presence and warmth on camera that is absolutely unique to her, and, even here, in her first film, she manages to remain immensely likable despite the often quick-tempered impulsiveness of her character, and though she's occasionally shrill, she never for a second projects the coy and arch qualities that afflicted many child stars, including Jane Powell and some of the other young sopranos who followed in the wake of her success.<br /><br />In short, like all great singing stars, Durbin was much more than just a "beautiful voice." On the other hand, while Durbin's pure lyric soprano is a truly remarkable and glorious instrument, the most remarkable thing about it, to me, was the way she is able to project her songs, without the slightest bit of affectation or "grandnes" that afflict the singing of adult opera singers like Lily Pons, Grace Moore and Jeanette MacDonald in films of the period<br /><br />The film is also delightful, heavily influenced by screwball comedy, it backs Durbin up with a creme-de-la-creme of first-class screwball pros such as Charles Winninger, Binnie Barnes, Alice Brady, Ray Milland and Mischa Auer. The story is light and entertaining. True, it's hardly "realistic," but why would anyone expect it to be? If you want :"realistic" rent THE GRAPES OF WRATH or TRIUMPH OF THE WILL. On the other hand, if you're looking for a genuine, sweet, funny and entertaining family comedy with a wonderfully, charismatic and gifted adolescent "lead," and terrific supporting players, this film won't let you down.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
There is a reason why certain films go straight to video and of course the obvious reason is that if its too naughty for theater audience then release straight to video. Of course it really wouldn't be fair to the films that are good and yet they are also released straight to video. This one is not an exception although the film has good actors or at least actors with potential: Amy Adams (am Oscar nominee and talented actress), Robin Dunne who deserves better or at least a better agent, and Sarah Thompson who deserves roles that are a departure from teen melodramas. The film is also misstated: this film takes place before Cruel Intentions so therefore this film is actually a prequel and rather stupid one at that. This was a waste and its really a film that is in the same level as soft core porn and pay-per-view masturbation films. Fortunately for the actors, hopefully they will be able to erase this from their resumes. So if you are looking to see something naughty, but don't have the courage to buy porn then rent this film as a starter.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
terribly underrated with matt dillon and tom skerritt, good backdrop for solid story and some memorable lines, well acted and well cast, tommy lee jones and bruce dern make you hate them with passion
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
I felt duty bound to watch the 1983 Timothy Dalton / Zelah Clarke adaptation of "Jane Eyre," because I'd just written an article about the 2006 BBC "Jane Eyre" for TheScreamOnline.<br /><br />So, I approached watching this the way I'd approach doing homework.<br /><br />I was irritated at first. The lighting in this version is bad. Everyone / everything is washed out in a bright white klieg light that, in some scenes, casts shadows on the wall behind the characters.<br /><br />And the sound is poorly recorded. I felt like I was listening to a high school play.<br /><br />And the pancake make-up is way too heavy.<br /><br />And the sets don't fully convey the Gothic mood of the novel. They are too fussy, too Martha Stewart. I just can't see Bronte's Rochester abiding such Martha Stewart domestic arrangements. Orson Welles' Rochester lived in cave-like gloom, very appropriate to the novel's Gothic mood.<br /><br />And yet ... with all those objections ... not only is this the best "Jane Eyre" I've seen, it may be the best adaptation of any novel I've ever seen.<br /><br />This "Jane Eyre," in spite of its technical flaws, brought the feeling back to me of reading "Jane Eyre" for the first time.<br /><br />The critics of this production say it is too close to the book. For me, someone who valued the book and didn't need it to be any less "wordy" or any less "Christian" or any more sexed up, this version's faithfulness to the novel Bronte actually wrote is its finest asset.<br /><br />Bronte wrote a darn good book. There's a reason it has lasted 150 years plus, while other, slicker, sexier and easier texts, have disappeared.<br /><br />As a long time "Jane Eyre" fan, I was prejudiced against Timothy Dalton as Rochester. Rochester is, famously, not handsome; Jane and Rochester are literature's famous ugly couple. And Timothy Dalton is nothing if not stunningly handsome.<br /><br />But Dalton gives a mesmerizing performance as Rochester. He just blew me away. I've never seen anything like his utter devotion to the role, the text, the dialogue, and Rochester's love for Jane. Dalton brings the page's Rochester to quivering life on screen.<br /><br />Rochester is meant to be a bit scary. Dalton is scary. Welles got the scary streak down, too, for example, when he shouts "Enough!" after Fontaine plays a short piano piece. But Dalton is scary more than once, here. You really can't tell if he's going to hurt Jane, or himself, in his desperation.<br /><br />Rochester's imperiousness, his humor, his rage, his vulnerability: Dalton conveys all, sometimes seconds apart. It's stunning.<br /><br />And here's the key thing -- the actor performing Rochester has to convey that he has spent over a decade of his life in utter despair, lonely, living with an ugly, life-destroying secret.<br /><br />No other actor I've seen attempt this part conveys that black hole of despair as Timothy Dalton does. Current fan favorite Toby Stephens doesn't even try. Dalton hits it out of the park. If I saw Timothy Dalton performing Rochester in a singles bar, i would say, "That guy is trouble. Don't even look at him." He's that radioactive with tamped down agony.<br /><br />Zelah Clarke is not only, overall, the best Jane I've seen, she's one of the very few Janes whom producers were willing to cast as the book casts Jane. No, folks who know "Jane Eyre" only from the 2006 version, Bronte did *not* describe a statuesque, robust Jane with finely arched eyebrows and pouty lips. Rather, Charlotte Bronte's Jane is, indeed, poor, plain, obscure, and little, and NOT pretty.<br /><br />Zelah has a small mouth, close-set eyes, and a bit of a nose. She's truly "little." She is no fashion model. And she is the best Jane, the truest to the book.<br /><br />Some described her a cold or boring. No, she's true to the book. Bronte's Jane is not a red hot mama, she's a sheltered, deprived teen whose inner passions come out only at key moments, as Zelah's do here. The book's Jane is someone you have to watch slowly, carefully, patiently, observantly, if you want to truly plumb her depths. You have to watch Zelah, here, to get to know who she really is.<br /><br />I would have liked to have seen more fire in Zelah in one key scene, but that's one scene out of five hours in which she is, otherwise, very good.<br /><br />In spite of its closeness to the text, this version, like every other version I've seen, shys away from fully explicating the overtly Christian themes in "Jane Eyre." Christianity is not incidental subtext in "Jane Eyre," it is central.<br /><br />Helen Burns instructs Jane in Christianity, thus giving her a subversive, counter cultural way to read, and live, her apparently doomed, pinched life. It is Christianity, and a Christian God, who convinces poor, plain, obscure Jane of her equal worth, her need to live up to her ideals, and her rejection of a key marriage proposal. That isn't made fully clear here.<br /><br />In any case, Charlotte Bronte wrote an excellent, complex, rich novel, and this adaptation of it, of all the ones I've seen, mines and honors the novel best of any adaptation I've seen, and that says a lot.<br /><br />Other versions, that don't fully honor the book, end up being a chore to watch in many places. If you don't care about what Charlotte Bronte has to say about child abuse, or the hypocrisy of a culture built on looks and money, your adaptation of much of the book will be something people fast forward through to get to the kissing scenes between Jane and Rochester.<br /><br />This version, like Bronte's novel, realizes that everything Bronte wrote -- about Jane's experiences at Lowood, and her relationship to St. John -- are part of what makes Jane's relationship to Rochester as explosive and unforgettable as it is.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
This is a beautiful movie that is wonderfully acted by all players. It will make you laugh and it will make you cry. The very end of the movie gets me to mist up every time. If you want to see a great movie, this is it. Jimmy Stewert supplies a wonderfully witty performance and Frank Morgan as Mr. Matuschek is spellbinding. Morgan's diversity of character is nothing short of amazing. William Tracy as Pepi is terrific comic relief and delivers some of the movies most important lines and performances. Felix Bressart delivers a fantastic performance as Perovitch, a stumbling bumbling shop worker who's life's ambition is to please those he works with. It is a simple story of how close co-workers can become and how two people who have great animosity towards each other fall in love though unusual circumstances.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Hilarious, evocative, confusing, brilliant film. Reminds me of Bunuel's L'Age D'Or or Jodorowsky's Holy Mountain-- lots of strange characters mucking about and looking for..... what is it? I laughed almost the whole way through, all the while keeping a peripheral eye on the bewildered and occasionally horrified reactions of the audience that surrounded me in the theatre. Entertaining through and through, from the beginning to the guts and poisoned entrails all the way to the end, if it was an end. I only wish i could remember every detail. It haunts me sometimes.<br /><br />Honestly, though, i have only the most positive recollections of this film. As it doesn't seem to be available to take home and watch, i suppose i'll have to wait a few more years until Crispin Glover comes my way again with his Big Slide Show (and subsequent "What is it?" screening)... I saw this film in Atlanta almost directly after being involved in a rather devastating car crash, so i was slightly dazed at the time, which was perhaps a very good state of mind to watch the prophetic talking arthropods and the retards in the superhero costumes and godlike Glover in his appropriate burly-Q setting, scantily clad girlies rising out of the floor like a magnificent DADAist wet dream.<br /><br />Is it a statement on Life As We Know It? Of course everyone EXPECTS art to be just that. I rather think that the truth is more evident in the absences and in the negative space. What you don't tell us is what we must deduce, but is far more valid than the lies that other people feed us day in and day out. Rather one "WHAT IS IT?" than 5000 movies like "Titanic" or "Sleepless in Seattle" (shudder, gag, groan).<br /><br />Thank you, Mr. Glover (additionally a fun man to watch on screen or at his Big Slide Show-- smart, funny, quirky, and outrageously hot). Make more films, write more books, keep the nightmare alive.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
It's highly stylized, but this movie shows that real people appear on these shows and what seems like good fun and a chance to appear on television can have serious consequences.<br /><br />Yes, i's mostly comedy, but there are some sad moments.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
For those fans of Laurel and Hardy, the 1940s and beyond were a very sad time for the team. Their contracts with Hal Roach Studios had expired and now they were "free agents"--able to work for any studio who offered them a job. Unfortunately, Fox, RKO, MGM (without Roach) and even a French film company who hired the boys had absolutely no touch for their comedic talents. Plus, Stan and Ollie were a lot older and seeing these geriatric men taking pratfalls seemed sad, not particularly funny. Stan looked very ragged and Ollie's weight had ballooned up to the point where he could barely walk--and so it made me feel uncomfortable laughing at their very, very sedate antics.<br /><br />In addition to their age, this particular film suffers because Fox Studios oddly cast them in a supporting role and created a parallel plot involving a young couple--something that reduced their time on screen AND turned them into insipid "hangers on" instead of just being themselves. A cute and cuddly Stan and Ollie is very foreign to the old Laurel and Hardy of the 20s and 30s--and just seemed awfully strange and suited them poorly.<br /><br />Now even with their age, this COULD have been a decent movie if it had been given decent writing and if it appeared the studio cared--and it's quite obvious they were using the "B unit" here--with, at best, second class support. In particular, there are very few laughs and the last 10 minutes of the film is simply dreadful--relying exclusively on a sloppy rear-projected screen for the stupid chase scene--which might just rank as one of the worst of its kind in film history.<br /><br />For mind-numbed zombie lovers of Laurel and Hardy, it's probably a film they will love. But, for lovers of the team who are willing to honestly evaluate this film relative to their amazing earlier films, it simply comes up wanting indeed. In fact, of all their full-length films pre-1940, I can't think of one I liked less than DANCING MASTERS. Unfortunately, of the post-1940 films, this might just be one of their better ones. Sadly, it got a lot worse--with wretched films like THE BIG NOISE and NOTHING BUT TROUBLE. I just wish the boys had just retired after SAPS AT SEA.<br /><br />Finally, I wonder if all the generally positive reviews for this film on IMDb might reflect the reviewers' love of the team more than it's an indication that this is a good film? For an audience who are NOT already in love with the team, I don't know HOW this film will do anything but bore the audience--it certainly WON'T convince anyone that Laurel and Hardy were comedic geniuses. But even comedic geniuses need material worthy of their talents.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Lynch. The man has some really great stuff! He knows how to disturb us, then reward us by getting us think in different ways. This, however, is altogether different. Dumbland's reward is 1% absurd comedy, earned by enduring 99% stupidity. I may have laughed once, but somewhere around episode 4 I just started watching on fast-forward. Didn't miss a thing. I felt relieved when it ended, and that's part of the point with this series. It's an annoying series about annoying characters in annoying situations, rounded out with annoying animation, voices and sound. But recognizing this and its other absurdist qualities still fails to make Dumbland worthwhile.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
A lovely little B picture with all the usual Joe Lewis touches.... people ripping up pillows and auras of lurking fear. Also, alas, an ending that comes out of nowhere, because, apparently, the auteur has lost interest in the movie, or perhaps because as a B picture it has to fit into a slot.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Rohmer returns to his historical dramas in the real story of Grace Elliot, an Englishwoman who stayed in France during the apex of the French Revolution. One always suspected that Rohmer was a conservative, but who knew he was such a red-blooded reactionary. If you can put aside Rohmer's unabashed defense of the monarchy (and that is not an easy thing to do, given that, for instance, the French lower classes are portrayed here as hideous louts), this is actually an elegant, intelligent and polished movie. Lacking the money for a big cinematic recreation of 18th century France, Rohmer has instead the actors play against obvious painted cardboards. It is a blatantly artificial conceit, but it somehow works. And newcomer Lucy Russell succeeds in making sympathetic a character that shouldn't be.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
"What is love? What is this longing in our hearts for togetherness? Is it not the sweetest flower? Does not this flower of love have the fragrant aroma of fine, fine diamonds? Does not the wind love the dirt? Is not love not unlike the unlikely not it is unlikened to? Are you with someone tonight? Do not question your love. Take your lover by the hand. Release the power within yourself. Your heard me, release the power. Tame the wild cosmos with a whisper. Conquer heaven with one intimate caress. That's right don't be shy. Whip out everything you got and do it in the butt. By Leon Phelps" When Tim Meadows created his quintessential SNL playboy, Leon Phelps, I cringed. Hearing his smarmy lisp and salacious comments made my remote tremble with outrage. I employed the click feature more than once, dear readers.<br /><br />So When the film version of "The Ladies Man" came on cable, I mumbled a few comments of my own and clicked yet again. But there comes the day, gray and forlorn, when "nothing is on" any of the 100+ channels...sigh. Yes I was faced with every cable subscribers torment watch it or turn my TV off! There he was, Leon Phelps, smirking and ...making me laugh! What had happened? Had I succumbed to Hollywood's 'dumb-down' sit-com humor? Was I that desperate to avoid abdicating my sacred throne? The truth of the matter is I like "The Ladies Man" more than I should. A story about a vulgar playboy sipping cognac while leering at every female form goes against my feminist sensibilities.<br /><br />What began as a crude SNL skit blossomed before my eyes into a tale about Leon and his playboy philosophy, going through life "helping people" solve their sexual conflicts. "I am the Mother Teresa of Boning", he solemnly informs Julie (Karyn Parsons), his friend and long-suffering producer of his radio show, "The Ladies Man". And he's not kidding. Leaving a string of broken hearts and angry spirits, Leon manages to bed and breakfast just about all of Chicago. That he does so with such genuine good-will is his calling-card through life.<br /><br />Our self-proclaimed, "Expert in the Ways of Love", manages to get himself into a lot of trouble with husbands and boyfriends. One such maligned spouse, Lance (Will Ferrell), forms a "Victims of the Smiling Ass, USA" club, vowing to catch our lovable Don Juan. "Oh yes, we will have our revenge", he croons to his cohorts, in a show-stopping dance number.<br /><br />Plus it's such a total delight to see Billy Dee Williams as Lester, the tavern owner and smooth narrator of Leon's odyssey to find his "sweet thing" and a pile of cash. (Where has he been hiding?) But would I choose this movie as my Valentine's Day choice? Leon's search for the easy life changes him in so many profound ways - that I had to give the nod to our "Ladies Man". That he can, at the movie's close, find true happiness with one woman, while still offering his outlandish advice, is the stuff of dreams!
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
As usual, Sean Connery does a great job. Lawrence Fishburn is good, but I have a hard time not seeing him as Ike Turner.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Four teenage girlfriends drive to Fort Laurdale for spring break.Unfortunately they get a flat tire in Medley,Georgia and one of the girls witnesses a brutal murder deep in the woods.The local sheriff is behind the crime and the nightmare begins..."Shallow Grave" is a pleasant low-budget surprise.The cast is likable enough,the direction is steady and the violence is particularly nasty and misogynistic.Especially the second murder is pretty grim.The murderous sheriff isn't one-dimensional character-in a couple of scenes it seems that he feels remorse for what he's done.The subplot involving the two boys they meet in the diner goes nowhere,but the stalking scenes in the woods are tense and exciting.7 out of 10.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Not an altogether bad start for the program -- but what a slap in the face to real law enforcement. The worst part of the series is that it attempts to bill itself as reality fare -- and is anything but. Men and women that dedicate their lives to the enforcement of laws deserve better than this. What is next, medical school in a minute? Charo performing lipo? Charles Grodin assisting on a hip replacement? C'mon...show a little respect. Even the citizens of Muncie are outing the program as staged. Police Academy = High School Gym? Poor editing (how many times can they use the car-to-car shot of the Taco Bell in the background?), cheesy siren effects (the same loop added ad nauseum to every 'call' whether rolling code or not), and last, but not least -- more officer safety issues than you could shake a stick at.<br /><br />If I want to see manufactured police work and wise-ass fake cops, I would watch RENO 911.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
All I can say is, if you don't fall in love with Big and Little Edie after watching this movie, then you're not human! Even after watching it for the first time, I was hooked. It is a mesmerizing experience that is difficult to describe, as I'm sure other fans will attest to. After watching it, you will cry to think that these two wonderful ladies are no longer with us. At least we have Grey Gardens to remember them! I think we all long to possess the fierce independence these two ladies were graced with. Although I have always admired Jackie Onassis Kennedy, she does not stay in your heart the way Big and Little Edie do. What a rare treat to have know such people; I only wish I had!
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
- A small time hood tricks the local mob boss out of a lot of money. Of course the mob boss wants his money back and doesn't care who he has to kill to get it. The punk enlists his friend and an old mobster to help him save his life.<br /><br />- If this sounds ridiculous, it is. The whole idea that this Izod-wearing, dune buggy-driving punk could hold off one of the most powerful mobs in Rome is just plain silly. His friend may be good with a gun, but he's up against a group of trained killers. The old mobster is little more than comic relief and no real help when it comes to the face off with the mob. There's also a sub-plot about how the friend's father was killed years ago by the mob boss, but there's little made of it and it doesn't help the movie any at all.<br /><br />- The mob boss, Mister Scarface, is played by Jack Palance. I suppose he got the name because he has what looks like a shaving nick on his cheek. Palance is as ineffective as the rest of the cast, doing what he must to get a paycheck.<br /><br />- I've seen some pretty good Italian crime/cop flicks recently, but Mister Scarface isn't one of them. Check out Syndicate Sadists or Revolver instead.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Vanilla Sky is a 2001 remake of the 1997 movie Abre Los Ojos (Open Your Eyes). And in my opinion, a much more human and emotional version. Tom Cruise plays David Aames, a selfish egomaniac who takes other people's emotions for granted, and thinks only of himself. Jason Lee plays Brian Shelby, David's best, and in many ways, only friend. Penelope Cruz plays Sofia Serrano, Brian's girlfriend whom accompanies him to David's birthday party. Cameron Diaz plays Julie Gianni, David's occasional bed buddy. Kurt Russell plays Dr. Curtis McCabe, a psychologist interviewing David. All of their interactions, and the consequences of them, make Vanilla Sky one of the most emotional, and complex thrillers ever made. I won't explain anymore of the plot, because it's far more compelling, the less you know. Ignore all people that call this film too confusing to follow. If you pay attention, you won't be confused. The film is very complex, but not confusing. And in my opinion, one of the best movies ever made.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
There were a lot of films made by Hollywood during the war years that were designed to drum up support for our troops from the public. Seen today, some might dismiss them or just see them as propaganda--which they technically are, but of a positive sort and meant to unify the nation. This film is a pretty effective and entertaining example of the genre--having a pretty realistic script and good production values. Pat O'Brien plays pretty much the same character he played in MANY other films (you know, the tough-talking, hard-driven but "swell guy"). Randolph Scott is, as always, competent and entertaining and the rest of the extras are excellent (look for a young Robert Ryan as one of the bombardiers in training). While the story is reminiscent of several other movies about our pilots and crews, the film is well-crafted enough to make it interesting and not too far-fetched. That it, perhaps, except for the very end--where the film is a bit over-the-top but also VERY satisfying. About the only serious negative, and this is mostly for nitpickers, is that some of the stock footage is somewhat sloppily integrated in the film and "nuts" like me who are both history teachers and airplane lovers will probably notice this--all others probably won't notice.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
The men can slaver over Lollo, if they like (or her lollos--she gave her name to a slang terms for breasts in French), but the ladies have an even tastier morsel in the divine Gerard Philipe, who is not only beautiful but can act. Don't be deterred if your version has no subtitles because in this simple, dashing story of love and war, in which all is fair, they are not needed. All you need know is that, at the beginning of the film, Lollobrigida reads Philipe's palm and tells him he will marry the daughter of the king. Thereafter the story is quite plain from the Gallic gestures and the running, jumping, and swordplay.<br /><br />On the minus side, the obviousness of the story and the heavy-handed facetiousness of the tone become somewhat wearying, and it is annoying that the French apparently consider themselves too superior to Hollywood to bother even attempting the plausibility of its exciting stunts. And of course the non-French-speaker misses the occasional bit of ooh-la-la, such as: Virtuous girl: I must tell you that my heart belongs to Fanfan. Seducer: My dear, what made you think I was interested in that bagatelle?
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Excellent movie, a realistic picture of contemporary Finland, touching and profound. One of the best Finnish films ever made. Captures marvelously the everyday life in a Central Finland small town, people's desires and weaknesses, joys and sorrows. The bright early fall sunshine creates a cool atmosphere to this lucid examination of people in a welfare society. Lampela is indeed one of the most promising Finnish filmmakers. He shows that it is possible to make gripping movies without machine guns and bloodshed. His next film Eila is also worth seeing although the story of cleaning women fighting for their jobs is not quite as universally appealing as the destinies in Joki.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
I remember watching this in the 1970s - then I have just recently borrowed a couple of episodes from our public library.<br /><br />With a nearly 30 year hiatus, I have come to another conclusion. Most of the principals interviewed in this series - some at the center of power like Traudl Junge (Hitler's Secretary),Karl Doenitz (head of Germany's navy) Anthony Eden (UK) - are long gone but their first hand accounts will live on.From Generals and Admirals to Sergeants, Russian civilians, concentration camp survivors, all are on record here. <br /><br />I can remember the Lord Mountbatten interview (killed in the 1970s) <br /><br />This is truly a gem and I believe the producer of this series was knighted by Queen Elizabeth for this work - well deserved.<br /><br />Seeing these few episodes from the library makes me want to buy the set.<br /><br />This is the only "10" I have given any review but I have discovered like a fine bottle of wine, it is more appreciated with a little time...
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
I came at this film with high expectations. I was aware of Greenaway's work and 'The Tempest' and was interested in an adaptation. I first wanted to switch off after ten minutes, but felt that it would be unfair. There was a representation of a storm, but where in your mind do you conceive a small boy peeing over a toy boat? It is symbolic of what? I continued another ten minutes my finger twitching over the 'off' button, somewhere something would capture my interest. This is not Shakespeare, it is not cinema. There is a time and place for it, but I will not waste my time and there is no place for it in my studies of Shakespeare. After twenty five minutes I gave up and that was the end. I then read all the comments on this website and the pretentiousness of the film is only matched by its defendants. 'Its a painting.....then put it in a gallery', 'it's a ballet.....keep it on the stage then'. Shakespeare can be done intelligently, and the plays were performed to mass audiences, they were accessible, and this version helps put a wedge between Shakespeare and the general population at large - and I do not think that the Bard would be happy with that.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Neither the total disaster the UK critics claimed nor the misunderstood masterpiece its few fanboys insist, Revolver is at the very least an admirable attempt by Guy Ritchie to add a little substance to his conman capers. But then, nothing is more despised than an ambitious film that bites off more than it can chew, especially one using the gangster/con-artist movie framework. As might be expected from Luc Besson's name on the credits as producer, there's a definite element of 'Cinema de look' about it: set in a kind of realistic fantasy world where America and Britain overlap, it looks great, has a couple of superbly edited and conceived action sequences and oozes style, all of which mark it up as a disposable entertainment. But Ritchie clearly wants to do more than simply rehash his own movies for a fast buck, and he's spent a lot of time thinking and reading about life, the universe and everything. If anything its problem is that he's trying to throw in too many influences (a bit of Machiavelli, a dash of Godard, a lot of the Principles of Chess), motifs and techniques, littering the screen with quotes: the film was originally intended to end with three minutes of epigrams over photos of corpses of mob victims, and at times it feels as if he never read a fortune cookie he didn't want to turn into a movie. Rather than a commercial for Kabbalism, it's really more a mixture of the overlapping principles of commerce, chess and confidence trickery that for the most part pulls off the difficult trick of making the theosophy accessible while hiding the film's central (somewhat metaphysical) con.<br /><br />The last third is where most of the problems can be found as Jason Statham takes on the enemy (literally) within with lots of ambitious but not always entirely successful crosscutting within the frame to contrast people's exterior bravado with their inner fear and anger, but it's got a lot going for it all the same. Not worth starting a new religion over, but I'm surprised it didn't get a US distributor. Maybe they found Ray Liotta's intentionally fake tan just too damn scary?
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
This is a film that the mainstream market will probably never be able to access as it doesn't exactly give the viewer easy watching. The story about troubled Spike and his friend Heaton is not exactly a Friday night film yet it has its own unique edge and I found that it was entertaining. There are moments of brilliance given that the film was shot on such a low budget, such as when Spike inhales the aerosol. However I did not really understand the relationship between Spike and Heaton and to be honest it made me spend most of the film trying to work it out. And also I did not like the fact that most of the film is spent with the two friends talking and not really much "action". It is a small film that is complex to watch and that is what makes it appealing.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
In 1990 Brad Pitt and Juiliette Lewis did a TV Too Young To Die where both played the almost the same kind of parts that they do in Kalifornia. I have no doubt that is what led to their casting in this big screen film.<br /><br />Kalifornia finds aspiring writer David Duchovny and his girl friend, art photographer Michelle Forbes on a rocky relationship of sorts due to Duchovny's obsession with writing a book and getting in the minds and souls of serial killers. In fact he's got a most unusual odyssey planned, he wants to go cross country and visit the sites of several famous serial killers. But he and Forbes are flat broke.<br /><br />Fate intervenes in more ways than financial with the arrival of Brad Pitt and Juliette Lewis a pair of strange southern types who agree to split the cost of gas on this cross country trip. It turns out Pitt is a serial killer himself and he decides to do a little research on his own, delving into the mind of someone who is fascinated with amorality.<br /><br />Kalifornia is not the type of film I usually go for, but in fact the acting ability and charisma of Brad Pitt make it work to a large degree. Pitt is the walking definition of an inbred Gothic refugee from Deliverance. But better than he is is Juliette Lewis who once again is playing these low self esteem types which she seems to do well. Watch her scene with Forbes as she does her hair and Lewis describes her sad and pathetic life. Lewis's dialog and Forbes's reactions ought to be shown in acting classes around the country.<br /><br />For those who like their slasher flicks, they don't come better than Kalifornia.
### Response: | positive |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
Words can't simply describe how awful this film is. I watched it on video last night, and I simply could not believe what I was seeing. Basically, "Snakeeater" is about an ex-military man (Lorenzo Lamas) and his search for his kidnapped sister who has been held captive by Deliverance-style Rednecks. The film's acting, writing, direction, photography, and editing are deplorable along with a song called "Soldier" that has to be one of the worst theme songs of all time!<br /><br />However, there is one treat. "Horshack" (Ron Pallio) from "Welcome Back Carter" is in the film playing a laughable bad guy. Otherwise, please avoid this mess at ALL COSTS.
### Response: | negative |
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction:
It was easy for Sir Richard Attenborough to make Gandhi (1982)he was merely narrating a story of a great individual who walked on this planet not so long ago. Comparatively, it must have been a lot tougher for director Feroz Abbas Khan making his debut as a filmmaker to make Gandhi my father, pitting a shriveled anti-hero against an international hero, both of whom were historically real individuals, and ironically father and son. The events in the film are mostly real. Mahatma Gandhi lived as shown in the film, setting high moral standards for the world to follow. Yet these very standards overshadowed the aspirations of his eldest son Harilal to be a lawyer of repute like his father, to complete his education and get a job in India and thus provide income for his nuclear family.<br /><br />The film does not debunk Gandhi and his ideals. For Gandhi, his mission was larger than his family's aspirations. He loved his family and cared for them, though his thoughts for their appeasement were blinkered by his ideal of caring for the masses. He stood for equality and dignity among all persons and in his view to give special undue advantages to his own son overlooking other deserving persons went against the basis of what he preached. The film looks at an unusual case of parentingwhere an idealist parent places receding goalposts for a less-than-brilliant offspring. <br /><br />The film presents an unusual scenario that happened. A son marries his childhood sweetheart, upsetting his father. The father upsets his son's educational aspirations at several key junctures. The fragile link between a devoted son and a father breaks, as the son wants to stand on his own feet and care for his nuclear family. While the father gradually becomes the father of a nation, the son stumbles in valiant quest for identity and survival. His marriage breaks and seeks solace in religion, buffeting between Islam and Hinduism. Through all his tribulations his link to his mother remains, until she chides him for being drunk.<br /><br />Feroz Khan is essentially a director of plays making his foray into cinema. He wrote and directed the play Mahatma vs. Gandhi that had considerable impact on the Indian theater community. The play and the consequent film were based on two biographies, one by Chandulal Dalal and another by Nilamben Parekh, The success of the staged play was an evident reason for the commercial Bollywood actor Anil Kapoor to produce this noteworthy film. Every time a good director of plays attempts to direct cinema there is an evidence of a lack of confidence with the medium. Peter Brook is a great director of plays, but less competent as a film director. The opening shots of Khan's film promises great cinemaa derelict Harilal Gandhi is brought to Sion Hospital, Bombay (Mumbai) barely mumbling that his father is Bapu (the popular name of Mahatma Gandhi), father to an entire nation. The hospital authorities do not recognize him to be Mahatma Gandhi's eldest son, dying in poverty and loneliness. Apart from the dramatic opening, the film unfortunately merely presents a great story and some superb exterior shots of father and son meditating in silhouette. For an Indian film it does present some high production qualities that go hand in hand with a lack of interest for details (the clothes of most Indians in the film seem dust-free and freshly laundered, modern hairstyles of actors, and even Shefali Shetty playing Mohandas Gandhi's wife a century ago with plucked eyebrows), the bane of Indian cinema. Since Feroz Khan is a theater personality, he has invested much more effort in working with the actors in developing the characters rather than on cinematic details, somewhat like Sir Attenborough another person who is also a product of theater (Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts).<br /><br />Knowing quite well that to criticize Gandhi in any manner was asking for trouble, even when there was no direct criticism in the film, producer Anil Kapoor took a remarkable decision of not putting up posters of the film at accessible heights in India, fearing that some one could tear the poster or disrespect it intentionally or unintentionally. <br /><br />With all its mix of greatness and faults, Gandhi, my father throws several questions at the viewer. Is a mother-son bonding stronger than a father-son bonding in parenting? Is one's immediate family less important than humanity at large? Does one seek refuge in religion and alcohol only when worldly troubles are encountered? In this film, Harilal buffeted by adversities runs from one religion to another, while his father quotes scriptures "Forgive them for they know not what they do" when beaten and thrown on the ground by a South African policeman, convinced of the value of religion and convincing others as well.<br /><br />The film won the Best actress award at the Tokyo International Film Festival for Shefali Shetty (Shah) and an Indian award from critics. Feroze Khan and Anil Kapoor have handled a sensitive subject very well and elicited above-average performances from the ensemble of actors. I do hope the international success of the film paves the way for some able director to film another brilliant Indian play Girish Karnad's Tughlaq some day meeting international quality standards.
### Response: | positive |